Review: The Grand Budapest Hotel

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★★

Take note, Hollywood: originality is alive and well if you’re willing to look for it. Director Wes Anderson is full of originality, from his stories to his style. “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is his latest film and it fits perfectly into his body of work that’s already been highly regarded and decorated.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” is a story about the adventures of Monsieur Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes), concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel in the fictional Republic of Zubrowka. M. Gustave is a dedicated servant to the hotel who is loved by all his guests, specifically the older blonde women who visit the hotel just for him. He’s most fond of Madame D. (Tilda Swinton) who thinks her current stay at the Grand Budapest will be her last time seeing M. Gustave.

Seeing all the events unfold (and acting as our story teller in the form of F. Murray Abraham) is young Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori) who is a junior lobby boy in training. Gustave takes him under his wing and the two become friends. About a month later, news arrives that Madame D. has died. Gustave takes Zero to pay their respects. When they arrive at her estate, Gustave finds out that she has bequeathed him a rare painting called Boy with Apple. It’s priceless. But Madame D’s son Dmitri Desgoffe-und-Taxi (Adrien Brody) doesn’t think he deserves it. Dmitri sends his henchman, J.G. Jopling (Willem Dafoe) out on a dastardly mission.

Soon, Gustave is accused of murdering Madame D. and is arrested by Inspector Henckels (Edward Norton). But the math doesn’t add up. All the evidence points to M. Gustave murdering her, but he didn’t do it. It’s up to Gustave and Zero to figure out the mystery so his name can be cleared. Along with help from Zero’s beautiful young bride-to-be Agatha (Saoirse Ronan), they all have to work together or else Gustave will be an innocent man locked away in prison.

 

The plot is, of course, much bigger than that. In typical Wes Anderson fashion, the story takes on a larger than life personality. “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is completely ludicrous, and I mean that in the best possible sense. It’s instantly welcoming and keeps you drawn in thanks to all the over-the-top and farcical characters. Anderson carries us from one wild chapter to the next with his fast paced script and style.

Anderson is in a class all of his own. He might even be a genre all of his own. To compare him to anyone else would be useless. His films are one-of-a-kind from the originality of the stories, the elaborated character types, deliberate camera movements and his lush use of music (thanks here to the fantastic compositions of Alexandre Desplat). Yes, there are many other filmmakers that have these types of trademarks, but not in the sense that Anderson uses them. He transcends the meaning of the term “filmmaker;” he’s an auteur.

While “The Grand Budapest Hotel” doesn’t contain any outlooks on life that will move you and rattle your emotions to the core, it is highly entertaining and exceedingly fun to watch. Anderson opted to tell the story in parts rather than acts. Five parts are bookended by a prologue and epilogue. This helps keep the film paced at a manic speed. Anderson claims the works of Stefan Zweig - an Austrian writer who was highly renowned around the world during the 1930s - inspired the film. He even creatures a caricature of Zweig – to an extent – with Tom Wilkinson and Jude Law portraying the character (simply credited as The Author).

The film is also bursting at the seams with Anderson regulars, albeit in small roles. Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson and Bill Murray all make appearances. There’s also plenty of room for other well known actors to make an appearance, such as Jeff Goldbloom, Mathieu Amalric, Harvey Keitel, Léa Seydoux and Bob Balaban to name a few. It’s hard to pin down one role in particular who carries the film; everyone is so much fun to watch.

Fiennes, more than anyone else, is magnificent. He’s known more for his serious or Elizabethan-era roles, but here he plays straight comedy and carries it with great ease. We already know he can play the high society role well and here he completely embellishes it. He’s fast-talking and uses a lot of big words that don’t really fit into today’s vernacular. I also liked newcomer Tony Revolori. He seemed confident and in command of his role despite standing opposite such a renowned actor such as Fiennes.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” is a film that showcases Anderson at the top of his craft. While this film certainly won’t be for everybody, it is probably Anderson’s most accessible movie. The quirks that are so closely associated with Anderson’s work are on full display here which could turn some viewers off. I implore those would-be naysayers to take a chance on something unusual and offbeat such as this. This is one of Anderson’s finest works to date, and should also go down as one of the finest films of the year. 

