Screen Actor's Guild Awards. What to expect.

The Screen Actor's Guild Awards (SAG) are upon us. Tonight, the biggest guild in movies will pick their winners for acting in film and television, and for the most part, here is one of the best bellwethers for the eventual Oscar winners. There are some notably-tricky categories to pick here, but let's take a peek at what's nominated, who has a chance, and who's a lock.



BEST ENSEMBLE

Beasts of No Nation
The Big Short
Spotlight 
Straight Outta Compton
Trumbo

Generally speaking, Ensemble is categorized as the award for "Best Picture." Looking at this award historically, it generally predicts the eventual Oscar winner 50% of the time, so this will not give us a lot of insight for the state of the race. The inclusion of films like "Beasts of No Nation" and "Straight Outta Compton" were seen as an upset due to smaller casts and lesser-known actors. Since 2007, no lineup of nominees here has had less correlation with an actual Oscar nomination for Best Picture (when 'No Country For Old Men' was the sole nominee that year. It ended up winning). As Spotlight and Big Short are the only two movies to be nominated for Best Picture, they have the advantage. Let's break it down in even more simple terms: this award frequently goes to comedies (Little Miss Sunshine, American Hustle, Birdman) AND the film with the largest cast generally wins. I think The Big Short is well on its way to another victory.

1. The Big Short
2. Spotlight
3. Trumbo
4. Straight Outta Compton
5. Beasts of No Nation



BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

Bryan Cranston (Trumbo)
Johnny Depp (Black Mass)
Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)
Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs)
Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl)

This is the most assured win of the evening, and it will be DiCaprio's first win (surprisingly) from SAG. I hope he has a speech prepared.

1. Leonardo DiCaprio
2. Bryan Cranston
3. Michael Fassbender
4. Eddie Redmayne
5. Johnny Depp



BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

Cate Blanchett (Carol)
Brie Larson (Room)
Helen Mirren (The Woman in Gold)
Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn)
Sarah Silverman (I Smile Back)

Brie Larson has had the buzz all year, and assuming she wins this (she is the clear front-runner), then this race is all done. If someone like Ronan, the perceived runner-up, manages a victory here, then it will be a real race. It seems unlikely that the 'Room' actress will lose here, though.

1. Brie Larson
2. Saoirse Ronan
3. Cate Blanchett
4. Sarah Silverman
5. Helen Mirren



BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Christian Bale (The Big Short)
Idris Elba (Beasts of No Nation)
Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies)
Michael Shannon (99 Homes)
Jacob Tremblay (Room)

This is a tough one to call, as the perceived Oscar front-runner (Sylvester Stallone for "Creed") was notably snubbed in this category. It's nearly impossible for an actor to win an Oscar without a nomination at SAG, so perhaps Stallone isn't as much of a lock as we think. Bale has the benefit of being in a Best Picture front-runner, and perhaps someone like Elba could benefit from sympathy votes from the "Oscars so White" controversy. Of the 5 men nominated here, only two (Bale & Rylance) also were nominated by the Academy. As much as I would like to see someone like Tremblay pull off an upset, a person has NEVER won the SAG Award without also being nominated for an Oscar. This is a two-way race.

1. Christian Bale
2. Mark Rylance
3. Jacob Tremblay
4. Idris Elba
5. Michael Shannon



BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Rooney Mara (Carol)
Rachel McAdams (Spotlight)
Helen Mirren (Trumbo)
Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl)
Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs)

Without a doubt the hardest category to call. Both Vikander and Mara have been nominated as 'lead' at the Golden Globes, though at the Oscars they are categorized as supporting. Besides Mirren, this is legitimately a 4-way race. Vikander is the perceived front-runner, perhaps due to her performance as a suffering wife being all the things voters usually embrace (it's a cookie-cutter performance to Jennifer Connelly in "A Beautiful Mind"). Winslet won the Golden Globe in a tiny upset, though she wasn't facing competition from this lineup. Does she have momentum to go all the way? My head says Vikander, but I have a hunch Kate Winslet may be on the road to her second Oscar win. I think that whoever wins here will be a lock for the Oscar.

