Valuable Movies: The Tree of Life

No, this is not a scene from The Revenant, but I can see where you'd make that mistake.

After watching Drive and feeling underwhelmed by that movie, I decided I wanted to immediately jump into another movie that I desperately wanted to see from my Need-to-See List. So, in two sittings on two separate days, I watched The Tree of Life, directed by Terrence Malick. It has been over a week since I finished the movie and I've been digesting the experience ever since.

There's some movies I watch where I feel like I have to prepare myself ahead of time. I may not exactly know what the experience will be like, but I do know that it will be totally different from most other movies and a truly unique to the picture I'm about to witness. The Tree of Life is one of those movies I felt like I needed to prepare myself for. Get plenty of sleep the night before, be in a relaxed mood, be mentally aware, all that kind of stuff.

This is definitely an experience of a movie. It does not play by conventional filmmaking rules so you do not examine it like every other conventional movie. It plays by its own rules and you have to follow them, allowing yourself to be led on a mystery. That does not mean I still cannot analyze and critique it for its Artistic and Moral Values, just that I have to frame my critique with a different understanding of what makes a movie bad or good compared to how I critique something like Drive.

Artistic Value (Rating: 4.5)

What is it? I don't know. Welcome to this movie's experience!

Most of my critique and appreciation of this movie deals with the Artistic Value because this is mainly a piece of high visual art. This movie is filmed with tons of fast paced edits cutting to a variety of scenes throughout time and space. We get so many visuals involving water and trees, then cut back to suburban life in 1950s Texas, cut to modern urban architecture, then back to flying views of volcanoes and outer space, and in between the movie stuffs in some glowing ethereal lights like an orange Aurora Borealis.

This movie definitely tries to fit a lot of visuals into the camera shot. Often, there are nice big fishbowl lense shots where the actor is the main focus, but there's tons of scenery around them to add to the atmosphere. This is so that, even if you may not fully understand the point of the visual, you at least know where you are and what is going on around the character. It also helps to establish atmosphere and mood, keeping the audience in a calm sense of awe and wonder.

Here comes the sun (doo-duh-doo-doo)

The cinematography is gorgeous, as are whatever effects were used to create the galactic and prehistoric pieces. There were many shots where I had to wonder whether a special visual effect or a practical effect was used to achieve the image. I like that mystery because that means that at least I felt connected to the movie and felt that this image is real, whether it was created on computer or created by props.

The Tree of Life is visual poetry, which can be both good and bad. A lot of the philosophy and questions that are posed in the movie are done through what you see on screen compared to what you hear spoken. And since it does not strive to particularly answer the questions directly, that adds to the poetic aspect of the final product. The reason why it can be considered bad to be visual poetry is because it is such high art that it can feel almost arrogant or self-confident. If movies are busy trying to impress their audience and speak such lofty philosophical jargon, that can turn people off from appreciating the artistry of the movie. Thankfully, the arrogance is kept low in this movie so that the poetic aspect can still maintain integrity.

Although sometimes it does show off.

I often criticize movies for being slow and too quiet. This criticism stems from a connection with the pace of the movie in question. If I think a movie's pace is too slow, it means that I think a movie is lingering on some visual or some idea much much longer than necessary. The reason it's longer than necessary is because the movie was trying to make some point or feed the audience some sort of information, but once it has accomplished either goal, it continues to linger on the point or image without continuing to develop the story or the characters. So, because The Tree of Life is a slow movie in terms of plot and development, it had a hard task of being slow with good reason while keeping my interesting.

The editing of the movie helped to keep the pacing quick enough to the point of keeping it interesting. The pacing of Drive is one of my criticisms or negative opinions about that particular movie because it made its point and yet lingered far too long. Here in The Tree of Life, even if you do not fully understand everything being said and seen on screen, it gives you enough to grasp what's happening then moves on to continue developing its point or move on to the next point of view. This pacing, especially in the first half, is what kept me engaged and interested in moments where I scratched my head and in normal circumstances may have turned the movie off.

The first half is wonderfully enchanting, with so many various shots and angles that you do not care that you're essentially being dropped smack near the end of the story in the beginning. The characters played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain first appear at older stages in their characters' lives, then during the rest of the movie we see scenes of them as young lovers and then as young parents. There are different leaps back and forth in time, almost giving the movie a dream-like quality where the dream is constantly shifting or changing but your mental awareness for the story maintains focus and awareness.

Though you always wonder how your house moves itself to the salt flats.

The second half takes on a more conventional narrative, or more specifically the third quarter of the movie does, which focuses on the childhood of the Sean Penn character. Instead of such dramatic leaps in time, we are treated to a straightforward progression in time and we linger longer on moments and stories that in the first half would've been told in passing images. This is where the movie drags more and actually began to lose me because it clashed so much with the first half. When you're introduced to a unique visual and storytelling style that is full of mystery and poetry, you begin to assimilate that style into your reception of the movie. Then we get dropped back into more standard plot development, even if the cinematography and editing remains somewhat stylized. I think the movie should've stuck to what it was doing, especially since in the final quarter it returns to the highly stylized visuals.

The narrations are also one of the positive and negative attributes of this movie. The narration allows the characters to express their inner thoughts, which is made especially cool when the dialogue is phrased in a way that the character can be speaking internal thoughts about their parent, God, or both. The use of narration also allows the images to continually move in rapid fire motion while maintaining particular focus on developing the character that is narrating. The negative aspect to me, which may seem like a nitpick, is that it's essentially all done in whispers. I cannot really recall any of the narration being spoken at a normal volume level, it was all quiet and raspy. At first, you don't really notice and it keeps you calm, but after so much narration continuously being done at this pitch and volume, it eventually gets grating to listen to. I love Bob Ross, and I enjoy when he does gently whisper, but he also fluctuates his pitch and volume so that it is not constantly at one level like it seemed like this movie was going for.

Moral Value (Rating: 5)

How Brad Pitt hugs all of his children.

Much of this movie's dialogue is like prayer, where the character is alone and communicates to God. They communicate lots of great questions as well as their interpretation of their life experiences based on those questions. We examine what is true love, what is the meaning of suffering, what is the purpose of life and death, what is right and what is wrong, all through tough questions posed by characters in vulnerable moments. Again, the movie does not directly answer the questions, but explores avenues towards answering those questions through the visuals and storytelling.

I found myself relating to a lot of the struggles in the father-son relationship that gets explored in the third quarter of the movie. The son's attempt to understand a tough love father figure, and how that father figure plays into the son's relationship with God, spoke to me directly, as did the boy's struggles when puberty began and the impact that time period had on his relationship with his mother. It was true and genuine, at least in my own viewing of it.

 There are consequences to the negative things that the people do, even if those consequences are not immediate or seen on the surface level. Once people experience these consequences, there is acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repentance, so that they can change for the better. The beautiful thing about the struggles in this movie is that it does involve a happy ending. We experience reconciliation and love at the end after all of the pain and anguish that the characters go through beforehand. This makes the emotional stakes and the suffering of the characters pay off in the end, to me. This also helps to punch up a positive morality in this movie.

...I got nothing. It's just a picture of this movie's family unit.

The MPAA rating for this movie is PG 13, which is only really because of the life experiences that the characters go through. There's images of spousal abuse (mainly verbal) and scenes of the tough physical type of fatherly parenting that we either remember or imagine growing up with in the past. The Sean Penn character, as a boy, goes through puberty and does some wicked acts out of curiosity and malice that he cannot seem to control. There are some images of a man having a seizure and convicts being thrown in police cars, but nothing is explicit or graphic. I can see this movie only really being viewed and enjoyed by adults. Not that there is much that is inappropriate for kids, but only because adults will fully appreciate and grasp the life experience of the characters. Even then, the movie is so different from a standard movie viewing experience, and the quality of the high art poetry is so high, that even some adults may not enjoy sitting through this whole movie. It is strange, challenging, and definitely worth exploring and staying with til the end.

