The real-life story of James “Whitey” Bulger, the South Boston crime boss who acted as a protected FBI informant for years until the arrangement imploded, is one of the most bizarre, once-in-a-lifetime stories you’re likely to hear. Black Mass, directed by Scott Cooper (Crazy Heart, Out of the Furnace) and starring Johnny Depp as the murderous Mr. Bulger, isn’t quite as rarified; Depp acts harder and better than he has in many years, but other than his performance, the film isn’t anything special. Cooper and writers Mark Mallouk and Jez Butterworth use familiar tropes from the mob-movie lexicon to make the story palatable to wide audiences, and in doing so strip the story of all its strangeness.

Aside from that minor tragedy, the film actually works very well. Goodfellas and The Departed are great movies, so the fact that Cooper so blatantly borrows from them isn’t so much offensive as it is uninspired, and at the end of the day, he’s crafted an effective movie. We follow Bulger’s rise from general small-time crime lord to over-powered, FBI-protected kingpin and, eventually, man on the run. Catapulting him from low-level extortion and drug deals to Southie (and beyond) dominance is a deal he strikes with an old childhood friend, John Connolly (Joel Edgerton), who now works for the FBI. As long as Whitey helps the feds take down other, bigger crime organizations, he and his gang will be free to run amok and expand their empire, given he doesn’t kill anyone in doing so (good luck with that). Making things even stickier, his brother, Billy (Benedict Cumberbatch, struggling with an awful Boston accent), is one of the most prominent politicians in the state.

The true-crime story revolves around Bulger and the demons that tormented him and compel him to become the thing he hates most—a snitch, a rat, a sell-out. Arguably the biggest contributing factor is the tragic death of his young son, whose mother (Dakota Johnson) never looks at Bulger the same again. With his family crumbling around him, his humanity begins to twist and melt away until he’s nothing more than a merciless overlord with a thirst for vengeful dominance.

Depp’s performance is gravitational, drawing everything in from us to the other actors. All converges on the blue-eyed, murderous bastard, and Depp more than bears the load with his best on-screen effort in who knows how long. He’s a damn good actor, and god knows we needed a reminder of that. He plays Bulger as a terrifying, calculating, unpredictable killer who always seems one step ahead of everyone, including us. His poker face is impenetrable, and we’re left breathlessly anticipating when he’ll strike next and dispatch of his next victim with his gruesome handiwork. Depp’s make-up walks the line between frightening and distracting, but he more often than not nudges the effect to the side of the former.

Tension rises as Connolly scrambles to protect Bulger and keep the deal intact, weaseling his way out of tight spots (like when Bulger is the prime suspect in a high-profile out-of-state murder) and wiping sweat off of his brow with every close call. Edgerton’s Napoleonic braggadocio is very funny, lending a frantic comedic flavor to an otherwise deathly affair. The rest of the FBI and Southie gang crews are filled out by a stacked line-up of actors, from Kevin Bacon and Corey Stoll as Connolly’s skeptical superiors, to Jesse Plemons, Peter Sarsgaard, and W. Earl Brown as Bulger’s colorful, heavy-fisted underlings.

What threatens to yank us away from the tight grip of Depp’s performance is the material, which is never wholly original and is downright second-rate when it practices mob-movie mimicry. One moment sees Bulger breaking bread with Connolly and one of his FBI partners, John Morris (David Harbour). Bulger asks John to give up the family-secret recipe for the delicious marinade he bathed their steaks in and, in a mild panic, John lets him in on the secret ingredients. The mood turns icy cold when Bulger asks how he could ever trust someone who would divulge a family secret so easily. Nobody’s laughing, and the room is filled with nervous energy. It’s Joe Pesci’s “Do I amuse you?” speech in Goodfellas, but only half as effective. It’s almost as if Cooper felt he needed to outfit Bulger with mob clichés in order for the movie to work. A more idiosyncratic approach may have allowed Depp to reach greater heights.

Ian McKellen and Bill Condon haven’t worked together in 17 years. In 1998, they made the excellent Gods and Monsters; now, they’re weaving a brand new tale about the world’s greatest detective in the wonderful Mr. Holmes. The craziest thing about this reunion is, McKellen plays an elderly crank confronting mortality in both movies. Talk about gas left in the tank. McKellen’s one of the finest actors working, and his performance as Sherlock Holmes is one of the crowning jewels of his late career.

Sherlock Holmes is as trendy and popular now as he’s ever been, and of the handful of actors who’ve embodied Mr. Holmes over the past several years, I’d dare to say McKellen is the best of the lot (not a knock on Cumberbatch; put down your pitchforks). The film, adapted from Mitch Cullin’s 2005 book A Slight Trick of the Mind, finds Holmes face-to-face with his greatest adversary: the merciless ticking hands of time. Holmes is defined by his intellect, after all, and erosion of the mind is one thing, tragically, that old folk like him simply can’t escape. Given this scenario, is there any choice other than the cerebral, soulful Sir McKellen to fill the 93-year-old detective’s shoes? No; his casting is as close to perfection as one could hope for.

The story is no less complex or enthralling than your classic Arthur Conan Doyle yarn, juggling three unique, parallel stories with vigor and precision. Sherlock may be in a self-reflective, somber state, but the film that frames him moves with energy and brisk forward momentum. The primary plot line takes place in 1947: Holmes is retired, fighting off Alzheimer’s in a countryside home in Sussex to live out his final days. He’s watched over by a widowed maid, Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney) and her bright (and nosy) 10-year-old son, Roger (Milo Parker). No longer inundated with deathly mysteries to unravel, Sherlock spends most of his time tending to his beloved bee colony, harvesting their honey and admiring the splendor of their well-oiled hierarchy.

There’s also a more curious connection between Sherlock and the bees, one that leads us to the film’s second narrative thread. They remind him of his final, unsolved case, which rattled him to the bone 30 years prior. In flashbacks to 1919 London, we learn how a troubled woman and a magical music instrument scarred him for life. Of the three tales, this one is vintage Holmes and will feel most familiar to diehards. The third story is the bizarre in the best way, as Holmes travels to Japan (again in flashback) in search of prickly ash, a plant with properties that may be the key to stopping his mind’s degradation. His guide is Mr. Umezaki (the terrific Hiroyuki Sanada), a devout fan of Sherlock’s who’s more than happy to aid him in his quest.

In an interesting deviation from canon, Sherlock is world-famous in very much the same way he is in our reality: his old friend Mr. Watson has written a popular series of mystery books based on their old cases, which have even spurned movie adaptations. A delightful scene sees Holmes watching one said film in a theater, chuckling and cringing at the absurdity of it all.

The central relationship between Sherlock and young Roger is the lifeblood of the film. The three plot lines are well-woven and involving, but these are the real stakes: Sherlock is hanging onto our world by a thread. He’s got no loved ones because he views all around him as pawns in his grand game of chess. With his best days seemingly behind him, a young boy reaches out a hand and offers him a final chance to live life with others, rather than in the presence of them. Sherlock’s always been almost-human, but there may be hope for him yet.

Parker is as key to the film as McKellen. He never panders, he isn’t concerned with being cute, and he’s got such a rage in his eyes that we fully understand why Sherlock is compelled to tame it. Roger’s fascination with the detective and his legacy drives a wedge between he and his mother, who he essentially treats like a peon. His resentment of her, and her consequent resentment of Sherlock creates a tense dynamic between the three leads, who breathe life into every carefully-penned, contemptuous line of dialogue (adapted from Cullin’s book by Jeffrey Hatcher).

Benedict Cumberbatch and Robert Downey Jr.’s more charismatic interpretations of Holmes fit their respective properties appropriately, but McKellen’s more pained, desperate version has almost bottomless depth. Much like Roger, you treasure every moment you’re with the old curmudgeon. Condon and Hatcher were just the men to bring this atypically humanistic vision of Sherlock Holmes from book to screen, and Mr. Holmes is a movie I’ll be itching to revisit for years.

Bill Condon’s Mr. Holmes, starring Sir Ian McKellen as an aging iteration of everyone’s favorite detective, is a classic Sherlock page-turner in movie form. And rightfully so: it’s based on Mitch Cullin‘s 2005 novel, A Slight Trick of the Mind, which follows Holmes in his twilight years in a countryside home, his mind deteriorating, as he’s cared for by a housekeeper (played in the film by Laura Linney) and her son, Roger (Milo Parker). In Roger he finds a companion with whom he can share his memories before they fade away. The film also follows two parallel, flashback stories: Holmes’ trip to see the mysterious Mr. Umezaki (Hiroyuki Sanada) in Japan in search for a cure for his mental condition, and a classic Sherlock mystery involving a troubled woman reeling following two failed pregnancies.

I spoke with screenwriter Jefferey Hatcher about his experience working on Mr. Holmes, which comes out tomorrow, July 17th.

Were you on set during filming?
Yeah, for a little bit. For about two weeks at the end.

