'Dumbo' (2019) Review

Synopsis: Struggling circus owner Max Medici enlists a former star and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction - bringing in huge audiences and revitalizing the run-down circus. The elephant's magical ability also draws the attention of an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.

Runtime: 112 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG (for peril/action, thematic elements, and brief mild language)

Who should see it? Families with young children.  

I've admittedly grown disillusioned with Disney's recent practice of adapting their animated classics into live-action. The gimmick is tiresome because the new versions either safely regurgitate the same story through the lens of live-action with superfluous CGI ala Beauty and the Beast (2017) or radically retell the story audiences know and love (Maleficent). An unchanged edition hardly seems worth the time of day while an interpretation that deviates too far from the original will upset those who grew up watching it. There's a tricky balance in retelling the story so that it will satisfy everyone. Very few of Disney's recent reimaginings have balanced these extremes to deliver something which champions the same spirit as the original while finding something new and worthwhile to say. The 2016 adaptations of The Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon accomplished this feat, but the studio has otherwise seen mixed results.

With Dumbo, visionary director Tim Burton and screenwriter Ehren Kruger aim for the middle ground by quickly branching off from an abbreviated retelling of the 1941 animated feature to explore the elephant's antics flying under the big top. The additional material was likely intended to inflate the runtime since the original is barely over an hour. The extended portion offers Burton and Kruger many avenues to explore, but that's the problem. Burton and Kruger are unsure which direction to take the story, and the addition of many shallow human characters only serves to further convolute the simple premise of the original. If you've recently rewatched the 1941 film, you're probably aware of certain problematic story elements. Thankfully, racial stereotypes and Dumbo drinking champagne are omitted.

Regardless, this remake has more pressing concerns. Kruger's script is unfocused on account of stuffing this narrative with a multitude of bland caricatures. Tonally, I'm not sure Burton knew how he even wanted to approach the material as the heightened reality he presents doesn't jive with the cartoonish performances or saccharine story. You're never quite sure what Burton expects the audience to take seriously, and the editing actively undermines the viewer's emotional connection as scenes abruptly end before they can register with a crowd. This frequent occurrence compromises the general flow of the film as Burton seems to be in a hurry to move past the sentimental sections. That's not even mentioning the artificial aesthetic evident in many exterior scenes (much of the green screen work looks remarkably fake). Since learning Tim Burton would be helming this reiteration, I've felt Dumbo peculiarly paired director and source material, so it shouldn't surprise that it's genuinely the most bizarre thing I've seen in a while.

In spite of my reservations towards Disney's remakes, Dumbo piqued my interest for a few reasons. As I alluded towards already, matching Tim Burton with this source material was an interesting choice, to say the least. Elephants are also my favorite animal, so a story about an adorable baby elephant naturally appeals to me. And Dumbo sure is cute. In fact, the precious pachyderm practically steals the show... However, Burton hardly concentrates on Dumbo in the movie entitled Dumbo. The inclusion of several new human characters reduces Dumbo's role in his own feature. It's a shame since most of Dumbo's scenes are quite charming and serve as an elaborate vfx showcase.

Concerning the ensemble, Colin Farrell is joined by young newcomers Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins to portray the family responsible for Dumbo. To put it lightly, these child actors aren't the best... but I don't think it's entirely their fault. They're saddled with stale dialogue, and Burton's vision is very scattered. Even a veteran actor like Farrell suffers under Burton's direction, and he's certainly not the only one, as Eva Green's also relegated to an insubstantial role.

Reuniting for the first time since Batman Returns, the trio of Tim Burton, Michael Keaton, and Danny DeVito are working together once more. Unfortunately, Keaton and DeVito are operating at polar opposites as Keaton's depicts V.A. Vandevere as a hokey, over the top entrepreneur in one of his worst roles to date while DeVito embraces the campy and sentimental sides of the story to provide a hysterical, layered portrayal of an eccentric ringmaster. 

Perhaps, like Dumbo, Burton put all his faith in a magic feather and flew through production on auto-pilot because his distinct creative stamp barely registers on this middling remake. For all its faults, the titular pachyderm's trunk still manages to firmly grab hold of your heart, so clearly Burton did something right.

