My Top Ten Films of 2015

Now that the Oscars are over and the winners selected, I can say that for the most part I was pretty much OK with the picks. I was terribly disappointed that Stallone didn't win Best Supporting Actor, just for the fact that I thought his was the best performance of the bunch and that he will never, ever have another chance. I also disagreed with the “Best Picture” winner, but not by a lot – I didn't think “Spotlight” was the best picture of the year..... though it was the most important.

I tend to judge a movie by rather atypical standards. The Hollywood critics spend a lot of time examining the cinematography, set and costumes, the technical details. I focus SOLELY on “how much did I like the movie”. A couple of years ago I thought that a little $400,000 Indy movie was easily the best film of the year (“Blue Ruin”) even though it had such “issues” as being able to see the cameraman's reflection in the windshield of the semi truck it was riding in while following a car. Yes it was there, but it didn't take away from what an absorbing film experience it was.

That being said, below are MY picks for the best films of 2015. That is, these are the movies that I enjoyed the most thoroughly, in order.

1. Room. A nearly perfect film with two flawless lead performances. It made me laugh and cry and squirm and cheer. In my opinion, this year there was “Room” and then there was everything else.
2. Brooklyn. A movie that was just about a girl and her rather unremarkable life. But somehow made remarkable by how much you cared about the lead character and her hope for a better life.
3. The Revenant. Oh all the pissing and moaning that it was dull and dreary and DiCaprio spent half the movie only groaning. But I love a western (even a frontier one), and I love a revenge picture, and I love seeing a truly great villain. So there was nothing in this for me NOT to love.
4. Ex Machina. I was sooooo happy it won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects, just because it deserved to win SOMETHING. Three impeccable performances, a really riveting story that combined Frankenstein, Terminator and Body Heat. Absolutely great film.
5. The Martian. Robinson Crusoe in space. A great turn from Damon and while I found it a bit of a letdown after reading the book, I can't deny just how enjoyable a movie this is.
6. Spotlight. It's a movie that made me more angry than happy, but no denying it was a terrific film.
7. The Hateful Eight. Honestly, if you remove a 3 minute scene just past the halfway mark (the one where Samuel L. Jackson describes his murder of the the General's son) this might have been number two on my list. That scene nearly ruined an otherwise fantastic movie.
8. It Follows. A low budget classic. Seems to me that it is meant to be an allegory for AIDS, but spooky and creepy and wonderful.
9. Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I wasn't quite as enamoured by the new Star Wars as many were, but it was undeniably a great achievement in movie-making, and thoroughly enjoyable.
10. Creed. Personal bias here – I love “Rocky”, not just the movie franchise but the character. In a performance that was every bit as good as his original portrayal of the character 39 years ago, Stallone chewed the scenery and we had a new character that was nearly as likeable to root for.

Near misses: “Mad Max Fury Road”, “The Big Short”, “Sicario”, “The Walk”, “Black or White”, "Love & Mercy", "Jurassic World" and “Cake”.

The Danish Girl (2015)

** out of ****

Who would have thought that a movie that had the stunning Alicia Vikkander stark naked would be a film that I really don't much care to ever see again....

Vikkander is Gerda Wegener, a promising Danish artist who has never realized her potential. She is married to Einar (Eddie Redmayne), a moderately successful painter himself, and they are passionately in love. But then one day Gerda asks Einar to wear womens stockings and shoes to help her finish a portrait and things change. Einar is clearly excited and fascinated by seeing himself in the clothes, and when Gerda realizes this, she encourages him to explore it. Clearly, she thinks this will be a fun role-playing game that will enhance their already active sex life.

But for Einar it is something more. The era is the late 1920s and “transgender” wasn't even in the national vocabulary. His behavior is seen as a sickness and several doctors try to “cure” him through such progressive ideas as radiation treatment. But Einar is losing his old identity to his new one (a female persona he calls “Lily”) but he is sure it is not schizophrenia, rather a realization of his true self.