Review: Bad Words

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

“Bad Words” marks the feature film directorial debut of Jason Bateman. He’s no stranger to being behind the camera. He directed an episode of his cult television series “Arrested Development” for Fox. And before that, he directed three episodes of “The Hogan Family” when he was 18, making him the youngest ever director for the Director’s Guild of American at the time. So what took him so long to break into directing a feature film? I suppose he was waiting for the right script to come along. “Bad Words” was a very worthy script and he’s turned it into a very worthy first feature.

Guy Trilby (Jason Bateman) sure seems like a loser, but he might just be a genius. He’s also a ragging asshole, to put it nicely. Through a small loophole in the rulebook, Guy has worked his way into a children’s spelling bee. He dropped out of school in the eighth grade, and the contestants need to have not graduated from the eighth grade in order to participate. So Guy is in, much to the chagrin of all the parents and judges. And it’s not a piece of cake either. They’re not easy words; anyone who has seen the spelling bees on TV know they don’t take it easy on these kids. But since Guy is some sort of genius, he gets through with relative ease. All he needs is a media sponsor, which he has in Jenny Widgeon (Kathryn Hahn).

After winning a regional championship, Guy is off to the national Golden Quill Spelling Bee in Los Angeles. On his way out there, he meets one of the contestants, Chaitanya Chopra (Rohan Chand), a 10 year old bursting with energy and face that never frowns. Guy wants nothing to do with him, yet they end up on the same hotel floor.

Dr. Bernice Deagan (Allison Janney) oversees the Golden Quill and she hates the fact that Guy is here. She vows to get him out as soon as possible. The contest itself is the brainchild of Dr. Bowman (Philip Baker Hall) who is having it broadcast live on TV for the first time. Guy knows this, and its all part of diabolical little scheme. He may be a jerk and come across as a loser, but he’s very smart. He knows exactly what he’s doing. And he’s here for a purpose, one that he doesn’t share, to Jenny’s dismay.

Bateman has shown time and time again that he’s a great comedic actor (which he still doesn’t get a whole lot of credit for), but with “Bad Words” he proves himself as a very capable comedic director. The premise of this film, on the surface, seems very remedial and empty, but Bateman is able to breathe a lot of light into it, giving the film quite a bit of heart and depth.

The script comes from first timer Andrew Dodge, who has written what will surely be one of the year’s funniest movies. The whole story is simplistic and could have easily been told as a short film, but it works well in its extended length. Behind all the crude humor is a big-hearted narrative that resonates well. And while it may come across predictable, the final act is a riot with some unexpected happenings.

Bateman is solid as usual. He’s always seemed very comfortable in leading roles and I wish he’d accept more of those parts. Kathryn Hahn is strong in her role too. She’s been around for awhile in smaller roles and on TV shows, but I think she’s about to really break out into much bigger and more visible roles. I also liked seeing Philip Baker Hall in his role, as small as it was. Despite that, it’s probably one of his stronger performances in awhile.

But the real star of the film is young Rohan Chand. He steals every scene that he’s in. At first he might seem like he’s just going to be annoying nuisance of a secondary character, but he becomes a much larger part of the plot as we move along. He lonely, but that doesn’t seem to bother him. He’s a happy-go-lucky character and Chand plays it to near perfection. This movie is all his.

As the film’s director, Bateman has taken the relatively basic premise of “Bad Words” and made it into something much more meaningful. It doesn’t have an enormous impact emotionally, something that I thought it might achieve about halfway through, but it’s still genuinely heartfelt. Just because it’s a simple idea blended together with pervasive language and foul humor doesn’t mean it can’t be genuine. Bateman as a director has proven himself capable of making movies like that.

Review: Noah

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

“Noah” is the first film of the year that carries with it a wave of controversy. Many of the world’s religions hold Noah in high esteem. To tell the story of Noah and his ark would seem so simple. But Hollywood has a habit with overcomplicating things when it comes to adaptation. Why do something so simple for only $60 million when we can spend $160 million and rival the trilogies of Middle Earth? Hollywood reached out to one of the most visionary directors working today, Darren Aronofsky, to craft this film and make it something so much more than the story everyone is so familiar with. The result is stunning cinema, but more of the same-old-same-old when it comes to the story.