1. Kate Winslet
2. Alicia Vikander
3. Rooney Mara
4. Rachel McAdams
5. Helen Mirren

The Revenant (*****)

"The Revenant" is the best film of 2015. It may even qualify as one of the better films I have ever seen. The premise is simple, the concept is fairly bare. A story of a man simply seeking revenge morphed into one of the more spiritual experiences I have had at the movies; a vivid experience that uses a cinematic language to paint a portrait unlike anything I have seen.

Alejandro Inarritu is no stranger to quality filmmaking. In fact, he holds the most recently-awarded Oscar in the directing category for Birdman. Mexican-born and with a film resume that is simply qualified for an international stage, his work on "Revenant" hands down puts him at the forefront of filmmakers today. What I felt was lacking in "Birdman" is made up tenfold with this story. Cinematically, the struggles to make such a picture are apparent.  Emotionally, it left me raw.

Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a fur trader, working in the wild of an unnamed vista, a world on the brink of colonization. With his son, a Pawnee Native American, and a team of workers and soldiers, they trudge through the wilderness with constant threat of hostile attack. The opening scene, through a series of long, dreamlike shots, maneuvers through a barrage of arrows and bullets, gore and carnage, as the trappers are attacked by a band of local Arikara tribe. Perhaps 10 survive.

Fleeing via boat, the team is whittled down as they journey on foot towards potential salvation. The great "Aguirre: The Wrath of God" seems referenced a few times, and both stories diverge into more abstract ideas than you would initially believe.

The centerpiece of the film (I suppose one of many) is a bear attack as Glass is caught off-guard while stumbling onto a group of grizzly cubs in the wood. The scene is a continuous take, a marvel of computer imagery (I sincerely cannot believe that was not a physical bear) and choreography. It's not malicious, but simply a fight to keep Glass away. Through closeups and sound, the mauling of DiCaprio feels so genuine that that audience I saw it with screamed several times in unison. It's a masterful scene.

This leads to the main dymanic of Glass versus John Fitzgerald (the brilliant Tom Hardy). Fitzgerald is a common man, bound by money. Left with the care of Glass, he sees the wounded man as a mere casuality, and he secretly murders his son and attempts to bury Glass alive. It's nothing personal, simply a man taking shortcuts on a path to moral corruption. Another trapper, Jim Bridger (Will Poulter) witnesses the attempted murder. He knows it is wrong, but in the face of such evil, he has no choice but to become complacent.

We know DiCaprio does not die, and in fact the majority of the film shows his trek through the tundra and wild to return to civilization and meet Fitzgerald face-to-face.

The wonders of the film are known to us before even watching it. Shot with natural light, Emmanuel Lubezki (the Oscar-winner for Cinematography the past two years) created some of the most haunting imagery with only the sunlight spared. Shot in remote locations, Inarritu spent months of preparation in order to make the months-long shoot as smooth as possible. Going in, I knew the film was going to be a marvel. I didn't realize the sheer power it would have as a story in and of itself. Backstory aside, it's still a damned good movie.

And Leonardo DiCaprio... The internet is a buzz with his inevitable Oscar win. He deserves it, I must say. Through grunts and facial expression, DiCaprio plays Glass as a man in search of something he does not yet know. It's a revenge western in many respects, but as the story progresses, we see a certain resilience that make us question the man and his origins even more so. With a literal hole in his throat (you will be amazed at the level of detail in his bear wounds), he is left with a bare, raspy voice, a tone so soft that we barely hear. DiCaprio's role is that of a great physicality, and coupled with his work on "The Wolf of Wall Street," I can understand more so the power and talent of one of Hollywood's most iconic leading men.