Meanwhile, Gerda is becoming more and more successful for her emotional portraits of "Lily" leading her to great confusion about the benefits and drawbacks of Einar's confusion.

The movie explores the evolution of Einar's transsexuality and his relationship with his wife. Eddie Redmayne is fully committed to the part, being completely authentic in a challenging role. Vikkander is every bit as good in a different type of role, as a more traditionally tormented woman. But despite the quality of their performances, I simply didn't like much of the way the film portrayed their stories.

Obviously, this isn't subject matter that most people are comfortable with in real life. Personally I consider myself extremely liberal in each individual's right to self actualization and rights to equal treatment..... but that doesn't mean I really want to see everything about it. Redmayne staring at his naked body in a mirror and tucking his genitals between his legs to appear female is just not something I have any need to see. It just felt it wasn't essential to the story. Conversely, when Ted Levine did exactly the same thing in “The Silence of the Lambs” (1990) it WAS essential to the story and therefore less disquieting. Here, I simply found it exploitative.

As Lily explores her new persona it leads to some other awkward scenes that I just didn't find to be treated particularly tastefully. There are some beautiful scenes and interactions in the movie, and I thought it was a story worth telling, but the filmmaker's treatment of the subject matter I found often to be told poorly and in a manner meant more to shock or titillate that simply tell the tale.

Redmayne and Vikkander are excellent in the film, doing better than just about anyone else could have with challenging material. However, I didn't like much about the presentation and seriously doubt I will ever be compelled to revisit it.

Spotlight (2015)

*** out of ****

I realize that there are a lot of parallels in the story type, but there were a lot of moments during “Spotlight” where I was reminded strongly of “All the President's Men” (1976). Both tell the story of news-people trying to investigate a cover-up, fought by the system and forced to be surreptitious about their activities, and as they go deeper finding the conspiracy is much bigger and broader than they thought.

But that's not the only reason I felt they were similar – just like “President's Men” this film often sacrifices entertainment for accuracy, making it a bit disjointed at times. That's really my only complaint, other than the fact that watching this movie will piss you off no matter how much you already know about the subject matter.

Michael Keaton plays “Robby” Robinson, who leads an investigative reporting team at the Boston Globe called 'Spotlight'. Other key team members are Michael (Mark Ruffalo) and Sacha (Rachal McAdams). When a new editor (Liev Schriber) comes on board in 2001 he assigns them to investigate the sexual allegations being made against priests in the Boston area. Thinking initially that there may be as may be as many as 13 priests accused of sexual misconduct with minors, they are stunned to eventually find 87 different priests in the Boston area that have had legal or punitive action taken against them.

This changes the scope of their investigation in that they stop trying to only identify the priests, but determine if the Catholic Church, specifically the local archbishop, knew about these activities and actively tried to cover them up. Since this is Boston (very largely Catholic) they find resistance at nearly every turn, even as the size and scope of their findings shock and disgust them (and the viewer).

“Spotlight” is a really excellent film filled with equally excellent performances. Ruffalo's rage, McAdams disappointment and Keaton's calm disgust offer the watcher just about every type of reaction that he or she may have regarding their findings, allowing you to really connect with at least one of the key characters. Already being aware of most of the team's findings I was absolutely disgusted in revisiting it, but am tickled to death that it's in a film that is being widely recognized – because this kind of thing continues to go on and the more people that know about it the more chance it can be ended.

While I wouldn't call this a real contender for “Best Picture”, I think that this is largely because of it's devotion to following the story accurately, which sacrifices some dramatic opportunities that the story would have realized had this been a work of fiction. But despite not considering it one of the real “Best Picture” contenders, I absolutely think it is the most important film of the year, and that it should be seen by absolutely everyone. Really a great piece of true-story telling.

Sicario (2015)

*** out of ****

I'm still a bit torn about this film. Part of me says it was a gripping international cat-and-mouse game, and another part says it was way too slow but seemed good due to the overpowering strength of a single performance. In either case, Benicio Del Toro rocked the friggin' house in this one.

