‘The All Out Show’ can be heard on Shade 45 on Sirius XM Radio from 4-7 pm EST Monday-Friday.
It’s officially the start of the Award Season as the 73rd Annual Golden Globes wrapped up this past Sunday Night with the ever-resourceful Ricky Gervais was back at the helm after a few years off.
Of course so many people have their opinions on who the winners should have been or that the winners were perfectly chosen…well, you know what they say about opinions….
With that said, here are the winners from the Golden Globes, and whether the Hollywood Foreign Press made the right choices. Keep in mind, this is only about the film categories for this year’s show.
Best Motion Picture, Drama
Winner: The Revenant
Who Should Have Won: The Revenant
Why: Well, the argument could be made that “Spotlight” should have been a victor in this category, but it can also be argued that the Golden Globes are weird awards with weird ways of doing things. From a film-making perspective, “The Revenant” is hard to beat. From a story perspective, its rather thin; a revenge tale hidden in a metaphor-riddled art film.
Best Motion Picture, Comedy and/or Musical
Winner: The Martian
Who Should Have Won: Anything else that is actually a comedy or musical…
Why: Well, is “The Martian” a comedy or musical? I’d be on the side that it isn’t, but I guess if the only factor of a comedy is that you might laugh a few times over the course of a 2+ hour film, sure, I guess “The Martian” is a comedy.
Best Actor, Drama
Winner: Leonardo DiCaprio
Who Should Have Won: Michael Fassbender
Why: This is likely going to be Leo’s year due to a pretty weak class of Best Actors. The other thing in Leo’s favor is the lack of game-changing or “lightning in a bottle” performances likes we’ve seen from the likes of Eddie Redmayne last year and Matthew McConaughey the year before that, so this is looking like it will finally be his year, if just for the physical demands the role take. Fassbender had to deal with the onslaught that is Aaron Sorkin dialogue, and while I enjoyed his role in “Steve Jobs” more so, this win for DiCaprio might as well punch his ticket for Oscar gold in February.
Best Actress, Drama
Winner: Brie Larson
Who Should Have Won: Brie Larson
Why: If it wasn’t only for the reason that I have a small crush on Larson, and if that was enough of a reason, she’s also paid her dues and has shown that she has range and is willing to play any role with that rare combination of innocence, youth, and vulnerability. Beginning with “Short Term 12” Larson is starting to pave her way to a long and great career and “Room” is the first in what will likely begin her Jennifer Lawrence-type accession.
Best Actor, Comedy/Musical
Winner: Matt Damon
Who Should Have Won: Matt Damon
Why: I’ll just say Matt Damon because I like Matt Damon. Again, “The Martian” slipping into the comedy/musical category just seems like lip service and an excuse to honor both Damon and DiCaprio in the same show. Might I also add, that I feel this is a very weak year for the Best Actor category.
Best Actress, Comedy/Musical
Winner: Jennifer Lawrence
Who Should Have Won: Amy Schumer
Why: Probably the only film and actress nominated in this category correctly. After a string of misses, it looks like Judd Apatow might be back to making funny films, and his muse, Schumer, who I’ve been cold on for quite a while, actually put in a performance that made me like her. However, we all know the tactics of David O Russell, which pretty much handed Lawrence the Globe this year. Again, if “Joy” funny enough to land in this category…probably not.
Best Supporting Actor
Winner: Sylvester Stallone
Who Should Have One: Idris Elba
Why: This really is splitting hairs here. I only pick Elba because I think he is great, but he also put in a scary performance, albeit a performance that I feel like I’ve seen before. But I’ve also had to sit through five additional “Rocky” movies before I finally felt that I got to a “Rocky” performance that made me feel something. Can the underdog do it again around Oscar time? For some reason I think he might.
Best Support Actress
Winner: Kate Winslet
Who Should Have Won: Kate Winslet
Why: Seeing what Winslet did with Sorkin’s dialogue, mixed with the use of her accent, was something I don’t think I’ve ever seen out of the one-time Oscar winner. I think this might be her year again.
Winner: Aaron Sorkin
Who Should Have Won: Aaron Sorkin
Why: I base who I think should win on whether I’m hanging on every word that is spoken on screen and nothing really put me on edge in 2015 like “Steve Jobs” did. When you have actors that can read what Sorkin writes, even Seth Rogen who gives a criminally underrated performance, you know you have a special film and a special script. Any other year I would have given this one to Quentin Tarantino, but Sorkin knocks this one out of the park.
Winner: Alejandro G. Inarritu
Who Should Have Won: George Miller
Why: Yes, Inarritu has created two exceptionally gimmicky films in back-to-back year, but is his direction the best? I’d lean on the side of no. If you job as a director is to not kill your cast, but bring them right to the edge, sure, he succeeded, but what George Miller did with “Fury Road” was downright shocking. He created a feminist icon, created one of the most talked about and debated films of the year, and not to mention put things on the silver screen that are nearly impossible to direct, yet, he did it, at over the age of 80.
“Shocker” of a Winner: John Hamm for Mad Men
I’m not going to crap on Hamm, I think the guy is cool, affable, and had a great run. But after not winner a Globe for his entire run on “Mad Men” I guess it was time for him to win one, even though there were ballsier performance from the likes of Rami Malek and Wagner Moura.