Film Assessment: C 

'American Assassin' Review

[This review was originally written in October 2017 and is now being published to coincide with the digital home media release. For an explanation of this, visit my Fall 2017 Important Update post.] 

American Assassin follows the response of Mitch Rapp after his fiancé dies in a terrorist attack. Rapp then takes it upon himself to become a highly skilled combatant so that he may seek justice. In the midst of his revenge plot, Rapp catches the attention of the CIA so he's recruited to train underneath the grizzled Cold War veteran Stan Hurley and help prevent the outbreak of a widespread global catastrophe. 

Now if you thought that plot synopsis sounded like the plot of almost every action movie out there, you'd be forgiven because you're certainly correct, because American Assassin is as average an action movie can come these days. Michael Cuesta, who previously dabbled in the realm of television, directs the film and his lack of experience comes across quite quickly in his attempt to adapt Vince Flynn's novel as it feels like an extended episode of a mediocre television series. I haven't read the novel, so I'm unsure if the problem lies there or in the screenplay penned by Stephen Schiff, Michael Finch, Edward Wick, and Marshall Herskovitz, but American Assassin repetitively succumbs to tired tropes of the action genre. Whether it be nuclear warheads being launched or the typical training montage, American Assassin leaves no stone unturned. 

However, on occasion American Assassin definitely defied convention and was at its best when carving out a unique identity for itself. Unfortunately, the script is still spotty with undistinguished dialogue and predictable twists and turns. The action itself is actually well-shot and choreographed though, which somewhat makes up for the standard story.

Thankfully, the film's lead by Dylan O'Brien so not all is so-so. O'Brien seems as committed as any other action star is these days, and really shines in making Rapp a likable lead. Alongside him, Shiva Negar made a fairly adequate action debut as fellow agent Annika, and I can see her possibly getting more work based on this performance.

However, it's Michael Keaton who walks away MVP. An actor of his caliber simply never turns in a passable performance, and Keaton really shines in one engrossing torture sequence that really evoked the expressive attitude of his iconic "Now you wanna get nuts? Come on! Let's get nuts." line from Batman (1989).

Sanaaa Lathan on the other hand feels especially bland as CIA director Irene Kennedy. There's just not much of substance to her character worth noting, and Lathan doesn't add any particularly interesting layers to her performance. She's the straight-faced government agency head you've seen a thousand times before.

Lastly, Taylor Kitsch does his best to invoke menace out of the villainous Ghost, but the character's murky motivations and limited backstory only cripple his every effort.

There's no avoiding it, no matter how potent it is, American Assassin just couldn't hit its target.

Film Assessment: C+

'Spider-Man: Homecoming' Review

Spider-Man: Homecoming is set two months after Peter Parker's exciting encounter with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War. Parker's returned to his humble home of Queens, New York so that he may balance his life as an average high school student and the friendly, neighborhood Spider-Man under the watchful eye of Tony Stark. Trouble emerges when Parker discovers salvaged alien tech exchanging hands on a black market to be utilized in a series of heists and Peter realizes it's the opportunity of a lifetime to garner Stark's praise and prove he's deserving of joining the Avengers.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is drastically different from any of the wall-crawler's previous outings for a number of reasons. One, it's the first time the web-head's had a chance to swing around the greater Marvel Universe and I felt the MCU references and tie-ins were handled rather tastefully. Two, none of the other Spider-Man movies have really dealt with Peter Parker's time in high school and Homecoming hits that ball out of the park, not to mention how refreshing it was to see a Spider-Man movie that wasn't bogged down with the long-established origin story.

Jon Watts directs Homecoming in the vein of a John Hughes teen comedy, going as far to give one of those memorable movies a shout-out. From beginning-to-end, Watts is able to place viewers on the ground level of the Marvel Cinematic Universe while in the headspace of a teenager facing difficult dilemmas. Watts maintains the upbeat attitude well into the two hour thirteen minute runtime considering Homecoming is one of Marvel's funniest ventures yet!