Overall Value Rating: 4.75 out of 5

Valuable Movies: Drive

Blah blah blah "Some spoilers ahead" blah blah blah DRIVE

After creating my Top 15 Movies of the Decade So Far list, I went out and rented a few movies in order to make it through my Need-To-See portion of that list. I did not want to immediately start with Tree of Life, knowing what a unique experience it was going to be, and I heard mixed things about Her, so I began with Drive. It is on multiple other such Top lists and is hailed as one of the most unique looking movies with a different style of craftsmanship in terms of acting and storyline.

I like to mainly do my movie critiques by examining them in terms of Artistic Value and Moral Value. I will make sure to do so with this movie as well, but I first wanted to begin with my overall impression of the movie, since it has been several days since I watched it and I've been digesting on it ever since.

I really wanted to like this movie. Not just because it was hailed as one of the decade's best, but because I like movies that are different and there are so many fantastic actors in this movie. I'm not even usually a Ryan Gosling fan, but since he was not trying to be pretty boy and really made an effort to go for an out-of-the-box kind of character, I wanted to appreciate his stretch of acting chops. However, there is no doubt in my mind: I really did not care for this movie. It was so poorly paced, it abused the concept of slow motion, it pretended that mystery equals good character development, and it had the brass to pass itself off as something new and refreshing when it clearly pays homage to so many other movies.

Artistic Value (Rating: 2.5)

I'm not going to pretend like I was expecting an action thriller, though the trailers for this movie certainly hyped up the car chase and violent action factors of this movie. It is definitely a drama over an action piece, and I framed my viewing of it from a dramatic perspective. Despite the fact I knew this movie was more of a drama than an action movie, I still expected there to be more car chases than what we were given. Collectively, there's just two, one in the beginning and one in the middle. Both are beautifully spectacular. Great stunt work, great tension, great pacing and camerawork.
The chase scenes, especially in connection with the storyline, were reminiscent of Transporter or Bullitt. Perhaps too much so in some ways.

But Steve McQueen never drove his Mustang backwards, so there!

The dialogue and the subject matter, however, led me to believe that there would be at least one more if not a couple car chases. They talk so much about what an extraordinary driver Ryan Gosling is (he is only referred to as Driver in the movie so I just call him Ryan Gosling), and the conflict in the middle of the movie builds up to a potentially great chase scene that outdoes the two, but none of it pays off. Instead, we're just given as many varieties of shots featuring Ryan Gosling casually driving down L.A. as possible.

Part of the artistry of this movie is the cinematography. The best thing this cinematography has going for it is how it captures the look and feeling of the urban landscape. This movie shows both a beautiful side and an ugly side of L.A.. The setting surrounding Ryan Gosling as he's driving around is great to look at and really pulls you into this world. However, the cinematography can also be a distraction. It was distracting because there were lots of specifically framed angles of moments. Almost like the story was being told in photos rather than moving imagery. There are multiple multiple scenes that linger on the specific image rather than really moving forward.

The cinematography also influences the pacing of the movie. Honestly, the run time of this movie would've been cut in half if slow-motion was not used. Good golly, did this movie assault the use of slow-mo! Many times we are treated to one long extended take, which in a normal movie would just fly by in maybe ten seconds at most, but the camera lingers on the moment for way too many minutes. Yet, even with that, the movie ended really fast. I sat down to watch it for short intervals and within two viewings I was suddenly done when I expected to finish the next day. It's only 100 minutes and somehow one of the slowest moving movies I've seen in awhile ended faster than I expected. Did I perhaps abuse the fast forward button on my remote?

The reason why this is a problem is because if the movie is poorly paced and the viewer thinks the scene is going by too slowly, they're going to get bored and either lose focus or leave or intentionally tune out the movie mentally until something exciting happens. Because the cinematography relied so heavily on slow-mo, we're treated to so many minutes of the same exact image where nothing new is happening or being discovered. This is different from moments, either in this movie or in others, where we linger on a character and we see their internal thinking and conflict as their eyes wander around the person or the environment around them.

This movie may provide extraordinary characters in an extraordinary situation, but it still roots itself in realism. The violence is visibly painful for the characters and the blood effects are very realistic. The one area I think that lacked the most realism is the dialogue, more specifically how other characters reacted whenever they try to have a conversation with Ryan Gosling. How did people not get mad at Ryan Gosling's character whenever he didn't talk? Literally, multiple people would ask him a direct question, he would just silently stare at them for ten seconds, and then they just carried on as if this was a normal thing.  Not once did anyone mention this or even explode on him. I get it, we've turned Ryan Gosling into a meme at this point and his character in the movie is supposed to be a strong, silent type, but still.

"Hey Girl...(ten minutes of silent staring)...hey"

I'll end on a positive note. The soundtrack added some nice mood and atmosphere to this movie. People comment a lot about the soundtrack on this movie as being one of the highlights and it is. The modern techno, electronic noise adds to the L.A. landscape. The soundtrack also provided some basic narration on the movie's events or character thoughts. The technical sound effects in the songs actually made them even more appealing.

Moral Value (Rating: 1)

The Ryan Gosling character may be the main character of the story but he is definitely not a hero. He is just a mentally strange individual lacking the same greed demonstrated by the antagonists of the movie. Ryan Gosling is the strong silent type who really is only nice to certain people in order to get what he wants. His only positive trait is that he cares for his neighbor Irene (played by Carey Mulligan) and her son, caring just enough to protect them from danger or harm.

That positive trait is negated by the fact that this caring feeling involves lust for a married woman. I believe the movie was structured and framed a certain way so that Gosling's feelings and actions towards Mulligan are not considered bizarre or absurd. It's trying to justify his feelings by making Irene attracted to Ryan Gosling as well. I mean, when your husband is some deadbeat just released from prison, why not attract yourself to the mute stranger next door? Really think about this. Would you consider Ryan Gosling's actions okay in the real world (flirting with/ hitting on a married woman, staring at her for long periods of time, squarely protecting the son and mother but not giving two turds about the husband Oscar Isaac) if Mulligan's character did not reciprocate his feelings of romance and lust?

The most sympathetic character is Bryan Cranston, and that's because we feel sorry for him from the get-go. He's a down on his luck kind of guy who suffered a tragic accident in the past and is begging to find a second chance in life, and is finding some redemption in helping Ryan Gosling find work and trying to help Ryan Gosling hook up with Carey Mulligan because he knows they're an attractive couple. His death is the one with the greatest emotional impact.

No! Not Malcolm's dad, Walter Heisenberg!!!!

Essentially the best moral to take away from this movie is: Don't get involved in any mafia shenanigans in any way, even by accident. The mob comes into play almost out of nowhere in this movie, so that the second half really emphasizes the crime drama aspect of the movie. All the elements of Shakespearean tragedy come into play in this movie only when mobsters and money come into focus.

Perhaps one question this movie is trying to explore is: How do you handle evil when you're trying to do good? Ryan Gosling is trying to do what he thinks is right and good, which only leads him to cause more death and destruction as he loses control of his emotions and strength. He wants to return some stolen money, but the bad guys want to kill him in order to cover their tracks. He wants revenge for the death of Bryan Cranston, which only results in more death and destruction. So really, while Ryan Gosling tries to offer some semblance of 'good' in this movie, he really is not any more justifiably good than any of the villainous characters.