Emily Blunt is FBI agent Kate Macer, who after losing several agents in a raid on a booby-trapped drug smuggling den is invited to join a CIA task force headed by Matt Graver (Josh Brolin). The task force will be going after a Mexican cartel, the one responsible for the deaths of her agents in the raid. But Macer finds that also acting as a part of the team is Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro), who is not an agent; instead he is working on behalf of the Columbian cartel to help the CIA eliminate their competition. Macer obviously has issues with this, but Graver explains that CIA would rather eliminate one cartel to be able to focus on the other.

Slowly, they set up a major sting on the Mexican group to raid their Mexico/US tunnel at a key point to cripple their importing system, and also set things up for Alejandro to eliminate the head of the cartel. As the movie unfolds it has some slow portions, but once everything is in place and the sting gets underway, the payoff is worth the investment in time to set it all up.

Also intriguing is Jay Bernthal in his small part as a local thug.  I don't think this poor guy is ever going to play a character in his entire career who isn't a dirtbag.

And there is a performance that is simply off the charts.... Benicio Del Toro as Alejandro. Ever since “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” and “The Way of the Gun” over 15 years ago, this guy has always been top notch, but here he takes it to the next level. He is so menacing, so incredibly brutal that he captivates every second he is on the screen. Heartless and without malice of any kind, he might be the scariest, most authentic assassin I've seen on screen in years. Many are making a big deal out of the lack of minority actors nominated for Oscars this year, citing Michael B. Jordan and the three leads in “Straight Outta Compton”, but if the Academy missed one performance that should have been considered, it was this one. He is outstanding.

Overall the film is solid if sometimes slow-moving. The ultimate action sequences and the performance of Del Toro would surely be worth the price of admission. Well worth the time.

Black Mass (2015)

** out of ****

Being a bit of a cinefile when it comes to mob movies, all I can say about “Black Mass” is, “Wow. What a disappointment....”

I've been hearing for several months what a great job Johnny Deep has done as mob boss Whitey Bulger and what a terrific crime drama this is. I wonder what those critics were smoking because I saw a long, dull bore-fest with a leading man who gives a horrid impression of a Boston thug with a little make up on. We're supposed to buy this willowy, narrow shouldered phoney as a strong-arm for the South Boston mob?  Fat chance.

That all sounds pretty strong, I know, and I have tended to enjoy Johnny Depp's performances in other films. But he is simply terribly miscast here. I have no idea why this movie is getting such acclaim.

Also prominent in the film is Joel Edgerton as FBI agent John Connelly. A childhood friend of Bulger's, he is able to convince him that he should inform on his competitors to the FBI, advancing Connelly's career and Bulger's business interests. But as with Depp, Edgerton decides to overact his part into a preening sleaze, coming off more as a used car salesman in the bad part of town than a respected career FBI agent.

The real-life story is told slowly, and some are praising the layer-by-layer unfolding of the tale. But I am here to tell you that it isn't a layered story and it just comes off as snail-like and dreary. The action, on the very rare occasion that it comes, isn't interesting enough to offset the glacial pace of the rest of the film.

I can appreciate slow moving story, if it is well told, but “Black Mass” simply is not. The best thing I can say about it is along with Depp and Edgerton, Kevin Bacon and Benedict Cumberbatch have supporting roles, so it will become a key player in “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” in the future.

The Good Dinosaur (2015)

*** out of ****

Before even talking about the content of this film, let me just say one thing - “The Good Dinosaur” has the greatest animation I have ever seen, bar none. The digital images are so authentic in many places you'd swear you are looking at actual footage instead of animation. Rivers sparkle over millions of tiny waves.  Trees sway in the breeze with each leaf doing it's own thing.  Dirt, stones, mountains.....everything is completely authentic  Really unbelievable.