Russell Crowe stars as Noah, a descendant of Seth who was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain’s slaying of Abel. Early on, we see Noah’s father Lamech (Marton Csokas) killed by a young Tubal-cain (Finn Wittrock), a descendant of Cain who embodies mankind’s evil. Noah sees this, but is able to flee. Next we see Noah with his wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) and their three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth. Noah has a vision of death and destruction at the hands of the Creator causing a great flood. He and his family leave their home to seek out Noah’s grandfather Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins).

On their way, they come across a small village that has been ravaged by Cain’s followers. One survivor is a young girl named Ila who has been severely injured. Noah saves her and takes her in as an adoptive daughter of sorts. They seek refuge from the evil men with the Watchers, who are angels cast down from Heaven by the Creator because of their sympathy toward Adam and Eve. Upon reaching earth, the Watchers took the form of massive stone giants. They eventually reach Methuselah who helps Noah figure out what the Creator wants him to do: build an ark to house all the animals of the world from the great flood. The remainder of mankind will be washed away and killed.

It takes about 10 years for Noah to build the ark with the assistance of the Watchers. Shem (Douglas Booth) has grown into man who has fallen for Ila (Emma Watson), whose injury from her childhood has left her unable to conceive a child. Noah’s middle son Ham (Logan Lerman) is somewhat jealous of his brother because Shem will have a wife for himself after the flood. He and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll) will not have anyone.

Once all the animals start showing up at the ark, Noah is visit by Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) and his army of evil men. He wants on the ark, but Noah knows it’s only for the animals. Noah believes the Creator is tired of mankind, and wishes for only animals to remain in his world. Noah will see to it that mankind will not remain following the great flood. Not even himself or his family.

Darren Aronofsky has made quite a career by producing dark and intense films. “Noah” is no different. Make no mistake, Aronofsky doesn’t hold back on anything. His vision is ambitious and his handling of the film is as much fearless as it is controversial. All of his stories are difficult to watch because they’re all so bleak and paint members of the human race in such unique situations. This film is simply an Aronofsky take on a timeless story everyone knows.

All that said, Aronofsky take many creative liberties with his source material, but that’s no different than any of the other book adaptation Hollywood attempts to make. The only difference here is that this story is sacred text for billions of people worldwide. And that’s where the controversy arrives. Aronofsky has turned this timeless tale into a film with a certain fantasy epic element that feels more like “The Lord of the Rings” than a feel good story from the Bible.

If these changes to the story affect the way you perceive this film, that’s really your own opinion and I cannot fault you on that. But from a film standpoint, Aronofsky has great vision as always, and is able to bring to life some very eye catching moments. He’s also able to bring out some very shocking and frightening imagery too. He’s definitely one filmmaker who can put forth such great juxtaposition between beauty and horror, light and dark, uplifting and heartbreaking. Many of his movies run across many spectrums of emotion. He’s a master of conveying this.

However, he limits his abilities here with several moments of disconnection in his screenplay, one he co-wrote with his longtime collaborator Ari Handel. In their attempt to bring the element of fantasy into the film, Aronofsky and Handel deal a fatal blow by trying to tie in too many subplots that don’t enrich the story. The first act is drawn out unnecessarily long, probably to show off the trademark shots so closely associated with Aronofsky. And the third act is a complete mess. This is nowhere near as polished as the screenplay for “Requiem for a Dream” which is structurally similar to “Noah” in many respects.

The vast cast of talented people is also lost in the confusion of the story. No one really wows in his or her performance. Sure, they all have their moments, but nothing really stands out. I will have forgotten every one of these performances by next week. Not to take anything away from them; they’re all talented (especially Crowe, Connelly and Watson), but they seem to have lacked the proper guidance from their director who was more concerned with the visual elements that the things that actually make a film good.

I don’t ride the fence on movies too often, but I’m right in the middle here with “Noah”. While I will still say Aronofsky is an exceptionally talented filmmaker with a sharp and original vision, he skimps on his story too much when he’s handed a large budget. “Noah”, much like his last big budget effort “The Fountain”, is a stunningly beautiful mess of an epic tale. It’s gorgeous to look at and provides many moments of extreme and genuine intensity, but it lacks the depth and substance that we’ve come to expect from him thanks to films like “The Wrestler” and “Black Swan”. Both of those films were so well written (not by Aronofsky) and executed to near-perfection with his trademark style (I named “Black Swan” the Best Picture of 2010). A film is only as good as its story, and I think Aronofsky might have gotten a little too carried away with turning a classic and well known story into a epic fantasy film.

Predictions for the 86th Annual Academy Awards

The end of the Hollywood awards season is here with the presentation of the Academy Awards tomorrow night. It’s been a fantastic year for movies which is evident based on how great all the nominees are this year. Trevor and Joe have debated the nominees and have decided to offer up their picks for the winners of all the big categories (we don’t pick the three Short Film categories because we have not seen any of them). So here are our picks for the 86^th Annual Academy Awards. We welcome any and all attempts to outguess us!

Best Picture of the Year:

The way we see it, there are really only three movies that could win this award: “12 Years a Slave”, “American Hustle” or “Gravity”. Joe thinks a fourth film with a legitimate shot to win is “The Wolf of Wall Street”. Trevor would be surprised to see that happen and thinks it has no chance. “Slave”, “Hustle” and “Gravity” have enjoyed universal critical acclaim since their openings. Both “Gravity” and “Hustle” have also enjoyed commercial success grossing $269.6 million and $144.8 million respectively. Should “Gravity” win, it would be the highest grossing movie to win the top prize since “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” 10 years ago. “Slave”, on the other hand, has only brought in $49.4 million, which would be one of the lowest grossing movies to win over the last 10 years (behind only “The Artist” and “The Hurt Locker”). Of the nine nominees, Trevor would vote for “Her” as the Best Picture winner if he were an Academy member. Joe would vote for “Gravity” as it topped his Best Ten list for 2013. However, given the subject matter of “12 Years a Slave” and its continued critical success and high praise, we believe that is what will walk away with the night’s top prize. We will also have to refer to Brad Pitt as an Academy Award Winner from here on out seeing as he is nominated as a producer in this category. Additionally, all nine of these films deserve the recognition they’re getting by being in this category. Every one of them. It’s been a very long time since we’ve been able to say that about all the Best Picture nominees.

Best Director:

This one is open and shut. Take it to the bank. Go all in. Alfonso Cuarón will win best director for “Gravity”. He’s won nearly every award in this category this season including the Directors Guild Award. Winners of the DGA almost always go on to win the Oscar for Best Director if they’re nominated. Very rarely does this not line up. It didn’t last year, but Ben Affleck wasn’t nominated at the Oscars for some reason. You have to go all the way back to 2002 to see a director win the DGA, be nominated for the Oscars and lose to someone else. Rob Marshall won the DGA for “Chicago”, was up for an Oscar, but lost to Roman Polanski for “The Pianist”. The technical scale of “Gravity” and how seamless Cuarón made the images on screen should be enough to secure him a victory. The Academy, however, is famously anti-technology. James Cameron was up in this category a few years ago for “Avatar” but failed to win (he did not win the DGA that year either, so it wasn’t a complete surprise). “Avatar” was a grand technical achievement - albeit a terrible film , but grand in size nonetheless. It also revolutionized the current 3D trend, which “Gravity” is a part of. Could the famously old and traditional Academy go for someone else instead of someone who pursued new technologies? Could we see Steve McQueen take the award for “12 Years a Slave” or even David O. Russell for “American Hustle”? We’d both be shocked by that. This looks like the year the Academy will finally honor the new technologies available to filmmakers. Cuarón should win and will win.