Finally, the MPAA rating. This movie earns its R rating mainly for the violence, which again is realistic, and only in certain circumstances is the storytelling and moral philosophy justified in its depiction of the violence. Language also comes into play, with various profanities and racial slurs, which is only really used to show how despicable and streetwise some of these characters are. There is a scene that takes places backstage of a strip club, so there's various shots and angles of women in the background without tops on and very little else. Really, this scene could've occurred without the women in the background (they don't run away when someone's about to get murdered right in front of them) and despite the setting, the nudity to me is not justified. There is good reason for this movie to be rated R, but not everything in that R rating is necessary in order for this movie to exist.

Drive: Overall Rating Score (1.75 out of 5)

Top 15 Movies of the Last Sixish Years

I'll try to keep my ramblings short to get to the list quickly, but I figure an intro is in order.

I got the idea of putting such a list as this together when I rewatched Whiplash a couple months ago and stated "1 of the 10 best movies in the last 5 years to me". Then, during a recent text conversation with a friend, she asked if I ever considered being a movie critic. Well I have, from time to time, and as you might be able to tell from previous blog posts I've written, I'm quite quite fond of watching movies and talking about them.

With that being said though, there seems to be an oversaturation of movie review people online, especially in blog form and on Youtube. Even in the Catholic world, there's multiple people who make their name known for being movie critics.

However, that does not stop me from creating a list of movies to back up my original statement on Whiplash being in the Top 10 movies recently. I got to wondering "What else is on that list?" and "How many people are out there making best movie lists at this time of year?". So, I will do my best to list movies in ranking order of my least favorite to most favorite. I have expanded the idea from 10 to 15 movies, and the past 6 years (i.e. best movies of the 2010s so far) instad of just 5.

This list will also include honorable mentions and list of movies that I have not seen within this time frame but I really really need to. Here and there you'll also notice places where I sprinkled in other reviews and posts I've done on the particular movie in question. My goal with this list, other than making it, is to recommend a bunch of movies to you that you may have otherwise not heard of or have forgotten how awesome they are. This is not exactly a "Best Of" list or a "Most Underrated" list, but rather a list of movies in various genres that I consider to be top quality, top notch filmmaking. Each movie quip will also include a warning on some negative aspects and also my considerations on why I would watch it again. Some of these movies I've only seen once, but I would like to think that the best movies out there are worth repeated viewings, and I will justify why I would watch all of these again and again.

15. Coolest Road Trip Documentary: Big Easy Express (2012)

Three intriguing folk-style bands, one week, and a whole lot of shots of trains and concerts. This documentary is about a traveling concert series featuring the bands Mumford & Sons, Old Crow Medicine Show, and Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeroes. This was back when Mumford first got big, so each bands' discography was smaller then and there's been line up changes in the bands since. However, this was the movie that got me into Old Crow Medicine Show and gave me a deeper appreciate for acoustic music/ folk music. Like I said, a lot of the movie is just the bands playing songs while the images go back and forth between the concerts and the landscape that passes by the train that the bands are traveling on. The bands are all having a good time just jamming out and their joy is shared by me as a viewer. There's some quick interviews of different band members that give you some insight into the history of the bands as well as the philosophy behind some of the music. The movie's greatest problem is that it's barely over an hour long and there's so much more footage that could've been added to this unique experience to make it at least 90 minutes, if not 2 hours.

Watch Out for: The unedited version of Little Lion Man along with a few other moments of minor profanities. I can't think of too much besides.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The short time span along with the constant folk tunes and premier musicianship.

14. Most Underrated Harry Potter Movie: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

So so many people put this movie on the low end of the spectrum of Harry Potter movie rankings while they put Part 2 at the top. However, we need to remember that all we really got in Part 2 was:

 Recap, a bank robbery, a giant battle set up, a giant battle, a flashback montage, and a prologue wrap up.

That's it in a nutshell that pulls super hard on the heart strings, which I think is why people like it so much. Here in Part 1, there's:

An establishment of changes since the sixth movie, gathering of the heroes, everything falling apart, a ministry break-in, a large camping trip, the break up of the heroes, one of the craziest Christmas Eves, heroes reunited, intro to the new magic maguffins, heroes captured, then heroes escape.

All with the same emotional highlights as the following film. I have to admit that when it came time to see this movie for the first time in theatres, I was skeptical. The previous two films had butchered the source material and were not beloved by me. The thought of having to sit through two more instead of just one seemed like a chore. However, I was astounded at the quality dramatic acting presented by the three main leads. This is some of their best acting in any of the movies, especially Rupert Grint. Plus, it was a smart move to separate the final book into two, that way you could tell majority of the same story and stay close to the source material. The camping scenes, some of the longest and worst parts of the book, actually play out rather well here. They're paced correctly and yet everything made for the movie fits while staying as true to the book's purpose of these moments as possible.

Watch Out for: Hhhssss. Scary up close shotssss of ssssnakesssss. Also, some blood/ gore.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Impressive dramatic acting from the main trio and the constant tension that lingers from one scene to the next.

13. Old School New School Spooks: The Conjuring (2013)

I've grown a passion for exorcism movies in recent years, in part because they demonstrate the powerful tools that the Catholic Church possesses in ridding people of demonic possessions. The Conjuring is not exactly an exorcism movie in the same way as The Rite or Deliver Us From Evil. This movie is more of a classic, atmospheric horror film while the other two are modern exorcism dramas. The thing that both other movies have over this one though is that the priests are the actual warriors who combat the demons in intense exorcism rites. Here in The Conjuring, the warriors are a married couple, who collectively are an awesome combination, just not the standard spiritual warriors you expect in horror movies or real life. The characters and story are all based on real historical people and events and I'm not here to get into the amount of real history in the movie. I'm just saying it's just nice to know that not all of this particular horror film is entirely fictionalized. This definitely has the look and feel of an older horror movie, the classic 70s style that essentially defined the horror genre back in the day, but it still is new enough to keep the thrills and chills coming.

Watch Out for: Witches! Demons! LOUD NOISES GOING BUMP IN THE NIGHT! This is a scary movie, for sure, and the make up effects for the evil spirits and the bloody images are all top notch, so it will definitely keep you intimidated.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The authentically haunting atmosphere on top of the moments of grace provided by faith and family.

12. Top Foreign Animated Movie: Song of the Sea (2014)

There is more to animated family movies than Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks. And yes, Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli are usually considered the masters of animated movies made in lands foreign to the U.S. However, there was one animation company that blended the modern with the classic styles, the 3-D with the 2-D, and shared the beauty of local folklore and artistry in a new, different way than Studio Ghibli. That was Tomm Moore and the Irish company Cartoon Saloon (amongst fellow companies in other countries) that made Song of the Sea.

Some people go back and forth on whether this movie or its predecessor, The Secret of Kells, is a better movie, but everyone agrees there is something unique and delightful about the artistry in both. This movie is like a cartoon tour through modern day Ireland, only if that tour included a detour into the fantastic mythological components hidden behind ordinary life. The kid characters are very well done, making you believe these are real siblings. The story touches on tragedy and drama, but offers enough lighthearted moments and grandeur to counterbalance. Plus, this movie will teach you how to properly pronounce the Irish name Saoirse (Sare-sha basically).

Watch Out for: Sometimes the artwork can get creepy, especially with the owl characters.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The illuminating glows and bizarre patterns of the beautiful artwork combined with touching family drama.

11. Top Movie Involving Catholicism: Calvary (2014)

We currently live in a time where movies in the Christian genre are lame and any movies focusing on the Catholic Church are not positive. This is not without reason, but it's tough to share the strength and beauty of the Catholic faith in movie form when the entertainment industry is constantly reminding everybody of the unfortunate crimes committed by some of its members. Calvary is a blend between both. I've seen people label this a dark comedy, but I cannot help but remember it as a gripping drama.