The trailers for “The Good Dinosaur” made a big deal out of the idea that the giant meteor that hit Earth 65 million years ago instead missed, but happily in the film it takes only about 5 seconds to cover it.  This was simply a plot device to allow for dinosaurs to continue evolving until we get to the timeline of the movie. And as the film begins, it's clear dinosaurs that have really gotten along – we see a family of Apotosaurs that are corn farmers. There is the mother, father and three kids, and the runt among them is Arlo. Arlo is desperate to be seen as a valuable member of the team, but he lacks the size and courage of his father and brother.  This leads him to do more and more risky things to try to prove himself.

So when he falls in the river and is swept miles and miles from home, the trek back becomes his test of manhood. Tagging along with him is a feral prehistoric human boy, one that can't talk and acts in a very animalistic way but can think and reason as well as Arlo can. Their trip home is the central plot of the movie, and their relationship is fun and eventually emotional.  They run across other dinosaurs that want to help them, ones that want to hunt them, and generally leave their way fraught with danger.  Kind of like a dino "Incredible Journey".

I have to admit I was happily surprised by this film. After its original run of excellence, Pixar has been hit and miss for a while and this looked like another potential miss. That had more to do with the trailers leading me to think it was about something other than what it was actually about. It turns out that this is a very heartfelt and fun ride, and easily one of Pixar's better efforts in a while.

The best praise I can give this is that I watched it with an 11 year old boy who was so caught up in the story that he cried with a smile on his face during the emotional ending. So what else is there to say? It clearly accomplishes what it sets out to.

Steve Jobs (2015)

** ½ out of ****

Just a couple of years ago there was a film just called “Jobs” (2013) with Ashton Kuchar in the seminal role. That film tried to tell the story of Steve Jobs, from his origins working in a garage of a computer motherboard with Steve Wozniak through to the introduction of the iPod. I didn't think it was a particularly good movie, but it told a tale that was interesting enough to watch, and Kuchar made Jobs at least a somewhat sympathetic character despite his flaws.

“Steve Jobs” does none of the same things. It isn't interested in telling the story of the man's life, it simply has one message – Steve Jobs was a son of a bitch. I understand that to some degree that was true, but Michael Fassbender plays Jobs as one of the most unsympathetic characters I've ever seen in a biopic. This Jobs cares absolutely nothing about the mother of his daughter, denies ad nauseum that the child is even his, and like a spoiled brat is totally willing to stomp all over anyone that denies him from getting anything that he wants. They play Jobs as a tyrant, plain and simple. It is impossible to like the person the film portrays.

Now that's not to suggest that there's nothing to see here. “Steve Jobs” is a pretty decent film and has some tremendous sequences. In particular the series of scenes showing how Jobs was originally removed from the company by CEO John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) is fascinating. The dynamic between Jobs and Wozniak (Seth Rogan) is equally interesting, despite the fact that almost every scene takes place after Woz was a key figure at Apple. And in spite of the loathing you feel for Jobs during them, the scenes showing him with his daughter over a 10 year stretch are interesting in a painful way.

Fassbender does a very solid job with what he has, but I feel like the script was simply not the best. Jobs was a driven and flawed man, but I sincerely doubt he was a sonofabitch-bastard every single day of his life, which this film would have you believe. It portrays his genius as highly manipulative and solely business-based, and doesn't even try to examine his unique ability to recognize what people wanted before it was something anyone had even dreamed of.

I'm not suggesting that they should have done a warm-and-fuzzy Steve Jobs, but this one is a guy that you just can't relate to. If Fassbender's Jobs was hit by a bus walking down the street you'd have been happy to see him pushing up daisies. It's hard to make a movie centered around someone you detest and keep it interesting.

Brooklyn (2015)

*** ½ out of ****

In a year where the Best Picture nominees are all about people in extraordinary circumstances, there is one that is just about a regular person and her regular life. Luckily for us, it is done in such a way that you truly like the characters and care about what happens to them. “Brooklyn” is the rarest of films in that it takes a normal life and makes it interesting and lovely to experience.

