Something old and new about ‘Power Rangers’

BY ROGER THOMAS

     First, I must admit that I am old enough that I never learned the story of the Power Rangers. I knew they were teenagers. I also knew that wore bright-colored suits and everyone wore a different color. I knew they were very popular among young children, especially boys. I had friends who had young children in the late 80’s and 90’s when the “Power Rangers” were very popular. I never sat down and watched a single episode, but I was pretty sure, I was not missing much.

     Almost two and half decades later, this franchise lives on in a new film. That film is literally my first real taste of the “Power Rangers.” 

     The one thought the rises to top of my mind is simply this: Are young children, the fanbase of this story, going to want to watch a film that spends ninety minutes before the teenagers become the title characters.

     For me, and all the other novices, the background filled in some answers to the questions I have had for years. How do the youth get their powers? Why are they chosen? Do they all have the same powers or does each one have a unique skill? Do their parents know that their children are now superheroes, risking their lives for their community?

     This  information helped in many ways, but I still have a lot of questions. Of course, if enough people go and see this film, I am confidant that a sequel will follow, and maybe I will learn more about the five Rangers and their next mission.

     I cannot imagine many people over twelve seeing this film without a child with them, but here are my thoughts on the film overall. The five young actors are an interesting group covering several different demographics. Some of them have more developed stories than the others but they all have their moments. My only question about the casting is that this five will look like they are in their twenties by the time the sequel comes around. I would have cast a younger looking group. 

     The teenagers happen upon this cavern and discover all this alien stuff. I kept thinking, has no one else ever explored these caves? I guess one is not supposed to be thinking about such things.

      As I noted above, the five teenagers are difficult to train and the filmmakers chose to let the story linger a long time. I kept thinking, are they ever going to suit up and save the town. This finally comes and it is complete chaos. I know all superheroes have to have the climatic duel, and in this case there are five heroes facing decimation. That scene is packed with so much action and effects it is almost leaves one dizzy. That scene also looks more like something stolen from “Transformers.”

     During the climax several things ran through my mind. “It will take years to rebuild this little town. How do the Rangers know how to operate their vehicles and weapons? I do not remember them training with those things.” Is that what the filmmakers wanted me to be thinking or am I just supposed to be wowed by all the destruction which most of us have seen in better superhero films.

     There were a lot of children in the theatre where I saw “Power Rangers.” Some of the younger patrons did seem restless for most of the film, but I am betting they liked the finale when the Rangers finally became who they were meant to be.

     If there is sequel, the filmmakers should disperse the origin story, keep the kids in spite of their age, focus on the story, and make a film so children will say “Wow!” and adults will say, “That was actually entertaining.” 

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘Life’ sometimes thrilling but almost always familiar

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I do  not remember all the movies I have seen in nearly fifty-four years. And i certainly do not remember when, where and with whom I have seen all those films. However, occasionally, a movie experience is so unique that I am not sure I will ever forget it.

     One of those viewings happened in the summer of 1979. I was sixteen. A film opened on June 22 of that year and a female friend and I went to see this film because a lot of people were talking about it. We did not know what to expect, but there is almost no way we could have predicted what we were about to witness. When that tiny “title character” exploded from an astronaut’s abdomen, I am not sure who screamed louder, my date or me. 

     The movie impressed us so much, we tried to get our high school band director to go see it with us when we went again. He declined. The film, of course, was Ridley Scott’s “Alien” starring Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, and John Hurt.

     As I watched the new space thriller “Life,” one thought continued to run through my mind: This is a weaker version of “Alien.” In fact, this film is weaker than any of the films in the “Alien” series, except maybe “Alien: Resurrection.” For the record, I have  not seen any of the “Alien vs Predator” films so I cannot compare those. Nor have I seen the newest film in the series, “Alien: Covenant” which opens May 19, in a theatre near you. But overall as sci-fi thrillers go, “Alien” is superior to “Life.”

     There are, however, some things I liked about “Life.” I think the cast are good. Jake Gyllenhaal and Ryan Reynolds are the most prominent actors of the film but the others do fine work as well.

     The screenplay of the film is well-developed in the early minutes of the film. The dialogue allows the audience to understand who these people are and why they are on the space station. If characters are going to end up peril, the audience needs to care before the threat manifests. “Life” accomplishes that. 

     As so many other films these days, the film has great visuals, both in the station and the scenes out in space. 

      Then there are the flaws. First, the presence that is discovered on Mars never creates the chill I like to have in a thriller. No matter how frightening the effects technicians could have made the creature, I would most likely not scream like I did back in 1979. There is not one thrill anywhere close to that level in this film. When something is really scary in a film, I do not scream anymore, but I do feel a chill up my spine or I may quietly gasp. “Life” did not accomplish either.

     I also believe some of the things that happen on the station after the creature is free seem mindless. Obviously, none of us have been in a situation like the one depicted in the film, but I kept asking myself, “Why don’t they…?” 

     Back when Sigourney Weaver’s character Ripley was fighting an alien, she made the right decisions. The crew in “Life” just do not measure up.

     I will offer credit for a slightly better finish than most of the rest of the film. I will not offer any details. I saw it coming, but it still worked well; one of the better parts of the film.

     With “Alien: Covenant” coming in May, I would recommend to wait for that film. Even if it is just a retread of the past, it will most likely be equal to or better than “Life.” And for the record, even though I have fond memories of screaming in “Alien,” the second film, “Aliens,” is the best among the five released films and like with the first film, I remember exactly who I saw it with.

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘The Sense of an Ending’ is strange title that fits different, compelling story

BY ROGER THOMAS

     Most of us want things to work out well. We like tidy conclusions where everyone is satisfied and all questions are answered. Unfortunately, life does not always work that way. I could make a countless list of conversations I would like to have, or things I would like to do, before the ending. My guess is most of us do, if we are honest.

     Based on a novel by Julian Barnes, “The Sense of an Ending” is a film about a man, Tony, who is reflecting on his life. His marriage ended years before. His daughter is about to give birth to Tony’s first grandchild. He is retired but still works running a camera shop. He tries to fill his days, but he spends much of his time reflecting on the life that has been lived.

     Then one day, he is contacted because he has been mentioned in someone’s “last will.” In fact, a diary has been left to him by someone he knew many years before. The thought of receiving such a personal inheritance, sparks many  memories for Tony as he waits to receive the item.

     The film is structured as a mystery. There is no murder or theft but there are deaths and revelations. As far as mysteries go, this is a fine one. It certainly kept my attention throughout.

     The film is filled with flashbacks that offer clues of what might be happening in the present. There are two sets of actors playing the same roles, those in the present and those in the past. The cast is the greatest strength of the film.  

     Oscar-winning actor Jim Broadbent plays Tony Webster the principal character of the film. His younger self is played by a lesser known actor, Billy Howle. Charlotte Rampling, who was nominated as Best Actress in the film “45 Years” in 2015, is the female lead Veronica.  Freya Mavor plays the younger version of Veronica. The seasoned actors are grand, but the younger characters should not be slighted; their work drives the film forward and ultimately reveals most of the story.  Memories are discussed, flashbacks reveal truths, and the past becomes clearer.

     The film is directed by Ritesh Batra who also directed a great little film, “The Lunchbox”  in  2013. I will be looking forward to his next endeavor.

    I had no expectations for “The Sense of an Ending.” The only thought that ran through my mind was it had an “curious” title. After seeing the film, I still like the title, perhaps even more now. All of us experience “a sense of an ending” throughout our lives. In the film, Tony has faced many endings, conclusions, and moments of clarity. Most of us, at least those who have seen more than four decades, we understand about “endings” and situations that just seem to continue with “no sense of an ending.” Both are a part of life. 

     This film may not be one of the great films of 2017, but there is enough here to entertainment and provoke thoughts. As I always say, the best films are the ones that make us think. 

     Here are some thoughts about life spoken by the character Tony Webster toward the end of the film. I find them to be accurate and profound, “How often do we tell our life story? And do we adjust, embellish, make slight cuts, and create a new reality? And when everything is coming up foils, how are we to know our lives are entangled forever?”

     Do not allow the title to discourage you. Seek out “The Sense of an Ending.” It might inspire your thoughts as it did mine.

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

Disney works magic once more with ‘Beauty’

BY ROGER THOMAS

     Over the last few years, Disney has decided to remake their animated features as live action films. “Cinderella” started the trend impressively; “The Jungle Book” came next and was simply stunning visually with a tremendous new climax to the old story. Now comes a younger animated film transforming into a live-action classic. 

     I have been a fan of “Beauty and the Beast,” the Disney Classic Animated feature, since I first saw the trailer. Disney re-jump-started their animation division with “The Little Mermaid” but then two years later they knocked it out of the park with “Beauty and Beast.” I know I mixed my metaphors there, but you understand what I meant. 

     This new live action version has all the songs from the original film plus other tunes that were written for the Broadway production of “Disney’s Beauty and the Beast.”  Both the original and newer songs are Disney music at its best.

     We expect great tunes from Disney, but there is so much more here. First, few films recently have offered as many spectacular effects as this one. In every frame there is magic. So much to see and all of it amazing.

     Then there is the cast. Emma Watson has hung up her “Hogwarts robe.”  Now as a young lady, she is adorned in Belle’s blue dress among many others. Emma’s singing voice throughout the film is outstanding, but she is even more charming as a young woman discovering that not everything is as it first appears.

     The rest of the cast are all fine, though many of them spend most of the film heard but not seen. For those who might not know the story, many of the best characters are handy objects for much of the tale.

     As I stated above, “Jungle Book” surprised me at the end with a twist. “Beauty and the Beast” stays a bit closer to the original version overall. However, there are some changes. The enchantress that curses the prince and makes him a beast, plays a larger role in this film. There are more scenes with the villagers and more occasions at the tavern. Belle’s father also has more to do this time around. 

     There is more exploration of the Beast’s castle, more rooms are seen this time around. A couple of other original moments that draw Belle and Beast ever closer in their relationship. All these additions enhance the story and never hinder the plot. 

     I, for one, am glad the filmmakers did not do too many alterations. I would have been disappointed if the film departed in large ways rather than holding fast to those things that made the original such an instant classic.

     There is one very slight and subtle change that comes as the story moves to its climax. For some it might go unnoticed. For those who might not know the story, Gaston is the villain. He believes he is entitled to have Belle as his wife because he is the only one worthy of her. Gaston has a sidekick named LeFou. Luke Edwards plays Gaston and Josh Gad plays LeFou. In this new film, as Gaston, LeFou and many of the villagers move to attack the castle of the Beast, there is a very clear moment when LeFou sees a clear choice between what is right and what is easy. His revelation is powerful.

     This story has always been about seeing more than just what is right in front of you. Or it is about forgetting first impressions, and getting to know the real person. Or it is about loving enough to sacrifice what you want or need. And, of course, it is about love. All these things and so much more are in this “Tale as old as time.”   

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

Some interesting theology is greatest strength in ‘The Shack’

BY ROGER THOMAS

     It has been several years since I was first introduced to the novel “The Shack.” I cannot remember whether someone just recommended the book or gave me a copy. I remember starting the novel. I liked the way the author, William P. Young, put certain ideas into his characters’ minds. Those ideas often echoed with my own thoughts. Not necessarily the theological parts, but just simple ideas that the characters would say or think. I found the book comfortable, at least the part I read. For some reason, another book, or busy-ness, helping my children with their homework, or whatever, I stopped reading “The Shack” and I never returned to it.

     This past week, as I watched the film based on the novel, I understood why so many people see the book as very religious. I can also see why some people would struggle with the theology presented. My guess is that the “Trinity” in this story is not how some want them to appear. I also think there are some who will find too little attention on sin, punishment and justice. 

    On the other hand, I could see how many Christian believers, and perhaps those of other faiths, would find the theology intriguing, compelling, and  even insightful. The way William Young and the filmmakers depict the Trinity is very positive and comfortable, most of the time.

     As for the film, parts are stronger than others. There is a scene in a cave two thirds into the film when the protagonist, Sam Worthington as Mack Phillips, meets Wisdom and he is challenged about forgiveness. That is the most powerful scene in the film. 

     There are many spectacles created by special effects throughout the film. I found most of those to be more distractive than enhancing. Maybe some needed the magic, but again, for me, the conversations, like the one with Wisdom, were much more impressive than anything used to create a magical, or should I say, miraculous environment.

     The reason that Mack ends up in the woods alone is a powerful tragedy that has consumed his life. Most of us, praise God, will never live such a tragedy. The way the film deals with those moments for the most part work well. I did have one reservation about Mack’s teenager daughter. This girl does not experience what Mack does. She has not been given sage advice from the ones that her father encounters in the woods and yet she is somewhat transformed. I know the film needed a happy ending, but I found the teenage girl and her brother to a lesser degree to be weak characters.

     On the other hand, I found the fact that the wife became the strength of the family after the tragedy was a very positive element in the story. I have said many times that growing up I thought my dad was strong and tough, but as I became a teenager and a young adult I realized that my mother was the strongest person in our family. I am pretty sure my dad knew it too. 

   So here is what I know. The set-up of the film, the tragedy works well enough. The performances of  most of the actors are fine. The film has some well-crafted moments, and some that should have been cut. Ultimately though, the best moments in the film are the conversations between Mack and the three people who meets in the woods and the woman in the cave. I assume that most of those ideas and the dialogue was lifted from the book that I never finished reading. Those moments touched me and left me with good memories. I also feel resolved to finish the novel.

     One final thought, toward the end, I was moved emotionally. Yes, I cried. Of course I cry at a lot of movies. But again, emotion aside, the most touching and profound moment is when Mack and the audience are learning about “Forgiveness.”

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

The big ape is back in ‘Kong: Skull Island’

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I grew up watching the different versions of “King Kong” on television. In the sixties I saw the Faye Wray classic from 1933. At some point I saw “Son of Kong” as well. As a child with horrible taste in movies, my favorite one was “King Kong vs Godzilla.” In that fight Kong won, in case you were wondering.

     In 1976 a big budget film of Kong came out with stars Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange. These actors would eventually win Oscars but not for “Kong.” The one thing that stands out from that film is that Kong climbed the World Trade Center instead of Empire State Building. The film’s poster shows Kong straddling the two towers but actually he jumps from one to the other. He never stands on both at once. I was twelve when I saw that version in a theatre at a mall in Gastonia, North Carolina.

     More recently, Peter Jackson, of “Middle Earth” films, gave us his version in 2005. It starred the beautiful Naomi Watts, Jack Black and Adrien Brody. The story was set in the thirties like the original and the effects were stunning. Jackson’s version will probably always stand as the best. There is a scene on the island that involves swinging vines that is simply astonishing.

     Now we have a new film: “Kong: Skull Island.” This film happens completely on the island, except for a few beginning scenes to set the plot in motion. Unlike other “Kong” films, there is no climax when the big ape is brought off the island to reek havoc on New York City or any other setting. Maybe that will happen in a sequel, but this plot is centered in the jungles of Skull Island.

     Simply put, this is a fun film. The effects, for the most part are outstanding. Kong looks more impressive than ever in every shot of him. There are plenty of other effects-created creatures  and most of them look outstanding. None though are quite as impressive as the title character. There is one set of giant animals that do not overall impress me. It was not the authenticity; in several shots the creatures look very real. I just could not get past their strange appearance.

     Another strength of the film is the consistent humor. There is abundance of jokes throughout the film. Considering the carnage that occurs on the island, humor is very necessary.

     Then there is the setting. Some of this may have been created with “special effects” but that does not diminish the presentation. There is a village, a boat, jungle settings, all that had to be created. There are these revealing paintings which were done by the indigenous residents of the island; in reality they were created by some production designers, and they are impressive. The look of the film is simply impressive.

     Then there is the cast: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, John Goodman, just to name a few. Most outstanding among these fine actors is John C. Reilly. He gets many laughs but he is also the only one who fully understands what is happening in the jungle. 

     Another thought about the film is that there is no romance for Kong this time around. There is no actress tied to a pole as a sacrifice to the big ape. Kong does not fall in love with Oscar-winning Brie Larson. Larson does not play the damsel in distress but rather is a strong and smart scientist trying to survive just like all the men. 

     “Kong: Skull Island” is not a film for the ages, or even one that will be remembered by the end of 2017. It is simply a fun time with outstanding effects; sometimes that is enough. 

     By the way, sit through all the credits; then you will know what is going to happen in films to come.

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘The Ottoman Lieutenant’ is a small epic which tries hard

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I have probably written this before: I love historical epics. By the time I was twelve I had probably seen “Gone with the Wind” ten times. More recently, after I became an adult I continued to love big films that told sometimes stories based on facts and other times fictional stories with a background of history: “The Deer Hunter,” “Gandhi,” “Out of Arica,” “The Last Emperor,” “Dances with Wolves,” “Schindler’s List,” just to name a few. All of these films won “Best Picture” from the Academy and these films are just among the years 1978 to 93.

     “The Ottoman Lieutenant” strives to be one of those type of films. For the background setting, there is World War I. One of the greatest strengths of the film are the moments when the main female character, Lillie played by Hera Hilmar, shares events of the war with the audience. Footage, real or perhaps recreated for the film, offers moments which are quite affective. Those history lessons were my favorite part of the film.

     The story focuses on four main characters. There is Lillie who trained as a nurse and chooses to travel to the Ottoman Empire to serve at an American hospital. Jude, played by Josh Hartnett, is a doctor who serves at that hospital. When he speaks at Lillie’s church, she is inspired to go halfway around the world to make a difference. Once Lillie gets off the ship in Turkey, she encounters a soldier named Ismail. Ismail, the title character, is played by Michiel Huisman. Finally, Ben Kingsley plays a crotchety old doctor at the hospital who thinks Lillie should go home. This quartet of actors give fine enough performances, though there is little that stands out among any of the characters.

     And so, therefore is the problem. There is plenty of epic shots of land. Beautiful scenery and great cinematography abound. There are some sweet moments. A few frightening ones especially in times of battle. There are an occasional moment of humor, especially when Lillie is arguing for her way, but overall the film lacked passion.

     As  you might have guessed, Lillie ends up trying to decide between the doctor who almost literally talked her into going to a foreign land and the man who is in his homeland attempting to serve the greater good of his people. In films like this, where there is a choice, the audience tends to lean one way. If you asked the people around you when the film ends, they usually agree on what should happened. I did not ask anyone when the film ended. I was alone and was not sure those around me would welcome my inquiry. However, I am confidant that I could have predicted what they would have said. There opinion would be the same as mine, except I never felt fully committed to any possible climax  or ending. 

     As the film prodded on, I kept thinking of the great epics, films like I listed above. While watching those films, one knows what one wants to happen. And in some cases when it did not happen, it was all the more powerful. This film left me sighing. Not because I did not get what I wanted, but rather because I never cared as much as I thought I should.

     I looked up the screenwriter of the film, Jeff Stockwell. He wrote the screenplays for a couple of other films I have seen. The first is “Bridge to Terabithia” which I watched many times with my children as they grew up. Stockwell also wrote “The Dangerous Lives of Alter Boys.” That’s a quirky little film that has some powerful moments and great insight. Either of those films, both of which are about young teens, have more passion and more feeling than anything I saw on “The Ottoman Lieutenant.” 

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘Logan’ another excellent X-Men film

BY ROGER THOMAS

     There have been nine films which feature the character “Wolverine” starting in 2000 and finishing up with the new release, “Logan.” I think there have also been a few Wolverine cameos in other films. Overall, Hugh Jackman has logged a lot of screen time playing this character, arguably the most loved among the X-Men universe. “Logan,” which is Wolverine’s given name, may be the exit film for this hero. Jackson seems to be saying he is done. 

    I can respect that. He is choosing a fine exit. Without revealing the story, this film is much harsher than the previous films. Take the “R-rating” seriously. There are quite a few words that would alone earn the film its rating. However, the blood and violence levels would have also pushed the film past a more friendly “PG-13.”

     There are other things about this film that set it apart from all those which came before. The color palette of this film is much more subdued than the eight other films.  There are no bright costumes, no colorful manicured lawns and prestigious school buildings. The story exists in a harsh world that needs the “X-Men” but they seem all be absent. I found myself wondering, will there be a film that bridges the gap between “X-Men: Apocalypse” and this film. I did not care much for “Apocalypse” overall, but that world was something completely different than the one where the events of “Logan” occur. However, if I heard correctly in the film, the events that played out on screen are happening in 2029. I am pretty sure we will not have “superhero” mutants in twelve years, but I certainly hope that we do not have a world like the one presented in “Logan” either.  

      One other difference between “Logan” and the earlier “X-Men” films is humor. The previous films certainly had serious moments and often times serious plot points and ideas, but they also excelled with humor. There are many examples of this throughout the series but I will only offer one: whenever Quicksilver demonstrates his giftedness the theatre was filled with laughter. The humor in most of the other films enhanced the overall appeal of the series.

     However, once again, “Logan” is a different kind of film, telling a different kind of story. And there is nothing wrong with that. I respect the filmmakers and all involved who made the decision to make this story unique. Among not just the “X-Men” films, but the entire genre of “Super Heroes,” this film is something else.

     I especially want to commend the three leading actors in the film. Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart have been consistent in their roles through the years. However, I do keep trying to remember how the films resolved the plot line when Charles spirit is transported into the body of another at the end of one of the earlier films. That aside, Stewart and Jackman are nearly matched by the performance of Dafne Keen. I look forward to her next project.

     “Logan” ends with solid conclusions but also possibilities. Honestly, I hope there are more films like the early “X-Men.” I am looking for a more playful film in “Spider-Man: Homecoming.” “Wonder Woman” also has an impressive trailer. At the beginning of “Logan” there is a trailer of sorts for the next “Dead Pool” film and it is very funny. In the midst of it all, there is also room for more serious fare as long as it is done well. “Logan” is a well crafted film. Better than I expected it would be, and much darker. Not for those under twelve, but to the rest who do not mind seeing their heroes struggle, “Logan” is a very fine chapter in the “X-Men” saga.

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

Wow! What an Oscar Night we had this year!!

BY ROGER THOMAS

     Let’s start at the end. Several years ago, some other awards show had a misstep, maybe it was the “Miss Universe” confusion, and I remember someone interviewed an Academy Award representative. He clarified that there were intentional safety measures to make sure that the “Oscars” would never make a mistake like some others had made. Oh well, that hope is gone.

     As everyone already knows, this past Sunday night, February 26, 2017, Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway presented the “Best Picture Oscar” to the wrong film. Accountants came out quickly but speeches were already made and ultimately, there was nothing to do except hand the Oscars to the real winners. Everyone on stage, the filmmakers of “La La Land” who thought they had won and the creators of “Moonlight” who actually did win were very cordial to one another. That was the positive about all of this. However, it seems sad for those who did not win, and those who did not actual have that special moment when their film is called. In the chaos, there was no going back to the traditional presentation. Those closing moments will always eclipse everything else that happened at the “89th Academy Awards.”

     But some other things did happen. First, I predicted seventeen of the twenty-four awards. Not my best showing, but also not my worst predictions. 

     Almost every one I missed was because I predicted “La La Land” I had that film winning Costumes, Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing and Best Picture. The film lost those five categories and others I did not predict them winning: Actor or Original Screenplay. The film did win six oscars: Emma Stone for Best Actress, Cinematography, Production Design. Directing, Original Score, and Original Song. “La La Land” had two nominations for Best Song; “City of Stars” beat my favorite, “Audition.”

     The film with the second most awards was the actual winner of Best Picture, “Moonlight.”  This film won three awards, Best Picture, Supporting Actor Mahershala Ali and Adapted Screenplay.

     Two other films received multiple awards: “Hackshaw Ridge” won for Editing and Sound Mixing while “Manchester by the Sea” won Best Actor and Original Screenplay. I was pleased for both of these two films because they had both made my “Top Ten” list.

     Eleven other films each received one award: Viola Davis won Best Supporting Actress for “Fences,” the film “Arrival” won Sound Editing, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” won Costumes, “The Jungle Book” won Visual Effects, “Suicide Squad” won Makeup and Hair, and “Zootopia” won Animated Feature. 

     Among the Documentaries and Short Films, “Sing” won for Live Action Short, “Piper” won Animated Short, “The White Helmets” won Documentary Short, “O. J.: Made in America” won Feature Documentary. I predicted three out of four of those and was especially pleased that “Made in America” won the Documentary; the film runs seven and half hours but it is well worth watching for anyone who remembers that tragic story of celebrity and murder. I am also glad that both sweet “Piper” and “Sing” won. By the way, this short film, “Sing” is live action, not the animated “Sing” with animals singing pop songs.

     Finally, “The Salesman” won for Foreign Language film as I predicted. I have seen four of the five nominees. I am still waiting to see, “Land of Mine” based on a true story of young boys attempting to disarm mines left in the ground following World War II. Of the foreign films I saw, I liked “A Man Called Ove” and “The Salesman” equally; two very different films but both worth seeing.

     So another “Oscars” has come and gone. May 2018 be filled with as many powerful and creative films as this past year. I was stunned by how much “La La Land” moved me. I regretted  it when the Academy did not recognize “Silence” more for its brilliance. I cried deeply when I realized what was happening in “Manchester by the Sea.” I found the center story of “Moonlight” to behold one of the greatest adolescent performances ever. Viola Davis gave the best speech of Oscar night when she won for “Fences.” I was thrilled when “Hacksaw Ridge” got recognized twice and my inner child would have been deeply disappointed if “The Jungle Book” had not taken Visual Effects. I want to cheer for the children in “Sing.” And the list could go on and on, but alas, the films of 2016, which were celebrated at the 2017 Oscars, are done. May we be as blessed in 2017 as we have been this past year.   

     2016 was quite a year at the cinema and the 2017 Academy Awards was quite a night at the Oscars.

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.