Best Pictures #12: 2015 (88th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee, The Big Short (2015)

by A.J.

2015 (88^th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

The Big Short (2015)

The Big Short is a sharp comedy that assembles a strong cast to tackle an important, but complicated true story. It stars Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, and Brad Pitt, but the actors share little screen time with each other. In fact, Bale’s storyline does not cross paths with any of the others. Bale plays Dr. Mark Burry, an eccentric fund manager whose bosses don’t take seriously because he wears shorts, goes barefoot in his office, and gets his hair trimmed at Supercuts. In spite of his appearance, Burry is smart enough to figure out, in 2005, that the housing market is headed for disaster…and that there is a way to profit from the impending collapse. Ryan Gosling, as Deutsche Bank bond salesman Jared Vennett, most closely resembles the stereotype of a slick Wall Street executive, but is still seen as an outsider by his co-workers; he is also our narrator. He partners up with Mark Baum, played by Steve Carell, another hedge fund manager and Wall Street outsider who is trying to maintain independence while working within the system and dealing with his loathing for the Wall Street way. He and his team (Hamish Linklater, Rafe Spall, and Jeremy Strong) also notice the housing bubble about to burst and see a way to make a profit. John Magaro and Finn Wittrock play two young investors from Colorado who are eager to make it big—and move their hedge fund out of their garage—so they seek out the help of a retired banker, contentedly approaching hermit-hood, played by Brad Pitt. There are good performances from the ensemble all around, but only Bale snagged an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. I didn’t think that there was a clear stand out of cast, but I was impressed at how close all the actors came to going over the top without actually go over.

The Big Short has to explain a lot of dense, complicated exposition about credit default swaps, synthetic CDO’s, bonds, and other things that people take college classes to understand and finds some interesting ways to do that, some more effective than others. Gosling’s character tells the audience that explaining financial stuff can be boring and complicated, so in order to keep our interest we are shown scenes of celebrities explaining clearly and simply rather dense concepts. All of those expository segments are quick and fun and liven up the movie, in addition to actually explaining bonds and synthetic CDO’s. The first of these scenes, Margot Robbie in a bubble bath drinking champagne, is the least effective because unlike the segments with Anthony Bourdain making fish soup and Selena Gomez playing blackjack, Robbie’s actions and setting don’t help to illustrate the thing she is explaining. Several characters break the fourth wall and address the audience directly, sometimes explaining that a scene didn’t exactly happen the same way in real life; more often they tell us that a ridiculous, unbelievable thing really did happen.

Carell’s character is one most likely to strike a chord with audiences because his loathing for Wall Street turns to outrage when he uncovers the stupidity, corruption, and fraud rampant among the big banks and the complete lack of concern for how these actions will affect the country and the world. Carrell is also not afraid to say as much to the people he meets, no matter their standing, or even interrupt a speech at a conference with an annoying, but completely reasonable and legitimate point. He really did that, Gosling assures us. We can like these characters, despite that their goal is to profit from the collapse of the U.S. economy, because each one has a scene where they try explaining what they’ve discovered and are ignored by the people who should be most concerned. We can’t help but root for these guys because that is what we are used to doing when characters in a movie are smart or insightful, but are ignored by the stuffy, arrogant old guard. Pitt’s jaded ex-banker makes a point to damper the excitement of his young protégés by telling them that they “just bet against the American economy;” if they’re right, they will profit greatly, but many people will lose their jobs and homes as well.

Director Adam McKay has received an Oscar nomination for his direction of The Big Short and commentators cannot help but point out that this the same director who made the broad comedies Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and The Other Guys. The Big Short is different in tone than his previous films, but it is ultimately still a comedy despite its serious and true subject matter. There are some stylistic choices in this film that didn’t quite work for me. There are montages of images from pop culture—a rap video, people buying iPhones, etc. that are meant to show what American culture was obsessed with while the economy was beginning to crack and crumble, but felt more like a failed passage-of-time montage. I understood the purpose, but I didn’t feel the intended effect. In a film where actors will look right at the audience and explain what everything means, these montages are the one thing which are not given a clear definition or purpose. Another thing that bothered me must be mentioned, minor though it is: the multitude of bad wigs. It seems like each actor was made to pick out a wig and apply it themselves. Pitt’s beard, real or not, looks like a wig on his face.