Actual Shocker of a Winner: Lady Gaga for American Horror Story: Hotel
This one I didn’t see coming, and I’m not sure many others did either. Thinking about it, this is actually a ballsy move by the Globes to award this to a genre show like “AHS,” so I’m all for it. This one takes the sting away from the wins that felt like “give-aways.”
Nightcrawler – Turn
Coming off of the heels of my review of “Zodiac” I liken that review to more of a catchup and brush up on Jake Gyllenhaal and where he is as an actor. The more I see, or re-watch of his career I wonder why he isn’t as popular as most other actors of his ilk. I really don’t think there is an actor working right now that takes as many chances and transforms himself as often outside of maybe Christan Bale. He takes on difficult roles, owns them, and is still able to play someone that we the audience slightly relate to. This brings me to his latest role, another turn in his career that you could also call a career-defining role. That film is “Nightcrawler” a gritty neo-noir in the vein of “Drive” “Network” and a dash of “Collateral.”
“Nightcrawler” takes the classic trope of following the American Dream to extreme, but somehow, necessary lengths. Louis Bloom (Gyllenhaal) is a small-time crook looking for a chance to prove himself. Fate knocks at his door one evening when he witnesses a woman being rescued from a burning car by two police officers. It’s not the women’s distress that catches his attention however, it’s the cameramen who capture the harrowing rescue which appears on the news the next day. Being the go-getter that he is, Bloom procures funds to buy a camera and decides his calling is to “nightcrawl.”
Finally capturing some useable footage, Bloom delivers the goods to late-night news director, Nina Romina (Rene Russo) and the two begin a working relationship much to the chagrin of Nina’s co-worker Frank Kruse who finds the “if it bleeds, it leads” method of news broadcasting lacking. Bloom continues to thrive in his new calling and teams up with Rick, a homeless Angelino looking for a shot, just like Bloom.
The stakes reach their apex after Bloom and Rick witness a deadly home invasion which leaves three people dead. Sensing a breakthrough, Bloom puts all the pieces together in order to not only get the best news story, but to create the news himself.
There is a lot that could be given away in my synopsis, so I’ll stop right here because all the fun of “Nightcrawler” is to actually go on this twisted journey that features some of the best acting to date from Gyllenhaal. His take on Lou Bloom, starting from a scab who is stealing manhole covers and reselling them to a scraper, to a video camera-wielding scab making real money and becoming his own boss. One scene which stands out is Lou and Nina’s discussion about compensation for footage which Lou is trying to sell. While Nina tries to stonewall him, Lou knows everything he needs to say in order to shut her down and not only gets what he wants, but turns the tables in favor of his eventual endgame.
There is a lot of talk about “Nightcrawler” also being the “Network” for this generation. Well, having seen “Network” I say that is a pretty easy comparison being that this film is namely about the sensationalism of violence in our society and the apathy that news directors have in order to keep showing up the worst of humanity. Russo’s turn as Nina Romina is very similar to Faye Dunaway’s turn as Diana Christensen. Both are cutthroat newswomen, but unlike Christensen, Romina, while she thinks she is in control, is overtaken by Bloom who knows much more than she thinks he does. This also brings up a good point; how we obtain information in this day and age. Unlike 1976, there really wasn’t a precedent for the Internet and the sharing of information at a massive scale. Lou is able to position himself where he knows more about Nina than Nina almost does which gives him all the advantage he needs in an situation, which leads to some of the film’s best, and intense, scenes.
The Gilroy trio of Dan, Tony, and John, who direct, produce, and edit, respectively, create a vision of Los Angeles that is lively, dreamlike, and something out of a horror film all at the same time. However, my one minor gripe is the score of James Newton Howard. The score simply doesn’t seem to fit the setting of this seedy underbelly of LA. It’s a little too…..chipper? And this isn’t even to say that the score is bad, it just doesn’t fit.
Overall, “Nightcrawler” is everything it sets out to be; a social commentary with top-notch acting, solid action sequences, that looks great to boot. As it stands now, Gyllenhaal’s performance is by far my favorite of the year, and it will be a shame if he’s not one of the five nominees for an Oscar this year.
Fun Fact: Gyllenhaal lost over 20 pounds in order to obtain the gaunt look of Lou Bloom.
It’s that time of year again. The time of year where overprivileged stars get together, shake hands, say how much they appreciate each other, attend the Vanity Fair after-party, get smashed, and yeah…win awards.
Our job here at Simplistic Reviews, besides being jealous of these actors, is to decide who will win, and who will lose. It’s Oscar time ladies and germs!
The 86th Annual Academy Awards are this Sunday, March 2nd, and to commemorate this special occasion DJ, Justin, Neal, who has been dubbed “The Voice of the People”, and Matt are picking the winners.
To make things easier, we are color coding their picks. In the event of the same picks multiple colors will be added per winner. Throughout the night, this post will be updated with the winners along with a running total of who has the most correct picks. The boys will also be live tweeting the awards in an effort to mock every horrible outfit and every clunky acceptance speech. Follow @srblogspot, @chezitman and @tryingtobedjv for all types of hilarity.
Justin is RED
Neal is BLUE
DJ is GREEN
Matt is ORANGE
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Best Animated Feature