What’s it like writing the script, not being on set all that much, and then seeing the final product?
The things you focus on are the things you were on-set for. You remember, “They did this 800 times. They kept knocking that thing over.” You tend to have reference points no audience member would have. I’m always amazed with how actors can work with so much focus on them. Dozens and dozens of people watching you do something terribly intimate. I’ve done a little acting myself, but that kind of intimacy with that audience…[pauses] It’s always amazing to think how they can focus and function.

Would it be more nerve-racking for you to do something on camera as opposed to on stage?
Oh yeah, in front of a camera. It’s the same way we feel when we see ourselves in photographs. Onstage, there’s always some distance. There’s a bit of a haze.

The lights…
Yeah, right. I remember reading something Cary Grant said: “Screen acting is very difficult because I’ve got a double chin.” He’d have to keep his head a certain way or they’d see his double chin. It’s like, really? You’re thinking about this? I wouldn’t want to see myself on the screen.

So it’s the proximity.
I think so. I think actors who don’t care about that stuff, or actors who don’t care about how you perceive them and know exactly how to present themselves, do well. To have to think [like a screen actor] is kind of amazing. But the theater allows you a little more distance, even if it’s a small house.

The lights help because you can’t see faces.
No one quite gets that. I get up onstage and deliver a soliloquy to the house, and it’s like, I can’t see any of you. I can see a couple faces in the first couple of rows.

And you can hear them messing with their peanut bags.
Especially in England. The Brits, more so than us, eat during shows.

It’s more of an English thing?
Yeah. You come back from intermission during Shakespeare, and they’re eating ice cream. [In a British accent] This is the theater of the Elizabethans!

I hadn’t read the book going into the film. I was expecting more of a meditative, slower-paced movie. I was surprised to find the momentum of the film so brisk and thrilling.
The book has those parallel stories, though they’re in different sequence. That was always there. The question was, how do you shuffle it? At one point we had him going to Japan later in the script, giving it its own section of the movie. But it felt like we spent too much time just in Japan that way, so we rearranged it and made it a flashback. That was dangerous at first glance, because we had two flashbacks going on. But I think it makes sense because each story is progressing in its own direction.

The classic Holmes tale is the one with the woman in the past. Then you’ve got the domestic, current tale. Then there’s the sort of oddball tale in Japan. Holmes was going to a place where rational thinking and reason had ended up with the atom bomb going off. It comes off much more strongly in the book, but I hope it comes off in the film as well. In a sense, that’s my favorite section because it’s so controlled and tight and neat. His relationship with Mr. Umezaki is so peculiar. I’m glad the movie feels like it’s moving forward all the time and it’s not a bunch of people sitting around, talking about death.

The cast is really good. The kid, Milo Parker—he’s gotten a lot of praise.
McKellen was attached when Bill said he wanted to do it. We talked about various actresses, but very quickly, Bill said, “What about Laura Linney?” Beyond that I don’t think I had any suggestions about other actors. I adore Roger Allam, who plays the doctor. He’s got a great, soupy kind of voice. He should play Christopher Hitchens in a biopic sometime. We knew the kid had to be someone who wasn’t the classic, adorable kid. There had to be a strangeness and a quiet about him.

There’s rage in him as well.
I’d never say this to him, but he’s got, like, thyroid eyes that really pop out at you.

His glare is killer.
Oh yeah. I like the fact that you kind of have to work to get to him, which is very much like Holmes. He’s not like, “Come! Love me!” When there’s distancing like that, it makes it even better when you do embrace. Laura Linney does things I can’t even imagine. She’s so honest, never less than completely truthful. Her rage is real, her tears are real. She makes what could be an unsympathetic character very sympathetic, just by virtue of being herself. She’s a wonderful actor.

I think the three main actors are incredibly generous to each other. No one tries to steal a scene.
Sometimes there are people who say, “I’m giving you this scene,” and then they go away. None of these actors do. Their presence is so key. It’s almost as if they say, “Even if I’m off-screen, the camera’s on me.” It’s good for the film because Holmes sees people as supporting characters in his life. It’s a world of interns and secretaries and drivers, not people you actually live with. What’s cool about the film is, bit by bit, he brings them into his level, whatever that may be.

What is Holmes’ greatest fear?
He famously says to Watson in one of the stories, “I am an intellect; the rest of me is mere appendage, “which is a line we couldn’t use because it’s cut off in that copyright thing. The idea that your intellect goes away means that everything goes away. Because Holmes is suffering some form of dementia, that kind of fear of not being able to remember things or think through a problem…[pauses] It’s not simply, “I’m having some befogged days.” My essence, my soul, is being eradicated. For a man who depends, thrives, finds sustenance in that kind of intellectual pursuit, you’re really left with only two outs: commit suicide or embrace someone. The embrace is the hardest thing, because it’s not based on intellect. He had Watson and Mrs. Hudson, but they never talked about it. Here’s an example where he actually has to say to someone, “Live with me. Stay with me.”

In the post-internet age, it’s becoming harder and harder to surprise modern audiences with mystery stories. Everyone’s savvy and trying to stay five steps ahead of the plot. How do you surprise them?
It’s wildly tricky. I can’t go see a thriller where I’m not trying to out-guess it. Having the experience of having something just flow over you and be surprised [is great]. I’m probably the last person in America who was surprised by the ending of The Sixth Sense. I’m like, “He’s dead?!” It was great to be surprised. When I do out-guess something, there’s a sort of “meh” quality to it. You’re right about that. You want to play fair with the audience. There’s a bit in the movie where Holmes explains to Ann Kelmot how he knows one thing versus the other. There are quick flashes. You want the audience to say, “Yes, we saw that. The filmmakers played fair with us. But we did not expect to see the things that Holmes picked up on.” It is very tricky. The hardest thing these days is knowing the audience can go back and forth simply by moving the cursor. Have you seen The Conversation?

Yeah.
Remember the beginning? “He’d kill us if he had the chance. He’d kill us if he had the chance.” Then, when he listens to it near the end, he hears, “He’d kill us if he had the chance.” If you were watching that in 1971, you’d say, “Oh, he heard it wrong.” But now, with DVDs, you can turn it back and say, “No, she doesn’t say it that way!” They didn’t expect a world where somebody would be able to do that, technically. Now it’s harder to cheat the audience and say that something happened when they can go back and check it. If you cheat like that, the audience gets really pissed off.

You just really hope to god that, when you do the revelation, the audience goes, “Gasp!” It’s okay, actually, if some of them say, “I knew it!” Audiences sometimes like to think they’re ahead a few minutes. That’s okay. To be ahead 30 minutes is bad. But a couple of minutes isn’t such a terrible thing. Sometimes the audience wants their suspicion confirmed. You always want to present options for the audience to consider. It’s the red herring thing. If they have one option to consider, that’s what they’ll pick. So you have to give them at least two options, stated or unstated. A friend of mine says, “If the answer is either A or B, the answer should be C.”

I think being genuinely surprised is one of the rarest joys at the movies these days.
The big one here that I think we’re all so pleased with is the difference between bees and wasps. We say it right at the beginning of the film. We show you close-ups, something getting plucked out of someone’s neck. And yet, at a certain point, I hope the audience forgets that difference in the same way the characters do. To me, that’s playing fair.

In Chinatown, there’s a part where Nicholson looks into this pool, and there’s this stuff glittering. He turns to this guy, who says, “Bad for glass! Bad for glass!” Of course, it sounds like it’s a joke because he can’t pronounce grass. But he is saying glass, and he’s looking at glasses. All through the film, Nicholson is opening drawers, and there are glasses there. When he fishes out the glasses at the end and realizes they’re John Huston’s, they never say, “Oh, of course. That was a pair of glasses.” But there are these clues everywhere. The audience goes, “Aw, geez. I should have picked up on what he did.”

I think the bees/wasps thing is poetic and artistic as well. It’s not just a juke.
Something Bill put in that I hadn’t realized was how many times McKellen passes between glass. You see him in reflections and in windows. It’s all this glass within glass within glass. Some of these things aren’t things you think about, but it’s almost like you’re exercising some poetic muscle, but not intentionally. I think if you’re doing it intentionally, you can tell.

What makes Sherlock Holmes so enduring as a character? Depending on what’s going on in society in culture at any given time, we view him in a new light.
You can always tell what era Holmes stories are from. For example, Basil Rathbone, during World War II, kind of imagined that you’d need a Holmes who’s not doubting himself much, who’s going to win all the time. Nicol Williamson is a coke freak in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution. It makes sense that it’s the ’70s. Jeremy Brett is this sort of crazy, near psychopath in the ’80s ones. I tend to think [he endures] because Sherlock is so anchored in the Victorian, Edwardian world. He’s so defined: we know what he looks like, what he sounds like, what he thinks. But there’s also a sadness and emptiness to him. There’s something missing in him. [Arthur] Conan Doyle will refer to it, and sometimes it’s a joke, and sometimes it’s not. But it’s always there. That’s the crack actors, writers and directors get to fill.