What The Big Short does well is deliver facts about an incredibly important and unfortunate chapter of American history in a high energy, entertaining movie; but it never gives us more fun than frustration over the absurdities which hold up the American economy. The Big Short at times feels like an episode of Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm, in which a fairly average person is confronted by an absurd, bizarre character or situation and can’t understand how this could be happening. Adding to the absurdity and frustration is that we already know the results; so when, as the perfect sour cherry on top, Gosling tells us that nobody learned anything and nothing changed, it comes as no surprise. The same material in The Big Short is covered in the documentary Inside Job (2010), which is a sharp, rage-inducing look at the financial collapse which also explains clearly and simply what happened and why. Inside Job won the Academy Award for Best Documentary and should be sought out by anyone who hasn’t seen it yet; however, if I ever want a refresher on the hows and whys of the 2008 financial collapse, I will revisit The Big Short. A little levity–and seeing characters share my repulsed reaction to the behavior of the banks– goes a long way to help digest such a stomach churning material. 

Nominees: Brad Pitt, Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, Producers

Director: Adam McKay

Screenplay: Adam McKay and Charles Randolph, based on the book by Michael Lewis

Cast: Christian Bale, Steve Carrell, Ryan Gosling

Production Companies: Plan B Entertainment, Regency Entertainment

Distributor: Paramount Pictures

Release Date: December 11^th, 2015

Total Nominations: 5, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Director-Adam McKay, Supporting Actor-Christian Bale, Adapted Screenplay-Charles Randolph, Editing-Hank Corwin

Best Pictures #11: 2015 (88th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee, Brooklyn (2015)

by A.J.

2015 (88^th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Brooklyn (2015)

Brooklyn is not just set in New York and Ireland of the early 1950s, it is set in versions of those places that only exist in nostalgic memories or what your imagination conjures up when looking at an old photograph. The landscape of Ireland and the cityscape of Brooklyn are rich in bold colors and pretty clothes (which get brighter in America), but there is much more to Brooklyn than appearances.

Saoirse Ronan plays Eilis (pronounced like “A-lish”), a young woman who moves to America, specifically to Brooklyn, from a small village in Ireland. The move is set into motion by Eilis’s older sister, Rose, because the opportunities for a young person, especially a woman, in their village are rather narrow. Rose wants Eilis to have experiences that she never had; a step that their small-minded mother would never have taken. On the ocean voyage to New York Eilis gets seasick and in Brooklyn she gets homesick, but slowly she finds comfort in her new life. She lives in a boarding house run by a stern, but funny landlady (Julie Walters) who believes that giddiness is the eighth deadly sin. A friendly priest (Jim Broadbent) helps her find a job at a department store and enroll in night classes for bookkeeping. Easing her homesickness most of all is Tony (Emory Cohen), a sweet Italian-American plumber who attends the Irish dance at the parish hall because he really likes Irish girls.

There is not a drop of cynicism in Brooklyn. It has no villain and takes no dark turns. The conflict in Brooklyn comes when Eilis and Tony’s romance is interrupted because she must return to Ireland after a death in the family. Once back in the familiar surroundings of her homeland, her dreary town seems warmer. She sees a quiet Irish beach like she never had before. She’s offered a job as a bookkeeper, and, more significantly, finds a kind, handsome suitor in Jim, played by Domhnall Gleeson.

Eilis’s defining moment comes when she is presented with something far more important than the choice between two different men. She has to choose between two different lives and where she feels home is for her. There is no correct, obvious decision here as there often is when a movie gives a woman a choice between two different men or places to live. Both Jim and Tony are good, decent men that would be good, decent husbands. In Jim there is everything positive about a familiar life in Ireland. In Tony there is a new, different, and warm life in Brooklyn. Eilis’s arc is believable because it is understated. There is no grand scene of an epiphany. The inner workings of her mind and heart are shown rather than stated in Saoirse Ronan’s wonderful performance. Ronan’s performance is not showy, but she makes us feel more by doing less. We aren’t aware of how much she’s grown and matured until suddenly, but quietly we notice the change.

Brooklyn is an immigrant’s story, a love story, and most of all, a young woman’s coming of age story. The phrase “this is a movie you can see with your parents or grandparents” was thrown around a lot when it was first released, and it is true. Brooklyn is as inoffensive as it is romantic, but I hope being a well-made romance and coming of age story won’t keep anyone away from watching this movie. You won’t find many dark corners in this movie. It is a light drama, but drama doesn’t have to be heavy and dark for it to affect and move a viewer. Brooklyn is a wonderful, sweet, romantic movie in which everything is done well -- from the screenplay by Nick Hornby and direction by John Crowley, to the performances, production and costume design – and the result is far from saccharine.

