88th Academy Awards - Final Winner Predictions

The Oscars are now three days away. I was going to wait until Saturday or Sunday to put this list together, but I've been in my room for a day or two due to health and studying, so I have time on my hands, and also am planning on actually doing shit this weekend, and I don't see any of the major frontrunners changing in the next three days (I guess it could happen), so I'm just gonna get it in now. So, with the exception of a few outliers, if you look on sites like GoldDerby, you'll probably find me singing the same tune as most experts, pundits, and predictors as to what will probably win, namely regarding director, actor, actress, screenplays, and a few technicals. But what can I say? These things become frontrunners because of industry talking heads' rumors as well as demonstrable precedent and precursor evidence, and many of them are hard to argue. I'll be providing my predicted runners-up (as well as my personal picks), but yeah, for the most part my predictions are in line with most people's. But remember, there are always upsets in the Oscars that are by definition unpredictable, and this has been a notoriously rule- and precedent-breaking awards season, so anything can happen. I'll be going from the big categories and working my way down, leaving no category out of conversation. This is the quintessential Oscar post, children. Let's start this shit.
If you need to be reminded of the nominees, here's the full list.

Best Picture

You can find my detailed thoughts on each of the Best Picture nominees in my last post. Now, for the last few months, this has weirdly been the most unpredictable category this year, which is nearly never the case. Usually, every year that there isn't one clear winner in everyone's mind, we can usually narrow it down to two major possibilities - last year it was between Birdman and Boyhood, the year before it was 12 Years a Slave and Gravity. But this year, there are not two, not three, but four films that you could make the case for their Best Picture win (and arguably five) - The Revenant, The Big Short, Spotlight, and Mad Max: Fury Road, with Room being the outlier fifth (even though I listed it fourth most likely in my last post). 

The Big Short has a Producer's Guild Award win under its built, which is historically a big indicator of the Best Picture winner. Spotlight has a Writer's Guild of America Award win, as well as tons of critical praise and goodwill and a Screen Actors Guild Ensemble Award win, another relatively good indicator. Mad Max won big with critics' circles late last year but was shut out by several guilds, as was Room, however both of these two films could come from behind and surprise with enough number two or number three votes in the Academy's odd Best Picture voting system. However, right now, the frontrunner is The Revenant, after a Golden Globe and BAFTA Best Picture win, a win for Inarritu at the Director's Guild Awards, and unanimous praise for Leo from critics and guilds. It'd be the first time in history for a director to direct two back-to-back Best Picture winners, but it looks like Inarritu just might be the first to do it. I'm not a huge fan of the movie (it's my least favorite of the nominees), but it's a technical achievement for sure.

Will Win: The Revenant

Could Win: Spotlight or The Big Short or Room OR (in a blue moon) Mad Max: Fury Road 

Should Win: I'd be fine with almost any of them, but my choice is a tie between Room and Mad Max

Should've Been Here: Ex Machina (weird to see it excluded after its PGA nomination)

Best Director

There was a decent amount of time that George Miller was thought to be the frontrunner for both the DGA and the Oscar for Best Director for his flawless direction of Mad Max: Fury Road, which has earned the designation by many critics as one of the greatest action films of all-time, a loaded moniker that I actually agree with. However, Inarritu came from behind and won his second consecutive DGA Award earlier in February to the surprise of some for his work on The Revenant. Not always, but the DGA winner is usually a fair indicator of the Oscar winner, with the most recent exception being Ben Affleck for Argo, for which he wasn't nominated at the Oscars. Miller would be an upset, but a worthy and understandable one in my opinion. In terms of outside shots, I'd say Adam McKay is your best bet for outliers, followed by Abrahamson after his surprise nomination for his brilliant direction of Room. As well as his probable Best Picture winner, Alejandro G. Inarritu, if he wins Best Director, will be the first Mexican and the second non-white person to win the award twice (the other person of color to do so being Ang Lee, who won for Brokeback Mountain and Life of Pi).

Will Win: Alejandro G. Inarritu (The Revenant)

Could Win: George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road)

Should Win: George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road)

Should've Been Here: J.J. Abrams (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) - yeah I'm going with the nerd choice here. I thought TFA was far and away Abrams's best effort yet.

Best Actor in a Leading Role

If you need any proof that Academy predictability remains as strong as ever, just look at the Best Actor races of the last five years. Let's not pretend that these aren't good performances (I won't go as far to say "great" for some of them), but the Oscar-ness of these winning roles is amazing - an old Hollywood type (The Artist), a historical figure (Lincoln), an AIDS victim (Dallas Buyers Club), a person with a disability (The Theory of Everything), and now a super physically challenging manly man who's spent months of press time talking about the horror stories of his performance. Leo was the frontrunner to win the second the trailer for this movie came out, and while a few fringe pundits are predicting a surprise upset by Cranston or Fassbender, I'm going to put my cards in with the overwhelming majority of talking heads and say that Leo's massive presence at precursor awards and critics' circles has finally put the odds in his favor. Again, I'm not super into the movie or Leo's performance for that matter (although the other performances in this category are pretty lightweight), but if it kills the Leo Oscar meme for good, I can get behind it.

Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)

Could Win: hell freezes over and the internet implodes
Should Win: out of these, I suppose Leo
Should've Been Here: Jacob Tremblay (Room) - campaigned as supporting, but he is undoubtedly a lead and one of the best performances of the entire year

Best Actress in a Leading Role

This is an undisputed frontrunner I can get behind. I haven't put together my top 10 films of 2015 list yet, but this movie is most likely going to end up somewhere in the top 5. I adored this film, and Brie Larson is a good portion of why, in addition to Tremblay, Abrahamson's brilliant direction, and Emma Donoghue's thought-provoking script. Larson's performance is incredibly grounded and believable, and so non-flashy that it's amazing this award will be presented five minutes after rewarding the biggest awards ploy since last year's Best Actor winner. Between this, Cate Blanchett in Carol, Saoirse Ronan in Brooklyn, and some of the great female roles that weren't nominated this year, say what you will about the Academy's recognition of women, but this year at least, they've recognized far more interesting female roles than male ones. An upset is an incredibly slim chance, and I think Larson's got this shit locked down after her impressive precursor sweep.