Tom Hardy, my God. Is this really his first Oscar nomination? His presence on screen is absolutely palpable, and his is a character overflowing with charisma and evil. It's a villain we love to hate, want to see punished, miss when he is not in the scene. His scalp is scarred with deep wounds, and his hair grows unevenly. Like Glass, we only want to learn more about this Fitzgerald: where he comes from, what led him to murder...

By the time the film ended, I felt as though I was had just seen "2001" or "There Will Be Blood" for the first time all over again. There is an immense power to cinema when done right; an assembly of shots and music and sound that simply transcend the mere moviegoing experience. "The Revenant" is one such film. The best film yet made by Inarritu. On all levels this movie is a masterpiece of craft and talent. The score, haunting and rhythmic, leads the audience through a story filled with longing and terror. The violence, as graphic as I think I have ever seen in a movie, is justified and presented with a clear focus on realism. (You will remember my dislike of the sadistic tone of "The Hateful Eight," where violence was presented as merely a tool to entice a laugh. Here the violence is nearly on-par, yet given the context is comprehensible and justified.)

I marvel at the technical accomplishments, unmatched in the realm of today's cinema. I applaud the work of the actors and filmmakers who have crafted a story that I know will be discussed for years to come. "The Revenant" is a long, pacing, thrilling ride from start to finish. I simply witnessed a miracle with the price of a ticket.

Reaction to the Oscar nominations

Yet again, we come to that time of the year: the month-long period before the Oscars when the Golden Globes have spoken and the Guild awards are about to kick off. This is the Oscar hunting season. Following our nominations early Thursday morning, we were treated to some surprises, but mostly a range of fairly expected nominees across the board. Where do we stand? Let's break down some of the major categories and attempt to do a temperature check on the state of the race.


BEST PICTURE

Early in the year, the buzz was entirely around 'Spotlight' for its topical content and strong cast. 'The Big Short' has proven to be a juggernaut in recent weeks, picking up steam (and a surprise Best Director/Editing/Screenplay combo) to put it in prime position for an upset. This year, however, 'The Revenant' picked up the most nominations (12, Mad Max following with 10, The Martian at 7) as well as a Golden Globe upset for the top prize. Was this payback for last year's snub of Inarritu and 'Birdman' at the Globes, or is this a sign of things to come? Mind you, a film has NEVER won Best Picture without a Screen Actor's Guild Ensemble nomination & Golden Globe Screenplay nomination. That bodes well for 'Spotlight' and 'Big Short.' It's also the case that the film with the most nominations usually has an advantage, and 'Spotlight' doesn't even break the top 5 in that regard. Where is there more support?

1. The Revenant
2. Spotlight
3. The Big Short
4. Mad Max: Fury Road
5. Room
6. The Martian
7. Bridge of Spies
8. Brookyn


BEST DIRECTOR

Some saw this as a major snub of Ridley Scott for 'The Martian.' Nonsense, I say. These 5 men made films of integrity and vision. Scott's work on Martian, though admirable, was nowhere near top form for the aged director. I'm sure he will make a better film in years to come...

Again, the early consensus was that 'Spotlight' had the advantage due to buzz and esteem. Do most voters look at that film and see a technical achievement along the lines of a 'Gravity' or 'Life of Pi' or even 'Birdman?' It's rare for a director to win back-to-back Oscars (in fact it has only happened twice before: with John Ford in 1941/1942 and Joseph L. Mankiewicz in 1950/1951). No filmmaker has yet to win back-to-back Oscars for Picture and Director... Yet. That being said, it's hard to look at a film like 'The Revenant,' recognize the struggles it took to film, and dismiss it simply because the director just won last year. 'Mad Max' follows that same logic in terms of dynamic visuals and harsh shooting conditions,  but that film just seems a bit weird for Academy taste. McKay and Abrahamson are just lucky to be here.

1. "The Revenant," Alejandro G. Iñárritu

2. "Spotlight," Tom McCarthy

3. "Mad Max: Fury Road," George Miller

4. "The Big Short," Adam McKay
5. "Room," Lenny Abrahamson


BEST ACTOR

The internet has spoken, and it seems like this is an inevitable snowball of support for Leo. At long last (and with the Globe win as an early signal), it seems like his time has come (and maybe it will make voters feel better about snubbing Michael Keaton last year in another Alejandro Inarritu film). Matt Damon makes a puzzling addition to an otherwise accomplished group of performances (he kind of just played himself, didn't he?), but overall it's very hard to look at this category and predict an upset.

1. Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Revenant"
2. Bryan Cranston in "Trumbo"
3. Michael Fassbender in "Steve Jobs"

4. Eddie Redmayne in "The Danish Girl"

5. Matt Damon in "The Martian"


BEST ACTRESS

This was a tough category, especially considering two leading ladies (Alicia Vikander in 'The Danish Girl' and Rooney Mara 'Carol') were unjustly nominated in the supporting category, which constitutes a rather alarming case of category fraud. It also allowed the incredibly oversaturated Jennifer Lawrence to squeeze in her record 4th nomination at the delicate age of 25. Brie Larson is the one to beat, with only Saoirse Ronan serving as spoiler (both also appear in a Best Picture nominee). With the Golden Globe victory, I think we are beginning to see the slow start of an avalanche for 'Room's' sole Oscar win.

1. Brie Larson in "Room"
2. Saoirse Ronan in "Brooklyn"
3. Cate Blanchett in "Carol"
4. Charlotte Rampling in "45 Years"
5. Jennifer Lawrence in "Joy"


BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

At long last we saw Ruffalo pick up a most deserved nomination for 'Spotlight's' best performance. His missing at Screen Actor's Guild and Golden Globe's makes his victory nearly impossible. We just saw Sylvester Stallone pick up his trophy at the Globes to rapturous applause, and yet he too missed a SAG nomination. Bale and Rylance are the only two men who have received all the 'necessary' nominations to consider them front-runners, and yet the passion behind Stallone and the wide support he is perceived to have may overstep the typical tea leaves we would normally look for. Had Jacob Tremblay received his nomination for 'Room,' I believe he would have emerged a victor.

1. Sylvester Stallone in "Creed"
2. Mark Rylance in "Bridge of Spies"
3. Mark Ruffalo in "Spotlight"
4. Christian Bale in "The Big Short"
5. Tom Hardy in "The Revenant"


BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE 

The unfortunate addition of Vikander and Mara give them a somewhat unfair advantage (leading performances in this category tend to win... Think of Christoph Waltz in 'Django' or Jennifer Hudson in 'Dreamgirls.') Who gives the more acclaimed performance? We also have Winslet, fresh of a surprise Globe win for 'Steve Jobs,' Rachel McAdams in "Spotlight," and the astounding Jennifer Jason Leigh in 'The Hateful Eight.' All three of these women star in a film entirely made up of a male cast. This, too, often bodes well for eventual winners (Tilda Swinton in 'Michael Clayton,' Jennifer Connelly in 'A Beautiful Mind,' or Kim Basinger in 'LA Confidential'). This could go one of 5 ways. Maybe the toughest acting category of the year to predict.

1. Alicia Vikander in "The Danish Girl"
2. Kate Winslet in "Steve Jobs"
3. Jennifer Jason Leigh in "The Hateful Eight"
4. Rooney Mara in "Carol"
5. Rachel McAdams in "Spotlight"


BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Tell me this isn't the more difficult race to predict of the year. 'Room' has the heart, 'The Big Short' has the Aaron Sorkin-style dialogue (and what a snub he had for 'Steve Jobs,' by the way), 'The Martian' has the fans, and 'Brooklyn' & 'Carol' both stem from acclaimed novels. If the current buzz is to be believed, I think this is a close race between 'Short' and 'Room.'