Ireland is a fantastic setting for this movie. The history of the Catholic faith runs deep in its culture, yet that faith has been battered and worn away on the Emerald Isle because of sins committed by some of its religious. Now, while Ireland is normally identified as a Catholic country, its citizens are rebelling against the people and institutions that hurt it, and so the state of the Church and its religious are ones of underdogs fighting against large odds.

Brendan Gleeson's priest is a great representation of the priesthood and the Church in Ireland. He has full knowledge of the world and its evils yet he relies on the virtues and the strength found in the spiritual life. He works to evangelize to people who are only Catholic on the surface as well as people who stay as far from the Church as possible. The cassock is a great look for him and we get to see him endure suffering, struggle & succumb to weakness before finally having his moment of radiant glory.

Watch Out for: A man urinates on a painting...okay, it's not the worst thing in this movie. This movie does not shy away from talking about sin, if not really showing it. There's plenty of open dialogue involving sexuality/ sex abuse. There's profanity and blasphemy. There's drunkenness. It's not a timid shy movie but realistic and honest.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Brendan Gleeson is a one man army, waging spiritual warfare against arrogant snobs. With the priest's gruff attitude and Irish virtues, he is a loving authority to some and a good-willed road block to others. Plus there's beer drinking, cool cassocks, and gorgeous Irish scenery involved.

10. Top Middle Ground Cause It's Coen Bros: Hail, Caesar! (2016)

This movie did not make many Best Of lists from 2016. It was received as kind of a 'meh' movie, where it was kinda funny, but many people felt like overall it was some inside industry joke they were missing. Because the Coen Brothers make bizarre films, many of which would be panned by the critics if they in the hands of lesser creative minds, it's no wonder this movie would slip the minds of so many or be regarded as a barely funny dramedy by those who remember it.

So, what's it doing here? Well, to me, it's a much better movie than the other most recently made Coen Brothers movie, Inside Llewyn Davis, and it's a funnier comedy than their last comedy, Burn After Reading, which I started twice but could never finish because of how bored I was. I love all the little snippets of the various genre movies we see throughout the movie, whether the musical or the western or the drama or the biblical epic. I love Hobie Doyle, one of the best characters in Coen Brothers history, with stupendous dialogue delivered by a lesser known actor who outshown the stars. I love that the stars were much more cameos than main attractions. I love the struggle of the lead character, Eddie Mannix, a Catholic man who seeks Reconciliation often and prays the Rosary in times of crisis. The jokes are so clever and highbrow that, yes, it takes a few tries to catch some of them. Inside Llewyn Davis was an ugly confusing snooze fest that was about an interesting subject. True Grit was barely recognizable as a Coen Brothers Movie even if it was entertaining overall. Hail, Caesar was a bizarre tribute to a period of Hollywood and a beautifully looking modern morality play.

Watch Out for: Confusing, dead-panned jokes and lots of philosophical dialogue about Communism. There's also some profane/ blasphemous language on occasion. Plus there's a mature sexual reference briefly made late in the game.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Were that it were so simple? Hobie Doyle and Eddie Mannix are the most delightful characters to watch and listen to. Then there's all of the little tributes to various film genres that are stupendous, especially through great looking cinematography.

9. It's Scary Cause It's Really Happening: Sicario (2015)

Sicario is one of those movies that I remembered greatly enjoying after watching it, but it has almost fallen from chatter or memory since its release. Which is a shame, because if there's one movie we should be watching concerning the political, financial, militaristic, and moralistic costs of dealing with the drug cartel crisis facing the U.S. and Mexico, it's this one. Cartel Land is actually a documentary about the same subject released the same year, but the focus there is on two particular groups of vigilantes on both sides, their personal interpretation of the events, and there are enough conveniences or movie magic moments that I wonder if some of it was made up or coordinated by the movie making team to seem legitimate.

Anyway, Sicario seems just as if not more realistic than Cartel Land. There are moralistic dilemmas involved in taking on the cartels and there is a line that can be crossed. The tension is built mainly by the cinematography and the music, as we stare at passing images with a dark brooding beat thumping in the background. All of the actors are stellar performers in this. This movie has a less happier ending than The Conjuring, but the journey we go on gets the adrenaline pumping so much more and the uneasiness of it actually makes you want more not less.

Watch Out for: BANG! BANG! Gunshots. Blood splatter. Dead naked bodies hanging from the rafters. This movie is almost careless with how much death and destruction it leaves in its path.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Emily Blunt kicks plenty of butt, while Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin keep you on edge and uneasy. Plus there are a few tense moments you can't believe the characters survive.

8. The Passion is Awesome, Food is Awesomer Comedy: Chef (2014)

If you read other reviews of this movie, you'll essentially hear that it's all a metaphor for Jon Favreau's directorial career and how he wanted to go back to small indie films after major blockbuster success found in the Marvel franchise. What I care more about in this movie is 1) The relationship between the father and the son and 2) The food. This is a fantastic character piece where a self-centered dad builds his relationship with a son who wants to know him more. They depend upon each other for their success and instruct each other, whether it's the father teaching the son life lessons or it's the son showing the father business and marketing strategies. There is so much great food in this movie, you can almost smell it coming off the screen. And it's constantly going from dish to dish, flavor to flavor, depending on where the scene is located. I think it would be an awesome idea for theaters or movie watching groups to prepare dishes from the movie to eat along while watching it. Ultimately this movie is top notch because it has a fun premise and builds lovable characters very well.

Watch Out for: The dad is not always the best role model, whether saying profanities around the boy or making sexual innuendos with his friends.

What Makes It Rewatchable: FOOD! Glorious food! It's a celebration involving feasts!

7. Top American Animated Movie: Inside Out (2015)

Disney is almost going through another Renaissance period with its string of hits. Dreamworks has made itself a brand by successfully franchising audience favorites. Little movie companies have popped up trying to match the quality and success of the powerhouses, and the most triumphant underdog that is meeting that criteria to me would appear to be Laika. Pixar, on the other hand, has been struggling through several disappointing sequels and even Toy Story 3, while good, could not match the spark and might of Pixar movies a decade ago. And yet, one original idea came out as a total shock to the system in a refreshing way: Inside Out.

The trailers never got me excited for the movie and I was stunned by audiences raving about how good it was. After watching it a few times, I concur with everyone else's sentiments. Inside Out is a work of art both in terms of what it looks like and what it establishes for the characters' journeys. Each of the emotions are entertaining, even if Anger gets all the best lines. The creativity of the world inside the brain is witty and charming. I loved that they experimented with a little bit of various art styles while also establishing such solid texture and vibrant colors to the world it created. It's an emotional journey about emotions and we can all relate  in some way to the struggles that the preteen girl goes through

Watch Out for: TEARS! So much sadness and so much joy and the whole range in between is experienced during the course of this movie.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The emotions of the...emotions. As well as stunning computerized visuals and a fun family unit outside the brain.

6. Top Surprise Movie: Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016)

If I was shocked by how well I enjoyed Inside Out (I tend to only almost-like movies as much as the people that rave about them), this one shocked me even more. This is another movie that is not on too many of the Best Of 2016 lists but it should be. I only watched it cause it was recommended on enough lists and it was one of the few 2016 movies on DVD already. At first you think a young city kid obsessed with hip hop and a grumpy old introvert would get annoying real easily, but the script is so well written that they are extremely likable because of these qualities. There's tons of great humor but also some heartfelt drama that develops our characters over the course of the movie. There are plenty of moments where the camera flies over the New Zealand landscape, showing us beautiful places that even Lord of the Rings did not.