Nominees: Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey, Producers

Director: John Crowley

Screenplay: Nick Hornby, based on the novel by Colm Tòibìn

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Emory Cohen, Domhnall Gleeson

Production Companies: BFI, BBC Films, Wildgaze Films

Distributor: Fox Searchlight Pictures, TSG Entertainment

Release Date: November 6, 2015

Total Nominations: 3, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Actress-Saoirse Ronan, Adapted Screenplay-Nick Hornby

Best Pictures #10: 2015 (88th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee, The Revenant

by A.J.

2015 (88^th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

The Revenant

The Revenant contains, paradoxically, some of the most beautiful and most unpleasant images in any film of 2015. The film was shot by renowned cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki whose nomination for The Revenant is his eighth nomination for Best Cinematography. He won the award last year for director Alejandro G. Iñàrritu’s Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) and the year before that for Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity. It is entirely possible, and likely, that he will win his third consecutive Oscar for shooting The Revenant. As much as Leonardo DiCaprio, Lubezki’s imagery is the star of The Revenant.

The Revenant is based on a novel by Michael Punke, which is a fictionalized version of the true story of 19^th century frontiersman Hugh Glass. Glass, portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio, and his Pawnee son, Hawk, are serving as the guides for a fur trapping expedition collecting pelts out in the harsh wilderness. Glass is mauled by a bear and survives, but his wounds are so severe the company cannot transport him back to camp. Two trappers, Fitzgerald and Bridger, are offered extra money to stay with Glass and watch over him until the company can send a rescue party or he dies of his wounds, whichever comes first. But instead of waiting, Fitzgerald tosses Glass in a shallow grave, covers him while he’s still breathing, and leaves him for dead. Glass crawls out of his grave, giving the movie its title, and sets out on a grueling odyssey to take his revenge.

Leonardo DiCaprio is nominated for the Best Actor Oscar and has already collected a few awards thus far for his performance of Glass. At this point his Oscar win for The Revenant seems to be a foregone conclusion. DiCaprio gives a good performance, as he tends to do, but there is not much for him to do with the character of Glass aside from seethe, suffer, mourn, and brood. It is a mostly silent performance, aside from the grunts and groans. He simply perseveres, struggles against the elements, tries to survive the wilderness, the cold, animal attacks, and attacks by angry parties of Arikara. Glass technically has a character arc and though I saw it, I didn’t feel his arc. DiCaprio did good, hard work undoubtedly, for The Revenant, but has had better, more dynamic performances in other movies. I’m a big fan of DiCaprio and wouldn’t mind seeing him win an Oscar, but I can think of at least three other performances he should have already won for and am sure he will give us more.

There are good performances from the other players in this film, too. Tom Hardy, who delights in challenging himself and the audience with his roles, plays John Fitzgerald, though his character may as well have been named, The Bad Guy. One of the first things we hear his character say is a racial epithet against the Native Americans and then he confronts Glass’s son for being Pawnee. As soon as Fitzgerald volunteers to stay with Glass after the mauling, we know he has only bad things in mind. Hardy, another great actor of which I am a fan, does more than a lot of other actors could with an almost cartoonish and diabolically evil one dimensional character. Domhnall Gleeson also gives a good performance as the decent, noble Captain Henry, who represents civilization in the untamed wilderness; tellingly, when the company arrives back at the fort he is only man who shaves his beard. 

It is obvious that a lot of hard work went into The Revenant, both on and off screen. Principal filming was done in Canada to capture the Great White North’s snowy wilderness, but the production went on so long that the snow melted as summer neared, and the whole production had to be moved to the southern hemisphere, Argentina specifically, to find more winter scenery. Director Alejandro G. Iñàrritu and Lubezki shot the whole film, with the exception of one scene, using only natural light, so there were only a few hours per day when filming could occur. And of course, you can’t talk about The Revenant without mentioning Leonardo DiCaprio eating a real bison liver, doing his own stunts, and, most of all, convincingly being mauled by bear. The visual effects of that scene are incredibly convincing and impressive; it really does look like DiCaprio is being mauled by a huge bear. The bear attack is intense and bloody, but it is one of many gruesome and violent scenes in this 2 ½ hour long movie.