This Sunday the 11th at 8pm ET we’ll be gluing our eyeballs to NBC ready for the real action of awards season to finally begin. With Amy Poehler and Tina Fey hosting, and the ever plentiful booze flowing, we imagine this year’s Golden Globe Awards should provide plenty of entertainment. And since the Golden Globes are unique in the crazy amount of categories they fill, the competition is plenty fierce.

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association tends to shake things up a bit (I mean who are they really anyway?) and Hollywood never fails to come out to pat themselves on the back. But honestly, the Globes are a great way to start getting Oscar predictions queued up (nominations are out next Thursday the 15th.) So since these awards are really just to spark discussion and squabbling, fellow staff writer CJ Prince and I lay out our predictions.

Other than Fey and Poehler undoubtedly dousing us with comedy gold, what do you expect will happen Sunday night? Let us know in the comments.

Our 2015 Golden Globe Predictions:

Best Motion Picture – Drama

CJ: Boyhood
Because: The current narrative of awards season has the race coming down to Boyhood and Birdman. Thanks to the Golden Globes splitting Drama and Musical/Comedy, Boyhood has no competition in this category. It’s Boyhood’s to lose (I wouldn’t mind Selma taking the gold, though).

Ananda: Boyhood
Because: Months later I still remember my initial impression of Boyhood, and while I have strong love for Foxcatcher, I don’t see it appealing as universally. This one’s a no-brainer.

All nominees: Boyhood, Selma, The Imitation Game, Foxcatcher, The Theory of Everything

Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy

CJ: Birdman
Because: I’d honestly prefer Grand Budapest to take this, but Birdman has it locked. Without Boyhood in the category, and with no real buzzy films competing, this one’s a no-brainer.

Ananda: Birdman
Because: All of these movies are awesome, and to be honest I think Birdman is a stretch in this category although it has very hilarious moments, but mostly I think it stands out because it’s not 100% comedy, though that may be an unfair advantage.

All nominees: Birdman, The Grand Budapest Hotel, St. Vincent, Into the Woods, Pride

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama

CJ: Benedict Cumberbatch
Because: Harvey Weinstein. He knows how to push a movie to voters, and he’s gotta take something home. My bet is he’ll convince HFPA voters to give this to Cumberbatch because it’s a respectable pick. If Oyelowo gets it I’ll be happy, and if Gyllenhaal gets it my whole night will be made. But for now my bets are on Cumberbatch.

Ananda: Eddie Redmayne
Because: Interesting to note all but one of these performances is based on a real-life person. And in a perfect world I’d say Steve Carell hands down, and Gyllenhaal would be awesome, but Redmayne just had the more overt transformation with his role.

All nominees: Steve Carell (Foxcatcher), Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game), Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler), Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything), David Oyelowo (Selma)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama

CJ: Julianne Moore
Because: She’s been racking up every award under the sun, and honestly it’s time. Give Julianne the damn award already. Plus, if anyone wants to join I’ll be holding a prayer ceremony on Sunday night where I pray for Jennifer Aniston to go home empty-handed. Sorry Jennifer, but that’s a campaign, not a performance.

Ananda: Rosamund Pike
Because: I may be reaching a bit, but based on Cate Blanchett’s win last year I just think Pike’s twisty cerebral performance has a chance over Moore’s more obvious dramatic turn.

All nominees: Jennifer Aniston (Cake), Julianne Moore (Still Alice), Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl), Reese Witherspoon (Wild), Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy

CJ: Michael Keaton
Because: After the completion of the McConaissance, we’ve all been itchy for another actor to make their triumphant return to the A-list. And with Keaton doing a great job in Birdman, it’s all a matter of time before the Keatonaissance begins! Personally I would give this one to Ralph Fiennes, but Fiennesaissance doesn’t have a nice ring to it (not that he needs a renaissance, he’s always been awesome).

Ananda: Michael Keaton
Because: Birdman was my favorite movie of the year and it had much to do with how brilliant Keaton was. No competition in my eyes, though he’s among great company.

All nominees: Michael Keaton (Birdman), Ralph Fiennes (The Grand Budapest Hotel), Christoph Waltz (Big Eyes), Bill Murray (St. Vincent), Joaquin Phoenix (Inherent Vice)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy

CJ: Amy Adams
Because: I’ve only seen Maps to the Stars in this category, so I’m blindly guessing Amy Adams because she’s a great actress and has been getting plenty of praise for her role in Bright Eyes.

Ananda: Amy Adams
Because: I don’t even necessarily think this is Adams most award-worthy performance, but considering the competition it’s all hers.

All nominees: Amy Adams (Big Eyes), Emily Blunt (Into the Woods), Julianne Moore (Maps to the Stars), Helen Mirren (The Hundred-Foot Journey), Quvenzhané Wallis (Annie)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

CJ: J.K. Simmons
Because: See Whiplash. Seriously, I don’t need to explain it. If you’ve seen it, you know exactly why I picked Simmons. If you haven’t seen it, fix that problem immediately.

Ananda: J.K. Simmons
Because: I can say awesome things about everyone nominated, but nobody freaked me out more than Simmons as the nazi-like music teacher from hell.

All nominees: Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher), Ethan Hawke (Boyhood), J.K. Simmons (Whiplash), Robert Duvall (The Judge), Edward Norton (Birdman)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

CJ: Meryl Streep
Because: Personally rooting for Patricia Arquette here, but awards shows handing statues to Meryl Streep is about as boring and predictable as the roles Meryl Streep chooses to play.

Ananda: Emma Stone
Because: Since no one has a problem writing a great supporting role for a female (if only lead roles were the same), this category should have at least five more names in it (Laura Dern? Rene Russo?). But from what we’ve got I’m going out on a limb and thinking they’ll stick with what they did last year with J-Law and push the young blood forward.

All nominees: Patricia Arquette (Boyhood), Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game), Emma Stone (Birdman), Meryl Streep (Into the Woods), Jessica Chastain (A Most Violent Year)

Best Director – Motion Picture

CJ: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Because: This was the toughest category for me to make a decision on because it comes down to Birdman or Boyhood. Ultimately I figured the HFPA would give it to Iñárritu because it’s the kind of direction that calls attention to itself. Usually awards like this tend to go to the most direction, not the best.

Ananda: Richard Linklater
Because: Also a tough call in terms of my own affection for all of these director’s work this past year, but Linklater spent 12 years on his film and that kind of perseverance deserves respect.

All nominees: Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman), Richard Linklater (Boyhood), Ava DuVernay (Selma), David Fincher (Gone Girl), Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)

Best Screenplay – Motion Picture

CJ: The Grand Budapest Hotel
Because: Much like Spike Jonze winning for Her, or Quentin Tarantino winning for Django Unchained, Best Screenplay goes to the kind of film where the writing really shines. Wes Anderson’s nesting egg structure and quick paced quippy dialogue makes it an easy pick for this award.

Ananda: The Grand Budapest Hotel
Because: It won’t win anything else and it’s a truly great film. Plus, Anderson is really getting his whole layered stories and quirky relationships thing down to an art.

All nominees: Boyhood, Birdman, Gone Girl, The Imitation Game, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Original Song – Motion Picture

CJ: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (Yellow Flicker Beat)
Because: I figured one of the white pop girls would win, and Lorde seems to be more popular now (the honest truth: I’ve only heard this song out of the bunch).

Ananda: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (Yellow Flicker Beat)
Because: I’ve been rocking out to this on the radio for months so…

All nominees: Big Eyes: Lana Del Ray (Big Eyes); Selma: John Legend, Common (Glory); Noah: Patty Smith, Lenny Kaye (Mercy Is); Annie: Sia (Opportunity); The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1: Lorde (Yellow Flicker Beat)

Best Original Score – Motion Picture

CJ: Gone Girl: Trent Reznor
Because: It’s a great score, and Reznor has earned himself a great reputation as a composer since collaborating with Fincher. I considered putting Birdman here (and won’t be shocked if it wins), but part of me feels like some people might be turned off by the nonstop percussion.

Ananda: Birdman: Antonio Sanchez
Because: I loved all the music listed below, but Sanchez’s sporadic and pulsating drums were one of the most noticeable (in a good way) soundtracks I’ve ever encountered.

All nominees: The Imitation Game: Alexandre Desplat, The Theory of Everything: Jóhann Jóhannsson, Gone Girl: Trent Reznor, Birdman: Antonio Sanchez, Interstellar: Hans Zimmer

Best Animated Film

CJ: The Lego Movie
Because: It’s an animated movie that’s funny without pandering, and it has an incredible, universal message. And I’m sick of Disney. They’re a meat factory.

Ananda: The Lego Movie
Because: Well duh. It’s beyond clever to watch and to look at it, but it also embodied the very message it was spouting to: think outside the box and forget the supposed instruction manuals of life.

All nominees: The Book of Life, The Boxtrolls, Big Hero 6, How to Train Your Dragon 2, The Lego Movie

Best Foreign Language Film

CJ: Ida
Because: Middlebrow Holocaust movie from Europe that strikes the perfect balance of arty without being too arty? Ida easily wins the Foreign Language Film jackpot. Just another statue for the mantle until it takes home the Oscar.