1. "The Big Short," screenplay by Charles Randolph and Adam McKay
2. "Room," screenplay by Emma Donoghue
3. "Brooklyn," screenplay by Nick Hornby
4. "Carol," screenplay by Phyllis Nagy
5. "The Martian," screenplay by Drew Goddard


BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

This is the category we typically see some smaller films sneak in, and 'Ex Machina' and 'Compton' make deserved nominees and unlikely winners. Based on the lineup, I think there is no way around it (unless Pixar is perceived to be 'overdue' for a Screenplay win, which I don't believe is the case). 'Spotlight,' through years of research and a sharp script, seems to have this in the bag.

1. "Spotlight," written by Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy
2. "Inside Out," screenplay by Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve and Josh Cooley; original story by Pete Docter and Ronnie del Carmen
3. "Bridge of Spies," written by Matt Charman and Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
4. "Ex Machina," written by Alex Garland
5. "Straight Outta Compton," screenplay by Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff; story by S. Leigh Savidge & Alan Wenkus and Andrea Berloff


BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

I personally thought Williams' score was one of the weaker aspects of Star Wars, while his surprising absence from usual collaborator Steven Spielberg's 'Bridge of Spies' only highlighted the talent of overdue Thomas Newman (13 nominations, no wins). That being said, I think Globe winner 'Hateful Eight' and legendary Ennio Morricone stand a good chance here: combining an overdue factor with a need to award Tarantino's murder mystery with at least one win.

1. "The Hateful Eight," Ennio Morricone
2. "Bridge of Spies," Thomas Newman
3. "Carol," Carter Burwell
4. "Sicario," Jóhann Jóhannsson

5. "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," John Williams



Keep your eyes peeled for more thoughts and analysis as we get closer to Oscar week. Don't miss the Critic's Choice Awards this Sunday!

Anomalisa (**1/2)

The face is allegedly the window to the soul, but it's no use telling that to Michael Stone (David Thewlis), the main character of "Anomalisa." Suffering from a self-diagnosed bout of psychosis in which everyone sounds alike, he wanders through life with a deep disconnect and a love for the drink. From strangers to those he loves dearly, the voice that he hears is a bland, male sound (Tom Noonan, brilliantly billed as "Everyone Else"). Making phone calls, he has to ask for people by name to ensure it's really them. As a Kaufman film, the story is right up his alley, and the continual resolve to discover the deeper nature of self continues to be a topic that provides him with ample subject matter.

Curiously filmed in stop-motion style (with such a heightened reality that at times I could squint my eyes and believe that I was really watching real people on screen), the story takes on a dreamlike quality even though the majority plays out in real time. Michael, author of a self-help customer service book, travels to Cincinnati to give a presentation. He checks into the Frengoli Hotel (clever) and decides to spend the night ordering room service and watching a movie. What he finds is anything but ordinary.

Just looking at the cast list, we know Jennifer Jason Leigh is the final member of the intimate ensemble in the title role. For some reason, hers is the only voice that sounds in a real tone. It catches Michael's ear from his hotel room. He runs out, desperate to have a conversation with an actual woman with a woman's voice. Lisa, a fan of Michael's book, is shy; fractured. A scar on her eye and embarrassed by the way she talks, Michael only sees a woman of innocence and timid beauty.

Again, the film is told nearly in real time, so we can imagine the outcome of a one-night stand. We learn Michael has had this type of encounter before, and we wonder what happened in his past or how long he has suffered from this condition.

I was completely memorized by the animation, by the faces of these characters. Three-dimensional in every way imaginable, there are striking moments when I was floored by a saddened reaction of Lisa or a sense of shock from Michael. 3D printing aided in the creation of these puppets, but by all means this seems like a revolutionary film for animation, slowly bridging the gap between reality and fantasy in a way I never conceived.

As we know, Kaufman is not one to shy away from unique topics (Adaptation) or cyclical love stories (Eternal Sunshine, or even Synecdoche). With "Anomalisa," it simply feels overburdened by concept and lacking in raw story. Adapted from a radio play and originally intended as a short film, funding for the picture stretched it to feature length and it quite simply shows. Aside from a few lines of insightful dialogue and a central scene of raw intimacy, the film trudges along and has very little to offer (even having been penned by perhaps the greatest living screenwriter). Where I was hoping to be inspired, the movie fell flat.