Ellis (Saoirse Ronan) is a typical post-WW2 Irish lass living in southern Ireland. She is a little in the shadow of her older sister, who has an office job (the holy grail for women at the time), while she works at a bake shop for a petty tyrant of a boss (Brid Brennan). With help from the priest at her local church, Ellis has arranged to leave Ireland for America where she hopes to find a better life for herself.

The trip to America is an adventure in itself, but once arriving there she sets about trying to create an existence in a place where she knows absolutely nobody. She lives in a boarding house in Brooklyn with other Irish girls (some of whom are comically judgmental and giddy), and she aches with homesickness, missing her mother and sister. But as she settles into her department store job, takes night classes in bookkeeping and spends evenings and weekends trying to meet new people, she starts to feel more comfortable in America. And when she meets Tony (Emory Cohen), and Italian American who seems to genuinely adore her, life starts to be something more than bearable.

Without giving anything away though, she ends up having to make a trip back to Ireland, where she also meets a local “golden boy”, Jim Farrell (Domnhall Gleason). She seems so glamourous now, with her New York style, that everyone in her home town is enamoured with her. Jim and everyone else are now trying desperately to get her to stay and she feels torn between the pull of her new life in America and the one she had dreamed of when she still lived in Ireland.

“Brooklyn” is in no way exciting, edge-of-your-seat or full of intrigue, but it is glorious movie-making. The three primary leads are all outstanding in their roles, with Ronan building a character that you really love. Gleason's character is someone we really shouldn't care about at all under the circumstances, but your heart goes out to him and his obvious love for Ellis. And Emory Cohen's character Tony is assembled slowly and perfectly – I was ready for him to be a bastard when he first shows up, but he turns out to be one of the nicest, most caring male movie characters in ages.

The writers of this film have created magic – a movie that has no right to be as interesting and wonderful as it is.  But it is.  Ellis makes mistakes in this movie that leave you holding your head, but in the end all you want is for her to be happy. And if you ever met her for real, just walking down the street, she's be someone you'd want to know. Just a terrific movie for anyone who loves a fine story.

The 5th Wave (2015)

** out of ****

The critics ripped this one, but it's not all that bad.....

Chloe Grace Moretz is Cassie Sullivan, a normal teenager with a normal teenage life. She has parents she loves, a little brother, and a crush on a boy at school. But then one day there appears in the sky a monstrous UFO, which despite all hopes that they were peaceful, are here to take over the world. They do this in waves... first they decimated everything electronic or mechanical with an EMP, then attacked all coastal areas with massive tsunamis, and followed that up by a terrible virus so that now only about 1% of humanity is left alive. The 4^th wave started when the aliens appeared on earth to try to kill the survivors one-on-one.

Cassie's world is not a happy place.

I won't describe what “The 5^th Wave”s fifth wave actually is, since it is one of the major plot points that comes to light as the film progresses, but Cassie has lost track of her brother (Zachary Arthur) and is now obsessed with finding him and getting him to safety. Along the way she finds help in Evan (Alex Roe) and her old high school crush Ben (Nick Robinson), but more or less she is alone and just trying to survive.

Of course we all know how big post apocalyptic stories are these days, and I have always loved them ever since seeing “The Omega Man” (1971) when I was a kid. Some are terrific, some are terrible, most are in between. “The 5^th Wave” is one of the in-between ones.

I've made mention before on this blog about how I think Chloe Grace Moretz is the real thing – a fine actress with a long and celebrated future ahead of her. She makes the most here of what the script gives her, and does her usual bang-up job with it. The plot isn't the strongest, but that's kind of to be expected considering this is targeted at the teen audience and is based on a so-so teen novel. There's nothing really new to see, but it's a decent enough story with decent enough effects to keep you interested until the end.

And it's ending is set up for a sequel, but considering it's “barely broke even”receipts, there will never be one. And that's okay, since it isn't really good enough to justify one.

I watched it with my 11 year old son and he liked it, so if you ask me it was a success. For an adult it's a lot less interesting, but good enough to pass the time if you run across it on Superchannel one day.