Will Win: Brie Larson (Room)

Could Win: Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn)

Should Win: Brie Larson (Room)

Should've Been Here: Charlize Theron (Mad Max: Fury Road) or Emily Blunt (Sicario)

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

Supporting Actor, as has been the case the last few years, was incredibly crowded during nominee guessing, and while most of the predicted nominees ended up making a showing, this one is still pretty out there. Don't get me wrong, Sylvester Stallone is definitely the frontrunner for Creed, but I can see a lot of cases being made for any of the other nominees, namely Tom Hardy for The Revenant and Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies. Hardy was easily my favorite thing about The Revenant, but this is a comparably lightweight performance in the context of his filmography (which is really impressive on his part) and he's gotten no guild love, but he is in two Best Picture nominees this year and is respected, even if the Academy is just now getting wind of him. Rylance is a favorite among actors due to his past stage success and has routinely gotten nominations (but very few wins) for this film, and while his performance is serviceable and his character is fun, I found him overshadowed by Tom Hanks and Spielberg's direction personally. So, I'm going with Stallone, considering they love mentor roles in this category and also enjoy awarding old legends who don't have a statue yet, as well as comeback roles. That, and Stallone gives a great performance and is a really likable dude.

Will Win: Sylvester Stallone (Creed)
Could Win: Tom Hardy (The Revenant)
Should Win: Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight) - my second favorite performance in my fourth favorite movie of the year
Should've Been Here: Oscar Isaac (Ex Machina) or Idris Elba (Beasts of No Nation) OR Benicio del Toro (Sicario), man there were so many good ones this year

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

I'm kind of mad that Alicia Vikander is the frontrunner for The Danish Girl for this award for a few reasons: 1) I don't even think this is her best performance this year, 2) she's got such a great career ahead of her and I don't want them to spoil it with an immediate Oscar win a la Redmayne last year, and 3) from the little bit I saw of The Danish Girl (I haven't finished it), I didn't like it much, though her performance was the best thing about it from what I could tell. Regardless, she's done well with guilds and precursors, however I'm still going to take a wild guess that she'll be upset by Rooney Mara for Carol. While I'll admit that Kate Winslet is the more likely upset, it feels like the right time for Mara, they may want to forgive her blatant category fraud, and she gives a great, great performance. They also like Carol more than The Danish Girl, with six nominations over four for the latter, as well as much better guild performance for the former. They do like newcomer awards (Mara's already been nominated) and Sad Wives™, but sometimes you gotta follow your gut and go against the grain. I'm going to take a chance with this win and pick my fave of the nominees as the winner. DON'T LET ME DOWN ROONEY.

Will Win: Rooney Mara (Carol)

Could Win: Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) or Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs)

Should Win: Rooney Mara (Carol)

Should've Been Here: Alicia Vikander (Ex Machina)

Best Original Screenplay

Some people criticize Spotlight for being really straightforward and procedural, and while I admit that it essentially is just the best-acted feature-length episode of CSI ever, if this film and Mad Max can tell us anything, it's that complexity is not always as important as simply telling your story well. Great dialogue, interesting characters, and close historical accuracy make this a worthy frontrunner for best screenplay, coming from an organization that loves wordy thrillers. The WGA Award essentially nipped this one in the bud, so I see very little wiggle room for outliers, but if there is an upset, Pixar's Inside Out seems like the most likely, as the Academy loves Pixar and it's been praised across the board, with the other nominees in this category being under-represented in respective screenplay categories at precursor awards (which has resulted in one of the most unique and interesting screenplay lineups in a while, really). This looks like Spotlight's to win, though.

Will Win: Spotlight

Could Win: Inside Out

Should Win: Spotlight (though I'd be more than cool with Ex Machina)

Should've Been Here: Tangerine

Best Adapted Screenplay

Both of the screenplay frontrunners prominently feature people in an office arguing about things. I didn't pick these pictures for any funny juxtaposition purposes; these are the first non-poster images that come up on Google. But I digress. In what is still to me one of the strangest Best Picture frontrunners ever, the director of Anchorman has brought us a financial dramedy that seems to be sweeping precursor awards, and with its WGA win, it seems pretty locked up at this point. The way this film flip-flops between documentary and just straight narrative style was jarring to me, but I have to give credit where it's due that this movie brings an important issue to light in a unique way, and while it's not my favorite of the nominees for either picture or screenplay, I do recommend that people check it out. There aren't many credible outliers at this point, but Room seems like the most likely upset.

Will Win: The Big Short

Could Win: Room 

Should Win: Room

Should've Been Here: Steve Jobs 

Best Original Score

There are always like five worthy nominees that get snubbed in this category, but musical taste is incredibly subjective and the Oscars music branch is notoriously difficult to predict, which is why guessing their nominees for score and song is a fucking nightmare. Once a frontrunner germinates, though, it's a pretty straight shot. Therefore, it seems the Academy will finally give its first competitive award win to storied Western composer Ennio Morricone in his work for The Hateful Eight. I haven't seen it, but I have listened to Morricone's score, and it's good enough. None of these nominees are my first choice for best score of the year, though there are some good ones. I can't see much room for upsets other than John Williams (this is his 50th nomination!) for Star Wars, but I'm guessing that movie will be scoring elsewhere, and really, it'd be a weird prize, seeing as how, as much as I loved The Force Awakens, it is arguably the weakest score of the series.

Will Win: The Hateful Eight (Ennio Morricone)

Could Win: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (John Williams)

Should Win: you know what, I'm going with Sicario (Johann Johannson). Shit was good.
Should've Been Here: Mad Max: Fury Road (Tom Holkenborg) or The Revenant (Ryuichi Sakamoto and Alva Noto) or Steve Jobs (Daniel Pemberton) OR Inside Out (Michael Giacchino) and probably a million fucking others

Best Original Song

Man, am I the only one who thinks this category recently has been pretty fucking boring? Especially this year. This year's frontrunner is Lady Gaga's song "Til It Happens to You" from the Kirby Dick documentary The Hunting Ground about rape on college campuses, followed by the equally cheery "Writing's on the Wall" by Sam Smith from Spectre, only the fifth James Bond theme to be nominated and really not even within the top 5 really. This is a pretty weak set of nominees here this year, though I guess it is interesting to mention that this is the first year in Oscar history that two documentaries have been nominated in non-documentary categories (The Hunting Ground and Chasing Extinction), both of which were not nominated for best documentary. Anyway, yeah, Lady Gaga's getting an Oscar. Moving on.

Will Win: "Til It Happens to You" (The Hunting Ground)
Could Win: "Writing's on the Wall" (Spectre)
Should Win: I don't fucking care
Should've Been Here: "Go Head" (Dope) or "See You Again" (Furious 7)

Best Animated Feature Film

With the exception of 2010's Toy Story 3, this decade's winners in this award have been pretty weak, and Inside Out will probably be the best winner of the 2010s (Big Hero 6 is apparently really good though). There's basically no other frontrunner here, and the next up behind Inside Out is a real stretch. I actually haven't seen the other three nominees since the Academy came out of left field with some surprising foreign nominations, and while I definitely consider Anomalisa the much better film, I understand Inside Out's appeal and really like the film myself. I also know that the Academy loves Pixar and that this was pretty much a lock since June 20th of last year. It's Pixar's to win yet again unless there are some serious fans of Charlie Kaufman or Aardman that are waiting to speak up.