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Heading into the Oscar season, Trevor was all but certain this award would be going to Chiwetel Ejiofor for “12 Years a Slave”. But then, everyone saw “Dallas Buyers Club” and Matthew McConaughey’s role in it. McConaughey has been cleaning up the awards circuit this season with wins at the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild Awards. It seems pretty logical that he will win the Oscar too. The Academy loves to see actors play real life people. They also love to see actors go through major physical transformations for their role. Check and check. He’s also the star of the new HBO series “True Detective” which is the Toast of the Town right now. Rest assured, Oscar voters will have that show on their mind when they cast their ballots for McConaughey. There are some possible upsets in the mix though. Ejiofor winning would be a surprise but not out of the realm of possibility, especially if the Academy decides to gush over “12 Years a Slave”. Leonardo DiCaprio’s presence in this category is also interesting. This is his fourth acting nomination and third in the Best Actor category. A lot of people, including us, feel he’s a very deserving actor for this award and has been passed over numerous times already (mostly for films where he wasn’t nominated). Could this be the year where Oscar voters say, “You know what, Leo? You’ve never won before. Here you go!” That seems to have happened before. Julia Roberts winning an Oscar for “Erin Brockovich” over Ellen Burstyn for “Requiem for a Dream” is one of those instances. Another would be Sandra Bullock winning for “The Blind Side” rather than Carey Mulligan for “An Education”. We both feel that McConaughey will win this award. Joe, however, would vote for DiCaprio. Trevor wouldn’t be upset to see DiCaprio win since he’s one of Trevor’s favorite actors. Trevor would vote for Bruce Dern for “Nebraska” if he had a vote. We both disagree on who should win this category, but agree that by the end of the night, McConaughey will walk away with his first Oscar.

Best Actress in a Leading Role

This one is a more sure thing than Cuarón is for Best Director. Cate Blanchett put on one of the most critically acclaimed performances of the year in Woody Allen’s “Blue Jasmine”. She’s cleaned up at practically every award show and critics circle possible. She’s already won an Oscar before for Supporting Actress in “The Aviator” in 2004. We would both vote for her and we both think she will win. Her only real competition here would be Amy Adams for “American Hustle”. Four people from “Hustle” are nominated and you would expect they’d get at least one of those awards (more on that later). We don’t see Christian Bale upsetting McConaughey for Best Actor (we both think Bale is just lucky to be in that category anyway) nor do we see Bradley Cooper winning in his category. Adams is a long shot here, but if there’s any chance of an upset in this category, it’s Adams. And it would be a monumental upset if she beat Blanchett.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

Jared Leto for “Dallas Buyers Club” is who will win this category. We both think that. And how could anyone think any different? Leto, much like McConaughey and Blanchett, has won just about every award possible for his role. As with McConaughey, the Academy loves it when people go through physical transformations. Leto lost a lot of weight for this role and has been put in heavy makeup making him almost unrecognizable. He’s also mesmerizing in his role as Rayon in “Dallas Buyers Club” so that helps out a little too. Joe would absolutely vote for Leto in this category. Trevor would vote for Michael Fassbender for his role as the evil and sadistic slave owner in “12 Years a Slave”. Fassbender’s presence in this category is similar to Ralph Fiennes in “Schindler’s List” where he played an evil and sadistic man, much like Fassbender. Fiennes lost, but should have won. The Academy doesn’t really tend to vote for evil and sadistic. Not unless they go through some kind of transformation (Javier Bardem and his ugly hair style in “No Country for Old Men” or Heath Ledger in the face paint in “The Dark Knight”). So while Fassbender is great, his character is probably too evil for Oscar voters. Bradley Cooper could score an upset, but that’s unlikely. The Academy could vote for the ultimate Cinderella story and give it Barkhad Abdi in “Captain Phillips”. The limo driver turned Oscar nominated actor scored a victory at the British Academy Awards, but he wasn’t nominated against Leto. Look for Leto to take home the award.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

This is the first category where Trevor and Joe disagree on who will win. We believe this will be a two-woman race. First is Lupita Nyong’o for her heartbreaking role in “12 Years a Slave”. Second is Jennifer Lawrence, Hollywood’s current queen of everything, for her role as the crazy Rosyln in “American Hustle”. Trevor would vote for Nyong’o but thinks Lawrence will end up winning. Joe feels the opposite: he’d vote for Lawrence but thinks Nyong’o will win. Lawrence was a winner last year in the Best Actress category. If she wins, she’ll be the first actor to win an Oscar in back-to-back years since Tom Hanks won for “Philadelphia” and “Forrest Gump” in 1993 and 1994 (Lawrence was 2 and 3 years old when those movies were released). She’d be the sixth performer ever to win in back-to-back years, and the only one to win in the separate acting categories. She’s great in “American Hustle” and Hollywood loves her to pieces. Why wouldn’t they vote for her? Nyong’o is brand new to Hollywood. “12 Years a Slave” is her first big role. She puts on a fearless performance in the film. She even beat Lawrence during this awards season at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. That’s a pretty big victory heading into the Oscars. So this one could go either way. We love both of these actresses and their performances this year. Who will win it?