The Academy Awards DO Matter

Since the Oscar nominations were revealed this year, a lot has been made of the fact that, yet again, no minorities received any acting nominations. This has caused the latest bout of hysteria regarding Oscar, with talking heads opining that it's just a popularity contest that doesn't really matter.

Personally, I can't understand this line of reasoning. Of course the award show itself is often silly, but receiving an Oscar reflects recognition of highest levels of achievement from one of the most respected and influential bodies involved in the movie industry (The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences). The Academy's entire raison d'etre is the advancement of the art and science of motion pictures. Recognition from them is significant, no matter how much you want to put your nose in the air.

Now do I always agree with their decisions? Of course not, but with any prize where winners are determined by a vote, there is rarely going to be a winner by accolade.  But you know what?  I almost always agree with their nominations.  More on that in a second.

Some of the complaints about the Academy center around the membership's average age of 62. How ridiculous. In order to have an appreciation of what is good and bad in film, the more experience they have the better. Would you honestly suggest that Denzel Washington or Meryl Streep can't recognize a great performance? That Jeff Bridges, Kurt Russell or Michael Keaton are out of touch with movie audiences? They're all older than the average Academy member. To suggest that being in your early 60s is too old to understand the modern movie-goer is..... just wrong.

Then there are the “snubs”. This year it's “Straight Outta Compton” and “Creed”. I've heard claims that there should have been multiple acting nominations for these films for the African-American actors in them. Having seen and appreciated these films, I just can't fully agree. “Straight Outta Compton” is a good movie with good performances but in my opinion should not be considered any kind of shoo-in for Academy Awards. Best Picture nominees need to be a great pieces of storytelling – “Compton” was good but I saw nothing really great about it.

Ditto “Creed”, the sixth sequel to 1976's “Rocky”. It makes me want to say, “Really? You're complaining that a Rocky sequel wasn't nominated for enough Oscars? Really?” Perhaps people are unhappy that the one performance from the film that actually was nominated was Sylvestor Stallone. But I'm sorry to state the man flat out deserved it – his performance was better than anything else in the film. I really enjoyed “Creed” and Michael B. Jordan's performance, but the idea that he wasn't nominated was not some travesty. I wouldn't have argued if he had received a nomination, but it's not as though his performance was so transcendent that it DEMANDED a nom . Just like if “Compton” had been nominated I would have been okay with it, because I did think it was a better movie than “Bridge of Spies”, which is one of the nominees. But in all honesty, neither of those films would have stood any chance of walking away with the big prize.

Personally I would love it if the Academy would go back to having only five Best Picture nominations instead of the current ten. If they did, I think there's no way anyone would try to argue that “Straight Outta Compton” was better than “Room”, “The Revenant”, “Spotlight”, “Brooklyn” or “The Martian”. It's clearly not a good a film as those are.

So lets review Oscar's history instead. One of the so-called "greatest travesties" from the Academy was in 1981, when "Ordinary People" won the Best Picture Oscar over "Raging Bull". This comes up often because "Raging Bull" is considered one of the truly great movies of the 80s, while “Ordinary People” is not. I look at this slightly differently however. "Raging Bull" is (let's be honest) overlong and for lengthy periods of time, dull and tedious. What it has going for it is one of the greatest acting performances of all time - DeNiro as Jake Lamotta. He was deservedly recognized as “Best Actor” that year, but if you take away his performance what else did that movie have going for it?  Good cinematography?  Certainly not enough to deserve all the accolades it gets. I'm an enormous boxing fan, but I've watched “Rocky” twenty times and will watch it many times more.  I've seen “Raging Bull” twice and unless suffering from insomnia will never look at it again.