I appreciate the ending and the idea that one person's suffering can lead to another person's self-realization of worth. I admired the character of Lisa and her coming to confidence through a chance encounter with someone like Michael. As a movie, there are few films more creative this year. As a piece of writing, it's brazen and heartfelt at the best of times. As a whole, "Anomalisa" might just be a single flaw on Kaufman's resume. If I said it were an anomaly, would that be too on the nose?

The Hateful Eight (***)

*I went into this film having not read a synopsis nor watched a trailer. As such, I think the movie had a surprising effect and I will mention here that there are probably a plethora of spoilers ahead. 

There are a lot of funny things about "The Hateful Eight," Quentin Tarantino's 8th film in his directorial canon. It was shot on a glorious 70mm film stock, and yet most of it takes place in one room. It has the outward appearance of a classic spaghetti western, and yet the claustrophobia and dialogue makes it feel more like a 'who-done-it' caper. In terms of comparing the movie to a counterpart (and as Tarantino has confirmed), it feels more like the horror flick "The Thing" than say, "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly." It's a movie of raw talent, skill, and craft. Why does it feel like the shadow of a better film?

As the title suggests, we encounter an ensemble of eight travelers from the Civil War era snowscape of Wyoming (9 if you include the driver of the wagon). One by one, we meet our band, a group of witty, street smart travelers and criminals and law men who talk with an ear for Shakespeare and a universal talent for small talk. There's Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L Jackson), a bounty hunter with three fresh corpses. He flags down John "The Hangman" Ruth (Kurt Russell), a brazen moustache of a man shackled to his own bounty: the wildly obtuse Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh. She's just astounding in the role). Warren hitches a ride and they move on in a 'Wizard of Oz' type fashion to pick up their next passenger: a conman turned Sheriff named Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins).

So it goes for a while until they find themselves in the midst of a blizzard and marooned at Minnie's Haberdashery. Here it turns more or less into the cast of Clue, with a General (Bruce Dern), a Mexican ("Bob," played wonderfully by Demian Bichir), a hangman (Tim Roth), and a writer (Michael Madsen). With nothing to do but talk and a mystery surrounding (among other things) poisoned coffee, the fate of these eight soon becomes a test of mortality and wits.

The film, as is most Tarantino lore, is broken down into chapters, slowly introducing character by character and leading to a fairly explosive climax. The 70mm Roadshow version I watched even had an Entr'acte and Intermission. What began as a slow introduction was soon replaced with tension and filmmaking one comes to expect from a director of such insurmountable film knowledge and trivia. Midway through I was convinced this was a film of all development and no payoff. By the end I was surely proven wrong.

The screenplay is razor sharp and is carried by perhaps the most skilled cast of the year. In many ways this is a movie that resembles a stage performance, playing out in real time and using traditional blocking to progress the story with a unique dymanic. Coupled with Rob Richardson's glorious cinematography (there are truly some glorious shots) and the music of Ennio Morricone (you can just hear the whispers of some great spaghetti westerns in the simple melodies. This is an Oscar-winning score for sure), Tarantino's film indeed takes on a more cinematic mythos than his previous stories.

My problems with the film (and the reasons I found it so difficult to write a review at first) is surprisingly from the violence. For a movie with such a limited setting, the language of gore in this film is about as shocking as anything I think I have seen. Do they give NC-17 ratings on violence alone? Surely this is a film that could warrant it.