Ananda: Ida
Because: A difficult decision for sure, but damn if if Ida isn’t both pretty and universally appealing.

All nominees: Ida, Leviathan, Force Majeure, Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem, Tangerines

We’re only predicting movie nominations this year, but if you want to make your own guesses on the TV categories or have a full list of the nominations on hand for the live broadcast, here’s a complete list of the nominations. And if you can’t watch, or someone talks over a winner announcement, we’ll be live updating the winners as they are announced.

After two movies worth of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and his stubby dwarf friends trudging across Middle Earth to the lair of the fearsome dragon Smaug, Peter Jackson’s distended Hobbit prequels come to an end with The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, an action-packed last hurrah that sadly feels too reiterative and scattershot to chalk up the trilogy as anything but unworthy. Those who (understandably) come expecting a massive battle royale between hoards of dwarves, elves, men, and orcs will no doubt be satisfied, but those of us less inclined to settle for mindless decapitation, long battlefield camera swoops, and Orlando Bloom surfing on random objects will feel underwhelmed by the film’s lack of emotional depth.

Five Armies opens on a rousing note, with what could have (or should have) been The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug‘s climax: the vain, malevolent dragon Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, whose voice booms out of the speakers like thunder) torches the village of Lake-town, whose ill-equipped denizens have been dreading his arrival, with fiery vengeance (and breath), threatening to reduce every inch of the seaside locale to ashes and embers. Smaug is a remarkable achievement in digital effects, almost on par with Gollum. After raining hellfire and brimstone on the poor villagers, a heroic family man and archer (Luke Evans) manages to best the beast in a one-on-one showdown. From here the film sadly takes a permanent dip.

The charismatic Smaug’s end is a fitting one (it’s the film’s most exciting sequence by far) but with him out of the picture, it leaves us without a lead villain. Dwarf leader Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) takes up the “Big Bad” throne, as he rescinds his promise to share the dragon’s treasure (whose dark properties seem to have corrupted him) with the survivors of the Lake-town attack, who desperately need the gold to rebuild what’s left of the village. They helped him get to the Lonely Mountain in the first place, after all.

The elven army, led by Thranduil (Lee Pace), shows up to claim a piece of the treasure, too, but Thorin’s having none of it, ordering his handful of loyal dwarf warriors to barricade the doors and calling for reinforcements from back home to fight the men and elf armies off for him. Then, a hoard of Orcs (and later, an army of…bats, or something; it isn’t really clear) shows up to crank the intensity up to eleven. It’s a massive, all-out skirmish for the rest of the film, and if you’ve seen The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, you’ll probably be hit with a big whiff of deja vu at this point.

It’s hard not to get caught up in all the sword clashing, giant military formations, grunting orcs and dwarfs (the elves don’t grunt as much), and other battle scene ridiculousness, especially if the thought of arranging five buckets of army men on your living room floor on Christmas morning and then smashing them all to hell in your pajamas still sounds fun to you. I’m still a kid at heart, so how could I resist a good melee? I can’t deny that I had a good bit of fun. The problem here is, it all feels very much like the open-field battle scene at the end of The Return of the King, and has inherited most of the same problems: it’s frantic, hard to follow (there are too many protagonists to keep track of), and way, way too long. It’s all so overblown that the (halfway decent) character work that builds up to the war almost feels like a means to an end, a 90-minute excuse to show you giant CGI orcs toppling over onto CGI warthogs.

There’s another issue I’ve had with Jackson’s Hobbit movies that’s as rampant as ever in Five Armies. The way Jackson films deaths, specifically when the good guys kill the bad guys, is so over-sensationalized and exploitative that at some points it feels as mind-numbing one of the Saw films. An orc vaults up toward Legolas, who’s standing on a higher platform in Lake-town. He uses his two short swords like scissors to behead the baddy and lets the severed head rest on his blades as the rest of the carcass falls to the water. I can understand how this can come off as pretty cool to some people, but to me, kills like this feel a little…trashy.

The Hobbit movies sure do look and feel like their Lord of the Rings big brothers, but there’s something off about them. It’s the little things: while some the original trilogy’s scenes glow with a majestic golden hue (like the ones in Rivendell), Hobbit‘s golden hues look more piss-yellow. (Gross, I know, but watch the films and tell me I’m wrong. Looks like piss.) But the larger issue here is that Hobbit‘s heroes and their plights aren’t all that compelling. Ian McKellen looks tired as hell in his sixth series outing as Gandalf; Freeman, who’s barely in the movie, can’t touch Elijah Wood’s brilliant turn as Frodo; Evangeline Lilly’s elf-lady has a crush on a dwarf that ends awkwardly; and Bloom’s just thrown in there to look pretty and perform unnecessarily acrobatic mass murder.

Five Armies‘ saving grace is Thorin, whose inner-struggle with his lust for power and gold is delivered incredibly well by Armitage. What bigger villain is there than greed itself? The war at the foot of the Lonely Mountain is nothing compared to the war going on inside Thorin’s mind and soul. It’s a great, intimate story told by a fine actor, but it unfortunately gets drowned out by all the noise.

English mathematician Alan Turing’s life was about as extraordinary and fascinating as they get in modern times. In fact, modernity owes a lot to Turing, who in the 1930s began dreaming up something called a “universal machine”. A “digital computer”. In addition to getting the ball rolling on creating the devices that permeate every goddamn minute of our daily lives, he was also a brilliant cryptanalyst and helped the Allied forces defeat Germany by cracking the Nazi’s Enigma code, which they used to transmit encrypted messages within their ranks. He was the definition of a hero, though his pivotal role in ending the war was kept a secret for many years. He was convicted of being homosexual in 1952 by the British government and put on hormonal treatment to temper his libido. He killed himself two years later.

Like I said: extraordinary and fascinating. Turing’s life was one of deep complexity, but with The Imitation Game, director Morten Tyldum and screenwriter Graham Moore prune and polish his story down into an accessible, digestible prestige piece. They take a wholly unconventional life and present it conventionally, and while the film takes very few risks and won’t blow your mind like, say, Turing’s papers on artificial intelligence, it just…works. The film really, really works. And after all, the ultimate goal here is to up Turing’s visibility in the social consciousness so that we don’t forget his invaluable contributions and, more importantly, the injustice that tragically shortened his life (he was 41 years old when he died). What better way to spread the word than with a movie that’s approachable, suspenseful, and well-acted?

Benedict Cumberbatch is given the honor of portraying Turing on screen, playing him with emotional complexity, nuance, and sensitivity. He’s terrific, and without his presence the film would likely deflated. We see flashbacks of Turing’s early years when at boarding school where he fell for a boy named Christopher, who introduced him to the art of cryptography, as well as glimpses of his final years, pre-conviction, as he sits in an interrogation room with a detective who suspects high treason rather than homosexuality. But the film largely concentrates on Turing and his Enigma team at Bletchley Park, the British military’s code-cracking hub, as they desperately rack their brains to crack Enigma under threats of shutdown by the dastardly Commander Denniston (Charles Dance).

Cumberbatch’s Turing is a vaguely autistic outsider who’s at once intellectually superior and socially inept. His team at first finds him insufferable; his mind works on too high a level to recognize even the tiniest social cues. The jokes derived from Alan’s inability to register sarcasm recall Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy, but with more pathos lying underneath the laughs. When one of his team members, John Cairncross (Allen Leech) tells Alan they’re all going out for lunch, he doesn’t hear an invitation, but a statement of fact. He comes off as a smug, arrogant jerk, when in truth he simply can’t compute (pardon the pun). In addition to Cairncross, the group also includes playboy chess champ Hugh Alexander (Matthew Goode), sole woman member Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), and young Peter Hilton (Matthew Beard).

What eventually endears Alan to the rest of the crew are his unimpeachable contributions to the fight against Enigma. He builds an expensive proto-computer (named Christopher, curiously) with government money, prompting Denniston to literally pull the plug and promise to kick Alan off of the project for good. Hugh and the rest of the lads come to Alan’s defense (at the last minute, dramatically) and barely save Alan’s hide. With a bashful smile, he realizes he’s made some true friends. The film is most engrossing when it focuses on the team’s race against the clock as they scurry around Bletchley, giddy about one of Alan’s breakthroughs. These moments are truly thrilling and ignite the film just as it begins to meander.

What’s missing from the story, however, is a true sense of what’s at stake: millions of Allied soldiers’ lives. The intrepid men with guns on the ground feel so distant that you almost don’t notice how absurd it is for the Enigma team to “go get some lunch” as young men and women die every minute. The film was made for under $20 million, so it’s understandable that we don’t get a full portrait of the war (the film occasionally glances at military vehicles in action from afar), but it feels like more could have been done to emphasize the urgency of the mission.