But at the very least, “Raging Bull” was nominated for Best Picture. It was the vote, which is always going to be subjective and subject to the winds of change and the feeling of the day, that selected “Ordinary People” instead. Personally, I think the nomination is far more important than the actual award when it comes to Oscar, because it is the nomination that reflects the recognition. Do I think any less of, for instance, Michael Keaton in “Birdman” just because the Academy picked Eddie Redmayne? No way. I would have considered it a bad miss if he hadn't been nominated at all, but winners are entirely subjective. I've heard people say that Daniel Day Lewis should have won Best Actor for “Gangs of New York” instead of Adrien Brody for “The Pianist”. Personally I can't imagine anyone thinking that anyone, EVER, was better than Brody was in that movie. So subjectivity is always a big part of the vote. It's unavoidable, and suggesting that some robbery occurred simply because the voters came up with a different winner than you did..... absurd.

So what about movies that come up in discussion that weren't nominated at all, like "Groundhog Day". There are many films like this that people suggest should have been nominated for Best Picture. But let's consider it.....

“Groundhog Day” came out the same year as "Forrest Gump", "Pulp Fiction", "The Shawshank Redemption", "Quiz Show" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral". Was “Groundhog Day” really better than any of these? If “Four Weddings” had been left off the ticket in favour of “Groundhog Day”, the outcry for ignoring it would have been far louder and more deserved. That “Groundhog Day” is a terrific comedy that will be remembered for decades is not ipso facto evidence of it deserving a Best Picture nomination.

Now don't get me wrong. The Academy does fire and miss. For instance, that Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't nominated for Best Actor for “Titanic” blows my mind. Not only should he have been nominated, I think he should have won.  I think Jim Carrey was more deserving of a nomination for “The Truman Show” than Edward Norton was for “American History X”. I think Naomi Watts deserved a nomination for “Mullholland Drive” instead of Rene Zelweger for “Bridget Jones' Diary”. But these instances are very, very rare. That the Academy doesn't do exactly what I think they should do 100% of the time is.... well, that's life. Like Mick Jagger said, you can't always get what you want.

So for all those suggesting that Oscar misses the mark sooooo often, I challenge you to come up with some real examples. And not just “this movie/person should have been nominated”, but look at the year, the other nominees, and why your suggestion is CLEARLY better than the one you suggest replacing. I think you'll be surprised to find that there are incredibly few examples where you can absolutely justify a clear miss by the Academy.

Let's stop complaining about the Oscars and remember what it is: a celebration of film-makers and performers. It is supposed to represent our love for movies, not be some kind of cutthroat competition. Films and performances that can sweep you away into a world of make believe, forget your cares and worries and for a brief time immerse yourself in a wonderfully told story.... that is what the Academy Awards are all about.

That being said, if you have any clear examples of where you think Oscar missed the bus, please post them. I would really love to discuss your ideas with you.  And to kick it off, I will start with the one clear miss I think the Academy had this year.  Jacob Tremblay gave an other-worldly performance in "Room", but didn't receive a nomination.  I believe you could easily have dropped Mark Rylance from "Bridge of Spies" to have Tremblay in there.  He deserved a nomination, no question in my mind.

Anyone else?

Straight Outta Compton (2015)

*** out of ****

This year, many have been vocal about how “white” the 2016 Oscar show will be – there are virtually no minorities nominated for anything. My feeling is that this is because many thought that “Straight Outta Compton” was worthy of both Best Picture honours as well as some acting awards. Personally I didn't see it as any kind of shoo-in for awards, though I will pay it the compliment that it kept me interested despite my having zero interest in the subject matter.

I was 18 or 19 years old when I first heard of the band NWA. I hated them. Just HATED them.  A bunch of rapidfire talking in time to a beat, which to me simply is not music. However, I did understand that these guys were like modern-day social protestors and a lot of people not only loved their lyrical content, they loved the feeling of the tracks and performances. Angry, full of energy and attention getting. So socially I understood, even if I would rather poke out my eardrums with a BBQ fork than be subjected to their “music”.

Happily, the film isn't about NWA's music, it is about NWA. Guys that rose above their social situation (East LA) and shook up the world by pioneering hip-hop and telling their truth about what they saw in the world. Along the way they have the typical creative conflicts among the group, the “management” that rips them off, and the excesses that rob so many young artists of the money that they manage to get their hands on.