Will Win: Inside Out

Could Win: Anomalisa (huge long shot)

Should Win: Anomalisa

Should've Been Here: apparently The Prophet was pretty good

Best Foreign Language Film

Son of Saul was the frontrunner to win this pretty much the second it premiered at film festivals. I haven't seen any of the foreign nominees due to my being in America which doesn't give a fuck about foreign releases, and while I was more excited for the inexplicably ineligible wuxia film The Assassin, I was looking forward to seeing this film and will enjoy watching it when it's probably on Netflix in like five months. I have little input here except that this has been destroying precursor awards and is the European answer to Schindler's List, so I'm going with the crowd here. Congrats in advance to Hungary for their first Oscar win!

Will Win: Son of Saul

Could Win: Is there another one about a war? Oh, there's literally one called A War. Yeah, sure, that. They love war.
Should Win: I'd feel bad acting like I have an opinion here
Should've Been Here: The Assassin, assuming it's as amazing as everyone that didn't give an award to Son of Saul says it is

Best Documentary Feature

Addiction? Troubled person with "demons"? Music? Controversial breaches of privacy/journalistic ethics? Yeah, this is a documentary frontrunner for sure. Asif Kapadia's Amy Winehouse biodoc Amy has been absolutely dominating precursor awards, and it seems likely to repeat its success here. There are few upsets in these "smaller" categories, so expect this one to pick up the trophy. Haven't seen this movie yet (I've been way off my grind with documentaries this year, and all the nominees this year sound interesting), but I love Amy Winehouse and am a doc fan, so I'll probably check it out, at which point I can better weigh in on this race.

Will Win: Amy

Could Win: any of them, but my guess is The Look of Silence

Should Win: *shrug*
Should've Been Here: Call Me Lucky (I might write a review of this movie because it's so amazing, but it'll be on my top 10 list fo sho)

Best Short Subject Documentary

Again, it's difficult to ignore frontrunners in these kinds of categories, and there is usually little room for upsets due to shorts' various vocal fans being restricted to those that get nominated. If more industry talking heads reported on shorts, the conversation for these categories would be way more interesting. That being said, Body Team 12, a short documentary about the crews of medical professionals quarantining victims of the Ebola virus in West Africa, has been the frontrunner since forever, as the Academy loves short medical/epidemic docs (and documentaries dealing with hot-button issues, even though Zika has since overthrown Ebola in the public eye). It's also premiering on HBO in March! I'm gonna try to check it out.

Will Win: Body Team 12
I'll just skip the others because we all know I know nothing here

Best Live Action Short Film

Pretty straightforward. Whatever catches wind as the frontrunner is what typically gets it. This one is about nuns, and the Academy kinda likes religion I guess. All I know is there is apparently support for Shok to upset, but for now, I'm going with the flow and sticking with Ave Maria.

Will Win: Ave Maria

Could Win: Shok

Should Win: the video of my friend confusing Cameron Diaz with Carmen San Diego

Best Animated Short Film

This year's frontrunner for animated short is Sanjay's Super Team, which premiered alongside The Good Dinosaur. Now I didn't see that movie, but apparently this short is a ton of fun. That said, I'm gonna go with the underdog World of Tomorrow for the following reasons: 1) For some reason the winner in this category is usually the only one I see, 2) Don Hertzfeldt has been nominated in the past and passed up and they may want to honor his genius body of work, 3) it apparently has quite the vocal fanbase, and 4) sometimes you gotta go against the grain and pick one that you believe in instead of going with the frontrunners. My logic is that there's always at least three or four upsets per Oscars, so your guesses should reflect that in hopes that the odds work in your favor. Sidenote: World of Tomorrow is brilliant and currently on Netflix and you should definitely watch it if you've got 20 minutes to spare (I also recommend everything Hertzfeldt has ever done).

Will Win: World of Tomorrow

Could Win: Sanjay's Super Team

Should Win: World of Tomorrow

Should've Been Here: I dunno, that volcano short in front of Inside Out was cute

Best Visual Effects

Wow, finally done with that dumb shit, AM I RIGHT? This is actually a pretty awesome lineup of nominees here this year, highlighting a lot of varying levels of use of VFX. Now, in my eyes, Mad Max and Star Wars have almost completely equal odds to win this one, but I'm going to give Star Wars the edge due to the effects branch's weird love for CGI-centric effects, this franchise's history with the award, and the fact that Mad Max will be making a good showing in the other tech categories. I'd say behind them is The Revenant, which primarily got this nomination for the achievements of one scene, but I'll be damned if it's not a deserving one.

Will Win: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Could Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Should've Been Here: Furious 7, but really I'm incredibly happy with this lineup

Best Cinematography

This has been Chivo's to win since the beginning. Emmanuel Lubezki, after a decade and a half of being largely ignored for his stunning camerawork, is set to be the first cinematographer (and I believe the first person ever, but don't quote me on that) to win three Oscars in a row, after winning for Gravity and Birdman. The cinematography is certainly the best technical aspect of this film, with Lubezki's use of natural light and minimal CGI matte use making for some truly astounding vista shots. John Seale came out of retirement to shoot Mad Max, and he's got an outside shot, but most will agree this is Lubezki's to lose. Unrelated: Lubezki has an Instagram that's pretty awesome if you like his style.

Will Win: The Revenant (Emmanuel Lubezki)

Could Win: Mad Max: Fury Road (John Seale)

Should Win: eh, The Revenant, or Sicario (Roger Deakins)

Should've Been Here: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Dan Mindel) or Room (Danny Cohen) or Tangerine (Sean Baker) OR Creed (Maryse Alberti)

Best Film Editing

Get ready for a lot of "Mad Max will probably take it, but The Revenant could also" in these technical categories. With both of these movies being rigorously crafted epic technical marvels with high nomination counts, there's gonna be a lot of conversation-sharing between the two. For me, we have three possibilities with almost equal odds in Margaret Sixel for Mad Max, Stephen Mirrione for The Revenant (who should've won last year for Birdman despite not being even fucking nominated), and Hank Corwin for the bafflingly praised The Big Short, which holds an ACE Eddie Award win over The Revenant, as does Mad Max. Because of this and the fact that the Academy prefers action to comedies in tech categories, I'm going with Mad Max. Fun fact: if Miller wins director and Sixel wins editing, I believe it'll be the first time that a husband and wife both win Oscars in one year. Wouldn't that be cute?

Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road (Margaret Sixel)
Could Win: The Big Short (Hank Corwin)

Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road (Margaret Sixel)
Should've Been Here: The Martian (Pietro Scalia) or Creed (Claudia Costello and Michael P. Shaver)

Best Production Design

This one is Mad Max's to lose by my estimation. Colin Gibson and co. have done an immaculate job creating a living, breathing world out of these incredibly intricately detailed war vehicles for George Miller's crazy post-apocalyptic wasteland. The film's best triumph in terms of production design is that everything in the film was not only visually spectacular, but also fully functional. Jack Fisk's work on The Revenant is minimal due to the mostly real-life wilderness settings of the film, and the pinnacle of his achievements (the two or three base camps), while excellently done, are not at the forefront of the picture. That said, with comparatively lightweight competition, Revenant seems to be the upset for this one. But it still seems that Gibson has this one in the bag.

Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road 

Could Win: The Revenant 

Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road 

Should've Been Here: Star Wars: The Force Awakens 

Best Costume Design

Interesting double nomination for veteran costume genius Sandy Powell for Carol and Cinderella. Weirdly enough, GoldDerby currently has Mad Max as the frontrunner to win here, and while I do think the costume work in that movie is excellent, I can't see the Academy getting fully behind it. The Academy passed on the last Disney reboot nominated in this category (Maleficent), so I'm guessing it'll either go to Carol or The Danish Girl. I'm going to guess The Danish Girl here because I gave Mara the edge of Vikander, and because I expect that Powell's double-nom will have them splitting votes. I can see a good case for four out of the five nominees though, really.

Will Win: The Danish Girl

Could Win: Carol or Cinderella 

Should Win: Cinderella

Should've Been Here: Dope

Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Again, this is one that seems like Mad Max's to win but could easily be taken by The Revenant. I'm betting that they ignore The 100-Year-Old Man Who Starred in a Movie with a Title That's Way Too Fucking Long, so I'm pitting the race squarely between those two, and with that in mind, I'm giving the edge to Mad Max for creativity's sake. The Revenant has some excellent beards and battle wounds, though. Also, why does this category still only have three nomination slots when makeup is used in literally every live action movie ever?

Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Could Win: The Revenant

Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Should've Been Here: The Danish Girl or Mr. Holmes 

Best Sound Mixing

And finally, the sound categories. Both of these seem like Mad Max's to lose, but AGAIN, The Revenant could easily steal it. At this point, I'm expecting The Revenant to either perform exactly as predicted or grossly overperform, the latter of which would be incredibly annoying. I will say that Mad Max has a stronger lock on sound editing than mixing, so if there was a technical for Revenant to steal from it, it'd be here. The Revenant does sound really nice, but pop in the Mad Max Blu-Ray and put it on surround sound and try not to melt, I dare you.

Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Could Win: The Revenant

Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Should've Been Here: Straight Outta Compton

Best Sound Editing

Of the two sound categories, sound editing (design) seems to be the better bet for Mad Max. It's the upset where I have disagreement with the experts - I actually think the next biggest possibility isn't The Revenant, but Star Wars. The franchise has done incredibly well in the sound categories, and the sound design in the film is nostalgic, creative, and brilliant. Think about it - with the birth of BB-8, we now have an all-new vocabulary of robotic beeps! Anyway, I'm guessing Mad Max takes this one.

Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Could Win: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road (I'd be cool with Star Wars though)

Should've Been Here: Jurassic World (I'll admit, it sounds great) or Ex Machina or Turbo Kid (not even anywhere near the Oscars' radar, but it's a standout element of the movie fo sho)

And there you have it, kids, my in-depth discussion of each of the categories at this year's Oscars and who I think will win. Come back Sunday night to see how many I got wrong in the most unpredictable awards season ever (which the Academy has been weirdly using as part of their ad campaign?). Favorites of the year and reviews for movies I haven't seen yet are coming whenever.

UPDATE (2/26/2016 5:45 PM): I've since changed my prediction for Best Supporting Actress to Alicia Vikander. I'm leaving the original post how it is, but I've heard lots of compelling arguments and she seems to have this one in the bag. I may also put Bear Story ahead of World of Tomorrow for animated short, but for right now it's the same. So, when you're tallying up how bad I suck on Oscar night, keep this in consideration.

An Evaluation: 88th Academy Awards Best Picture Nominees

It's Oscar week, bitches. The biggest night in Hollywood is on Sunday, February 28th, and there's been a lot of discussion about this year's nominees. Outside of the race debate (which, yes, I will give an actual nuanced opinion on after the awards), this awards season has been the year of the rulebreakers. Oscar trends have never been completely unbeatable, but the last two years have shown they're also not entirely sacrosanct. We've seen a lot of styles and types of stories nominated this year and last that, albeit all made by white people, are usually not the Academy's cup of tea, yet have drawn serious recognition. This has also been a year of rulebreaking considering that precursor awards have, for the most part, been all over the fuckin' place. This is the first truly exciting and unpredictable awards season that I've ever witnessed in my (short) life so far, and most seasoned Oscar pundits agree. With the exception of a few relative locks, this year seems fairly up in the air. Such was the case with guessing the nominees, and such is the case now picking the winners.

With all that said, as of last night, I finally saw every Best Picture nominee (and I've seen a good chunk of the nominees in other categories too, sans documentary and foreign film) for this year before the ceremony, which is actually a first for me. And, having realized that I've written a review for a whopping five of the eight nominees, instead of backtracking and hastily giving you late reviews of movies that came out months ago, for the ones I haven't written a review for, you'll get a nice little paragraph(ish) synopsis of what you would've gotten had I written one. Note: this is not my favorites of the year list (that's coming hopefully on Saturday), and these are NOT my full final predictions for the winners on Sunday (that will be coming Sunday morning). However, instead of going in alphabetical order, I'll be talking about each of these movies in the order that most pundits (and I, for the most part) have deemed to be the most likely to win.