I think it surprised me how well I liked this movie because it was one of those quirky movies that it seemed like only movie snobs would appreciate. The indie soundtrack, the nearly cliche characters, and the obscure humor should have made me just barely appreciate it as one of those charming indie movies. I think I was also disenchanted beforehand because I had just recently watched What We Do In the Shadows, a mockumentary that involved the writer and director of Hunt for the Wilderpeople  and that definitely an obscure, movie-snob movie that I only appreciated. The character in Hunt however are all just charming, even the crazy villain, and the leads actually go through a touching story arc development. I had a great smile and laugh throughout the whole thing.

Watch Out for: Gangsta stuff! Sprinklings of profanity and bloody action. An awkward funeral scene and a couple of tear-worthy scenes involving death.

5. Yes, I'm Recommending a Romantic Comedy: About Time (2013)

A few years ago, during my adventure in the Pacific Northwest with Reach Youth Ministry, I by chance watched a time traveling romance called About Time. Its intriguing premise would make you think it's sci-fi where a man is gifted the ability to travel to any time within his memories, yet the human interaction that plays out keeps it a light and emotional drama. The romance between Domnhall Gleeson and Rachel McAdams is charming and this is one of the first times I can remember a movie where a man coming close to giving in to sexual temptation and infidelity and denying those lustful desires in the end. I love the character building that happens in this movie. It's an emotional journey of a movie that is not melodramatic nor is it taking itself too lightly for how absurd of a premise it is.

Watch Out for: A couple of sex scenes, or at least scenes with near nudity and sexual content. Also probably some minor profanities.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The true growth of the relationship between Domnhall Glesson and Rachel McAdams, as well as the stellar relationship he has with the dad played by Bill Nighy.

4. Greatest Movie I Barely Understand: The Big Short (2015)

So, this is a greatly entertaining movie, even if it is about a very serious issue and is more of a drama than a comedy. The creative team knew this was a serious subject however, so they found as many ways to inject creative comedy into the mix. Sometimes they will introduce a random celebrity out of nowhere, Margot Robbie or Anthony Bourdain jump to mind, in order to explain a term or idea in a mundane manner for the common guy to understand. Really, I get dizzy thinking too hard about finances, accounting, and the stock market in reality, so majority of this movie was really beyond my comprehension. What kept me going though was the intriguing characters and the intriguing way they came across one of the terrible crises in America of the past decade.

Some of the star cast members really blend in to their role, making you forget who they are in real life. Then there's Steve Carrell, who seems more like Michael Scott pretending to have anger management issues and wearing a bad toupe and he gets so much screen time. And yet, I like this guy despite the surface level issues and he has some of the best scenes with his posse.

Watch Out for: Footloose use of various R-rated profanities and one scene in a strip club that is terribly uncomfortable to watch, whether you're on your own or if you're watching with your father.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Again, what makes this movie work so well is its delivery, meaning what it's trying to convey, how it's trying to convey it, and how it tries to help the average joe understand it all.

3. Top Superhero Movie: Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Yes, Marvel is making the best superhero movies of this decade, and many people would normally consider Captain America: Winter Soldier to be the superior movie to this one. However, Guardians of the Galaxy is so much more entertaining and uplifting in an odd way than any Captain America movie. This movie is colorful, high tech, and its main characters are technically criminals. The witty dialogue and the retro soundtrack keep the movie from getting too dower and dark in its serious moments. Even the true villains, the 'bad guys', of the movie provide some hearty entertainment. People give Marvel a lot of credit for being the jokers, the light hearted comedians of a superhero genre that is turning gritty and realistic, and Guardians of the Galaxy is the best example of proving those people right. It's fun, it's adventurous, and the soundtrack is just too catchy to ignore.

Watch Out for: Sci-fi action and a shower of innuendos and profanities.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Peter Quill a.k.a. Star Lord. Gamora. Rocket Raccoon. Groot "I Am Groot" Groot. And Drax the Destroyer.

2. Top Drama Between a Dynamic Duo: Whiplash (2014)

Like I said, I recently watched this movie for a second time. It's even more tense and awkward than the first time since you already know all of the hardship that's going to happen. Yet, it's still engaging and thrilling. J.K. Simmons deserved the Oscar for his intimidating performance (I like to think I emulate him a bit on stage from time to time), but Miles Teller also deserved tons of credit for how driven and psychotic his own performance was. This movie shows that there is a danger in pursuing eternal fame and that there is a cost to being the greatest there ever was, especially what it costs to your relationships. So much gets packed into like 80 minutes, 1/4 of which is just playing sweet sweet jazz music.

Watch Out for: LOUD ABUSIVE PROFANITY! TONS OF IT! Also, if you get queesy seeing blood, better cover your eyes here and there.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Oddly enough, the loud shouting and madness provided by J.K. Simmons leaves you wanting more. The jazz music keeps you hyped while Miles Teller's character just keeps asking for punishment.

1. Most Quirky Presentation Childhood Nostalgia: Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Seriously, this movie gave me a deep sense of nostalgia and longing for my youth, imagining the feeling of carefree summer time adventures I never even had but I knew the joy of. The music adds so much to the charm and splendor of this world, almost making it a fantasy rather than a realistic setting. The cinematography is what stands out in this film the most. From the way the shots are symmetrically framed as they package lots of minute detail to the fun way the camera zooms in and out of character's faces. It is signature Wes Anderson cinematography. Some people may consider Grand Budapest Hotel to be the better Anderson film of this decade, but they'd be WRONG! and the key to their wrongness is the children. The fact this movie has kids for main characters is what makes this movie so nostalgic and charming because they are wide-eyed, curious, naive, overdramatic, and they are the main reason why we get to explore so much beautiful landscapes and go through a fun innocent romance.

Watch Out for: The only really negative thing in this movie is whenever the kids are running around in their underwear. There's an especially awkward scene, about halfway through,on a beach where the leads really break each other's bubble which ruins an awesome song and dance moment for me and I generally skip it anytime I watch this movie.

What Makes It Rewatchable: It's a charming movie with beautiful cinematography. The characters are all quirky in some way, which provides some good humor and lightheartedness in otherwise grim situations.

Honorable Mentions:

-Of Gods and Men (2010)

Perhaps a more straight up Catholic movie than Calvary, or at least a more positive look at the faith. There are many quiet moments in this movie, some of which just include monks praying or celebrating Mass. It almost has a documentary quality because of the slice-of-life approach to the drama, as well as being based on real events. This movie also shows what peaceful communities can look like between people of Islamic and Christian faiths. The monks help and serve their Muslim neighbors because that is the community they live in and those are the specific people who are in need of their assistance. This is a gentle biopic about men you would have otherwise not really have heard of.

-Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

I really don't see this as some big philosophical study of feminism or environmentalism or social constructs or any of that other thematic nonsense that other people see in it. I just see this movie as one of the most thrilling, adrenaline-pumping, buckle up, white knuckled thrill rides to have graced our screens. It's so much cooler than any of that fake crap you see in Fast & Furious and any of their knock offs. Now, perhaps because the story is kind of simplistic and the imagery gets too bizarre sometimes, that's why I wouldn't include this in my Top 15 overall. However, the ride is just too good to ignore.

-Beware of Mr. Baker (2012)

I think I may like this movie so much more because of the experience I had seeing it than because of the movie itself. I was by myself on a Friday night and decided to check out the local indie theater in my college town. I got a beer, popcorn, and M&Ms and sat down on old, classic style theater seats in this small black box space that could only fit 30 people max . This was no luxury seated, padded wall, high tech home theater system. It just had the basic essentials and that was it. It was awesome!