What the film is really about is the beauty of unorthodox thinking, something the British government took painfully for granted in their appalling mistreatment of Turing following his “crimes” of homosexuality (he got pardoned by the Queen just last year). There’s a mantra in the film that’s repeated three times: “Sometimes it’s the people who no one imagines anything of who do the things no one can imagine.” It’s clumsily written and doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue (thank goodness for Cumberbatch’s always-impeccable delivery), but the sentiment carries value.

“I can’t fucking beat it!”

Despite playing a master cryptanalyst in The Imitation Game, British actor Allen Leech (Downton Abbey) couldn’t contain his frustration with the mobile app version of Monopoly he’s been obsessed with lately.”I have it on hard, and I tried beating it on my way here. An 11-hour flight! Fucking cat keeps beating me!” He referred to a certain feline opponent in the game as he chatted with me and a couple of other journalists during the film’s press day in San Francisco. Who could blame him? Games are hard.

Directed by Morten Tyldum, The Imitation Game centers on the life of Alan Turing, an English cryptanalyst and mathematician who helped end WWII by cracking the code of an Enigma Machine, machines the Germans used to communicate with each other via encrypted messages. Turing and his team of code breakers worked under tremendous pressure to unlock Enigma, while his secret life as a closeted gay man was a persistent threat, as homosexuality was a crime in England at the time.

Revelatory, thrilling, and genuinely entertaining, the film tells the story of a man who changed the world, but was ultimately dealt a tragic injustice. The film stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Turing and Leech as fellow code breaker John Cairncross, with Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, and Matthew Beard rounding out the team of “cardigan Avengers”.

Joining Leech for our roundtable conversation was screenwriter Graham Moore. The two discussed why the film had to be entertaining; how bad at puzzles they are; their fascination with period pieces; Leech’s approach to the role; the tragedy of Turing’s demise; Cumberbatch’s performance; how Turing being gay directly affected his life’s work; and much more.

Graham, you’ve talked before about how hard this screenplay was to pitch, considering it’s about a gay mathematician who kills himself in the end. The film’s entertainment level is very high. How important was it for you to make the film entertaining and not depressing?
Graham: It was important to all of us. We felt that Alan Turing’s legacy deserved an entertaining film. The goal was always to expose a new audience to Alan’s story. His life had been explored so well on the page before and on stage, but there’s never been a full-on narrative cinematic treatment of his story. His legacy deserves to be so much better known than it is. We’ll have these screenings, and after the film we’ll have these lovely moments where people–especially mathematicians and engineers–will come up and say, “I’ve heard of Alan Turing before–I studied him at university–but I had no idea he was gay. I had no idea that he suffered such horrible persecution at the hands of his government.” Making an entertaining film was important to us. He was a lively man, a passionate man, a funny man. He was not the sort of doddering mathematician you see on screen or think about. He was an olympic-level marathon runner. When Benedict came on during our rehearsal period, he’d just come off of Star Trek. He asked if he should lose some muscle to get ready for playing a mathematician. We said, “You actually have to get more muscular for this!” He started working out to get his calves thicker. We wanted to make an engaging, lively film that represented the full spectrum of Alan Turing’s life.

Both of you are associated with historical projects [outside of this film]. What’s compelling to both of you about working in another era?
Allen: I’m fascinated by history and the characters that existed. I love immersing myself in another time, when society, class, and culture were so different and examining how we’ve developed as a society and as people. I’ve had the privilege of going all the way back to Roman times, through a time when I played a character who hung, drawn and quartered. It’s kind of a morbid privilege to experience what these people did in certain aspects of their lives. I’m fascinated by that and by getting into the minds of historical characters. It’s a great challenge as an actor.

Graham:I’ve written a couple of historical pieces in a row now. As a writer, it almost feels like I’m cheating, like someone else did the first draft for me, because it happened. I love being able to explore contemporary issues in other times. What we loved about this story is that it’s a contemporary story. The issues going on are such contemporary issues, but we can talk about them by dramatizing history and showing you how these issues were being treated not so long ago. On a dorky level, I just love research. I love being able to dive in. This film required a tremendous amount of research from all of us. It was like we were trying to solve our own historical mystery. At Bletchley Park, we have such poor records of what actually happened. The scene at the end of the film where they make a bonfire and burn all the records is true. So much of what’s left is classified, so we were all off doing our own research to piece together what actually happened at Bletchley Park.

Before you made the film, did all of you guys get together to go through some sort of cryptology bootcamp?
Allen: We were afforded the luxury (and it really is a luxury in modern-day filmmaking) of two and a half weeks of rehearsals. That was an amazing opportunity for us all to come together with the research we’d done separately, sit in a room, flesh out these characters, and flesh out what we believe would have occurred at Bletchley Park during those days. A lot of that was based on who knows what about the Enigma Machine. Matthew Beard, who plays Peter Hilton, was probably the most mathematically-minded of the group. He’d tell us what he thought, then we’d go to the books and try to read up on it. We had a broad understanding, but in technical terms…no. [laughs] There’s this great line Matthew has where he says, “We’ll use the loops.” I remember I turned to him and said, “What are the loops?” He goes, “I have no idea. Apparently I’m going to use them, though.”

Graham:We tried to explain the big-picture concepts to the audience, and then we had wonderful advisors and technicians to help us.

Allen, we experience a pivotal revelation when it comes to your character. I’ve seen the film twice now, and what I’ve noticed is that there’s revelatory a scene between you and Benedict that you could have embellished more in, but choose to play it straight.
Allen: That’s one scene I wanted to do, because I wanted to keep it on a level where, when that revelation comes, there’s absolutely no sense of…[pauses]. As an actor, of course you want to go, “Hint hint, wink wink! Look out for this guy!” But that’s the last thing you should do. I think it’s much more powerful in that he was a confidant. Using the power of secrets is a theme throughout the movie, and I love the idea of the quiet compliments in having secrets. That’s something I wanted to play with in Cairncross.

What I found compelling about your character is that you’re playing someone else who’s playing someone else. How do you approach that?
Allen: It’s a challenge to play someone who’s hiding their status within that group. Cairncross is an outsider, like Turing. They’re both characters within a character, together. That’s what draws them together. That was the challenge, of finding your place when you’re constantly lying to everyone. I love the moment when the whole group is being questioned in relation to espionage. I sit just on the very edge of that table, and I’m the only one who interacts with Alan in that moment. Is it bad what Cairncross did? In his book he says, “I did what I believed would end the war quickest. I believe that sharing information was the key.” I think his involvement with MI6 was greater than they admitted as well. He was never prosecuted at all, and he committed high treason, whereas a man was convicted of the crime of “being gay”. But Turing was ultimately the man who ended the war two years early and saved 14 million lives. He was convicted, while a man who committed high treason walked away scot-free. That’s an incredible injustice in itself.

Graham, did you have actors in mind when you were writing the screenplay?
Graham:I don’t think I could allow myself to imagine actors of this caliber when I was doing my work. As Allen was saying, we had this two and a half week rehearsal period to spend time together and hone in all the voices. As a team, we felt like the code breakers at Bletchley Park, freezing to death in our studio in the South of England last fall. We had an eight week period, so we knew we had to make the movie quickly. We were under a lot of pressure.

In what way did being at Bletchley park inform the filmmaking process?
Allen: A lot of Bletchley nowadays is kind of built around the museum, but the one part that was untouched was the bar area, which we filmed in. When you walk in there, you get a great sense of their presence still within those walls. You can imagine the energy that went through that room, the frustrations that they dealt with every day. This is the only place they could go to let off steam. The hair stood up on the back of our necks. Matthew Goode said, “If we dusted for fingerprints, you’d probably find them here.” That’s how untouched it was. That reminded us of the importance of what these people did, how incredible the task was set upon them. Having the ability to use locations that these people existed in cemented for me the importance of the story we were telling.

Graham:We wanted to shoot on real locations whenever possible. Accuracy was so important to us. We shot at Bletchley for a week, at Sherborne School, the real boarding school [Alan attended]. We used real Enigma Machines. Every Enigma Machine you see in the film is a real one used by the Nazis.

Allen: When it first comes to you, you get a sense–as brilliantly written by [Graham]–that it’s the crooked hand of death itself. It’s horrible.

Graham:When you open up the lid, it has the Nazi logo on it. You almost don’t want to touch it. There’s the logo, and then this long text in German. We didn’t speak German, so we were like, “What’s written here?!” Someone who spoke German came over, and we were like, “What does it say?!” She said, “Oh, it’s the cleaning instructions.” [laughs]

What’s it like psychologically spending all day immersed in history and then going off and doing contemporary things, even if it’s just going into a hotel room fitted with a big flatscreen TV?
Allen: I do it a lot! [laughs] I’ve never experienced focus on a job [like on this film]. People were so tuned in to what we were trying to do that by the end of the day, you were quite happy to go back home to comforts. The studios we shot in were so cold! There were only three working toilets.

Graham:We can’t overemphasize how cold it was! [laughs] Ironically, the internet wasn’t working in the studio where we were shooting the Alan Turing movie.