Best Screenplay

There are several options for who could win in the two screenplay categories. For Best Adapted Screenplay, we both think that John Ridley’s screenplay for “12 Years a Slave” will win. Trevor would vote for “12 Years a Slave” if he were an Oscar voter while Joe would vote for Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke for their “Before Midnight” screenplay. Joe is a big fan of that trilogy and this third installment was just as good as the previous two. The upset special here could be Billy Ray’s “Captain Phillips” screenplay, which won at the Writer’s Guild Awards (“12 Years a Slave” wasn’t nominated) and recently at the British Academy Awards. Over in the Original Screenplay category, we would both vote for Spike Jonze’s “Her” to win. Joe thinks Jonze will walk home at the end of the night with an Oscar. Trevor, on the other hand, thinks that David O. Russell and Eric Warren Singer will win for their “American Hustle” screenplay. A win here would boost “American Hustle’s” chances of winning Best Picture, especially if “12 Years a Slave” doesn’t win. You don’t normally win Best Picture without at least being nominated for a Best Screenplay award. There are many exceptions to that rule, but that’s typically how it goes. “Gravity” is not nominated here, so that limits its chances, but only slightly.

For the other categories, let’s look briefly at what we each think will win and what we would vote for.

We didn’t see any of the nominees for Best Documentary Feature, so we will abstain from voting there. Trevor thinks “20 Feet from Stardom” will in this category. Joe thinks “The Square” will win. We didn’t see any of the nominees for Best Foreign Language Film either. We both think Italy’s “The Great Beauty will win. For Best Animated Feature, we both think “Frozen” will win. Trevor only saw “Monsters University” and “Despicable Me 2” so he’d vote for the latter. Joe would vote for “Frozen”.

We both think “Gravity” will take Best Cinematography. We would both vote for Emmaunel Lubezki’s groundbreaking work. We both think “Gravity” will take Best Film Editing. Joe would vote for it too, but Trevor would cast his vote for “American Hustle”. For Best Costume Design we like “American Hustle” to win and that’s where our vote would go too. For Best Makeup and Hairstyling, we like “Dallas Buyers Club” to win. We would vote for that too. But why wasn’t “American Hustle” nominated here? Christian Bale’s epic comb-over should have been enough to secure a nomination! For Best Production Design we both like “The Great Gatsby” to take that. Trevor’s vote would go to “Her” while Joe would vote for “American Hustle”.

For the two music categories, we would vote for “Her” in both categories. For Best Original Score, we both thought William Butler and Owen Pallett’s score was the year’s best music. Trevor is a big fan of Butler’s band Arcade Fire (who was actually credited in the film as writing the music, but I guess the Academy didn’t want to recognize all the band members). However, we see Steven Price winning for his work on “Gravity”. It’s hard to argue against that; the music in “Gravity” was great. Best Original Song should go to Karen O for “The Moon Song” from “Her”, but it won’t. Instead, we think “Let It Go” from “Frozen” will win. That song is everywhere right now and it’s by far the most popular song from that soundtrack. However, Pharrell’s song “Happy” from “Despicable Me 2” topped this week’s Billboard Hot 100 and it’s the only song nominated that has. Could that be the upset? You can’t rule out U2 either. Why wouldn’t Hollywood want to give an Oscar to Bono? They famously denied him of the award once already in favor of Eminem back in 2002. This is a great category. All four songs are really good. It would be a surprise if “Frozen” did not win though.

As for Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing and Best Visual Effects we would both vote for “Gravity” on all three. We expect “Gravity” to actually win all three of these as well. The only upset alert could be “Inside Llewyn Davis” winning in Best Sound Mixing. That one typically goes to a musical when there’s one nominated. “Inside Llewyn Davis” is the closest thing to a musical we have this year. It’s pretty unlikely, but if it wins that’s why.

The 86^th Annual Academy Awards will be held tomorrow night, March 2, at 8:30pm EST/5:30pm PST and will be televised on ABC. Tune in to see the show and to see how we did at picking the winners for this year’s awards!