Most of the humor is situational, derived from practical occurrences Spidey's never really found himself in before, and the screenplay penned by Watts, Johnathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna, and Erik Sommers makes great use of these moments as strategic sources of comedic relief. The writers find inventive ways to playfully prod at the web-slinger as circumstantial comedy continually comes to the surface and the fresh take on Spidey is oddly the most faithful swing from source material audiences have ever seen. 

Spider-Man has always been one of my favorite superheroes so I can't express how delighted I was to finally see him realized to his fullest potential. I've never really been a fan of Tobey Maguire's take on the web-head and Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker just didn't seem nerdy or awkward enough. I was hopeful Holland would deliver both sides of the troubled teen based on the glimpse we got in Civil War and boy was I right (more on that in a moment)! Almost everything about this iteration reminded me of the classic comics and hearing Michael Giacchino's orchestral arrangement of the trademark theme as a backdrop to the Marvel Studios intro gave me chills.

Homecoming's action doesn't slouch either with some satisfactory sequences interspersed amidst the high school drama. While there's not anything that will hold a candle to the airport battle in Civil War (something I'm unsure will be surpassed till Avengers: Infinity War at the very earliest), I was earnestly entertained from start-to-finish. Among other technical components, there's competent costuming, proficient production design, and the visual effects made Spidey's web-slinging, swinging, and wall-crawling appear to be incredibly authentic. 

Despite my overwhelming enthusiasm, I had a few concerns about Homecoming based on the marketing material and am relived to see none of my worries translated to the big screen. For starters, the trailers relied so heavily on Tony Stark that I was slightly concerned the movie might as well. I was never in the mindset this would be Iron Man 4 but I did feel the movie might lean a little too heavily on that crutch or RDJ would take over all the scenes he shared with Holland. Just so you don't walk into this movie thinking it's the Stark show, I'll inform you that a majority of his scenes have been prominently featured in the trailers but there's enough under the table that you won't feel cheated.

I also thought the trailers seemed to reveal some pressing plot points but rest assured, there are some terrific twists left in store. If you haven't seen any trailers though, I would avoid them if at all possible. Oh, and that image included above that's been prominently displayed in nearly every trailer IS NOT featured in the movie in any capacity so I'll let you know that now rather than be disappointed while watching the flick.

The final source of unease materialized when I saw the suit Stark fabricated for Peter had a seemingly infinite number of convenient features. However, they serve a story purpose and weren't nearly as excessive as I thought they would be instead coming off as a couple bells and whistles to top things off. 

One thing that definitely won't let you down though is Tom Holland's turn swinging around New York. Holland expertly embodies the crucial characteristics necessary to portray the dual identities Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Holland exhibits an authentic awkwardness and excitability to his Peter Parker that's never as over-exaggerated as Maguire or unbelievable as Garfield. Not to discredit the actors who came earlier but Holland brings a youthfulness the predecessors were never able to.

His Spidey has a energetic exuberance about him that any teenager with those powers would display, he's more enthusiastic than Maguire but he doesn't get too quippy like Garfield. To make matters even better, Holland is the youngest actor to portray the web-head to date. Despite being 20 years of age, Holland sells the youthful nature of Parker and you'll buy into the fact he's in high school. He also demonstrates some extraordinary acting chops opposite more experienced actors, never getting overshadowed by RDJ, Marisa Tomei, or Michael Keaton but challenging them all to play ball. 

Surrounding Holland are an excellent assortment of adolescent actors who each offer eccentric personas around Midtown High including the likes of Jason Batalon, Laura Harrier, Zendaya, Tony Revolori, Abraham Attah, and Angourie Rice as the nerdy Ned Leeds, lively Liz Allen, madcap Michelle, brash Flash Thompson, aloof Abe, and bratty Betty. Batalon in particular stood out as not only a fantastic friend but an endearing presence. Laura Harrier's Liz locates a tricky balance between being the popular senior and Peter's down-to-earth captivating crush while Zendaya doesn't have much to do but snap snide, sarcastic remarks. 

Donald Glover also has a minuscule supporting role outside the high schoolers, worth noting simply because of the actor's profile right now. Especially when you compare his screentime to all the speculation surrounding his casting. However when onscreen, he showcased trademark charm that I can't wait to see him wield as Lando Calrissian in the untitled Han Solo spin-off. 

In the adult camp, Marisa Tomei reprises her role as a youthful iteration of Aunt May and I've gotta say Tomei's May makes her mark. She's unique when compared to the precursors based on age alone, which factors not only into some humorous gags but also weaves its way into the narrative. This May is looking out for Peter not only as a maternal figure but also in trying to help Peter with his social life and I liked how she factored into Peter's story.

Along his journey, Peter receives muddled mentorship from Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark and Stark's assistant Happy Hogan, played by Jon Favreau. RDJ puts forth a cool disposition, exhibiting the confidence that gravitated audiences towards Iron Man in the first place while Favreau's Happy is as charming as ever. Oddly enough, I think Favreau may have had more screen time than RDJ but both are excellent in the capacities utilized. 

Meanwhile, Parker finds himself up against the villainous Vulture portrayed by none other than Batman himself, Michael Keaton. Keaton's a high caliber actor so the gravitas he carries onscreen enables Vulture to be menacing and his alter-ego Adrian Toomes to come across as a relatable everyman. Keaton flies Marvel forward in terms of their universe's villains by depicting a multifaceted malevolent force. He's not quite up to the heinous heights of Loki but don't discount the Vulture on his status as a B-level member of Spidey's rogues gallery. 

Spider-Man: Homecoming won't be in theaters till July 7th but you'll definitely want to conserve your web-fluid so you can swing into theaters for this one. In the meantime, I highly recommend checking out Baby Driver if you're searching for something to see this weekend (you can read my review by clicking on the blue hyperlink). To spin all my thoughts into one contrived cobweb, Spider-Man: Homecoming is easily the most entertaining incarnation of the web-head since Spider-Man 2. Glad you finally made it home Spidey!

Film Assessment: A-

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Cars'

Sorry for the delayed review but I'm revving up my Throwback Thursday Review of Cars in preparation for Cars 3. I would have reviewed a female lead DC movie but I didn't have room in my schedule and I'd like to save it for later down the line. Otherwise, I'd probably run out of DC movies to review. However, you can currently find my review of Wonder Woman at the corresponding blue hyperlink if you want to check that out! Later on this week I'll be reviewing both the 1999 and 2017 incarnations of The Mummy with a reboot on the horizon. Reviews you can expect to see pop up throughout June include Throwback Thursday Reviews over The Mummy (1999), Cars 2, Transformers: Age of Extinction, and Despicable Me 2 in addition to new reviews over The Mummy (2017), Cars 3, Transformers: The Last Knight, Baby Driver, and Despicable Me 3.

'Cars' Review

Nominated For: Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song "Our Town" (written by Randy Newman).

Cars follows hotshot rookie race car Lightning McQueen as he hopes to win the coveted Piston Cup against the seasoned Strip "The King" Weathers and ruthless racer Chick Hicks. En route to the competition, McQueen is separated from his transport truck Mack and stranded in the tiny town of Radiator Springs. Stuck in the slow lane, McQueen discovers there's more to life than racing and the value of friendship.

Cars is absolutely adored by children but stands on the lower end of Pixar's work in the eyes of adults. While I don't feel Cars quite lives up to any of Pixar's many masterpieces such as the Toy Story trilogy, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and most recently Inside Out, I do think it's an adequate animated film that gets a bad wrap because adults simply want to speed past it. 

Cars was co-directed by Pixar legends John Lasseter and the dearly departed Joe Ranft, offering a new anthropomorphized perspective to Pixar's library through a world of living cars. Behind the scenes Cars' screenplay is scrabbled together by a full pit crew composed of  Lasseter, Ranft, Jorgen Klubien (these three also tightened the bolts on a story treatment), Dan Fogelman, Kiel Murray, and Phil Lorin. The screenwriting crew race by with a lighthearted story that offers heart and humor.

The thematic messages in Cars may not dig deeper than Pixar's previous efforts, but that doesn't make Cars a soulless kiddie cash-grab. Everything Cars has to say about the decay of small town culture and consequences of immense interstate construction is admittedly antiquated but it's appreciated nonetheless. The mature messages to be found in Cars are simple, but effective and there's a valuable virtue on the inner lanes about humility with the traditional arrogant-to-modest character arc bestowed upon Lightning McQueen.