Allen: I like the ritual for me of getting into a costume in the morning and getting ready to go back and immerse yourself in a time period. I’m also now quite adept at getting out of that costume in four minutes, getting into a car and going home. I find it quite easy to get out and jump back in. It makes you very appreciative of the comforts we enjoy today.

What would be the one modern luxury you’d miss?
Allen: Hot water. The ability to turn the tap on and go, “Ah. Brilliant.” The idea of having a bath back then was something you had to really plan, you know what I mean? “I will wash…Tuesday.” [laughs]

In the film, Turing uses a crossword puzzle as a tryout test for cryptographers. Did you use the actual puzzle he used, and have you attempted it?
Graham:The crossword puzzle you see in the film is the the real crossword puzzle Alan Turing used himself to recruit code breakers to Bletchley Park. We tried to solve it one day and it was a disaster. Collectively, we got four answers. We’re terrible at it.

Allen: We were on a night shoot for four days, and we took that same puzzle around with us all the time. Keira, Benedict, Matthew and I couldn’t break it.

I’ve seen a few interviews with Benedict about this film, and the most common question he gets asked is about awards, since he put on such a great performance. He always says that his ultimate purpose in making this film is that he wants more people to learn about Alan Turing’s story. Awards are exciting, and you guys did fantastic jobs as well, but is it also the ultimate purpose for you to spread Turing’s story to the world?
Allen: Certainly when I joined my desire to be in this movie was to tell Alan’s story and shed light on the injustices he suffered. While it’s a tragic story, it’s also told in a way that’s a celebration of his life and a tribute to being different. The fact that it was bought by a prestigious company who saw the merit and worth of the project is all a bonus. The fact that people are talking about it in terms of awards means that they’re talking about Alan Turing, so that’s great. You want to make the best movie you can, but for it to be spoken about in this way is very humbling.

Graham:Any day that Alan Turing’s name appears in newspapers is a good day. If this can be a reason for that to happen, fantastic.

How important has the LGBT element of the film been to people who have seen it thus far?
Graham:I think it’s tremendous. I think Alan’s experience as a closeted gay man in Britain in the ’30s and ’40s is fundamental to his life’s work. That’s one of the things we all wanted to show in this film. You read his paper on The Imitation Game for instance, in which he proposes, in a nutshell, the idea that we are only what we can convince other people that we are. We are human to the degree that we can convince someone else that we are human. This is this major concept that revolutionizes philosophy, mathematics…To have something like that coming from a closeted gay man in Britain in the ’30s is remarkable. One of the things I’m fascinated about is the way his personal experience as a gay man so deeply influenced his work, which has laid the foundation for the world we enjoy today. In addition to theorizing the computer, he did extremely high-level espionage work for the government during the second World War. This is a guy who was able to keep secrets for the government so well precisely because he’d been keeping secrets his whole life as a gay man.

Do you see the film in different ways the more you watch it?
Allen: I’ve seen it about five times, and I have to go to Benedict’s performance. It’s so nuanced and so detailed. I get something from his performance every time. One of the last viewings of it, I noticed that he limps. It’s not because of the drugs; it’s because Turing cut his own thigh.

Graham:He went through several months of government-mandated hormonal therapy where they put an implant in his thigh to keep the estrogen levels in your system. After a few months of it, he tried and failed to take it out manually.

Allen: While that’s never eluded to in the film, Benedict put that limp in. That’s the level of detail in Benedict’s performance. It’s amazing. I’m so touched and angered by the end that this man was taken from us too soon. The last scene where Benedict breaks down is an acting lesson.

Since your ultimate goal is to get the word about Alan Turing out there, I imagine you’d encourage filmmakers and other creators to make more movies and TV shows about him in the future. What is something about his life that you weren’t able to cover that they could?

Allen: I’d love to see the whole aspect of when he worked for the MI6 after the war. He has this great encounter with Ian Fleming, who worked at MI6 as well.

Graham:He had so many tremendous accomplishments. There’s a scene I wanted to put in the movie where you see that, at the end of the war, the British government sent Turing to the United States to lie to the Americans about how far the British had gotten with Enigma. The idea that he becomes this professional liar on behalf of the British government I thought was amazing. After the war, one of the tragedies of his life was that he became a public intellectual of sorts, traveling around England having debates about whether machines could think. Someone who debated him said, “Machines will never think! They’ll never have a soul!” Alan would talk about The Imitation Game. He was publicly making a gay rights argument. I don’t know if he knew what he was doing or if anyone picked up on what he was saying, but I think that’s very much what he was saying.

Our last MVFF37 diary was all about Elle Fanning, who just days ago became the youngest ever recipient of the Mill Valley Award. The following day, Chinese-American chef Cecilia Chiang, at 95 years old, walked the red carpet herself en route to taking the stage at the Smith Rafael Film Center and joining filmmaker Wayne Wang in introducing his new documentary about her storied life and career, Soul of a Banquet. If you’re lucky enough to grow to be 95 years old, stand in front of flashing cameras, and have hundreds of people applauding your life…I’d say you’re almost as badass as Cecilia Chiang. Because, you know, she has that whole “legendary chef” thing going for her, too.

Soul Food

Wayne Wang’s tribute to chef Cecilia Chiang, Soul of a Banquet, isn’t your everyday food doc, giving you bits and pieces of a person’s entire life in 90 minutes. The film is patient, taking select stories from the chef’s life–told by Chiang herself, good friend (and fellow Bay Area culinary institution) Alice Waters, and others–and presenting them seemingly in their entirety, with very few edits. A heartbreaking story about the death of Chiang’s father on the streets of China is told by Chiang as she sits in a chair in a normal-looking room. No visual aids are utilized by Wang here, and his camera stands completely still, a respectful treatment of Chiang’s story, but one that is noticeably un-cinematic.

The film moves at the pace it wants, which is almost always slower than convention. It sits idle, asking that you come to it rather than meeting you in the middle. The film’s finale, however, is fantastic and certifies it as an authentic food film, not food porn. We see Chiang and a handful of assistants cook a grand meal of authentic Chinese classics (“beggar’s chicken”–chicken enveloped in clay and baked–was the most spectacular) for Waters and her friends, and we see every step. From the first chop to the table presentation, Wang cuts no corners and shows us every bit of flawless technique that went into making such sumptuous dishes. yes, the dishes look mouth-watering, but the real value here is that we learn to respect the hard work and skill it takes to bring them to the table.

The Punk and the Princess

In Frank Whaley‘s Like Sunday, Like Rain, Leighton Meester (Gossip Girl) and Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong play a couple in a crumbling relationship. On Monday night, however, the actor and pop-punk legend were all hugs and smiles as they posed with their director on the red carpet for the film’s screening.

In the film Meester plays Eleanor, a struggling musician in Manhattan who’s just dumped her loser boyfriend (Armstrong) after he got her fired from her barista job by causing a scene. Jobless and homeless, Eleanor miraculously lands a gig as an au pair for a 12-year-old boy-genius named Reggie (Julian Shatkin, terrific) and they form a tight, unexpected friendship as they spend their days together. Reggie’s mom (Debra Messing), tries her best to keep him in a bubble of affluence–hiring drivers to pick him up from school, having their maid cook his every meal–but with her gone on a business trip, Eleanor becomes his escape, and his first profound human connection.

Imbalance is the film’s main affliction, with some great performances (Meester, Shatkin) being brought down by mediocre ones (Armstrong), and some touching moments (Reggie and Eleanor laying on the grass, exchanging glances) stamped out by distractingly poor ones (every fake-sounding scene between Reggie and his one school buddy). The best thing the film has going for it is the chemistry between Meester and Shatkin, who work so well together that their age discrepancy melts away, and notions of romance don’t feel so irksome. The film isn’t nearly well-crafted enough to support their efforts, though.

Math Won the War

One of my most anticipated films of the festival, by far, was Morten Tyldum‘s The Imitation Game, which I saw just prior to the Like Sunday, Like Rain red carpet craziness. Needless to say, I was all smiles as I set up my camera for the step and repeat, as the drama–based on the late English mathematician Alan Turing–didn’t disappoint.

Turing (played by an incredible Benedict Cumberbatch) made history by cracking the Nazi wartime code during WWII, contributing greatly to the defeat of Hitler and his regime, his invaluable work going on to be known as a breakthrough in computer technology. Tragically, Turing went on to commit suicide following abuse by the British authorities, who persecuted him for being gay man. Tyldum’s focus, though, is on Turing and his contentious, sometimes hilarious interactions with his team of code-crackers. (Turing was notoriously anti-social, a trait Tyldum mines for comedy.)

Prestige pictures can often feel heavily biased or manipulated, and while The Imitation Game certainly injects many a fictitious incident to keep the drama flowing, it feels largely sincere. It’s an absolute thrill to watch Turing and his team–played by Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, and others–obsess over decrypting Germany’s impossible “Enigma” code: We delight in each ingenious breakthrough and hurt for them with each setback. Cumberbatch is fantastic as usual: We see the strain in his face as he fights desperately to find the words to defend himself as he’s attacked by those who don’t understand him. Mill Valley was yet another stop on the way to the film’s arrival at the Oscars next year, where it’ll surely be a favorite.