Paul Giamatti is starting to make a career out of playing crooked record producers (see “Rock of Ages” and “Love and Mercy” for two recent ones), and he is simply awesome at it. He does the part as smarmy, moralizing while swindling, and is completely authentic. Here he plays Jerry Heller, the producer who helps get NWA started then tried to keep as much of the earnings for himself as possible. In the film this appears to take place because of the performers naivety about the industry, but soon they catch on and problems arise.

The three primary roles for the band members have Jason Mitchell as Eazy-E, O'Shea Jackson, Jr. as Ice Cube and Corey Hawkins as Dr. Dre, and all three are excellent in the roles. I find it a bit harder than some to give full credit to these actors for their efforts, as so much of “street thug” behavior all seems completely posed, and there is a tremendous amount of it in this film. However, whenever these guys have to play something straight and genuine, they are all very good in their roles.

The movie is a bit overlong at 2 hours and 20 minutes, and the first half is easily the most compelling, as the group is coming up and gaining popularity. But it's worth seeing, and for fans of the music will probably be considered essential viewing. I wouldn't go that far personally, but I never considered shutting it off, and for a film about rap, that may be the highest praise I can give.

The Visit (2015)

** ½ out of ****

Way back in 1999 we had the first big-time “found footage” film with “The Blair Witch Project”. A lot of people thought it was silly, but I thought they just didn't get it because it creeped the hell out of me.....

Unfortunately a lot of filmmakers thought it was a wonderful plot device, as well as a great way to keep production costs down. So since then we've seen a glut of films using that same tactic. Some have been decent, and a couple have been outstanding, but for the most part they have just been repetitive. Most of the time they're just movies finding silly ways for characters to have video cameras going all the time, filming stuff they ought to be running away from.

So when something pretty good comes along in the genre, it's worth a look. I've actually had a copy of “The Visit” for several weeks before bothering to have a look at it, and I have to admit that this one is pretty clever. Spooky and creepy, with a lot more character development than you usually see in these things, and when it was over I actually felt like I'd watched a pretty decent little flick.

Paula Jamison (Kathryn Hahn) left home when she was a teenager after a terrible fight with her parents. Now, 15 years later, those parents have reached out to her asking to see their grandchildren, Rebecca and Tyler (Olivia DeJonge and Ed Oxenbould). Paula and her new boyfriend want to go on a cruise so she puts the kids, ages 15 and 13, on a train to go meet the grandparents and off she goes for a week of sun and fun.

Rebecca is an enterprising young kid and wants to make this visit a documentary, teenage kids meeting the grandparents for the very first time, which gives a plausible explaination as to why she's filming everything. And though the grandparents (Deanna Dunagan and Peter McRobbie) initially seem quaint and normal, it isn't long before weird shit starts to go down. First, Nana has some sort of condition that makes her lose her mind at night. Pop-pop warns them not to come out of their room after 9:30pm. On the couple of occasions that they do, the find Nana running around the house naked, pawing at the walls and basically barking at the moon.

As the visit goes on, Nana and Pop-pop get weirder and weirder until the kids, initially amused by this odd behavior, start to get scared. And as we, the audience, get to know the old coots better all we can think is, “Run away kiddies. Run away.”

This movie has been considered a bit of a return to form for director M. Night Shyamalan, and though I guess it's true it really isn't like any of his other films. I quite liked several of his most panned movies (“The Village” and “Devil” in particular), so I haven't been as disappointed with him over the years as the industry has. And this movie has a last reel “twist” just like all of Night's films, and I thought this one was a good one – creeped the hell out of me, anyway....

This isn't a movie you can watch over and over, like “Unbreakable” or “The Sixth Sense” but it is definitely worth seeing. It's tense, spooky and funny, and when it's over you feel satisfied. For a low budget horror-comedy, that's a pretty good deal.