The movie still sticks out in my mind after all these years of only seeing it 1.5 times (I tried rewatching it on Youtube within the past year or so). Ginger Baker, the man best known as the drummer for 60s band Cream, is not a likable man. He is selfish, arrogant, foul mouthed, bitterly disgruntled, and tiring to endure. And yet, his life has been full of hardships that he is a tragic figure to watch. Plus, all of these other well known drummers and musicians give his skills as a drummer high praise, so it can't all just be arrogant boasting from Mr. Baker. I think this movie also gave me an appreciation for jazz and in particular jazz drums, especially because of how it influenced rock music, showing me a side of jazz music I had not known before and I would not know again until Whiplash.

-The Kid with a Bike (2011)

I borrowed this movie from the library after Mr. Decent Films a.k.a. Steven D. Greydanus recommended watching movies by the Dardennes Brothers when Two Days, One Night was listed as one of 2015's best movies. It's entirely in French because it takes place in Belgium. It seems like a simple premise, boy gets abandoned by his dad and a woman takes pity on the boy. Yet, the boy is such an intriguing character, such a disobedient selfish jerk while at the same time so needy and vulnerable. It's a sad tragic look at the life of someone who needs basic emotional and mental necessities to be met.

Need to See List:

Tree of Life (2011) & Knight of Cups (2015)

Terrence Mallick has peaked my interest as a director worth checking out, especially since Tree of Life has gotten so much acclaim and buzz ever since it came out. Knight of Cups was also one of those movies that was on a few Best Of lists last year, but just wasn't noticed by too many people.

Two Days, One Night (2015)

Again, it was one of the best movies last year and came recommended by a movie critic whose opinion I greatly respect. Plus, I feel extra cultured every time I watch a foreign film.

Drive (2011)

This movie was on every single list I saw online when researching lists of Best Movies of This Decade So Far. It sounds like the simple premise matches well with some great acting and wonderful cinematography.

Her (2013)

Another movie that was on every other list essentially. I think the quirkiness and the relationship the character has with technology are what appeal to me.

The Babadook (2014)

A movie that is simulatenously a scary horror flick AND a family drama? Sold!

Lenten Renewal

Man, did I get really tired really fast of seeing and hearing the phrase "give up" these past couple weeks. Of course, I refer to "give up" in the context of "What are you giving up for Lent? I gave up blah blah blah for Lent". Most of us in America, at least those of us that understand what ashes on someone's forehead on Wednesday means, know that when it comes to Lent, people get really caught up in 'giving something up' for Lent, meaning that for a 40+ day period they will attempt to stay away from something or another, whether it's a particular food, social media, or a "bad habit" that in all likeliness will return as part of their regular routine during the first week of the Easter season.

No, I'm not degrading the sacrifice and people's intentions to "give up" something for Lent. I'm just slightly burnt out after hearing something asked more regularly than the question "What high school did you go to?" gets asked in the St. Louis area. Because the phrase "give up" is so surface level to the purpose of Lent, so so easy, and yet so many people still make it sound like a chore, like a kid who is being forced to mow the lawn against his will. Well, kid, mowing the lawn isn't all that bad and it is so much easier than other acts you have to do to maintain a house, just like "giving something up" is easier than other acts we can and need to do during Lent to maintain our spiritual lives.

All right, so I've already used GU so many times that I'm sick of it again and I'm sure you're sick of it too, so I'll just use the initials here on out. Anywho, when people say GU in reference to Lent, I think what they really mean is "Sacrifice" and perhaps what mean is "Fasting". At least, based on my experiences that's the case.

As I started to take Lent more seriously after my reversion to Catholicism during college, I tried to take on multiple huge tasks of things. I began to divide my penitential acts between two categories, sacrifices and commitments. I would sacrifice or GU two or three things and I would also try to commit myself to a particular action or duty throughout the Lenten season. I've come to the realization that what I was trying to do, and what I am currently trying to do, is summed up in three categories, not two. Those categories are Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving.

There's many good reasons why each Ash Wednesday, the Catholic Church uses Matthew 6: 1-6, 16-18 as the Gospel reading at Mass. One of the big reasons is because it highlights the three components of penance that we need to be doing each Lent. This Gospel passage tells us how important it is to pray, to fast, and to give alms as acts of penance. These acts are not necessarily always individual, either, but can be interwoven, combined for one centralized purpose. Moreover, the Gospel tells us that we should do these acts not for personal gain, not for self-gratification or to improve ourselves in a narcissistic sense, but to do these things because there are people who need our help AND there are things that we let get in the way of God's will in our lives.

Can I also take a break for a moment and say that the Church's requirements for Fasting and Abstinence on Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent are really not all that bad. Really, they should be even more challenging. Steven D. Greydanus, a man I frequently reference in my posts, a film critic as well as a Catholic Deacon, has pointed out from time to time how the fast requirements in the Orthodox, Jewish, and Eastern Rite Catholic faiths are much much more strict than our Westernized American version and how weak our version is.

Really when you think about it, how hard is it? For two days of the year, we restrict ourselves to 1 whole meal but we're still allowed a couple of snacks and all the water we want. That's the only fasting requirement of Lent. For Friday food abstinence, we just cannot eat meat, which in reality is just any warm blooded, flesh creature, but we can still have 3 normal sized meals and substitute fish for meat. Is that really that challenging? Our ancestors, who lived in greater poverty than we did, had greater restrictions on when they could eat meat, dairy products, fish, and had much more limited diets during Lent, and somehow they and the faith survived into our present times!

The reason I bring this up is because when we complain about the requirements and just talk about them on the surface level, it does three things. It diminishes the acts themselves, it confuses and turns off people who are not Catholic or believers of any kind, and it undermines the true poverty that starving people face every day around the world. When we focus on "how hard" it is to GU something or to restrict our diets on particular days, we lose focus on the purpose of those acts and it takes away any meaning or wisdom gained when we do those acts.

If people outside of the Catholic faith, especially those with heavy doubts about God, just see a bunch of miserable whiners complaining about simplistic restrictions, are they going to pursue interest in God or Catholicism or are they going to think to themselves "Well why would anyone want to be like these people if this is the case?". And finally, there are so so many people in this country and in countries worldwide that struggle just to have one solid meal each day, much less gathering food scraps and drinking good water. Just because they do not have people around them stuffing their faces on fasting days nor are surrounded by steaming plates of gluttony does not mean that they do not suffer and struggle any less than we do. In fact, it would be prudent of us to act charitably DURING LENT for those poor starving people by giving alms to them or saying prayers in our hunger for those who are truly hungry.

So, my whole point here is that we need to refocus on the true purpose of Lent. It's not just to GU one silly thing for a short period of time. It's not just to gripe and moan about food restrictions for a few days of the year (though really all Fridays should be meatless for Catholics, but we're not back to that strength of faith yet). Lent is about repenting of our sins. How do we repent? What's the best way to repent? By practicing prayer, fasting and almsgiving. All three, hopefully combined, but if not at least doing something involving all three during the Lenten season. We need to challenge ourselves. We all know that challenge is the best way we grow and strengthen our resolve. If we want a stronger faith and a stronger community, let's challenge ourselves through these three penitential acts and not complain along the way.

For further reading on my opinions about Lent and penitential practices, here's a post I wrote a couple years ago in defense of food and social media fasts.

Oscars 2017 Talk

As you might be able to tell by reading my previous blog posts, I love movies. I privately include watching movies and talking about movies as some of my chief hobbies (which makes me great for trivia nights). However, I have not seen a lot of movies that came to theaters in 2016. Everyone is making their best movies of the year lists, the Oscar nominations have been called, and here I am making my must-see movies list for the year so that during 2017 I can watch the DVD versions of some of 2016's best movies.