Cars also doesn't have the same emotional drive that fuels many of Pixar's other animated features so it's never quite as strong as the other entries in Pixar's library, but it's entertaining regardless. Cars definitely skews towards being more kid-friendly than Pixar's more mature offerings, but offers a glimpse of the incredible animation on display when it drifts in the slow lane. Cars is as artistically inclined as anything in Pixar's expanding library, and the animation still looks great eleven years later!

The attention to detail is remarkable with lovely landscapes and even slight wear and tear on the older cars. Cars' soundtrack has a number of catchy tunes like the rocking "Real Gone", bouncy  "Route 66", spirited "Life Is A Highway", and nostalgic "Our Town". The score from Randy Newman does admittedly resemble Newman's work on the Toy Story trilogy score so none of the accompaniment sound fresh but they adequately fit the proceedings.

One outcome of this movie's success that deserves mention is Cars Land at Disneyland's California Adventure park. While this has absolutely no impact on my review, I'd say that section of the park is a blast and has some of the best attractions to be found in California Adventure whether you like Cars or not (especially the Radiator Springs Racers ride). Sorry for that detour but I'll now be switching lanes to discuss Cars' voice work.

Owen Wilson is practically a perfect pairing to Lightning McQueen because he's able to convincingly sell the transition from an ostentatious arrogance to a sheltered selflessness over the course of the films' runtime. Larry The Cable Guy wields a rampant ridiculousness to make Mater a rottin', rural ally and gifts a friendly demeanor to the rusty tow truck. McQueen and Mater make a dynamic duo due to their obvious difference, enabling them to bring out the best qualities in one another. Bonnie Hunt voices the pleasant Porsche Sally as a go-getter and Paul Newman imbues Doc Hudson with  sagely and stately sensibilities, serving as an insightful mentor for McQueen.

Meanwhile, Richard Petty and Michael Keaton voice Piston Cup competitors The King and Chick Hick and the residents of Radiator Springs are made up of Cheech Marin, Tony Shalhoub, Guido Quaroni, Jenifer Lewis, Paul Dooley, Michael Wallis, George Carlin, and Katherine Helmond as  Ramone, Luigi,  Guido, Flo, Sarge, Sheriff, Filmore, and Lizzie respectively.

In conclusion, Cars is an endearing animation that's often forgotten due to the kid-friendly nature of the project. I'd say that Cars drives towards the rear of Pixar's entourage but it's an serviceable success fueled by excellent animation, charming characters, and a sufficient story.

Film Assessment: B-

'The Founder' Review

The Founder tells the true story of how McDonald's evolved from a local brothers' burger joint to the sprawling fast food conglomerate we're familiar with today. Don't be mistaken and let the title of the film mislead you into believing that you will be watching the story of how McDonald's was founded (It's touched upon but not the plot you'll be following). Unlike most true stories adapted to film, this tale is neither inspirational, uplifting, or in any way impactful on history but provides insight into the meteoric rise of the Golden-Arches. 

The Founder is directed by John Lee Hancock, whom you may recognize as the director of The Blind Side and Saving Mr. Banks. Hancock's direction is laid back and ironically streamlined like fast food places today. The set's are well constructed to evoke '50s aesthetic and that's fine and dandy but the cinematography's uninspired, the editing's dull, and there's simply nothing of interest outside some elements found in Robert Siegel's script and the fantastic ensemble. 

Robert Siegel does a fine job skimming through McDonald's ascension but doesn't leave a lot of room for the film to serve as a functional character study. Siegel's screenplay is most fascinating when dealing with Ray Kroc's struggle between seizing the abundant opportunities presented by franchising McDonald's or abiding by courteous business ethics. Siegel lays out Kroc's intentions and motives so the audience understands why he chose to capitalize on someone else's idea but it doesn't make his actions any less despicable. 