The Revenant
This year's frontrunner for best picture has oddly enough turned out to be The Revenant, after about four months of assuming Spotlight to be the most likely and like a week of giving that distinction to The Big Short. The Revenant also holds the distinction of actually being my least favorite of all of this year's nominees. I gave it an A- in my original review, but upon thinking about this movie, I've actually grown to like it substantially less. The movie is gorgeously shot, features a great performance from Tom Hardy who, in my opinion, overshadows the physical showiness of Leonardo DiCaprio, and is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu, an extremely competent and creative director who also made the Best Picture winner and my favorite film of last year, Birdman. But this movie is vastly outweighed by Birdman due to the latter's much tighter script. Birdman's strange imagery and "magical realism" elements worked within the goofy surreality of the story, and helped sell the movie's main themes. The Revenant didn't really establish any clear main themes, and the only ones I've had pointed out to me weren't all that interesting to begin with and were never really expounded upon, which leaves this movie, to me, to just be a very well-shot by-the-numbers revenge story. Anyway, this would be the first time in history that a director has directed two back-to-back Best Picture winners, so precedent isn't on The Revenant's side, but its surge at just the right time, its wins at the DGA, Golden Globes, and BAFTAs, and its impressive twelve nominations are. I'm not the biggest fan of the movie, but I don't actively dislike it, and if anything, this movie can (most likely) have the privilege of being the movie that killed the "Leo doesn't have an Oscar" meme forever.
Grade (Revised): B+
# of nominations: 12
Review


The Big Short

Wow, considering this movie's absolutely nonexistent advertising campaign, I was shocked to see this movie gaining so much traction. But, in this movie's defense, it does put into light an incredibly important issue and explains a lot of abstract economic/financial concepts in a way that's not only funny, but actually really informative, and kind of unique in its presentation. While the cutaway gags, camerawork, and especially the editing (which, by the way, this movie is nominated for, and that still baffles me because I found it to be easily the weakest part of the film) don't always work and can be kind of jumpy and jarring at times, most likely due to director Adam McKay's work extensively in manic comedies prior to this, the movie does have a style and attitude that is very much its own, and is genuinely funny. I'm kind of bummed that the lone acting nomination for this film went to Christian Bale, who I actually felt was the weakest of the five main characters (excluding Pitt because he's on screen for like two seconds and including the two college kid characters not on the poster who, though played by no-names, are really great). I would've much rather liked to see Steve Carell pick up a nomination for this movie than last year's Foxcatcher, a performance which was about 60% makeup work (a phenomenon I call "Depping"), but I'm mostly just happy this film is getting attention and is beginning to be popular with younger people, as it's a reasonably really good movie about an important topic that came out at a pretty perfect time. McKay apparently agreed to make Anchorman 2 solely to get funding to make this movie, so if anything, this movie added a positive quality to Anchorman 2 - its existence helped bring us an actually important and borderline essential movie. This might bump up to an A- upon a second viewing, but for now I'm sticking to my original rating.
Grade: B+
# of nominations: 5
Review


Spotlight

Finally into "A" territory in my opinion. Spotlight is not only an important movie, but an excellent one at that. While the issue of sexual abuse by priests may not be as sweeping or urgent as global financial corruption (or at least it doesn't seem that way to most people, probably because the issue is incredibly personal in nature), and while this movie in its brilliant subtlety may not put the same fire in your belly as The Big Short, it's an incredibly worthy nominee, and I'd be more than fine with it winning. Only McAdams and Ruffalo scored acting nominations for this film, but this is understandable considering there are at least five Oscar-worthy performances in this movie, but really the entire cast just brings their A-game, and the acting in general is just phenomenal. This movie holds its head above other journalist/expository dramas as it makes no attempt to lionize its protagonists - this is business for them, but it's business with incredibly high stakes. Tom McCarthy has always been described as a prime humanist filmmaker, and this is the greatest example of this, while also being his best film by a long shot. It's well acted, well written, fantastically paced (spot-on editing nomination), and above all, it's fucking devastating. The more lurid details of the investigation are handled extremely tastefully, to the point that I think the film's R rating for sexual dialogue is actually kind of inappropriate, and the universality and weight of the victims' experiences are believable and crystal clear. And that long list of cities before the credits left the theater in the most chilling silence I've ever heard in a theater. I can't recommend this film more.
Grade: A+
# of nominations: 6


Room

The odd one out in terms of Oscar appeal, at least as far as I'm concerned. Only within the last decade or so has the Academy really given Best Picture love to such a small indie effort, but if they're gonna pick a small indie effort for this year, Room is a great, great choice. Brie Larson is the frontrunner to win Best Actress after a sweeping victory in precursor awards, and this is unbelievably well-deserved, as Larson gives an impeccably raw and sympathetic performance as "Ma", but in my opinion, the real star of this movie is Jacob Tremblay. Man, this is a real Oscar nomination snub if ever I've seen one. Tremblay was always an outside shot for the nom, but it would've been absolutely worthy, and I would've pined for him to win. In what just might be the best child performance I've ever seen in a movie, Tremblay is absolutely incredible as the glue that keeps not just our main characters, but also the movie as a whole, together, perfectly playing a little kid with an intelligence beyond his years - bratty, inquisitive, innocent, and trusting. Lenny Abrahamson's brilliant direction serves Emma Donoghue's wonderful script (adapted from her own novel) well, as this movie is not only heartbreaking, but tense. Watching the mystery of the titular main location of the film unfold is a real treat, and as the film moves briskly on, its themes of fantasy, losing innocence, and motherhood become clear, and the entire thing is just a joy. Rich, well-wrought characters, an intriguing premise, and note-perfect performances make this movie really, really rewarding. I was going to give Room just a solid A, but I'm bumping it up by virtue of the fact that it's the only film of 2015 that made me cry.
Grade: A+
# of nominations: 4


Mad Max: Fury Road

 FUCK YEAH. The director of Babe: Pig in the City and Happy Feet brings what is almost certainly my favorite film of the year, and one of the most unexpected Best Picture nominees of all-time. Sadly, there's not a whole lot of a case for this movie winning, but it's planned to sweep the technical awards, which is extremely fitting, as this movie is nothing if not a major technical achievement. Single-handedly breathing some much-needed life back into the lukewarm modern action genre, Mad Max: Fury Road is the best 80s action film that didn't come out in the 80s, and is, in my opinion, the poster child of what has truly been a throwback year for movies. Incredibly well-directed, exciting, and absolutely non-stop action sequences, all set within an unbelievably detailed post-apocalyptic world, are just icing on the cake for this movie, which also features some spectacular visual storytelling and sci-fi world-building, beautifully subtle character development, and a great feminist message, not to mention one of the best action protagonists in decades (it's not Max). I'm really bummed that Mad Max will probably not win best picture or director, because I definitely believe it deserves both, but I really am just grateful that this year's Best Picture nominee list includes a film that is unique, exciting, and a huge risk that paid off immensely. This film's merits can't really adequately be discussed in a paragraph, and to be honest I still haven't enumerated everything I love about it even after my sixth viewing, but regardless - if you haven't seen this movie, DO IT.
Grade: A+
# of nominations: 10


The Martian

Contrary to most people's evaluation, I don't find this movie to be that much of an odd one out among this year's nominees. It comes from a storied director (who has directed a Best Picture winner, though has not won himself), was a huge surprise to critics, and is pretty universally well-liked. I, for one, am really happy to see this movie included, even if it doesn't stand much of a chance to win due to the Academy's weird aversion to science fiction generally. Matt Damon does an excellent job in the lead role as Mark Watney, who really is a microcosm of the film's tone as a whole, somehow striking a perfect balance of well-executed tension due to the considerable stakes and great humor to make a movie that is at once intense and also pretty consistently entertaining. It does clock in at a surprisingly long running time, and it's pretty heavy on the math-laden expository dialogue via Watney's Martian vlogging, but Ridley Scott manages to more than competently navigate Drew Goddard's wordy script, which itself is based on the excellent novel by Andy Weir, which I also recommend, though I'd argue this film, while slightly less scientifically sound (though still pretty damn accurate) is better constructed as a movie than the novel is as a novel. With a delightfully pro-science message, well-directed humor and drama, a number of great performances, a surprisingly awesome soundtrack, and plenty of eye candy, there's a little bit of something for everyone here, from science nerds to film buffs to Damon fans. This movie didn't pack quite the punch the second time around, so I'm bringing my original grade down, but I still stand by all the praises I sung for it in the past.
Grade: A-
# of nominations: 7
Review


Bridge of Spies

This is the most lukewarm "A-" I've ever given. Don't get me wrong, Bridge of Spies is very good, but there's not a whole lot I can really find myself truly writing home about. It's just an exceptionally well-made, but not particularly exceptional Cold War thriller. That said, man, can Steven Spielberg direct the fuck out of a movie. The level of detail in even the most middling of Spielberg's efforts is extraordinary. He's a classic hands-on New Hollywood director, really getting down and dirty with his crew. The movie is beautifully shot, and has tons of period detail, which should surely excite your parents when they inevitably ask you to watch it with them (I took mine to see it), as well as having an actually pretty harrowing scene involving the U2 bomber incident that is way more intense than I would have expected. The rest of the movie is very low-key, as it's about foreign diplomats discussing a trade-off, all through sly words. And for the most part, this works out really well. Mark Rylance picked up the movie's lone acting nomination and has gotten most of the movie's precursor buzz, but I think Tom Hanks is certainly the standout of the movie, delivering a real James Stewart-level "old Hollywood" performance. This could also be credited to the fact that Hanks is probably the most likable human being on Earth. Anyway, Bridge of Spies is unlikely to have a frothing fanbase years in the future or be recognized as one of Spielberg's greats, but it's a very solid film that's worth at least one watch that, while not particularly earth-shattering, is another example of classic Spielbergian filmmaking. Fans of the director will find a lot to enjoy, and I'm sticking with my original grade.
Grade: A-
# of nominations: 6
Review


Brooklyn

And finally, the only true surprise nominee for me, as this one was just on the outside of the best picture conversation, looking to be pushed out most probably by Carol, Inside Out, or maybe Straight Outta Compton. Regardless, I'm very happy with this nomination, as this was one of my most favorite movies of the year, and I'm eager to watch it again. It's old-fashioned Hollywood for sure, but oh my god, is it delightful. This is such a sweet little movie, and it's pitch-perfect in basically every way, most notably for sure in its cast. Saoirse Ronan (nominated for best actress this year) is brilliant as an Irish immigrant to 1950s New York City, and her on-screen boyfriend Emory Cohen is equally phenomenal as a scruffy Italian Brooklyn native. Brooklyn is a great coming of age tale of first love, finding home, and dealing with transformative changes in youth, and my favorite thing about it is that it doesn't make its story seem monumental in terms of stakes. The whole story is very personal, and the arc our leading lady undergoes is small and subtle, but formative, essential, and brilliantly composed. It's a simple love story, but again, told pretty much perfectly. It's beautifully shot, emotionally investing, features a hilarious performance from Julie Walters (this movie is actually surprisingly pretty funny), and has some of the best on-screen chemistry between any two actors in Cohen and Ronan that I've seen recently. Brooklyn is such a treat. It could very well bump up to an A+ later, but for now, until I see it again, it's staying at a solid (but very enthusiastic) A.
Grade: A
# of nominations: 4
Review

Well, that's it, kids. The Oscars are in a little less than five days from this point, so we'll see how each of these films fare in the various categories they're nominated in. I'll soon be posting my updated FINAL predictions for the winners in each category, as well as (maybe) my favorite films of the year.

"Deadpool" Review

Deadpool is a superhero comedy film directed by Tim Miller (in his directorial debut) and written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. It is the origin story of the Marvel Comics anti-hero Deadpool. Deadpool's secret identity is Wade Wilson, a wisecracking jackass who starts off getting rid of stalkers for teenage girls for money, and later joins a group of vigilante assassins. He soon meets an unbelievably hot woman named Vanessa (played by the unbelievably hot Morena Baccarin) and the two get engaged, only to find out that Wade has been diagnosed with multiple forms of cancer. In an effort to cure himself, Wade visits a shady facility run by the evil psychopath Ajax (played by Ed Skrein), and escapes with the ability to rapidly heal himself, although he is pretty unforgivably ugly. In an effort to exact revenge on Ajax and take back his girlfriend after she's kidnapped, Wade assumes the role of Deadpool to beat tons of bad guys' asses. Deadpool is played by Ryan Reynolds, who also serves as producer on the film. This film has been in development for years, and Reynolds has always been at the center of it all, so this film is something of a labor of love for him. After nearly a decade of negotiating and budget constraints, 20th Century Fox has brought us Deadpool, in all its R-rated swear-filled gory glory.

I guess I should address the fact that the Internet fucking loves this movie. At the time of writing this (very belated) review, it currently has an 8.6/10 rating on IMDb from 130,000 votes, putting it in the top 50 highest voted films on the website. Even given the general trend of IMDb voters tending to over-praise a film in its opening weeks, that is pretty crazy. And I can absolutely see the appeal, and definitely liked the movie, though I will say I think this film's fans are giving it a little bit more credit than it may deserve. Regardless, let me start off with the (many) things this movie does well.

The film's main selling point is its sense of humor, and for fans of the Deadpool character, the writers absolutely nailed this aspect. Wade is crass, unapologetic, and continuously breaks the fourth wall, as does the movie in general. If you're not into somewhat childish jokes about dicks, fucking, and severed limbs and heads, then Deadpool will most likely leave you either annoyed or ambivalent, as will the in-jokes regarding comic book lore and the X-Men. The fourth wall breaks and constant jabs at superhero movie tropes are clever and silly, although curiously most of the audience I saw it with didn't seem to find them too funny. I'll get to that part of the movie toward the end though.