The Mill Valley Film Festival has built a reputation as a showcase for future Oscar winners and emergent independent and foreign filmmakers. The festival has hosted five of the last six Best Picture Oscar winners, rolling out the red carpet for A-list actors and filmmakers while heavily supporting local filmmakers as well. Nestled in one of the most beautiful places in the world, filmmakers, actors, and attendees alike are drawn to Mill Valley every year by the easy, low-stress atmosphere, the gorgeous surroundings, the varied special events and, of course, the films. In its 37th year, the festival looks to deliver everything loyal festival-goers expect and more.

“Variety has said once–probably more than once–that Mill Valley has the ambience of a destination festival and the clout of an urban festival,” said festival founder and director Mark Fishkin at yesterday’s press conference. “Change” is one of the themes of this year’s festival, with the folks behind the festival embracing the evolving landscape of film and film distribution. Said Fishkin: “For us, change is inevitable, but we are still part of a special division of the film industry, which is theatrical exhibition. We take our role as curators very seriously, whether it’s films that are coming from the Bay Area or films coming from Cannes.”

The Homesman

Tommy Lee Jones‘ latest offering, The Homesman, will open the festival, with star Hilary Swank set to attend. The film is a Western, following a claim jumper (Jones) and a young woman (Swank) as they escort three insane woman through the treacherous frontier between Nebraska and Iowa. Fishkin describes it as a “feminist Western” that is “extremely moving. We’re just so proud to be showing it in this year’s festival.”

Co-headlining opening night is Men, Women, & Children, Jason Reitman‘s new film starring Ansel Elgort, Adam Sandler, Judy Greer, and Jennifer Garner that explores the strange effect the internet age has on parents and their teens. Reitman will be in attendance to present. Lynn Shelton‘s Laggies will also play opening night, completing the killer triple-threat. The film, about a woman stuck in slacker adolescence, stars Chloë Grace Moretz, Keira Knightley, and Sam Rockwell.

The festival looks to finish as strong as it started, with Jean-Marc Valée‘s follow-up to Dallas Buyers Club, spiritual quest movie Wild, starring Reese Witherspoon as Cheryl Strayed, who embarked on a 1,100-mile hike to heal deep emotional wounds. Laura Dern also stars, and will be honored with a tribute.

French favorite Juliette Binoche stars across Kristen Stewart in Clouds of Sils Maria. Binoche plays an actress who’s asked to return to a play that made her famous 20 years ago, but this time in an older role, forcing her to reflect on the young woman she once was and what she’s become since. Another French actress who can do no wrong, Marion Cotillard is outstanding in the Dardenne brothers’ new film, Two Days, One Night. Recalling the best of Italian neorealism, the film follows a woman who’s got a weekend to convince her co-workers to forego their bonuses to save her job.

The Theory of Everything

Two emerging young actors will be spotlighted as Eddie Redmayne and Elle Fanning will be in attendance to discuss their respective new films. Fanning stars in Low Down, which views the troubled life of jazz pianist Joe Albany (John Hawkes) from the perspective of his teenage daughter (Fanning). Set in the ’70s, the film also stars Glenn Close, Peter Dinklage, and Lena Headey. In a breakout performance, Redmayne portrays legendary physicist Stephen Hawking in the stirring biopic The Theory of Everything, which is quickly generating momentum on the festival circuit.

Several other films that have been building steam on the festival circuit will play at the festival as well. English landscape painter J. M. W. Turner is played brilliantly by Timothy Spall in Mike Leigh‘s Mr. Turner, which we loved at Cannes. Also portraying a significant real-life figure is Benedict Cumberbatch, who stars in The Imitation Game, the story of English mathematician Alan Turing and his groundbreaking intelligence work during World War II. Steve Carell‘s highly-anticipated turn in Foxcatcher as John Du Pont, the man who shot olympic great David Schultz, will surely continue to stir up Oscar talk as the film plays late in the festival. Robert Downey Jr. stars as a big city lawyer who returns home to defend his father (Robert Duvall), the town judge, who is suspected of murder.

Metallica is set to play a pleasantly unexpected role in the festival as his year’s artist in residence, with each of the four members of the band presenting a film. Drummer Lars Ulrich has naturally chosen to highlight Whiplash, Damien Chazelle‘s drama about a young aspiring drummer and his relentless instructor. Chazelle will also be in attendance. Lead singer James Hetfield has chosen to present a classic, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, while guitarist Kirk Hammett, one of the world’s foremost horror aficionados, will offer up Dracula vs. Frankenstein. Bassist Robert Trujillo is showing a sneak peek at a documentary he produced himself, Jaco, which tells the story of legendary bassist Jaco Pastorius.

On the local side of things is a special screening of Soul of a Banquet, a documentary by filmmaker Wayne Wang  about celebrity chef Cecilia Chang. Wang and Chang, who both have deep San Francisco Bay Area roots, will be in attendance to celebrate their storied careers and present their film collaboration. Chuck Workman, another Bay Area legend who’s best known for editing the clip reels at the Oscars, will be honored at the festival as well.

Day 1 of Comic-Con was everything you’d expect. Crowds, cosplay, and curveballs galore. Thursday’s Hall H presentations began a bit later than they will the rest of the weekend, but the movie surprises were rapid-fire with plenty of juicy tidbits to make each of the presentations quite exciting. The day was fun-filled enough that not even the cancellation of the Goonies Never Say Die panel could ruin it.

Here’s a recap of the day, and be sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram for details as they come throughout the day, @WayTooIndie.

Dreamworks Animation

While not initially on our most anticipated list of Comic-Con, the first panel of the day ended up being rather delightful. Moderated by Craig Ferguson, who started with especially funny jabs at Jeffrey Katzenberg and his own inability to land coveted voice-acting gigs, he welcomed in Tim Johnson and Jim Parsons of the new animated feature Home. Johnson directs this fun little alien film around a quirky, minion-like alien society that colonize Earth. Among these aliens is Oh (Parsons), whose outsider tendencies make him a pariah among his people. When he meets Tip (Rihanna), an unlikely friendship emerges and the two have to work together to save earth. Dreamworks gave us plenty of footage, including a long action sequence that shows off some of the film’s animation. It doesn’t look especially enlightened, and is even slightly reminiscent of Monsters vs. Aliens, which wasn’t exceptional. Home should be coming out in March.

A title card was presented for B.O.O.: Bureau of Otherworldly Operations, an animated film about a ghost sent back to haunting school voiced by Seth Rogan with Melissa McCarthy and Bill Murray. Should be out next summer.

The real fun began when they finally moved on to the Penguins of Madagascar, which will be released this November. A definite oddity in the world of both animation and sequels, especially animated sequels, the Madagascar series has only grown in its cleverness and acclaim with Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted scoring higher than the earlier two on Rotten Tomatoes. Now this spinoff, which already has its own TV series, gets its own feature film. What began as A LOT of footage and a conversation with directors Simon J. Smith and Eric Darnell, and voice actor Tom McGrath, quickly escalated as the panel welcomed first John Malkovich, who plays evil octopus villain Dave, and then soon after, the one and only Benedict Cumberbatch who plays Classified, a Bond-like wolf.

Of course fans were hard pressed to keep their questions limited to the movie at hand, Ferguson joking that “Any questions about Sherlock and Comic-Con is cancelled”, but a clever fan was able to pose a question to Malkovich and Cumberbatch about what super hero they would most like to play. Malkovich gave a very Malkovichian answer and replied after some thought, “Lois Lane”, Cumberbatch was clearly being goaded for info on his talks to play Doctor Strange, and while he hemmed and hawed initially he did make a non-commital Doctor Strange comment before saying “I don’t know, Batman” which alludes that conversations are definitely ongoing. We’ll see if we see him at Marvel’s panel Saturday.

The Giver Panel

Up next was a straightforward panel about The Weinstein Company’s upcoming film The Giver. Lois Lowry, author of the now 21-year-old young adult novel, was on hand and sharper than any of the younger panelists. Her wicked wit and astute observations providing plenty of explanation for her inciting and thoughtful dystopian drama. An extended trailer (showing what felt practically like the entire film) was revealed and it looks not only true to the adaptation, but like an exceptionally well done film. Director Phillip Noyce couldn’t be at the panel, but sent a filmed intro explaining his passion for the project. But none spoke more passionately than Jeff Bridges, who plays The Giver, the one who enlightens the young protagonist to the evil and suppression of their supposedly perfect society. Bridges has been lobbying to get the film made for years, initially hoping to direct it himself and cast his father in the role of The Giver.

He’s not the only one who seems to have grown into his role for the film. Lowry admitted she had hoped the script would allow for one of the more controversial scenes of the book, when teenage Jonas bathes an elderly woman, so that she herself might play the woman. Sadly the film didn’t make it into the script. Lowry also praised the missing Meryl Streep’s performance (and from the extended trailer it does look quite impressive), she even went so far as to say seeing Streep’s performance made her want to go back and “rewrite the character to be more like her portrayal.” High praise indeed from such an acclaimed writer.