With The Revenant, Iñàrritu seems to be only interested in grim suffering; survival is incidental. There is immense cruelty in The Revenant, but almost no humanity, aside from Domnhall Gleeson’s character and Glass’s relationship with his son. Any insights on man’s cruelty to man will come solely from the viewer and not from the film. The Revenant is not complex in story or emotion. The film’s only statement seems to be that a man suffered and then suffered some more and it is a true story…but not really; in real life, Glass had no son and only sought to get back his possessions that the men who left him had taken with them.

My main problem with the film is that it goes on far too long for having such a simple story and, therefore, has pacing problems. There are some thrilling and intense set pieces (among them the fur company being attacked by Native Americans and Glass being attacked by a bear, and being chased off a mountain, and going down a waterfall…); but there are also scenes of nothing really happening. Our only respite from the dour, brutal nature of the plot is the beautiful cinematography of Lubezki coupled with a wonderful score by Alva Noto and Ryûichi Sakamoto. All of the scenes of dreamlike flashbacks and surreal visions that appear to Glass don’t work and though they deliver information on his past, they don’t build his character. There is an interesting B-story involving a Native American chief searching for his kidnapped daughter that eventually converges with Glass’s story. Those scenes are some of the most interesting in the film; however, if all but the two scenes which intersect with Glass were cut, the movie would still be the same.

I had a mostly good experience watching The Revenant since it was made by many people who are good at what they do; however, Iñàrritu’s work as a director is very uneven. Of his five previous films, I really enjoyed Amores Perros and think it is a very good film and I enjoyed Birdman, despite the problems I had with its themes and plot. I would place The Revenant third behind those two films.

While watching The Revenant, I was reminded of the films of Terrence Malick, and I think it is no coincidence that Lubezki shot Malick’s films The New World, Tree of Life, and To the Wonder. As in those films and Malick’s other work, there are big sweeping camera shots capturing the simple beauty of the natural world. However, Malick’s stories use those images to add to the transcendental contemplation already happening in his films. The Revenant only seems to want to be contemplative in passing. It is primarily concerned with the physical action of the characters. I was also reminded during certain scenes of Aguirre, the Wrath of God directed by the great Werner Herzog and wondered if he wouldn’t have been a better fit as director for this material.

Nominees: Arnon Milchan, Steve Golin, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Mary Parent, Keith Redmon, Producers

Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Screenplay: Mark L. Smith and Alejandro G. Iñárritu, based in part on the novel by Michael Punke

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson

Production Companies: Anonymous Content, Appian Way, M Productions, New Regency Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, Regency Enterprises

Distributor: 20th Century Fox

Release Date: December 25, 2015

Total Nominations: 12, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio, Director-Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Supporting Actor-Tom Hardy, Cinematography-Emmanuel Lubezki, Editing-Stephen Mirrione, Production Design-Jack Fisk and Hamish Purdy, Makeup & Hairstyling-Siân Grigg, Duncan Jarman, and Robert Pandini, Costume Design-Jacqueline West, Sound Editing-Martin Hernández and Lon Bender, Sound Mixing-Jon Taylor, Frank A. Montaño, Randy Thom, and Chris Duesterdiek, Visual Effects-Richard McBride, Matt Shumway, Jason Smith, and Cameron Waldbauer

Best Pictures #9: 2015 (88th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee, Room (2015)

by A.J.

2015 (88^th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Room (2015)

Room is the smallest in scale and scope of the 2015 Best Picture nominees, and also feels the most intimate. The premise seems challenging and unpleasant: a young woman and her five-year-old son are being held against their will in a shed in someone’s backyard. The focus of the film, however, is the relationship between mother and son. Room is the only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees which I probably would not have seen without the nomination; however, I’m glad that I saw it. It’s a well-constructed, emotionally effective drama.

Room is a film in two parts: inside “Room” and outside of it, back in the world. The story is simple, but more than adequate to fill out Room’s two-hour runtime. The movie opens with Jack narrating his day and surroundings. To hide the unpleasant, harsh reality of their situation his Ma, played by Brie Larson, has told Jack that “Room” is the entire world, everything they see on TV, cartoon and people alike, isn’t real. She has also kept the truth about his father, their captor, from young Jack. Ma does everything she can to make a normal life for Jack in “Room” and does surprisingly well. Their daily routine is not unlike any other parent and child’s daily normal routine: brushing teeth, cooking food, TV time, story time. Perhaps most helpful of all is that they refer to objects in “Room” without articles, making everything in their little prison seem friendly. Jack wakes up and says “Good Morning, Clock.” When their captor, referred to only as “Old Nick,” visits and abuses Ma, Jack hides in “Wardrobe.”

Jack’s narration, which guides us both inside and outside of “Room” fits the film well and, fortunately, is not cutesy the way movies often present the thoughts of children on the mysterious adult world. Brie Larson is nominated for Best Actress and seems to have a decent shot at taking home the Oscar. I’m not sure that Larson would get my vote for Best Actress, but there is no denying she gives a good performance and is really believable as a woman making the most of an unpleasant situation and as a mother taking care of and protecting her son the best she can.

I think Larson’s work in the first half of the film is what will earn her any accolades. When I think of the second half of the movie, outside of “Room” and especially once they leave the hospital, Ma is largely absent from my memory. That half of the movie is Jack’s story. The young actor playing Jack, Jacob Tremblay, is good as a 5-year-old with a skewed view of the world and, like his narration, is not cloying or precocious. In a scene at the hospital, a doctor tells Ma that Jack will be able to adjust to the outside world because he’s still plastic. Jack whispers to his mother that he’s not plastic, he’s real; he is equally as endearing and annoying as I think any five-year-old is likely to behave. Likewise, Larson’s believability as a mother is due to her scenes of frustration with her son, for good reasons and sometimes not, as much as the scenes of her motherly love.

Room is not as entirely dour and soul-wrenching as you might except from its premise. Its focus is the effect of the crime and abuse that’s happened to the characters, not the actual crime itself. Room is ultimately a family drama, concerned with the character’s interactions and relationships to each other. Jack’s slowly growing curiosity about the real world is helped by his relationship with his grandmother, played well by Joan Allen, and step-grandfather, Leo, played with low-key warmth by Tom McCamus.

The movie has a chance to take a hard turn into Lifetime made-for-TV movie territory after Ma and Jack escape and a swarm of reporters descend upon her mother’s house. Thankfully, Room’s script is smart enough to keep the press barrage on the edges and to keep the focus on Jack. We stay with Jack, who is only peripherally aware of the conversations between the adults saying long sentences about lawyers, a possible trial, bills, and a TV interview. Ma agrees to one TV interview to cover expenses and the movie keeps that scene short. The movie keeps us with Jack, sneaking around a corner to peek at what’s happening. Many more scenes are done similarly and the movie is all the better for it. Brie Larson is the star of the movie, but our narrative lenspiece is young Jack, aware and understanding in his own way the things he hears and sees.

Because Room is based on a best-selling novel, many viewers may know the story already (the fact that Ma and Jack escape from their captor was even revealed in film’s the trailer), but even knowing how the story plays out does not make the visits of Old Nick to “Room” and Jack’s escape any less tense.

Room is certainly well-made, but there is not too much that stands out to me about its direction, though Lenny Abrahamson is nominated for Best Director. Where Abrahamson succeeds best is in making the viewer feel like a fly on the wall in “Room.” Even after they escape their captivity and are thrown into the outside world the movie keeps us close to Ma and Jack. The more I think about Room the more I realize that what I liked about the movie had to do with its story and structure which stem from the screenplay by Emma Donoghue, based on her novel. The screenplay, performances, and wonderful score by Stephen Rennicks, are what elevate Room from being a made-for-TV fare or a dark, dour crime story. There may be a misstep or two (like the canted camera angles to show Jack’s disorientation with the outside world), but overall the film works well and delivers big pathos. Room is definitely a tear-jerker, there’s no way around that, whether you have kids or not. It’s about family and stepping out of your own private world, in this case a world that wasn’t asked for, and into the wide world of everyone and everything else. I liked this movie, but critics and audiences loved Room. It made its way onto many critics’ best of the year lists, so it should be no surprise that it is included in the Academy’s list as well.  

Nominee: Ed Guiney, Producer

Director: Lenny Abrahamson

Screenplay: Emma Donoghue, based on her novel

Cast: Brie Larson, Jacob Tremblay, Joan Allen

Production Companies: Element Pictures, No Trace Camping, Film4

Distributor: A24 Films

Release Date: October 16, 2015

Total Nominations: 4, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Actress-Brie Larson, Director-Lenny Abrahamson, Adapted Screenplay-Emma Donoghue

10 Best of 2015 (A.J.'s Picks)

by A.J.

January is a month to play movie catch up since it is the time when studios slowly expand the release of the prestige films that had a small release at the end of December. January is also the month when the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences announces their nominations for Best Picture of 2015. They only nominated 8 movies, but I found 10 movies that I think were among the best released last year. A few hundred movies were released in theaters in 2015 and I managed to see about 65 of them, either in theaters or at home on DVD. Here are some of my favorites:

10. Bridge of Spies

This is the first film directed Stephen Spielberg since 2004's The Terminal that I have liked from beginning to end. (I enjoyed Lincoln, but it had few too many dull, superfluous scenes.) In Bridge, Tom Hanks plays an American lawyer that is essentially drafted into defending a captured Soviet spy, played wonderfully low-key by Mark Rylance, in the American courts and then tasked with negotiating a trade with the Soviets for captured U2 spy plane pilot Francis Gary Powers. Hanks is sent to East Berlin with no instructions other than: make the trade. The bureaucrats and spies he encounters range from suspicious to bizarre. Bridge of Spies takes a true story to which we know the outcome, but not the details, and makes it exciting. Most of the action in this movie comes from people talking in rooms, sizing each other up trying to find out what the other person knows with revealing as little as possible of what they know, and those scenes are all interesting, well-crafted, and suspenseful. Bridge of Spies is also Spielberg and Hank's first film together since The Terminal, leading me to believe that they bring out the best in each other.

9. The Walk

Robert Zemeckis’s The Walk, based on the same book as the 2008 documentary Man on Wire, is the dramatization of the incredible-but-true story of Phillipe Petit, who, along with the help of a band of accomplices, walked on a high wire between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in 1974. Joseph Gordon Levitt’s energy and enthusiasm as Phillipe Petit flow through every scene of The Walk leading up to the momentous and spectacular walk itself high above New York City. This is a very well-made, entertaining, and exciting film with great visual moments that I regret not seeing on the big screen, but is still quite impressive on a TV screen.

8. What We Do in the Shadows

The horror comedy What We Do in the Shadows is probably the most delightful comedy I’ve seen in quite some time. It is a mockumentary following a group of misfit vampires and flatmates as they prepare for the biggest social event of the underworld, The Unholy Masquerade. These vampires are easy to relate to and very funny. The gags and set pieces are clever, often putting twist on the vampire tropes we all know. One especially hilarious scene has the vampires fumbling to hypnotize a pair of police officers so that they won't notice the house is covered in blood. What We Do in the Shadows co-stars Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi, who also co-wrote and directed. Clement and Waititi both worked on the short lived, but hilarious HBO series Flight of the Conchords, which co-stared Clement, and they bring the same sensibilities and comedic style to What We Do In the Shadows. Released early in 2015, I picked this movie for last year’s 13 Nights of Shocktober and wrote, “When I make my Best of 2015 list, I know this movie will be included” and I meant it. Rather than repeat myself here; you can read full review in my Shocktober post.

7. Spotlight

Like Bridge of Spies and The Walk, Spotlight is a dramatization of a true story to which we know the outcome, but not the details. It is written and directed in a way that builds suspense and places us with the characters who know what they feel must happen but are unsure of how, or if, they will succeed. Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James play the team of Boston Globe reporters who, urged by the new editor-in-chief played by Liev Schrieber, investigate allegations of abusive priests and a cover-up by the Boston archdiocese. They face resistance from the church and the community, but uncover far more than just a case or two of an unfortunate scandal. I’m not surprised that Spotlight was well-acted, though I was surprised that it was directed by Tom McCarthy, whose last film was the Adam Sandler bomb The Cobbler. I was also surprised at how interested it made me in a chase for documents in courthouse and newspaper basements. The real stars of Spotlight are the devastating facts, statistics, and testimonials that were uncovered, but it is not a book report. It does not trade its characters for exposition. Every character, major and minor, feels like a real person, which is good because they are actually real people and this story really happened.

6. Spy

I know I’m in for a treat when Melissa McCarthy and writer-director Paul Feig work together. Their two previous films were the hilarious Bridesmaids and The Heat, both of which were favorites of mine. In Spy, McCarthy plays a CIA analyst who is great at her job, but unhappy being on the sidelines, monitoring and assisting the resident super-spy, played with equal parts smugness and cluelessness by Jude Law. After a nuclear weapon goes missing and the identities of all the active CIA field agents are compromised, McCarthy is sent into the field to observe and report on the movements of an arms dealer played by Rose Byrne. However, instead of just observing, she gets right into the action. McCarthy holds her own in the action scenes which, though they are quite violent, never forget to be comedic. Action star Jason Statham does a great job lampooning the archetype of a macho action star in a minor, but very funny, role as an overconfident, obnoxious spy gone rogue. Spy really lets McCarthy shine with broad comedy and low-key comedic moments. Feig is smart enough to keep putting McCarthy in situations in which she is out of place without ever making fun of her. McCarthy has proven herself again and again adept at verbal and physical comedy, but also as someone that needs to be reined in either by a good script or director, with Feig she has both.

5. Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

Over the past several years Tom Cruise has shown a terrific knack for finding directors that are the right creative match his projects, especially for the Mission: Impossible movies. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was one of my favorite movies of 2011 and I’ve only grown to love it more since then. I still think Ghost Protocol is the best of the series, but Rogue Nation is a very, very close second. Rogue Nation is written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie who also directed Cruise in the underappreciated, but excellent, action film Jack Reacher. McQuarrie and Cruise are a great match and I hope they continue to make movies together. The action set pieces are amazing. In addition to Cruise hanging off the side of a plane as it takes off, there is an incredible and thrilling car chase followed immediately by a motorcycle chase, among other similar scenes which are all very well done. But Rogue Nation is not just a series of action pieces strung together. The script treats every character, new and returning, as importantly as the action and each is played by more-than-capable actors who turn those characters into believable people that are very good at what they do. As with Ghost Protocol, I like Rogue Nation more with each viewing.

4. Dope

Dope is a smart comedy about a teenager who feels out of place in his neighborhood and school in the rough Inglewood area of Los Angeles, but then finds himself even more lost among the criminal underworld when he is forced to dispose of a large stash drugs hidden in his backpack by a local drug dealer. There are also a few other criminal factions that want the stash and very funny, but dangerous, situations ensue. The main character of Dope, Malcolm, is an intelligent black nerd obsessed with 90s music and fashion with aspirations to attend Harvard. He is played with incredible comic timing by Shameik Moore. Dope works as more than just a teen comedy because it constantly makes you aware that despite the comedy Malcolm and his friends are in real and immediate danger. I can still relate to these characters because Dope builds them so incredibly well and good characters are always relatable.

3. Mad Max: Fury Road

I remember when the trailer for Mad Max: Fury Road was released on the internet and everyone I knew was bursting with excitement and anticipation. The movie itself actually lived up to, if not surpassed, the expectations of that trailer. George Miller had already done the impossible in giving us an incredible sequel (The Road Warrior) that not only improves upon the original film (Mad Max), but is arguably one of the best sequels ever made. Now, Miller may well have topped himself again with Mad Max: Fury Road. I admit that I was skeptical about a new Mad Max movie, even when I saw the trailer, but I can’t deny that is was one of the best films of 2015. Fury Road is everything an action film should be and, most impressively, it is an action film for adults. The plot is simple but the characters are solid and well-played. Tom Hardy plays Max, but the real star and main character is Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa, who is smuggling a group of women away from the monstrous and tyrannical tribal leader Immortan Joe. The film is essentially a long, explosive action-packed chase as Immortan Joe and his War Boys chase down Max, Furiosa, and the women). Max may not be the center of the action, but his role as the mostly silent stranger that happens upon a group of people in need of help is in keeping with the rest of the Mad Max series. There are some CGI effects, but a large majority of the effects in Fury Road are practical and mind-blowingly impressive (that guitar that shoots flames is not CGI, it’s real). Fury Road is a fun, full-bore action thriller at its best.

2. Inside Out

I wasn’t planning on seeing this Pixar movie; the premise seemed a bit too odd and the trailer didn’t make the story clear, but I saw it any way and was profoundly affected. Five emotions (Joy, Sadness, Disgust, Fear, and Anger) run 11-year-old Riley’s mind from a control center influencing how she interacts with situations and people around her. Riley and the emotions have to deal with their biggest challenge yet when Riley and her parents move across the country to San Francisco. Joy, who normally runs the show, and Sadness are accidently, and quite literally, thrown out of the control room along with the core memories that make up Riley's personality, leaving Riley with only Disgust, Fear, and Anger, not the best trio to be running a mind. Joy has to gather up the core memories to get them back to the control room while keeping Sadness from touching them and making them sad memories. Joy and Sadness are lost in the cleverly familiar architecture of Riley’s mind as imagined by the filmmakers and they find their way into Riley’s subconscious, her dream center, and her memory banks. The pathos overflows when Joy encounters Bing Bong, Riley’s forgotten imaginary friend voiced to perfection by Richard Kind. The problems Riley has with moving to a strange town where she doesn’t know anyone are not unique to her, but from inside her mind we see and feel how that is the biggest and most troubling thing that’s ever happened to her. Inside Out knows that Joy running things all the time is not the answer, neither is Sadness always a bad thing; you need both for a healthy mind and you also need Fear, Disgust, and Anger. I’ve only seen Inside Out once, technically. A few weeks ago, I was on a plane from New York to Austin and the person sitting in the row in front of me was watching Inside Out on her laptop computer. I stopped reading my book and started watching the movie on her computer through the space between the seats. She had headphones on and I couldn’t hear a sound, but in my memory was every line, every voice, every music cue, and sound effect, and I had to try very hard not to cry at certain scenes. Pixar, not always, but more often than not manages to deliver quality cinema, and, sometimes, (Toy Story 3, Ratatouille, Up, and now Inside Out) a truly profound and moving piece of art.

1. Love & Mercy

When I first saw Love & Mercy back in late July I knew I had just seen the best movie of 2015. I went back to the theater and saw it again the next week. The life of Beach Boys co-founder and songwriter Brian Wilson is given something better and more meaningful than the typical biopic treatment. This is not just a rise and fall story or look at a specific time in the subject’s life; it is somewhere in between. Paul Dano plays Wilson in the mid to late 1960s as he is just becoming a creative force musically while also beginning to slip slowly into mental illness. John Cusack plays Wilson in the mid 1980s when he is overmedicated and manipulated by Dr. Landy (Paul Giamatti), Wilson’s psychiatrist and self-appointed guru, dietician, producer, etc. This was the best and most effective dramatization of a true story in 2015. I didn’t know much about Brian Wilson’s life, other than that he had mental problems and allegedly spent a few years in bed in the 70s (it was more like three, Cusacks’s Wilson says). I knew that Wilson ended up alright and was able to finally complete his masterpiece Smile in 2004, but I didn’t know how or when Wilson emerged back into healthy, functional life. The person largely responsible for Wilson’s reemergence is Melinda Ledbetter, played by Elizabeth Banks, who meets Wilson at a Cadillac dealership in 1985 and eventually becomes his wife. Through Melinda's eyes, we grow suspicious of the ever-present Dr. Landy and his unconventional (and unethical) methods. My stomach turned up in knots during the scenes of Wilson being abused by Landy in the 80s and by his father in the 60s.

Love & Mercy cuts between Melinda and Wilson’s budding relationship in the 80s and Wilson in the 60s challenging himself as a musician and an artist during the creation of the album Pet Sounds, one of my absolute favorite albums ever. We see Dano dropping bobby pins on piano strings to create the rattling effect for "Caroline, No", recording barking dogs, and instructing someone on how to play the bicycle horn while the rest of the band sits around the booth and Mike Love grows listless and frustrated. I’ve never seen recording studio sessions portrayed as accurately as in Love & Mercy; it’s very exciting for the people working and incredibly boring for those that aren’t, but have to be in the booth (I have experience being one of the bored people in the booth during a musician friend’s recording session). My favorite scene in the movie, aside from the final scene, is of Wilson and Love collaborating on "Good Vibrations," from its beginning as a piano riff Wilson can’t get out of his head, to the studio where Love gets very agitated by Wilson’s obsession with a few seconds of cello strings. Paul Dano is the kind of actor who I always find sticks out in every movie, but here he really disappears into the Brian Wilson of the 60s in that amazing way that goes beyond impersonation and mimicry to really portray the person. Cusack is incredible at convincingly portraying the Wilson of the 80s as someone that really “survived" the 60s and is still in need of help. Neither actor tries to imitate the other because Love & Mercy understands that Wilson was two different people during those two different decades. In addition to being the best biopic of recent memory, Love & Mercy is also my favorite kind of movie, a love story. Melinda’s love is exactly what Wilson’s wounded, battered, and fragile soul needed to finally become a third, complete Brian Wilson.