So, just to have some fun (and to give me something to write about), I decided to examine some of the nominations for the Academy Awards in 2017. Under each category, I will list the actual nominees, examine some snubs and any nominees that perhaps should not be included on the list, predict who the Academy will give the award to and then name who the actual winner should be. Some of these will be an attempt at humor, some will be more serious, and all will be completely ludicrous because, like I said, I have not seen many of the movies involved in the nominations. So, instead I'll be stealing thoughts and ideas from other people who have seen them...I mean, I will be utilizing the wise words of movie critics and word of mouth from other best movies lists to provide me with context.

Best documentary feature:
“13th,” Ava DuVernay, Spencer Averick and Howard Barish
“Fire at Sea,” Gianfranco Rosi and Donatella Palermo
“I Am Not Your Negro,” Raoul Peck, Remi Grellety and Hebert Peck
“Life, Animated,” Roger Ross Williams and Julie Goldman

“O.J.: Made in America,” Ezra Edelman and Caroline Waterlow

Snubs/ Overestimations: This is probably the hardest category to make this call for, because documentaries are more subjective than other genres. Plus, who really watches documentaries except for film snobs and students? With that being said, I've seen majority of these movies on best of 2016 lists, with the biggest support for the 7.5 hour O.J. Simpson special on ESPN as well as that one about an autistic boy who uses Disney animated movies to help communicate. If there were any snubs, I'd primarily put "Weiner" at the top of the list, because apparently everyone loves the combination of sex scandals and politics. The other doc. I'd nominate is "Almost Holy", which is about a pastor in Ukraine using his faith to rescue his people from drugs, abuse, and crime by any force necessary (i.e. literally kicking ass). Wouldn't you rather see a real-life Daredevil movie nominated than whatever "Fire at Sea" was about?

What WILL Win?: Most likely "O.J.". There's too many exciting elements for the Academy to ignore, from scandal, to sports entertainment, to tragedy, to racism issues and other factors, on top of the fact that our culture can't seem to get over the man after talking about him for 20 years.

What SHOULD Win: "Fire at Sea". While I joked above, "Fire at Sea" is about probably one of the greatest globally human conflicts currently going on, that being the crisis of refugees and immigrants fleeing the Middle East mainly into Europe.

Cinematography:
“Arrival,” Bradford Young
“La La Land,” Linus Sandgren
“Lion,” Greig Fraser
“Moonlight,” James Laxton
“Silence,” Rodrigo Prieto

Snubs/ Overestimations: I think the snubs are probably easier to pick out in a category like this than others. Mainly because each movie demands a different look/ aesthetic, so the grades given for cinematography are much more subjective, making it harder to eliminate a movie from this list. With that being said, "Doctor Strange" was obviously snubbed. Yeah, it's nominated for visual effects, but the movie's best quality is its overall look, having to make reality look real, having to make magic look uniquely real, and then blending both together into a credible story and look based upon yet separate from all of the Marvel movies before it. "Doctor Strange" is a visual feast! "Birth of a Nation" is the other snub. Mainly because, in a movie about historically racist issues between people with black and white skin tones, the movie is filtered with black and white imagery. Not totally colorless, but tonally like a computerized system gave the tone of colors contrasting shades to make the black and white stand out more.

Who WILL Win: "La La Land"! These colors pop out a lot, but they are not neon or overblown. The movie is set in reality like "Silence" or "Lion", but with a sense of magical realism that brings things to life in a much more vibrant, urgent, and fun way.

What SHOULD Win: "Doctor Strange". If there's one movie this whole year whose hype and positive reviews solely depended upon its high quality cinematography alone, it's this Marvel movie right here.

Animated feature:
“Kubo and the Two Strings,” Travis Knight and Arianne Sutner
“Moana,” John Musker, Ron Clements and Osnat Shurer
“My Life as a Zucchini,” Claude Barras and Max Karli
“The Red Turtle,” Michael Dudok de Wit and Toshio Suzuki
“Zootopia,” Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Clark Spencer

Snubs/ Overestimations: The sad thing is, even with the incredibly large amount of animated movies that came out this year, this might be the best possible list of nominees. Disney made some very popular films involving the trendy themes surrounding diversity. Pixar screwed up a sequel. Dreamworks made some lazy generic animal features. Laika, already the best secondary animation company after those giants listed above, made one of their best movies ever. Any movie with Studio Ghibli attached to it automatically gets favored buzz, and "The Red Turtle" actually looks different and interesting. I'm not sure about the Zucchini choice, but it sounds more like a horror film to me. While I can respect claymation as much as the next man, this movie's particular style is uglier than any of Aardman's designs. The only movie that could have possibly been put on this list and would've made sense was "April and the Extraordinary World", an intriguing steam punk piece from the same people who already have Oscar connections due to Persepolis. Replace Zucchini with April, I say. It matches the Oscar profile better.

What WILL Win: My prediction is "Zootopia". It looked better and was more well received overall than Disney's other piece "Moana", and it is very thematically trendy, connecting to our current sociopolitical climate. The Oscars seem to like movies about sociopolitical trends for some reason.

What SHOULD Win: "Kubo and the Two Strings". The only movie on this list I've actually seen is Kubo but that's not why I'm saying it should win. It should win because the artistic style was vastly different than the other animated movies, and even superior to previous Laika animations. It's much more gorgeous than the Zucchini choice, its closest comparison arts-wise. It had an intriguing story, some plot twists and turns, and fun likable characters in an environment that was familiar yet refreshingly new.

Best director:

“La La Land,” Damien Chazelle
“Hacksaw Ridge,” Mel Gibson
“Moonlight,” Barry Jenkins
“Manchester by the Sea,” Kenneth Lonergan
“Arrival,” Denis Villeneuve

Snubs/Overestimations: This is also the kind of category where the snubs are much more noticeable than any overestimations. Majority of these directors have a handful or less of big budget, Hollywood movies to their credits, but at the same time their movies turned out to be some of the best this year. Only Denis Villeneuve and Mel Gibson have the street cred experience to match some of the best/ well known directors working today, and both deserve to be on this list. The snubs that are most obvious include Martin Scorsese for Silence", in part or mainly because it's a project he's been developing for nearly three decades and he still crafted a captivating drama. The other snub is Denzel Washington for "Fences", since he had to juggle multiple responsibilities and also does not have as much experience in this particular director's chair like Scorcese or Gibson.

Who WILL Win:The controversial pick would be Mel Gibson, but I don't think "Hacksaw Ridge" has enough steam to get him to the finish line. Damien Chazelle is a likely candidate since he has clout from "Whiplash" and this is one of the most appealing movies for the Academy to award, not to mention the fact that this is his second major motion picture that he wrote AND directed. My money, however, would be on Barry Jenkins for directing a dramatic piece about a mature subject and doing it with plenty of creative and artistry, all the while leading a company of minority cast and crew to much success.

Who SHOULD Win: Martin Scorsese. The dude had to work decades to make this movie and he created a heartwrenching thinkpiece that only adds another feather in his cap of noteworthy dramatic movies. And he probably deserves to win for this even more than he did "The Departed". 

Supporting actress:
Viola Davis, “Fences”
Naomie Harris, “Moonlight”
Nicole Kidman, “Lion”
Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures”
Michelle Williams, “Manchester by the Sea”

Snubs/Overestimations: None apparently. This is THE EXACT SAME LIST of nominees as the Golden Globes AND The Screen Actors Guild Awards. Is Hollywood just rigging the system on this one?

Who WILL Win: Often times in this category, it's usually the lady with the most buzz that gets the award. Right now, Viola Davis has the most buzz, so Viola Davis will win.