Sony Pictures Panel

Pretty much everything we expected. A brief video from director Chris Columbus promoting his film Pixels and a gag video of sorts. Mostly they want fans to participate in their live experience at the Hard Rock Hotel, which includes an arcade. It fits, as the film, which stars Adam Sandler and Peter Dinklage is about aliens who attack earth when they think our old arcade style video games are an actual attempt at intergalactic warfare.

The majority of the panel was about the upcoming Goosebumps film, introduced with a video featuring writer R.L. Stine. Mostly Jack Black, who plays Stine in the film, was on hand to be goofy, present clips, and banter with Slappy the Dummy, one of the scarier and more memorable of Stine’s evil characters. Slappy was shortly joined by a bevy of other Stine-imagined monsters and eventually they all drag Black off stage.  Our nostalgia is adequately piqued.

Paramount Pictures Panel

Rounding out the day was the panel we were less sure of and that most definitely packed the biggest punch. They were always going to push Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on us, and they did, almost immediately following a sneak peek at the trailer for the new SpongeBob Square Pants film, The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water. Then a bass-thumping intro for TMNT came on, exploring the evolution of the Turtles as told by co-creator Kevin Eastman and ending with footage from the film, marking this new rendition/era of the Turtles. It adequately raised expectations in the room and hearing Eastman discuss the Turtles and his excitement for the film along with director Jonathan Liebseman and eventually co-stars of the film Megan Fox and Will Arnett had even this skeptic thinking this film may not be so bad. Then they showed us a solid ten minute clip of an action sequence down a snow-covered mountain in a semi-truck. And it was ridiculous, but the good news is that despite all the spectacle, the Turtles themselves are quite funny and the film should be entertaining.

An especially interesting moment was when a fan turned interrogative and asked Eastman why there were implications in the trailer that the Turtles are aliens. Eastman recovered well saying they had always intended that the ‘ooze’ from whence the Turtles comes is an alien substance. Those unwilling to see the franchise stray from its roots may have a hard time swallowing that.

TMNT was plowed through rather fast and then we got a quick look at Dean Israelite’s new Michael Bay produced Project Almanac film. It looks a little too shaky footage-y for my liking, but interested fans were given the chance to attend a preview Thursday evening on a first come, first served basis.

And speaking of sneak previews, next up was an especially fun visit from Dwayne Johnson, who walked out into the crowd and then on to the stage to encourage Comic-Con-ers to check out his film Hercules, opening Friday. And as a special promotion, The Rock rented out three Gaslamp area theaters for the audience to show up to (at a time of his tweeting) for a special advanced screening.

The Rock seemed like a high note to end on, but the hits just kept on coming and out walks Clark Duke with two hot chicks on his arms. I didn’t think they’d talk about it, nor did I think I wanted to hear about it, but there it was: Hot Tub Time Machine 2 (watch the newly released trailer). While obviously lacking in the first film’s leading man, John Cusack, the film, which has the guys traveling into the future, looks surprisingly hilarious for a sequel, not to mention a film about time travel via jacuzzi.

That would have pretty much ended things nicely, except this is Comic-Con, and the name of the game is shock and awe. When the recognizable footage from the Interstellar trailer starts to play the crowd goes nuts. And when the trailer ends and Matthew McConaughey is brought onto the stage for his first ever appearance at the con, the audience is on its feet. McConaughey gives us a few ‘alright’s, to satisfy the crowd, and then starts giving us vague insight into Christopher Nolan‘s mysterious new film. Sure it’s about space travel. Sure it’s about a family man who has to make a hard choice. McConaughey finally starts getting into it describing Nolan as a director who needs to be original and who “works by his instincts.” McConaughey describes the filmmaking process with Nolan, that it “felt like an independent film — 2, 3 takes and we’d move on.” He claims this is his most ambitious film to date, and then decides he’s not sure he can really tell anymore, so perhaps he should let the man speak for himself. And out comes Nolan, also a Comic-Con first-timer. Finally, a real conversation around the film and then what we’re all waiting for: an honest to goodness trailer that gives us an idea about what happens in this film.

The trailer won’t be up for a while, but I can say it certainly gets into more detail about the space travel aspect of the film. There’s more Anne Hathaway. More Michael Caine. A little Wes Bentley and Jessica Chastain. And we can finally see that the film seems to focus on astronauts (space travelers? pilots?) who travel to space to find some place else where Earth’s inhabitants can survive. McConaughey’s Cooper is a conflicted man, at odds against his love for his own family and his desire to contribute to the greater good. There are some impressive space shots of fictional galaxies and the planet they seem to want to try and make habitable. It’s got the same vagueness Inception’s trailer had, which only makes us want to see it more.

All in all an exhausting but eventful first day. Stay tuned, we’ll be here all weekend!

Broad and brutal, August: Osage County doesn’t offer much in the way of subtlety, but there’s something satisfying about indulging in the bigness of it all. The all-star cast, headed up by a bitch-mode Meryl Streep and a seething Julia Roberts, put up bombastic, larger-than-life performances. Which makes sense, since it’s based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning Tracy Letts (Bug, Killer Joe) stage play. This “home-for-the-holidays” family drama’s (substitute “family tragedy” for “holidays”) transition from theater into the world of cinema isn’t a smooth one (due to director John Wells’ lack of vision), but the venomous dialog delivered by the accomplished, decorated cast make it hugely entertaining.

Streep plays Violet, the cancer-stricken matron of the Weston family. She’s a pill-munching, fire-breathing, queen of cruelty who fancies herself a “truth-teller”, when in reality she’s a mean old witch. Her toxic tendencies have trickled down to her three daughters, effecting them each in different ways. Julianne Nicholson’s Ivy has been rendered uncommonly dependent on Violet, never leaving their Oklahoma family home. Oppositely, ditzy, flighty Karen Weston, played for laughs by Juliette Lewis, has made herself scarce for years. Roberts plays Barbara, who shares a most contentious relationship with Violet and has inherited her mother’s nasty bark. When their father (Sam Shepard, whose screen time is brief and sweet) goes missing, the sisters reconvene at the old Weston house in muggy Osage County, bringing their significant others and heavy baggage (mostly figurative) with them.

The tension between Violet and Barb bubbles, then erupts at the film’s bravura dinner table scene, where deep-cutting insults are flung, egos are eviscerated, and we even get a mother-daughter grappling match. The construction of the scene is excellent; if the basement bar scene in Inglorious Basterds is a slow, steep incline leading to a sudden, furious drop, Letts’ symphony of wicked barbs is a twisty-turny, rickety wooden roller coaster ride full of surprises. There are so many tonal shifts, big laughs, awkward laughs, long silences, explosions of anger, and cuttingly clever jabs that your head will spin (mine almost spun right off my neck).

Streep is as Streep-y as ever as Violet, attacking every syllable of every piece of dialog with full force. Her spiteful glare and inebriated rage are met with a cerebral, sober, but equally deadly antagonism from Roberts, whose performance is raw and stripped-down (she’s usually at her best in this mode). Their scenes together are dynamite across the board, surprising no one. The acting, like the story, is a bit obtuse, but the spectacle of these heavyweight actresses going toe-to-toe, line-for-line, is ridiculously fun to watch.

The two other Julias are excellent as well, and each of the supporting players have wonderful moments. Playing the sisters’ lovers are Ewan McGregor (he still hasn’t gotten that American accent quite right…), Dermot Mulroney (surprisingly funny), and Benedict Cumberbatch (playing a meek, boyish character for once). Abigail Breslin, Chris Cooper, and Margo Martindale also impress.

Wells sits high in the director’s chair, but his filmmaker fingerprint is nowhere to be found. It seems as though he’s gotten Letts to adapt his play, collected some of the strongest actors he could find, and let them all do the heavy lifting while he does little to transform the theater experience into a cinematic one. Aside from moving certain scenes from interiors to exteriors, there’s no effort made to yank the story away from the stage, where its roots are buried deep. Wells does little to nothing interesting with his camera, and there isn’t a memorable shot to be found. It’s visual vanilla.

The film picks up speed as it progresses, with a cascade of earth-shattering revelations in the latter half causing the characters to exit one by one until only Violet and Barb are left. Everyone leaves battered and bruised to the core, but Violet and Barb are left crippled in the wreckage of the family implosion. They’re ugly creatures the both of them, and though Barb is still pretty on the outside, she can see her monstrous future self wasting away right in front of her eyes.

Steven McQueen’s highly anticipated 12 Years A Slave is a follow up to his mesmerizing sex addiction film Shame, which also features Michael Fassbender, and the first trailer for the film has just been released. The most notable part of the trailer seems to be the stunning performances from the cast, some of which include; Chiwetel Ejiofor, Paul Dano, Paul Giamatti, Quvenzhane Wallis, and Brad Pitt. 12 Years A Slave will be out on October 18th, the perfect time for Oscar potential.

Watch the official trailer for 12 Years A Slave: