The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

ABC News

It's not easy saying goodbye to something you love. Putting all cards on the table, I love The Hunger Games, as do most of those in my generation. I had reasonably high expectations for this movie, mainly due the promised delivery of action following last year's slow but solid lead-up. In Mockingjay - Part 2, the action is back at the forefront, and we're brought along to witness the dissolution of Panem through an honorable conclusion to the franchise.

In the four-part film series' final chapter, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and her allies from District 13 decide the only way to end the war is to kill President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Katniss, Gale (Liam Hemsworth), and a handful of volunteers venture out to the Capital. All are surprised when 13's President Coin (Julianne Moore) sends out Peeta to join them for the sake of propaganda footage. Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) is recovering from his "hijacking" - a process that makes him viciously attack Katniss whenever she's near. To raise the stakes, the Capital's game makers filled the city with traps similar to those utilized in the Games themselves, making the city streets a minefield for the heroes.

Although I was largely satisfied with this sendoff, it still hurts knowing Mockingjay could have been a much stronger finale had corporate greed not gotten in the way. I stand by my opinion that Part 1 was a flawed but overall good film, and it's hard to argue against saying that this installment is even better. But one of the reasons the first two installments worked so well is because the more concise runtime allowed a faster pace and higher entertainment value. The extra runtime allowed to these two movies added almost no extra moments on reflection or deeper meaning. I counted several spots in both parts of Mockingjay that could have been excluded altogether, and combining these films into one would have kept the series as a whole on a higher pedestal than it currently resides on today.

Still, it's hard to ignore the high level of filmmaking that was able to occur despite Lionsgate's insistence that the source material be split. Aside from the first half hour, the film's rousing action built to heartbreaking deaths relentlessly. It moved almost too fast, but I guess that's a consequence of making up for the downtime felt in Part 1. And aside from that, the film has a beautiful ending in the end as opposed to a rushed or forced wrap-up. Following the climax, Danny Strong's screenplay allows for a fitting conclusion focused on the characters we've grown to love over the past four years. We're also reminded on the marvelous performance this franchise has offered us - particularly from Jennifer Lawrence, Jena Malone, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and (post-The Hunger Games) Josh Hutcherson. The film is also full of smart nods to the earlier movies and utilizes nostalgia to its advantage wondrously. 

After a sluggish start, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 is almost everything you want from the finale of this franchise. There are undoubted imperfections, and I won't try to downplay them because they should not be downplayed. But this movie is respectful of its fans and those who truly know why we as a society fell in love with the series in the first place. It's about the characters, for without them why would we care to separate this from the slew of other movies in its genre? That's what makes this group of films so strong in the first place, and because of that, there are much worse movies to see. 

Rating: 4/5

Spectre

Why change what works? For the past three movies in the 007 franchise – all of which star Daniel Craig – tone has shifted and the stereotypical approach to the James Bond film has been ignored. Instead, directors like Martin Campbell of Casino Royale and Sam Mendes of Skyfall have helmed the mission to recreate Bond as a more human character and take a more modern and realistic approach to the agent’s adventures. Now comes Spectre, a movie that capitalizes on the efforts of character building demonstrated in its immediate predecessors but also returns the franchise to its glory of the formulaic James Bond film.

Kicking off with the most insane and intense Bond opener since Casino Royale, Spectre wastes no time assuring moviegoers they’re spending their time and money wisely. The opening scene starts with a long shot through the streets and buildings of Mexico City’s Day of the Dead parade before cutting to a chain of events involving an assassination, an exploding building, and a man-vs-man fight scene on a low-flying helicopter. Cue the Sam Smith song and seductive opening credits montage.

Bond’s reasoning for this altercation is explained through a video from the recently deceased M (Judi Dench). The video shows M’s dying wish being for James to hunt down and kill the man from Mexico, which Bond does without question – only to discover the man played a role in a much larger scheme. Upon discovering the villainous organization Spectre, Bond unwittingly opens a door to his traumatic past when he finds out the ghosts of his past are still alive to haunt him. He’s forced to confront Ernst Blofeld (Christoph Waltz, in a limited but chilling role), his former brother in practice who has been orchestrating all the catastrophic events of his past. But of course, we need a Bond girl before we go any further. In Spectre, it’s Léa Seydoux. Following a brief but cold-hearted appearance in 2011’s Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, Seydoux is paving her way to becoming a mainstream femme fatale that most male actors will surely be intimidated to go toe-to-toe with on the big screen.

The movie doesn’t make any efforts to redefine the franchise, something that understandably disappointed some critics and audiences. However, just because it didn’t take any noteworthy risks doesn’t make the film a failure. Spectre is an extremely fun, sleek, and entertaining crack at the Bond filmography. It takes the quality of filmmaking we’ve seen starting with Daniel Craig’s entrance into the series and perfectly capitalizes on the formulaic Bond structure audiences love. It’s got a kickass opening, crazy car chases, gripping hand-to-hand combat scenes, Bond bedding women, and a joyful abundance of bullets. With a hefty runtime of over two hours, the brisk editing and marvelous pacing kept things captivating until the last minute – by the end of the movie, I was wishing for more.

Some would argue that the film is riddled with Bond clichés. I disagree. I see Spectre as following an established structure that has brought the pre-Craig era Bond films continued success. Spectre follows this structure and heightens all of its elements to never before seen places. It may not be the best movie featuring James Bond in terms of pure filmmaking, but it’s arguably the best “James Bond film” in recent memore because it delivers comparative perfection within the structure. In that regard, Spectre is better than Skyfall, and I’d name it best movie of the year so far if it weren’t for a criminally underused Christoph Waltz and a bit-too-ridiculous plane crash that leaves Bond unbelievably unscathed. It also should be noted that just a few hours after leaving the theater the excitement I felt while watching the movie didn’t carry into my day the way I was expecting it would. But in the words of Roger Ebert, “there's something to be said for a movie you like well enough at the time.” Well, I think there’s even more to be said for a movie you loved at the time – and I loved Spectre.

Rating: 4.5/5

Sicario

For a good 40+ minutes of the movie my facial expression resembled that of Del Toro's (ComingSoon.net)

There's a way to make a good movie with the kind of story we see in Sicario. Director Denis Villeneuve (2013's Prisoners) and Screenwriter Taylor Sheridan prove they know this several times throughout the movie by building intense, dramatic, and character-focused scenes of action and suspense. But to get to these masterfully constructed scenes, we're forced to sit through tedious, uneventful, confusing, and unnecessarily elongated on-screen moments. We know it could have been so much better because many scenes in Sicario were nearly flawless - and this is what makes the movie frustrating and, overall, somewhat disappointing.

I think I speak on behalf of moviegoers everywhere when I say I have better things to do with my time than stare at a screen and watch countless repetitive shots of the faces of Benicio Del Toro, Josh Brolin, and Emily Blunt as they look out to western landscapes from a car/plane/truck window. My idea of a good movie is not 45 minutes of confusing narratives and little dialogue sandwiched together by breathtaking opening and concluding scenes which show nothing but promise from the filmmakers. These ending and beginning scenes may explain some of the lulls heavily felt in the middle of Sicaio, but they do not excuse them.

I guess you could say I went into this film the same way Emily Blunt's character went into the events of Sicario. Her character, FBI Agent Kate Macer, is eager for a good outcome but doesn't exactly get what she had signed up for. After witnessing her comrades brutally killed at a Mexican cartel bust gone wrong, Kate volunteers to work with a task force assigned to take down the men responsible for the massacre. The team, led by Matt (Josh Brolin) and Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro), consistently misleads Kate - changing destinations last minute and even putting her in deadly situations. All the while, she fears those to blame are going unpunished as she is used as a puppet for the men's ulterior motives, but refuses to turn her back on the situation.

One thing I must say the movie did flawlessly is how well the movie's actors did bringing their superbly-written characters to life. Emily Blunt, donned as an action heroine since 2012's Looper, finally sold me as a believable genre heroine. After playing relatively one-dimensional characters in Looper and Edge of Tomorrow, she has the chance to play a believable and vulnerable human character who still knows how to show brutality. Her facial expressions and body language display a complete character immersion - one scene sticking out being where she's visibly but subtly trembling as she tries to recover from the events of the opening scene.

Del Toro and Brolin also deliver performances that will be sure be considered career highlights - Del Toro establishing a grim and ruthless presence with Brolin supporting his movies with comedy, charisma, and indifference toward the consideration of others.  As Alejandro, Del Toro takes over the latter half of the movie with a commanding and astounding presence, showing his true colors as a man you would have no desire to cross paths with.

Additionally, Sicario provides many moments for these characters to prove how strongly-established they are. There are nearly a dozen scenes in the movie where the tension is so high I was genuinely concerned for the players and unsure of the outcome. When the movie (finally) gets to these scenes, it holds nothing back, and isn't afraid to shake you in your seat with the sudden bloody death of those in front of you.

With that said, it is a shame that these scenes were preceded by the first half of this movie. While not without its moments, this hour or so of the movie took away from the build-up the film could have had going throughout, especially if it were 20 minutes shorter. There were many ideas, themes, characters, and motives that could have been explored better if they did things better. Honestly, Sicario would have made a great second season of "True Detective," but as a result of its cinematic nature, time was mismanaged, pace was lost, and characters and scenes that deserved a better overall production didn't get one. Sicario's moments of sheer brilliance shouldn't be overlooked. Having said that, that terrible chunk in the middle shouldn't either.

Rating: 3/5

The Martian

Mashable

The Martian is a movie like nothing we have ever seen. Its approach to the survivor-man movie is astoundingly unique, and does things we haven't seen in similar attempts in movies like Gravity, Cast Away, and Apollo 13. The stellar cast's presence on the screen is matched only by the aesthetics and wonder of the mise-en-scene. The music is wonderfully hypnotic, and the screenplay is an accomplished balance act of comedy, drama, tragedy, and exposition. It has all the necessities of a perfect movie - and it would be if it weren't a little boring sometimes.

The Martian is the first movie Ridley Scott fans can get behind since 2012's Prometheus (or 2007's American Gangster if you're on the "I hate Prometheus" bandwagon). The movie stars Matt Damon as Frank Watney, a NASA botanist left behind on Mars after seemingly killed during a storm. Much to Earth's surprise, Watney is revealed to have survived. He deduces he must keep himself alive for nearly four years before being rescued during NASA's next mission but realizes he only has enough supplies for one.

When NASA discovers Watney isn't dead after all, a team of officials (comprised of Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean, and Kristen Wiig) work to solve the problem of bringing him home. In the meantime, they're forced to deal with the press, the team that left Watney behind, and the ticking clock counting down the days until Watney runs out of resources.

The film is reliant on the talents of Damon, who carries the movie without effort. The writing is smart and calls upon Damon to rattle-off complex space/science stuff in layman's terms that I couldn't begin to explain. And as sort of a thank you to viewers for following along, the character says sarcastic quips which are legitimately funny due to Damon's wry style of delivery. In the many days (or, in the movie, "sols") where Damon is on Mars alone for extended periods, it helps keep the movie afloat.

Unfortunately, the film is not reliant enough on the talents of other cast members. It takes nearly to the halfway point before we see Watney's original crew return to the screen, even though Kate Mara, Jessica Chastain, and Michael Pena compose that team. Storywise, it made sense for their temporary absence, and the story was sure to bring them back in fully by the end. However, seeing so much time go by without proven talents like those of Jessica Chastain during the movie's more redundant parts was a hindrance on being able to fully love this movie. For several minutes at a time, The Martian is simply Matt Damon talking to a camera about how he plans to stay alive on Mars. This is where I found the film to be uneventful, and even with the comedy, utilizing the talents of the rest of the cast would have kept the film afloat even better.

What The Martian did well was realize one character probably couldn't carry the entire movie given the story it wanted to tell. What it didn't do too well was balance the stories of Watney, the NASA team, and the space crew as well as it could have. By the end, everything come together wonderfully. It was an emotionally satisfying ending that utilized time and characters flawlessly. However, the road to get to that point was drawn by filmmakers who didn't execute the story the best they could. With a better balance of these three separate stories, The Martian would have reached the heights to make it the perfect film it could have been. Watching the movie was like putting together a puzzle - all the right pieces were there, and you knew it, but sometimes the wrong piece ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. When it's complete, though, that's when you can look past the faults and recognize the accomplishment.

The good news is that after a few lackluster efforts, The Martian satisfies those anxiously waiting for both Scott and Damon to prove they've still got what it takes to be highly regarded Hollywood names. It's also incredibly pleasing to the ears and eyes with its music, effects, cinematography, imagery, and truly impeccable casting. While a better balance of characters and interrelated stories could have made The Martian more effectively paced and completely spectacular, it was missing that element. Instead, we'll have to settle for pretty spectacular, and to be honest, I'm not too upset about that.

Rating: 4/5

Black Mass

ew.com

Black Mass opens with "Breaking Bad's" Jesse Plemons (who I momentarily thought was Matt Damon) wielding a Boston accent, telling investigators he's not a rat. For a second there, I thought I was watching The Departed. Then the story unfolded, and director Scott Cooper wove us through a portion of mob boss Whitey Bulger's life alongside the FBI agent reluctant to take him down. During this time, I felt like I was watching Heat. While Black Mass has a gritty feel, incredible performances, and certain a cinematic quality, it can't seem to match the excellence of the gangster genre greats, all of which I'd gladly watch again before this.

The film recounts the rise and fall of James "Whitey" Bulger, real-life Boston crime kingpin rom his prominence in the 70s to his fugitive status in the 90s. To reduce their sentences, everyone who worked with Bulger recount their experiences with the mobster. Told through flashbacks, the film covers 20 years of Whitey pulling off countless crimes under the governmental protection of his Senator brother Billy (Benedict Cumberbatch) and FBI Agent John Connolly (The Gift's Joel Edgerton).

There were countless approaches this film could've taken (thought to be fair though, it's heavily based on the historical book of the same name) in regards to its main character. We didn't see enough of Bulger the pusher, Bulger the family man, Bulger the adulterer, Bulger the businessman, or any pre-1975 Bulger. Instead, we get murderous Bulger. Now, there is no lack of authenticity in that aspect of his life, but turning Bulger into a well-rounded character for the screen would have given the film the boost it occasionally needed.

And even though the script doesn't always give him the most to work with, Depp manages to take the film to a level that I can't imagine being matched without his presence. He's impulsive, psychotic, decisive, and quite creepy all at once. It's the kind of glorious portrayal that will get film students talking about Depp's talents again without being shunned by their peers and professors - even if his makeup artists did make him look like an extraterrestrial.

With that, it's sad that Bulger oftentimes became a supporting character in his own movie. The focus all to frequently turned to Edgerton's John Connolly - the FBI agent who grew up on the same streets as the Bulger family. Hoping to keep his good friend out of jail, Connolly enlists Bulger as an informant to surpress the North End crime family and put him on the bureau's good side. When Connolly's wife and colleagues start doubting his intentions, the result is more screentime for Edgerton. I normally don't complain when I see Joel Edgerton onscreen, but what's disappointing is knowing his moments could have been given to Depp's character, or anyone else in Bulger's crew for that matter. Nearly all of them feel like complete strangers by the end of the movie, despite top billings and laudable performances.

Years from now, Black Mass will be remembered less as a film about Whitey Bulger's crime saga and moreso a film in the Johnny Depp filmography (and deservedly so on that last point). It's a gritty and blood-soaked crime film I'm not disinclined to watch again. Just sign me up to watch The Departed, Heat, GoodFellas, Donnie Brasco, and a slew of others beforehand.

Rating: 3/5

AJ's Entertainment Show

Nice of you to stop by.

I'm excited to announce I've started a brand new show here at school, which I've dubbed "AJ's Entertainment Show" (I'm open to other suggestions).

Every week, I'll be talking about entertainment news. That includes Hollywood breaking stories, TV show updates, and movie ranting, all of which will have my opinion. Since we're currently trying to find a place to put the final product, I made a YouTube channel so that you can watch it for now. The pilot is visible here. Mind you, it's not perfect - but it's a start!

Got an idea to make the show better? Let me know! I want to hear from you.

Make sure you subscribe to my channel so you don't miss an episode!

Thanks again for reading (and now, watching!),

-AJ

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials

FoxMovies

Let's take a second and talk about what a good sequel does. First off, a worthy sequel should only follow a good, original story that made the audience want more. Second, the sequel should continue to build on that originality as opposed to retreading or borrowing too heavily from other sources. This sequel to meets the first criteria - 2013's The Maze Runner was a good movie, and its original and suspenseful mystery approach to the YA universe made me excited for a sequel. But looking at the second identifier, it's clear that The Scorch Trials doesn't qualify as a good sequel - at all.

Following his escape from The Glade, Thomas finds himself transported to a safe haven with allies Newt, Minho, Teresa, and the rest of his friends. It's assumed to be a sanctuary protecting them from those who orchestrated the maze trials, WCKD. Thomas is greeted by the man running the facility, Jensen ("Game of Thrones'" Aidan Gillen), who assures them their troubles are over and a new life is ahead of them. But when familiar faces start disappearing, Thomas is warned by maze survivor Aris (Mud's Jacob Lofland) that Jensen can't be trusted. They discover that they're actually in a WCKD run containment center exploiting those immune to the virus that wiped out humanity. Confused yet? Yeah, me too.

After an exciting and impressively-filmed escape, the group treks across a barren cityscape (the "Scorch") looking for survivors to help them fight WCKD. They team up with rebels Brenda and Jorge (Giancarlo Esposito, who milks his "Breaking Bad" fame by saying hermano in almost all his conversations), two survivors who are also looking to take down WCKD. They spend the rest of the movie looking for weapons and recruits and trying to avoid contact with those infected with the Flare virus, which turns its victims into mindless zombie-like attackers.

As I mentioned earlier, a good sequel elevates the originality of its predecessor instead of falling back on recycled storylines and clichés of sequels past. At times, I felt like I was watching I Am Legend (running zombies), 28 Weeks Later (running zombies in dark underground areas), each of The Hunger Games movies (waking up after escaping a government-controlled arena, hiding from a hovercraft, kids fighting against the government), both Divergent (zip lining over dystopia) and Insurgent (poorly-dressed rebels hosting escapees from those in power), Face/Off (that prison break), Cloverfield (climbing up a tilted city building) and more. And these weren't subtle nods to cinematic classics, these were blatant rip-offs from better movies of a similar or the same genre. Couple that with the overload of unnecessary characters and a muddled screenplay with too much violence and language and not enough character development, The Scorch Trials makes it too easy to get lost along the way.

It was a struggle to watch Dylan O'Brien as Thomas, because you could see he was giving the movie his all while virtually every other cast and crew member seemed to assume their Hollywood faces would carry them to box office success. It's even more painful to see a talented actor like Aiden Gillen waste a good chunk of his screen time sitting on a helicopter in terribly lit scenes.

So on behalf of the filmmakers, sorry fans of The Maze Runner. If you're looking for the excitement, fun, and compelling mystery the first Maze Runner movie brought, you won't find it here. Instead, you'll find boredom, confusion, an overlong production, and another cliffhanger that will lead us into what will likely be another letdown. The Scorch Trials is a disappointment that I can only imagine diehard fans of the original could appreciate. And even then, still probably not.

Rating: 2/5

Jurassic World

http://media.melty.com/article-2300-ajust_930-f1432805959/claire-s-nephews-gray-and-zach.jpg

Following up Steven Speilberg's original Jurassic Park movie is so difficult that even in the director's chair Spielberg himself wasn't able to do it too fantastically. Four years after that attempt, Jumanji's Joe Johnston gave it a try, and while he was able to bring some fun back to the franchise, his entry too lacked the awe of the first Jurassic Park movie. Now, we welcome in Colin Trevorrow, who brings to the franchise no previous experience with big-budget pictures. Instead, he brings an approach.

Immediately when Jurassic Park was released, people were enthralled, leading nostalgia to be a obvious presence in the sequels. By bringing back and focusing on familiar characters like Sam Neill's Alan Grant and Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm, Speilberg and Johnson brought superficial nostaliga to their respective follow-ups - hoping to inspire memories and wonder just because of some familiar faces on an island with dinosaurs. Trevorrow, on the other hand, incorporates into his film a more effective form of nostalgia - an emotional type, a true type. Aside from one doctor with a minor role in the first film, Jurassic World gives us a completely new set of players. A risky move, but one that pays off, because Jurassic World is the sequel we can whole-heartedly admit we have been waiting for. Not because it shows the same characters, but because it invokes feelings audiences have not felt in a dinosaur movie for 22 years.

So, like most of you, my hopes were extremely high for this film. The park is open, we're back to the original island, and speaking frankly, the trailers looked pretty awesome. Still, one in my position can't help being hesitant. Unfortunately, those working at Jurassic World aren't too hesitant, especially when the park's operation's manager Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) okays the genetic construction of a new super dinosaur, bred to evade any threat manmade or in nature. When things inevitably go wrong, the entire island of animals and visitors - including Claire's two nephews (Ty Simpkins & Nick Robinson) - loses the illusion of safety and control. So, out comes dino trainer Owen (Chris Pratt) on his motorcycle with his entourage of trained raptors to save the day.

Trevorrow, who also co-wrote the script, knew where to take the audience to bring us back to our happy place in this franchise. With some subtle and other not-so-subtle nods to the original Jurassic movie, he manipulated my emotional attachment to the story so well that I was able to overlook the film's occasional flaws effortlessly. When Simpkins' character runs to his hotel room and opens up his balcony to see the fully active theme park, I was wide-eyed and grinning like an 8-year-old. That's talent that can't be ignored, and I'm glad that talent was brought to this franchise.

Sadly, the movie was not without its eye-rolling moments, namely the unnecessary subplots and characters. For example - Claire and Owen had/have a thing for some reason? Sure. Why not? Zach and Gray's parents are getting divorced, even though this moment is only brought up once and never shown to be evident in the parents' behaviors? Sure. Why not. InGen is once again trying to undermine the people who actually know what they're doing on the island and sends out a cocky and annoying character to stir up even more trouble as if there isn't enough already? Sure. Why the heck not. But let's face it - I was having way too much fun watching this movie that most of the time I told my critic mind to shut up and enjoy the ride.

So, please, do yourself a favor and allow yourself to go back to Isla Nublar. See what's new for you and what shining moments from the past it has to offer. Pratt will charm you, Simpkins and Robinson will relate to you, and the movie will inspire you. Because if you thought the times where you could have a complete blast at the movies were over, you'd be wrong.

Rating: 4/5

Paper Towns

Margo (Cara Delevinge) and Q (Nat Wolff) carry out their plan for
high school revenge (FoxMovies)

As John Green's readers know very well by now, Paper Towns is no The Fault in Our Stars. Of course, I mainly say this in regards to the plot - for just because this movie too is about two teens in a maybe-romance and is by the same author and stars Nat Wolff does not mean we should expect the same atmosphere, themes, or story. But when I say this movie is not TFiOS, I'm also referring to it's quality. Paper Towns stands on its own as a good high school movie, but aside from a compelling mystery twist, it is incapable of standing out much more than others in its genre.

Nat Wolff stars as Quentin (aka "Q") - a reserved, results-oriented senior who appreciates consistency but lacks spontaneity in his life. That's where Margo Roth Spiegelman comes in. Quentin and Margo grew up next door to each other, but during their tween years, Margo realized Q's anchored lifestyle wasn't enough to match her reckless behaviors. They drift apart until one night their senior year, where Margo slips into Quentin's room. With a determined look on her face, Margo asks Q to serve as her getaway driver for a contrived revenge plot against her cheating boyfriend and her friends who didn't rat him out. Apparently that's a big no-no in girl-world. (I went to an all-boys high school, don't judge me.)

After re-establishing a connection, Margo and Q part following their misadventurous night of pulling pranks and ruining social lives, leaving Q with hope of a possible future with Margo. But the next morning, she goes missing. While her family and friends write it off as typical Margo behavior, Q thinks it's her way of calling him to come find her. Q finds clues around town, and rounds up a group of his friends to pile into his mom's mini-van to trek across the coast to find her, vowing to be back before their prom night.

Wolff and Delevinge make for an alluring on-screen pair, and perform their parts perfectly fine, but the duo that made me enjoy the movie most was Austin Abrams and Halston Sage. They play Quentin and Margo's respective best friends Ben and Lacey who tag along on the road trip. Both of these supporting actors give hysterical and sincere star-making performances - especially Abrams, who plays a goofball sidekick, a hopeless romantic, and a scene-stealing, beer-filled partygoer in a single role that shows a wide array of acting chops.

With it's element of mystery, the movie does warrant a watch if you're afraid it'll be just like every other movie of its kind. Thankfully, this isn't entirely the case. It has some detractors to it though - mainly its all too familiar tone and it's inclusion of certain ideas and behaviors I personally don't condone on a moral level.

Paper Towns suffices as a more-often-than-not enjoyable high school movie. It was nice to see that the filmmakers were trying to add something new to the teen movie genre, though the execution showed they weren't entirely successful. If anything, it's a showcase of a few new faces and some old ones delivering good performances throughout a story that's just past the threshold of keeping your continuous interest.

Rating: 3/5

Pitch Perfect 2

In about ten years, I invite you to open up a dictionary and look up the term "obligatory sequel." Next to the definition, you'll see a picture of Pitch Perfect 2. It hits all the notes needed to function as a good follow-up to a successful movie - our favorite characters return (with a couple of new faces), they face internal and external conflict, and they manage to surprise everyone by overcoming the odds and seeing their task through because they're unstoppable as a group. This is basically Cheaper by the Dozen 2 all over again, except with the Barden Bellas instead of the Baker family. But let the record show that when I was younger, I thought Cheaper by the Dozen 2 was a perfectly good movie. 

Everybody loved Pitch Perfect. And what's not to love? Anna Kendrick dominates the screen, the songs are catchy, and Rebel Wilson was still funny and not just a once-funny name with an Australian accent. This sequel gave us more of Kendrick's Beca, returned Wilson to her glory, and brought plenty of laughs. Yet despite this, it never goes beyond the expectations anyone had for it. It does nothing new, which is a disappointment, seeing how original its predecessor was. 

To recap the plot, the Bellas are suspended by the national a cappella association after an onstage mishap causes Fat Amy to expose herself to the President Obama, causing their chapter to be suspended from performing, holding auditions, or defending their title at national competitions. Distraught, the Bellas are told their only chance of reinstatement is to win an international competition, where the competition is tighter than ever. Groups from the whole world have perfected their acts, but none pose a greater threat to the Bellas than German champs Das Sound Machine (who, IMO, aren't even that fantastic).

Through a loophole, the Bellas are able to welcome in eager recruit Emily (Hailee Steinfeld), a cheeky freshman and daughter of one of the Bellas' original members. Emily brings original music to the group, something that's highly frowned upon in the a cappella community. Meanwhile, Beca, who is still seeing boyfriend Jesse (without any drama this time, thank God), starts skipping out on Bella responsibilities when she takes an internship at a music production company, where she's pushed to challenge herself in a professional setting. Also, three-time super-senior Chloe (Brittany Snow) is forced to face reality of the grown-up world, while Fat Amy finally gives in to her undeniable connection with former Treblemaker Bumper. 

Pitch Perfect 2 is a good comedy film, with smart comedic timing and a confident presence from all cast members, especially Kendrick, Steinfeld, and John Michael Higgins as one of the a cappella commentators. Musically, it never delivers a number that outdoes anything in the original, which, again, is a disappointment. But let's not dismiss the obvious fact that Pitch Perfect 2 is the obligatory sequel, and while it doesn't outdo or improve on Pitch Perfect in any ways, it works, at the very least, as a way to see some of your favorite characters in recent years again. 

Rating: 3/5

Avengers: Age of Ultron

(MoviePilot)

Had I actually written this review when I first saw the movie in May, I would've started things off by saying that Avengers: Age of Ultron is 2015's best movie so far. Unfortunately for the superhero team (and for Marvel Studios), I saw The Gift in August, which I now see as the year's best so far. But with this weekend, awards season is officially off to a start, which means that The Gift probably won't stay on top for too long. But I digress.

Yes, for three and a half months, I considered Age of Ultron to be the best movie of the year. It's an astounding popcorn film that can create a fan of the superhero genre out of even the most cynical moviegoer who just can't seem to get behind the idea of watching men in capes and costumes for entertainment. But here, similar to The Dark Knight, you can enjoy the film for being a superhero movie, but also for being an impressively-made film about (super) humans grounded in a well-thought out story. And while the story (or the film itself) might not be as impressive or well-thought out as The Dark Knight, the sequel is a step above the first Avengers film on so many levels of filmmaking and storytelling. For example, I can personally guarantee you that zero amount of screentime is dedicated to seeing the characters repairing a jet engine. Oh, and Hawkeye isn't a villain for half the movie this time. Thanks, Joss Whedon!

The sequel pits the Avengers - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Scarlett Witch, and Hawkeye, - against Ultron. Initially designed by Stark and Banner to help humanity, the cybernetic artificially intelligent presence backfires and sees humanity as unredeemable. In an expected unexpected superhero movie turn, Ultron plots to destroy the world. Since Ultron (voiced by James Spader) is only a program, it needs some people doing its legwork for him. It seeks out two mutants - mind-controller Scarlett Witch (Elizabeth Olsen, Godzilla) and the super-fast Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Kick-Ass 2) to fend off the Avengers while it devises a plan. Of course, the good guys stop Ultron and save the day, but despite a frequent reliance on superhero cliches, the movie makes up for it with everything new and inventive it will hopefully add to the future of the genre.

From the moment the film starts, writer-director Whedon shows us we're in good hands for the next two hours. Beginning with a rousing and explosive assault in the middle of a forrest and ending with an attempt to stop a city from being used as a makeshift asteroid, the movie lets up only at the times where moments of reflection and character development remind you why you're watching and why you should care. Oh yeah, and there's the Hulkbuster too. That's pretty awesome.

Age of Ultron has raised the stakes for the Marvel superhero film. No longer are we looking at these people on screen as pretty faces being paid millions of dollars to fly around for our appeasement. Instead, we see them as characters. We hear their history, we witness their loss, we endure their struggles alongside them - and because of this, the movie about people who punch things really hard and use mind control is astounding.

Rating: 4/5

Furious Seven

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/insertcoin/files/2015/04/furious-7.jpg

Never in a million years would I expect to see myself calling a Fast and Furious movie the best of its year so far. Yet, here we are. You could attribute this to the lack of good movies that have come out in these past three months, or you could attribute it to its unmatchable sense of fun. I choose both. For the record, this is my first Fast and Furious movie, and to be honest, it’s made me want to go out of my way to see more movies in the franchise.

Furious 7 pits a ruthless British criminal, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), against a team of professional street racers with experience forking for the government. The group consists of Dom (Vin Diesel), Brian (Paul Walker), Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), Roman (Tyrese Gibson), Tej (Ludacris), and Agent Hobbs (The Rock). Deckard wants to avenge the death of his brother following the events of the previous film, and teams up with Mose (Djimon Hounsou) to steal an incredibly powerful tracking program from a hacker (Nathalie Emmanuel). The good guys team up for one last ride to save their lives, their families, and put a stop to Shaw.

The movie knows how to let its viewers have fun in the theater, even though it sometimes crosses the fine line of ridiculous fun and unbelievably absurd impossibility. If you thought dropping a half dozen cars out of an airplane onto a windy mountain road in another continent, landing them, and then driving them along said mountain in an insane chase scene to the point where Paul Walker ends up climbing out of a bus as it is falling off a cliff, then running up that bus to grab onto Michelle Rodriguez’s bumper as she drifts along the edge of the cliff couldn’t be made into a prolonged, irrevocably entertaining, 20-minute action scene, the you’d be completely wrong.

Yet sometimes, these scenes aren’t as fun, entertaining, or feasible. Specifically, when Vin Diesel survives falling off both a cliff and a dilapidated parking garage through the power of love, when The Rock is blown out of a glass window by a grenade, falls four stories, and concaves a car unscathed, or when Jason Statham is slammed in the face by The Rock’s Texas-sized elbow and shakes it off like it was a tree branch, I found it a chore not to mutter “bull$#!t” under my breath.

Yet despite these moments of absurdity and a final chase scene that seemed to lose itself towards the end, Furious 7 is 2015’s best movie so far, and among the most fun movies I’ve seen in theaters in a long time. It’s emotional, action-packed, and contains enough context so that Fast and Furious first timers can enjoy themselves as well.

While Vin Diesel’s prediction that Furious 7 will win Best Picture at the Oscars is a bit bold, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be supporting these kinds of movies. It’d be stupid to say there aren’t better action movies as this, because there definitely are, but when action movies work as well or better than Furious 7, they’re the shining examples of why we go to the movies in the first place. It has its imperfections, but Furious 7’s full-throttle levels of testosterone that seem to exude from the screen to the audience are enough reasons to go see the movie. The substance is what’s worth staying for.

Rating: 3.5/5

A quick side note: My radio show co-hosts both gave this a 4.5/5, and they’re fans of the series. So there’s a good chance that if you liked the previous Fast and Furious movies, you’ll love this

Unfriended

http://www.unfriendedmovie.com/img/gallery/01.jpg

Unfriended is the kind of horror film that gets your wondering if its absurdity is intentional or not. My question – does it matter? The movie is entertaining. Some will say it is ridiculous and stupid, others will say it has legitimately terrifying scenes. I saw a bit of both, and found myself at the edge of my seat with intense anticipation, as well as drawing attention of every moviegoer in the theater as I laughed along to some of the death scenes. Add that up, I’d be lying if I didn’t say I would recommend this movie to people.

In a highly original approach, Unfriended takes place almost entirely on the computer screen of high school student Blaire. On the anniversary of her classmate Laura’s suicide, she Skypes with her boyfriend Mitch and their four friends. The friends recount the events that caused Laura to take her own life, which all trace back to the backlash and bullying that resulted following an embarrassing video that went viral.

Blaire and her friends notice an unknown member in their group chat who they aren’t able to remove, report, or block. Soon, the glitch reveals itself to be the ghost of Laura, which no one seems to care about at first except for Blaire (who obnoxiously and incessantly texts her boyfriend out of fear). Laura’s spirit controls everyone’s computers, contacting the group through Skype, FaceBook, Google, and even their printers. Slowly, Laura taunts all the friends with threats to kill they if they sign off, and possesses their bodies and forces them to commit suicide as their friends watch helplessly from home. As the fear heightens, the strength of their friendship is tested as secrets of their relationship with Laura and the role they played in her death comes to be known.

Unfriended has scenes of genuine tension, with one shining examples being one where two of the friends receive threatening notes through their printers which leads up to the most shocking death in the film. However, some moments are, for a lack of a better work, stupid. One scene shows Blaire and her friends facing an immediate threat, to which Blaire responds by taking a five minute diversion from the horror to bring us a head-scratching Chatroulette scene. And then we have some funny scenes, which include Laura’s spirit posting a meme after killing one of the teens.

But let’s backtrack for a second. The whole concept of Unfriended is completely absurd. The idea of conveying an anti-cyberbullying message to a teen audience through a film that takes place entirely on a computer screen is great. That had me intrigued. But the ghost in the film is of a bullied girl who committed suicide. Why did she kill herself? A video emerged after she pooped her pants. Yes, a girl committed suicide because everyone laughed at her after she pooped herself. I just laughed to myself at this idea – not at the idea of a teenager being humiliated to the point of killing herself, but at the idea of a girl feeling like there was no other way…because she pooped her pants. These days, people kill themselves for being called slut, gay, or whore, and if people committed suicide for pooping their pants, no one would make it to the first grade alive. Having said that, this definitely added to the overall feel of the film, which was, again, absolutely ridiculous.

So while Unfriended isn’t the highest quality horror film, I did enjoy it for the most part. I basked in the stupidity and actually enjoyed and commend some of the more intense scenes, and I laughed more times than I ever have in a “horror” movie. So if you go in with this mindset, Unfriended is an achievement. But if you want to be genuinely scared, watch something else.

Rating: 3/5

Insurgent

http://s3.amazonaws.com/bo-assets/production/tiny_mce_photos/26398/original/insurgent.png

I feel like I owe the filmmakers of the Divergent series an apology, because walking in to both of their installments, I had my expectations admittedly low. Last year's Divergent surprised me with its brutal action, entertaining atmosphere, and unexpectedly high quality. So, in terms of Divergent's follow up, was it really fair to me to judge it so harshly beforehand? Let's just tack that one to the societal disdain for young adult novel adaptations. But what movies like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and now Insurgent prove is that there's sometimes so much more to this genre than it's given credit for. 

Insurgent picks up with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), boyfriend Four (Theo James), brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort), and ally Peter (Miles Teller) hiding from the government following the deadly societal fallout at the end of Divergent. Together, this cast of characters (portrayed arguably by perhaps four of Holywood's most talented and promising young actors) work to evade the autocratic Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet) and recover from the loss of their friends and family. Meanwhile, Jeanine recruits those who have betrayed Tris and her fellow divergents to discover the hidden secrets within an coveted artifact that could change dystopian Chicago forever. 

Like Divergent, Insurgent has the potential to surprise you, especially if you continue to hold low expectations for films within this genre. Insurgent is action packed, with sequences that assist the film in boldly emerging from its category. I've only seen 3 other films this year, but the scene where Tris and her friends escape from their enemies with the help of a train is far and above the most intense scene of 2015 (that'll undoubtedly change once we start seeing some summer blockbusters, though). It then goes on to keep the pace it set with gripping moments of Tris in a simulator and continuous twists of character allegiances.

Coming off of more dramatic films like The Fault in Our Stars, Shailene Woodley proves to be quite a badass. Her character's skillset - both physical and intellectual - never fails to captivate or entertain. Tris is relentless, mature, compassionate, and strong. If I had a daughter, I'd much rather see her grow up to be like Tris than Lily James' Cinderella.

Now, it wouldn't be right to say that either Divergent or Insurgent is better than Harry Potter or The Hunger Games when they're all at their best, but Insurgent proves that even when films in this genre aren't perfect, they can still be pretty good. The score is fitting, the visuals are spectacular, the acting is first-rate, and its scope is surprisingly mature. In fact, Insurgent is an improvement on Divergent in many aspects, and so if you weren't expecting much following the 2014 film, you might have your mind changed after this movie. 

To be honest, I am a bit skeptical on how Allegiant will be able to tell an additional story (in two movies :/ ) since Insurgent ended so well. However, if these past these two films have taught me anything, it's not to underestimate the series' production staff. If the filmmakers can match and/or exceed the quality of what they've done so far, we could be in for quite a ride when it comes to the Divergent series' two-part finale. But let's see what happens.

Rating: 3.5/5

Cinderella

http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/810x540/a_c/cinderella_glamour_19nov15_pr_b_810x540.jpg

It's 2015. We don't need a new Cinderella movie. However, if Disney feels so inclined to give us one, I don't think it's too much to ask that we get a new Cinderella movie. But is this what we're given? Nope. The film, its characters, and its messages are just as animated as if they were taken straight out of a classic hand-drawn movie. And when I say animated here, I don't mean "lively" or "spirited," I mean "fake" and "cartoonish."

So why do I hate this movie so much? Well, I wouldn't say I hate it, per se. In terms of the film as a whole, it wasn't terrible - it just wasn't very good. But to make matters worse, there was plenty in this movie to not only dislike, but to loathe. Keeping in mind, once again, that it is the year 2015, the portrayal of Cinderella as a weak-willed and pathetic damsel is anti-feminist, extremely offensive, and possibly quite damaging to the young viewers in the audience. But hey, at least they got to enjoy Frozen Fever beforehand if they weren't standing in the popcorn line for too long.

In this movie, Disney had the chance to improve on the so-so reputation it has in regards to its messages towards young girls. In the past, it's been slammed for painting Belle as a victim of domestic abuse and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty as helpless women in comas who can only be awoken by the kiss of a man they barely know. A retelling of Cinderella was Disney's opportunity to follow the suit of strong females seen in Frozen and Tangled. Instead, they keep the orphaned girl exactly as she's always been, negatively socializing girls into believing the only time they should stand up to someone is when that person is threatening the impressive status of the man they have a crush on. Because, you know, be kind and have courage, and all that good stuff.

But let's take a step back from the harmful approach this movie has, and look at its general storytelling capabilities. Here, too, it's unsuccessful. It takes far too long to get into the grown Cinerella's storyline, and when she's an adult, she's surrounded by a ridiculous group of terribly directed actors. Say what you will of her character, but as Cinderella, Lily James is able to bring her dimension when the writing gives her none. Unfortunately, I can't say this for anyone else. Even two-time Oscar-winner Cate Blanchett, who plays the stepmother, doesn't add much to the movie, especially in the unnecessary and often torturous scenes with her wicked daughters. As the prince, Richard Madden disappoints, especially when compared to his previous fantasy period-piece work in "Game of Thrones."

But what about the artistic aspects, where the movie probably shined brightest? Again, you'd be wrong (unless you're talking about the film's score, which is completely magnificent). While some costumes and set pieces dazzle, others are so clunky they have the appearance of being designed by a high school prom committee. On top of that, the visual effects were laughable, given that it is, once again, 2015.

So in Cinderella, we're force-fed these dated and damaging messages for nearly two hours, whether it be through Cinderella's indifference towards her abuse or through the sight of her waistline shrinking as the Fairy Godmother prepares her for the ball. But even worse is the fact that the film seems to make zero attempts to be original, or that fact that Helena Bonham Carter's Godmother is essentially a cameo. Rats don't live for 18 years, smashing a human-sized pumpkin against a stump while you're inside leads to death, and no one looks under secret floorboards unless they're lead to believe there's something there. Cinderella may look good at times, and might not bore your brains out, but it's offensive, uneventful, and potentially detrimental to the future of some of its young viewers.

Rating: 2/5

2015 Oscar Predictions

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/934921/thumbs/o-OSCARS-2013-facebook.jpg

Another cinematic year has passed, and on Sunday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will be handing out their coveted Oscars for achievements in producing, directing, writing, technical construction, music, and more. While the Academy is expected to follow the previous awards circuits, there are always a few unexpected winners on Oscar night. So I'll be taking a crack at who I think the winners will be in each of the major categories, who I think should win, and who was somehow ignored for their efforts.

Best Picture

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2014/01/boyhood_still.jpg

Predicted Winner: Boyhood

Birdman's Best Picture momentum has picked up recently following wins at the Director's, Producer's, and Screen Actors Guild Awards. Since the Academy consists of industry professionals, and not critics, there's a possibility Birdman could edge out over Boyhood. Yet I think this is unlikely - Boyhood will be remembered and admired for far longer than Birdman. While Birdman was inventive and fun, Boyhood was even more inventive and offered a mesmerizing blend of narrative and realism. Birdman is an achievement, but Boyhood should ultimately prove victorious on Oscar night. As for the other nominees, Selma and Whiplash will probably be discounted, but shouldn't be in my eyes. American Sniper could make a surprise showing, but given its lack of a Best Director nomination, it's not too likely. Grand Budapest could be a potential spoiler, but you should probably just expect it to pick up wins in the artistic categories.

AJ's Rankings

1. Boyhood
2. Selma
3. Whiplash
4. The Theory of Everything
5. Birdman
6. American Sniper
7. The Imitation Game
8. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Should have been nominated: Into the Woods, Noah, The Fault in Our Stars, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Fun Fact: This is the first year since I've started blogging that I've given all the best picture nominees positive ratings, and if any of my top 5 on that list won, I wouldn't be too mad.

Best Director

http://www.cinesnob.net/wp-content/uploads/linklatercoltranepic.jpg

Predicted Winner: Richard Linklater, Boyhood

Another toss-up between Boyhood's Linklater and Birdman's Iñárritu. Both were risk-takers and brilliantly realized the strong visions for their films. Again, I'd give the edge to Boyhood here. Linklater effortlessly captured the trials of growing up, and gave an unfathomable amount of dedication to this film's success. It paid off, and I think the Academy will reward him for his work.

AJ's Rankings

1. Linklater, Boyhood
2. Iñárritu, Birdman
3. Miller, Foxcatcher
4. Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel
5. Tyldum, The Imitation Game

Should have been nominated: Ava DuVernay, Selma; James Marsh, The Theory of Everything; Rob Marshall, Into the Woods; Damien Chazelle, Whiplash; Peter Jackson, The Hobbit; Dave Green, Earth to Echo

Best Actor

http://www.wxou.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2_img_inset.jpg

Predicted Winner: Michael Keaton, Birdman

The biggest race of the night will be between Birdman's Keaton and The Theory of Everything's Eddie Redmayne. It's a showdown of comedy and drama, of a fresh face and a classic Hollywood comeback. Both gave equally impressive performances, and personally, I'm still trying to decide who I think is the better choice to win. Redmayne gave a painstaking performance as the renowned physicist, while Keaton immersed himself into becoming Riggan. It's not an easy call, but I think the Academy will veer more towards the traditional and conservative choice by giving Keaton the gold. But with SAG and BAFTA wins under his belt, Redmayne may be walking on that stage on Sunday. It's anybody's guess. Potential spoilers could be Cumberbatch and Cooper, especially if the votes between Redmayne and Keaton draw to a deadlock.

AJ's Rankings

1. Michael Keaton, Birdman
2. Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything
3. Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game
4. Bradley Cooper, American Sniper
5. Steve Carell, Foxcatcher

Should have been nominated: Ansel Elgort, The Fault in Our Stars; Ben Affleck, Gone Girl

Best Actress

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com

Predicted Winner: Julianne Moore, Still Alice

Well, this is embarrassing. Since Still Alice and Two Days, One Night haven't been given a wide release yet and I have not seen Wild, I can only offer commentary on two of the nominees. Felicity Jones seems a bit out of place here for The Theory of Everything, so I'd give my vote to Rosamund for Gone Girl. However, know that Moore is a lock to win this Oscar, and in my opinion, a win for her is long overdue.

Should have been nominated: Shailene Woodley, The Fault in Our Stars

Best Supporting Actor

http://cdn.indiewire.com/

Predicted Winner: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

Okay, time for a tiny rant. Simmons was scarily good in Whiplash, yet I think the reason he's winning so many awards as opposed to just being nominated is because no one expected he could pull off such a performance. As the treacherous Terrence Fletcher, Simmons gave one of the best performances of the year, but in my eyes, he didn't upstage Edward Norton in Birdman. And think of it this way, when we look back twenty years from now, and for some reason Edward Norton - who gave us truly impeccable performances in movies like Primal Fear and American History X - still doesn't have an Oscar, won't we regret this time when we had a chance to give him one when he really deserves it? On another note, if neither Simmons or Norton were nominated this year, I'd be pulling for Ethan Hawke for bringing such an intriguing character transition to the screen so well as Mason Sr. in Boyhood.

AJ's Rankings

1. Edward Norton, Birdman
2. J.K. Simmons, Whiplash
3. Ethan Hawke, Boyhood
4. Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher
Also nominated: Robert Duvall, The Judge

Should have been nominated: Marton Csokas, The Equalizer; Neil Patrick Harris, Gone Girl

Best Supporting Actress 

http://markcz.com

Predicted Winner: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

I swear to God, if Arquette opens up a packet of three or four pages of 8 1/2 x 11 paper and asks the presenter to hold onto her Oscar while she unpreparedly reads from them, I may just fly to L.A. and take the trophy from her. Incidentals aside, Arquette played the role of Olivia reasonably well, though I'm thoroughly befuddled as to why she's winning every supporting actress award under the sun this year. Tilda Swinton should have been in the category, and frankly, should have won it. Otherwise, this year's supporting actress field is incredibly weak.

AJ's Rankings

1. Patricia Arquette, Boyhood
2. Meryl Streep, Into the Woods
3. Emma Stone, Birdman
4. Keira Knightly, The Imitation Game
Also nominated: Laura Dern, Wild

Should have been nominated: Tilda Swinton, Snowpiercer; Sienna Miller, American Sniper

Best Original Screenplay

Predicted Winner: Iñárritu & Co., Birdman

Birdman's originality should win it at least one Oscar, and that'll likely be for this category. The biggest snub here is for Paul Webb's screenplay for Selma. This could, however, be the Academy's chance to give Anderson's Grand Budapest an Oscar for a major category.

AJ's Rankings

1. Richard Linklater, Boyhood
2. Iñárritu & Co., Birdman
3. Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. E. Max Frye & Dan Futterman, Foxcatcher
Also nominated: Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler

Should have been nominated: Paul Webb, Selma

Best Adapted Screenplay

Predicted Winner: Anthony McCarten, The Theory of Everything

This is a tough one, as no real frontrunner has been named in this category. Because of that, I'll follow suit with the BAFTAs and predict The Theory of Everything, which also happens to be my choice for the win. Count no one out in this category: The Imitation Game fared much better over here than it did in its home nation of England, Whiplash could win to incentivize young filmmakers, and no one's quite sure what to expect from American Sniper.

AJ's Rankings

1. Anthony McCarten, The Theory of Everything
2. Damien Chazelle, Whiplash (even though it's an original screenplay)
3. Jason Hall, American Sniper
4. Graham Moore, The Imitation Game
Also nominated Paul Thomas Anderson, Inherent Vice

Should have been nominated: Gillian Flynn, Gone Girl; Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber, The Fault in our Stars; Darren Aronofsky & Ari Handel, Noah
_________________________________________________

And here are the rest of your 2015 Oscar winners, followed by AJ's Pick (AP) in parentheses:

Best Visual Effects: Interstellar (AP: Interstellar)
Best Film Editing: Boyhood (AP: Boyhood)
Best Costume Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel (AP: Into the Woods)
Best Makeup & Hairstyling: Guardians of the Galaxy (AP: Guardians of the Galaxy)
Best Sound Mixing: Whiplash (AP: Whiplash)
Best Sound Editing: American Sniper (AP: The Hobbit)
Best Cinematography: Birdman (AP: Birdman)
Best Production Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel (AP: The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Best Original Score: The Theory of Everything (AP: Interstellar)
Best Original Song: "Glory," from Selma (AP: "Glory")

Tallied Predictions:

Boyhood: 4
Birdman: 3
The Grand Budapest Hotel: 2
Whiplash: 2
The Theory of Everything: 2
American Sniper: 1
Interstellar: 1
Still Alice: 1
Selma: 1
Guardians of the Galaxy: 1

See also: 2015 Oscars - Snubs and Surprises, AJ's Top 10 of 2014