Who SHOULD Win: Viola Davis. All of the actresses in all the other movies were overshadowed by the other actors in those movies. Viola Davis, meanwhile, kept up right alongside with Denzel Washington and brought a strong A-Game to the screen. Plus, she was the one awarded the Golden Globe and the Screen Actors Guild Award

Supporting actor:
Mahershala Ali, “Moonlight”
Jeff Bridges, “Hell or High Water”
Lucas Hedges, “Manchester by the Sea”
Dev Patel, “Lion”
Michael Shannon, “Nocturnal Animals”

Snubs/ Overestimations: Across the board, I think the Academy overestimated "Lion". Yes, it's on other people's best of lists, but not nearly as much as other movies, and the story sounds dry to the bone, though I'm sure Dev Patel is one of the best things about the movie. The other overestimation I think is Lucas Hedges, and yes I am saying that just because he is a kid. I think with a great director, stupendous actors, and a great script, you can surround any teen or kid in a movie with enough quality and skill to train them enough to do well. Compare Jacob Tremblay between "The Smurfs 2" and "Room". One major snub in my opinion was Sam Neill in Hunt for the Wilderpeople. The man had to fake a New Zealand accent for goodness sake! That and he had to pretend to be a disgruntled old bushwhacker with a story arc of becoming a caring father figure, and he had to do that in an authentically funny way. The other snub for me, coming out of nowhere, is Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle in "Hail, Caesar!". In an almost forgettable movie filled with Hollywood A-listers, Ehrenreich's character was the best part of the movie. His line delivery was hilarious, his accent got your attention, and he was bringing us all along on a good time.

Who WILL Win: In all likelihood, it's going to be Mahershala Ali for his role in Moonlight. I don't have any funny quips or random remarks about this choice.

Who SHOULD Win: Jeff Bridges. He was despicably hilarious in "Hell or High Water". His snarky, snappy dialogue with his deputy were some of the movie's highlights for me. Yet, his character did change through an arc, and Jeff Bridges showed he had range between funny and dramatic, between deadly serious and playfully arrogant. He made it look so easy too.

Lead actor:
Casey Affleck, “Manchester by the Sea”
Andrew Garfield, “Hacksaw Ridge”
Ryan Gosling, “La La Land,”
Viggo Mortensen, “Captain Fantastic”
Denzel Washington, “Fences”

Snubs/ Overestimations: The biggest overestimation in this category is Viggo Mortensen. However much I like the man for playing Aragorn and leading other fantastic movies, this is not the first time we've seen him play a grizzled outcast authority figure (see "The Road" for previous evidence). Viggo does plenty of good work, but this role didn't seem like too much of a stretch. I'm surprised Adam Driver is left out, in part because of the range that he has shown not just in previous years, but also in this one year between playing a Portuguese Jesuit, a U.S. government psycho operative,  and a New Jersey bus driver. His role in "Paterson" has driven this movie to the top of a lot of best of 2016 lists. The other snub I think is "Swiss Army Man" for both Paul Dano & Daniel Radcliffe. Say what you will about how weird the movie is, but Daniel Radcliffe had to play a talking, farting corpse with so many strange powers and a reversal of limitations while Paul Dano had to give a dramatic and funny performance playing off of Radcliffe's character.

Who WILL Win: This one is a little trickier, because there's lots of buzz and recognition for more than just one of these guys. Will it be Ryan Gosling, whose movie leads the number of nominations and has tons of favoritism going for him? Will it be Denzel Washington, the well established actor who improved upon his own stage performance as well as balanced multiple responsibilities for the project? I think, despite recent scandal and controversy, Casey Affleck has the best chance of winning the award. He has the most buzz (at the moment), he also has a well established career, and it's often the most emotionally dramatic roles that take the acting award. So, if the controversy doesn't overshadow him, Affleck wins. (Note: Should the controversy overtake Affleck, pretend I predicted that Denzel will win).

Who SHOULD Win: Andrew Garfield. Another actor who showed plenty of dramatic acting capabilities. Plus he delivered two great performances based on strong religious convictions. Garfield for be awarded for his performance in "Hacksaw Ridge" based on his great representation of a real life man, his ability to struggle against and overcome such strong obstacles while maintaining his faith,and for the emotional depth he showed.

Lead actress:
Isabelle Huppert, “Elle”
Ruth Negga, “Loving”
Natalie Portman, “Jackie”
Emma Stone, “La La Land”
Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins”

Snubs and Overestimations: It's hard to say if any of these ladies were overestimated in this category because most of these performances come from movies otherwise ignored by the Academy so no one has really seen or heard of these movies outside of watching these leading ladies carry the weight of the movie (with the exception of "La La Land" of course). The biggest snub in this category, as everyone else has pointed out, is Amy Adams for "Arrival". Another performer who showed range in multiple roles this year, Amy Adams is one of the most talked about components of one of the most talked about movies of the year. Without her, "Arrival" would probably not succeed as much as it has.

Who WILL Win: Meryl Streep. She's essentially a shoe-in because of her clout and status. Though I do not fully understand the industry's fascination with Meryl Streep. Majority of the movies I know of that have her in starring roles are problematic for one of two reasons, either A) The movie itself is not good or B) Meryl Streep herself is not outstanding in her role. The only time I can think off the top of my head where both were the case is "The Deer Hunter", and that was 38 YEARS AGO!

Who SHOULD Win: Amy Adams. See snub reasons above.

Best picture:
“Arrival”
“Fences”
“Hacksaw Ridge”
“Hell or High Water”
“Hidden Figures”
“La La Land”
“Lion”
“Manchester by the Sea”
“Moonlight”

Snubs/ Overestimations: Oh boy, where to begin on this one? Let's start with overestimations. Again, the Academy seems to think more highly of "Lion" than other groups or lists. "Hidden Figures" is the only movie on this list that is surprisingly lacking in other categories. Some people think that there were snubs for HF in other categories, but I think the theme is what overall propelled the movie to this list while it lacked in the other departments (compared to the other movies it is competing against). Plus I think "Crash" proved that an important theme does not equal a movie good enough to truly deserve the Oscar.

Now, the snubs. The most obvious one is "Silence" which should've gotten more nominations in more categories. It's got all of the drama, themes, history, and edginess that the Academy usually loves. "Birth of a Nation" is the next obvious snub, because again it has the drama and the themes that are usually award worthy, but perhaps the scandal of the people involved is what kept it off the list (though if scandal is enough to get you booted, why would Affleck still be nominated? I don't know...). Shockingly, "Hail Caesar!", a movie all about the entertainment industry and the golden age of cinema, which Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back for, did not get nominated. Finally, if the Academy were to expand their horizons a little bit past the drama genre, they'd see how well received and how entertaining "The Witch" and "Captain America: Civil War" were and nominate them for Best Picture.

Who WILL Win: "La La Land". Closely followed by "Moonlight". It's no secret that the Academy loves movies about the entertainment industry (see "Birdman" and "The Artist"), which isn't to say that these kinds of movies are not worthy of their nominations. On the contrary, these are usually quite high quality in terms of artistry and entertainment. I'm just saying, based on previous history and jokes on the internet, that Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back with awards. "La La Land" is kind of a pat on the back, but it's also thematically uplifting and genuinely inspiring, a pleasant blend of old school and modern entertainment. "Moonlight" may be the most dramatic and most mature and have the most buzz outside of "La La Land".

Who SHOULD Win: "Arrival". For something that should've a melodramatic sci-fi snoozefest, "Arrival" actually managed to keep people's attention. I've heard talks not just about how wonderful Amy Adams is, but also about the positive reinforcement of the value of life. The director went from totally dark and depressing real life dramas ("Prisoners" and "Sicario") into the realm of realistic sci-fi that is not all too dark and depressing. Plus, it's a thinking man's sci-fi, and the science and themes on top of the rest should be more than enough to garner an award.

Random Ending: If I were the Academy and actually only had 5 movies to put in the Best Movie category, I would put "Arrival", "La La Land", "Moonlight", "Manchester by the Sea", and "Silence".