I should also go out of my way to say that if there's anything that absolutely sells this movie for all its faults, it's Ryan Reynolds, in undoubtedly the performance of his career. Reynolds is to Deadpool as Robert Downey, Jr. is to Iron Man - it almost feels as if the character was made to be played by him. The emotional core of Deadpool as a character (which I only know about through very brief research, as I never read the comics) is only explored briefly and with the same level of irreverence as the rest of the movie's story, but I'm assuming this will be expounded upon in the forthcoming sequels, and what I think matters more is that the film sold Deadpool's sense of humor and demeanor to an audience mostly unaware of his existence - and the film does this splendidly, mostly to the credit of Reynolds.

Morena Baccarin even turns out a solid performance as Wade's girlfriend Vanessa in one of the best romances in a superhero movie I've ever seen. I think the strength of the romance (and really, most of the movie) is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. Vanessa is a smart-ass and matches perfectly with Wade, but is her own unique character, and their romance is actually quite believable because of how non-hammed up it is amid all the goofiness of the rest of the movie. In a weird way, wading through the face-sitting jokes and sex scenes, their relationship is actually kind of sweet. As always, the movie favors profanity over profundity, but Wade and Vanessa's relationship is appropriately the most grounded aspect of the movie.

The action sequences in Deadpool are fantastically put together. The entire movie is very fast, frenetic, and doesn't waste a second. The action scenes are fun, clever, slickly edited, and surprisingly mostly in-camera in terms of effects. They never reach the beautifully gory goofiness of something like Hot Fuzz, but are still gleefully silly, bloody fun. Due to budgetary constraints (this movie actually had a way smaller budget than I imagined), the CGI in the film is, while used sparingly, kind of distracting at times and doesn't always look pixel perfect, though I'd argue this sort of adds to the film's scrappy, irreverent charm. Deadpool really was a passion project of a few people led by Reynolds, and it shows. Tom Holkenborg (aka Junkie XL), the composer behind the brilliant score for Mad Max: Fury Road last year, also supplies a great 80's throwback soundtrack underscoring these awesome action scenes.

For all the technical prowess behind the construction of the film's action sequences, though, the scenes in between are fairly run-of-the-mill, even in terms of writing, really. The characters say funny lines, but the scenes are disappointingly procedural, moving the plot forward but presenting everything in shot-reverse shot conversations. A lot of other superhero/action movies have this quality, but in a movie whose action scenes are so uncommonly well put together, I was hoping the more dialogue-reliant scenes would be equally creative. I'm guessing this has something to do with the fact that this is Tim Miller's directorial debut. I can't help but think that a more seasoned and talented director would've kept the film's unique kinetic energy going throughout it in its entirety.

Going back to the film's sense of humor and specifically its fourth wall breaking and satirizing of superhero movie tropes, like I said earlier, I do think some fans of the movie online are praising this point a little too much. I've heard the fun that Deadpool pokes at superhero movies unironically called "brilliant" and "subversive", and while I think it works really well, I don't think either of those words are apt descriptions. Deadpool's humor is not an example of razor-sharp wit, and really it's a pretty standard superhero origin film as far as story progression and characters go (other than the fun editing choice of going back and forth between the opening action sequence and explanations as to the details of Deadpool's uprising). The film's saving grace, though, is that it is extremely self-aware and consistently points out that, yes, this is a pretty standard superhero movie, and you're gonna watch it anyway (this is perhaps most evident in the film's opening credits more than anything). I'd hardly call this "brilliant" or "subversive", as Deadpool seems to simply be aware of and joke about its adherence to superhero tropes, but not actually subvert them or offer any insight or critique of those tropes. The film prefers to simply give the audience a fun movie while making fun of itself. And I'm cool with that.

Overall, Deadpool is a really, really fun superhero action film that absolutely feels like a passion project of Ryan Reynolds and the crew he's assembled. It sports some great action scenes, lots of silly humor that really embrace its R rating but won't be for everyone, and a cast of fun characters. I think the Internet has oversold its brilliance a bit, but it's a movie that's self-aware, funny, fast, and a great time at the movies. I'm excited to see where they take things with the sequels.

Grade: B+

"Hail, Caesar!" Review

Hail, Caesar! is a crime comedy directed and written by the Coen brothers and starring a huge ensemble cast including Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich, Channing Tatum, Ralph Fiennes, Jonah Hill, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Scarlett Johansson, Veronica Osorio, and Allison Pill. It follows a studio fixer working for the fictional Capitol Pictures in 1950s Hollywood named Eddie Mannix (played by Josh Brolin) who struggles to keep the studio's stars in line, constantly dealing with PR nightmares, most notably one of his biggest stars (George Clooney) being mysteriously drugged and kidnapped. The movie has all the hallmarks of a Coen brothers movie - a huge and talented cast, religion, radical politics, old Hollywood, kidnapping, neurotic characters, and an unconventional storyline.

Now, I was really excited for this movie, and after coming out of it I was surprised to see how mixed the reaction to it has been. I really enjoyed Hail, Caesar!, though I will concede that it's not the most tightly scripted Coen brothers film ever. With that in mind, a middle-ground Coen brothers movie is still more enjoyable and more competently constructed than most cinematic fare.

First, I don't mean to be presumptive, but I think most people's disappointment with this movie is due to the trailers, which are out of the control of the filmmakers. The trailers make the movie seem like it's a madcap comedy about Josh Brolin leading the investigation into the mystery of Clooney's kidnapping, when in reality, it's more of a day in the life of Eddie Mannix. And really, once I'd realized this, I was on board with it. The numerous subplots that Mannix weaves in and out of are there to give us an idea of the stresses of his job, and all of these diversions are funny and entertaining, and work incredibly well within the context of 1950s Hollywood. Unfortunately, none of these non-sequitur character interactions are quite as well-executed or fun as my favorite Coen brothers film, The Big Lebowski, or the also excellent Inside Llewyn Davis, which also employ a sort of episodic "meet the character and then leave" nature, but they're still funny as hell and work within the period. I'll get a little more into this at the end.

By far the best thing about this film is the performances, all of which are excellent. I don't want to single out any one actor, because every actor uses their (fairly limited) screen time to have at least one scene-stealing moment, but Brolin is brilliant in the lead role and my personal favorite came from Alden Ehrenreich, who plays a surprisingly prominent role in the story. Ehrenreich is note-perfect as a dim-witted southern actor who can sing a song, be a pretty face, and do crazy stunts, but is garbage when it comes to actual acting, and he's probably the most likable character in the whole film. Clooney plays against type as a silly buffoon of a movie star, and does it extremely well, Scarlett Johansson does some great work as a Marilyn Monroe type, Ralph Fiennes is absolutely hilarious in just two scenes as an irate British director, and Channing Tatum heralds the most entertaining scene in the film as a Gene Kelly type pretty boy who performs a musical number as a Navy man. Every character gets a moment to shine as they weave in and out of Mannix's life, and it makes for some seriously entertaining stuff.