In fact, Ray Kroc's almost the villain of the piece and Keaton really sinks his teeth into portraying the sleaziest businessman imaginable. Michael Keaton's been through a career resurgence of late, starring in the two most recent consecutive Best Picture winners (Birdman and Spotlight) and I'm sure he was hoping The Founder could complete a trifecta but alas The Founder was shut out by the Academy so that won't be happening. 

Nick Offerman and John Carroll Lynch play the down-to-earth McDonald brothers, Dick and Mac, offering two distinct personas to the mix; Offerman's straightlaced and doubtful in Kroc while Lynch's sociable and optimistic. It's their struggle with Kroc for the company they started their and the changing dynamic opposite Keaton that will pull the most interest as Kroc's actions only serve as a stepping stone to eventual control of the entire corporation. Laura Dern unfortunately is relegated to a small supporting role as Kroc's first wife Ethel, barely registering with the viewer due to lack of screen-time, yet she still manages to garner pity due to being virtually ignored by Kroc. 

In summary, The Founder follows the tried and true biopic formula to cook up a serviceable story, just not quite an entertaining one. Did I find the film interesting? Sure, but similar to McDonald's today The Founder left a strange taste in my mouth and I'm not quite sure I can say I was loving it. 

Film Assessment: C

Recollection Reflection Review: 'Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance)'

Surprise! I'm introducing a new form of review today called a "Recollection Reflection Review" or a "Triple R". Since I've started my reviews, I've continually grown in my ability to analyze film and recently I've wanted to develop an interesting way to go back and revisit some of these reviews to properly assess the film hence the creation of "Triple R". As the title of these reviews suggest, I will Recollect how I initially felt about the film, reflect on if my opinion changed over time and properly review the film. "Triple R" will work a little differently than Throwback Thursday Reviews because there won't be a set day that I do a "Triple R" as it will be a bit spontaneous but always relate to either a new film release or some current event. "Triple R" also won't be a weekly installment but rather about once or twice a month. "Triple R" will always be of a film I've previously reviewed as older films I haven't reviewed are more reserved for Throwback Thursday Reviews. This "Triple R" is for Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) because the Oscars were this week and felt it would be a perfect opportunity to revisit last year's Best Picture winter that's one of my favorite films.

'Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance)' Review

Nominated for: Best Picture, Best Director; Alejandro González Iñárritu, Best Actor; Michael Keaton, Best Supporting Actor; Edward Norton, Best Supporting Actress; Emma Stone, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing.
Won: Best Picture, Best Director; Alejandro González Iñárritu, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Cinematography.

Recollection- Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) Review
Reflection- My opinion of Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) hasn't really changed since I've seen it and I don't expect it to since I have a vast mount of respect for the filmmaking behind it as well as the film itself.
Review- Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) tells the fictional story of Riggan Thomson, a former blockbuster star best remembered for portraying the superhero Birdman, who now looks to direct, write, and star in his own Broadway show to prove he's not a washed up celebrity. Alejandro González Iñárritu, who won his first Best Director Academy Award for this film, stretches the boundaries of filmmaking by creating a film that's scenes are stitched together seamlessly as though it was all filmed in one continuous take. Iñárritu's vision made for what seems like a two hour long tracking shot thanks to such clear editing and camerawork. This was brought to life thanks to Iñárritu's collaboration with cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki. The sequences not only appear to be one long take, but also involve a lot of camera movement. This movement manages to simultaneously maintain focus on the story and allow for some gorgeous shots. The film not only has stunning cinematography, terrific direction, but also has a fantastic story and spectacular performances. The talented A-list cast is lead by Keaton, who is just exceptional. Keaton gets to demonstrate a full range playing a conflicted man in Riggan Thomson, whose past is constantly haunting him, where Keaton as Birdman makes a few hallucinatory appearances. Keaton is supported by Emma Stone and Edward Norton, who both are given rich characters with their own respective baggage. Other notable performances included Zach Galifianakis as Keaton's manager and Naomi Watts as one of Thomson's cast members in the production who both are serviceable in their capacity but by no means scene-stealers. All of these elements weave together to make a spectacular film and Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) certainly held up to how I remembered it and I still feel it was deserving of its Best Picture victory last year.

Film Assessment: A+