Most of the violence revolves around Daisy, a woman we are told is a savage murderer who deserves the noose. Scene after scene, we witness her being beat by Ruth, and by Marquis, and the sheriff, all manner of blows to the head and face. By the end of the film she is literally drenched in blood and brain matter, her initial black eye at the beginning of the film not even visible. This is not to denounce the film as misogynistic (would it be as disturbing if the character was a man?). My trouble with the film comes from the sadistic joy these men have abusing a woman we are told is violent, and yet never is the audience provided the same justification to hate her as well. To us, she is merely a woman in chains, beaten to within an inch of her life time after time (though through a small smile we know she is still unharmed, relishing in the anarchy she stirs to life). As a performance, Daisy Domergue is the highlight of the film and Jennifer Jason Leigh's final moments on screen are legendary. As a focus of entertainment by means of torture, I am yet to be convinced.

The rest of the film is what we would come to expect: Samuel L Jackson (surprisingly brilliant in his leading role) calling his co-inhabitants "motherfuckers" (suspension of disbelief leads me to believe this was a term coined around the Revolutionary War era), bullets fly, and the camera oftentimes leads us to clues unknown to the characters at the time. During the best scenes, this is a film that would do Hitchcock proud. At it's worst, it amounts to little more than a snuff film littered with gore and shock value for the sake of mere disgust. I still believe this is a film of unmatched skill and talent. Maybe one of the best of the year in that regard. I just think that after the credits rolled and the lights went up, the knots in my stomach were more a result of disgust than ecstasy.

SIcario (*****)

"Sicario" completely took me by surprise, leaving me with an overwhelming feeling of amazement and wonder. Amazed by such a tightly-written thriller with clear characters and thrilling moments, wondered by the art of such a story and an eagerness to watch it again.

Denis Villeneuve has directed some good films (Prisoners) and some curious films (Enemy), but for the first time it feels like he has helmed something important. The story is layered with a depth of character development that it's oftentimes difficult to determine even a main character. My guess is Kate (Emily Blunt), an FBI agent who is used to being thrust into danger. The opening scene depicts a drug raid gone sour (and do I mean it's bad). She's strong-willed and good with a gun, but even in these early moments we sense a vulnerability; a sense that she is in well over her head.

She is recruited by a special ops team that tends to leave her in the shadows. Their goal is to eradicate the leaders of a drug cartel based in and around Mexico, but Kate is rarely given a full breakdown of the plan. A trip to El Paso instead finds them in Juarez, Mexico. A mysterious bodyguard turns out to be Alejandro Gillick (the brilliant Benicio del Toro), a man full of mysteries and potential danger.

In many ways the story is equally about Gillick. He hints at a past and through interrogations and his knowledge of the drug underworld, we come to believe he is a man of intense knowledge and equal danger. Benicio del Toro is no stranger to the world of acting, and here has got to be one of the year's best performances. Gillick is a man of few words, but he has such a quiet intensity that we recall great movie characters like Anton Chigurh or Hannibal Lecter. Perhaps those are unfair comparisons. He is not a villain by the traditional standards, but the manner of his being and his ultimate goal (realized in a couple of the most tense final scenes I can remember) indicate that he is bound to no moral compass to achieve what he wants.

I suppose it's easy to see this as a movie about a drug raid and the fight against drug trafficking in America (similar to something like 'Traffic'). Instead I found the film much more reserved, a study of a person well in over their heads. While Gillick I compared to someone like Javier Bardem's character in 'No Country for Old Men,' Kate then would be a fair comparison to Tommy Lee Jones: a morally sound person that finds the world is simply too much for them to endure on their own.

The performances are all around wonderful, and the look of the film (the great Roger Deakins) continues to be some of the most impressive photography of the year (that is until he releases his next film. Can we believe this man has received soon to be 13 Oscar nominations with no win??). The final battle sees soldiers wandering the desert after sunset. Through mostly night-vision cameras, we follow the action, and in a story with so much gray area and moral ambiguity, the decision to show the footage in a nearly reverse color scheme (black is white and white is black) only gave the situation a visual metaphor that was all the more impactful.

I suppose I could find a flaw with the film if I looked hard enough. I'm sure that's the case with most movies. Leaving 'Sicario,' I was entirely satisfied and unbelievably happy to have watched a film of such skill and intelligence. This is one of the year's very best films.