As an unabashed love letter to old Hollywood, the film depicts the period very well, with some great costume and set design, all captured brightly and beautifully with expectedly gorgeous camerawork by cinematography legend Roger Deakins. Thematically, the film does take jabs at the industry that may be a little bit too insider for the average viewer to get, and the Coens have never been ones to shy away from very exclusive jokes (A Serious Man can be hard to follow the first time for us Gentiles).

I think that's what sort of pulls apart the criticism that the film is disjointed. While it's not as slickly put together as previous Coen outings with similar construction, the film does have a main point it's making and its story progression serves it. The juxtaposition of religion and politics (specifically Communism) and their explanations of meaning next to Mannix's unshakable dedication to the film industry (shown in his impassioned delivery of "The picture has worth") and his struggle to derive meaning or justification for that level of dedication is a concept I can understand the Coens wanting to explore. Coen brothers films always emulate or pay homage to some filmmaking or storytelling convention of yesteryear while also examining themes that are very personal to them as creators - Barton Fink examining writer's block, Inside Llewyn Davis examining the refusal to change your work ethic, A Serious Man examining the limitations of religious faith, No Country for Old Men examining the seeming pointlessness in trying to mitigate evil in the world, etc. I see Hail, Caesar! fitting in that category, and while the sum of its parts doesn't work right away, I'm sure, like most Coen brothers films, it will become clearer upon multiple viewings.

Completely getting this movie does require some understanding of Coen brothers conventions, but it's still fabulously well made. Hail, Caesar! pokes fun at, pays homage to, and examines 1950s Hollywood (and post-World War II America at large) as well as the search for meaning in one's work through several disjointed but highly entertaining and incredibly well-cast sequences. It's a middle-ground effort from the Coens, but that is far from implying that it's not worth seeing. As has been the case with almost every Coen brothers movie I've seen, I suspect this rating will go up once I've seen it a few more times.

Grade: B+

"Kung Fu Panda 3" Review

Kung Fu Panda 3 is an animated action comedy film from Dreamworks Animation and the third (and I think final) film in the Kung Fu Panda franchise, this one being directed by Jennifer Yuh Nelson and Alessandro Carloni. The film picks up several years after the second movie, with the panda bear Po (voiced by Jack Black) taking over for Master Shifu (voiced by Dustin Hoffman) as teacher of the Furious Five when Shifu retires to master the art of chi and achieve true inner peace before his inevitable passing. Just as Po learns that he sucks at teaching, he also meets his biological father Li Shan (voiced by Bryan Cranston), who tells him of a secret panda village from whence Po was taken as a baby. Learning from an ancient text written by the late Master Oogway that the pandas in the village were once masters of chi themselves, Po agrees to travel to his home village with Li Shan when a warrior and former friend of Oogway, a yak master named Kai (voiced by J.K. Simmons), steals the chi of former masters and escapes the spirit realm on a quest to destroy Po and the entire Valley of Peace.

Now, to preface, I love the Kung Fu Panda movies. I think the first film is a fun, funny, and well-executed martial arts movie as well as a charming animated film that basically any age group can enjoy, and I think the second film is the best by far, with a deeper story, more involving action, and some great character development. Kung Fu Panda 3 is, in my opinion, the weakest of the franchise, but still really well crafted and better than most standard animated fare.

One of my favorite parts of the Kung Fu Panda franchise is that the films feel like genuine kung fu movies, both in story progression and style. As a fan of kung fu movies, I'm always really happy to see how well these films blend comedic slapstick fighting with actual kung fu choreography, as well as blending fairly Westernized humor and story conventions with genuine aspects of Eastern culture and thought, especially in the characters of Shifu and Oogway. Things like the spirit realm and the film's representation of chi are unsurprisingly presented with a lot of artistic license, but they work for the movie while also working well within actual Eastern thought - especially through a really cool story aspect in the third act regarding Po and the yin-yang symbol.

Besides the action, where Kung Fu Panda 3 remains strong is in its story and characters, particularly in the development of Po. Now, none of the Kung Fu Panda movies have considerable depth, but plenty of live-action kung fu movies can have the same said for them as well. They're well told, interesting stories that benefit well-crafted and exciting action scenes, and populated with characters we care about. Po's development as a character isn't entirely unpredictable, but is satisfying and well done, as is the final development of his relationship with Shifu, which I always thought was the main relationship throughout the franchise (as is the case with most kung fu franchises - the relationship between teacher and student). That's why I was happy when this film was announced - they don't feel like hastily produced sequels that exist just to further extend the reach of a lucrative franchise, but rather the logical next point in the greater story.

On top of that, this movie is just beautiful. All three of the Kung Fu Panda movies have been phenomenally well animated, and the action scenes and even some of the quieter scenes in this film are bright and gorgeous to look at, with the former providing some really impressive spectacle. The spirit realm sequences as well as much of the many environments the characters find themselves in are detailed and beautiful to look at, and all of this is elevated by Hans Zimmer's reliably great score.

If I have any problems with Kung Fu Panda 3, I guess it'd be the pacing and some of the humor. This movie serves as a good conclusion to the franchise and ties together its huge cast of characters pretty nicely. And while the humor in this film does work, I will say it is the most hit or miss of the series for me. There were a few running gags throughout the film that felt like very typical Dreamworks fare, which isn't necessarily bad but I always respected the rest of the series for generally avoiding them. The pacing of the story was fast to a fault, and I sometimes found myself wishing that a scene or shot would go on a little longer. And while the action in this movie isn't bad by any means and is really fun and well-executed as always, I will say it's the weakest of the three films, as well as having the least interesting villain (though he is really fucking cool, and his main power actually works thematically with the story very well). Kung Fu Panda 2 took all the best elements of the first film and did them better; this movie didn't really expand on those elements, but this is far from saying it's not good.

Overall, Kung Fu Panda 3 is a satisfying conclusion to the series that doesn't quite match the achievements of its predecessors, but is still fun, funny, fast paced, beautifully animated, and filled with some really exciting and well executed action scenes. This is a really solid trilogy that I hope Dreamworks doesn't fuck up. I look forward to marathoning these three movies on Blu-Ray someday. Before showing the rating, I want to point out that I saw this film with one of the worst crowds I've ever seen in my life so I was a little annoyed, so upon later viewings this could easily bump up to an A-. But for right now...

Grade: B+


Unrelated: I've finally made a Letterboxd account, archiving every movie I've seen and (eventually) giving them all a rating. If you'd like to see it, you can click here.