The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared

Movie: The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared
What it’s up for: Makeup

This might be my favorite movie of this year’s nominees. It’s currently free to watch on Amazon Prime and I would recommend it to anyone. (There is some subtitled strong language. And by “some”, I mean a lot. You know how Europeans are with the f— word.)

The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared is the description of the plot. On Allan’s (Robert Gustafsson) 100th birthday, he leaves through the window of his retirement home which results in a manhunt for his safe return. On Allan’s journey, he has a run in with a biker gang, finds new friends, and recollects on important moments in his long life.

The flow of this film is hysterical. It plays out with an appealing unpredictability punctuated with a sort of comic book style humor. The production design is gorgeous and there’s some beautiful shots throughout the film. The wide variety of characters involved with this story creates storylines for everyone to enjoy. It’s fun. It’s sweet. It’s quirky.

The makeup nomination comes from the old age makeup applied to Gustafsson. He plays Allan throughout multiple stages of his adult life. As the show “Face-Off” taught me, old age makeup is one of the hardest types of movie makeup to accomplish. The effect was good but not always entirely convincing.

Makeup – Doubtful


The Revenant

Movie: The Revenant
What it’s up for: Best Picture, Leading Actor, Supporting Actor, Director, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Makeup and Hairstyling, Production Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects

The Revenant tells the story of Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) who gets left for dead in the wilderness of the 1820s by his team. Glass’ grim determination for revenge drives him to use all the survival skills he possesses to try and get back to their fort. As a whole, the film is engaging and enjoyable. From a technical standpoint, there were certain things I just could not get past. We’ll start with the positives though.

Leonardo DiCaprio completely sells his forsaken character. He commits himself fully physically and emotionally. This is another nomination for a role with little dialogue. Even though he rarely speaks, he effectively communicates his story through his actions. However, it seems that DiCaprio had little to work with when it came to his character’s story. We are given virtually no background information or character development for Glass. In spite of that, DiCaprio creates a character that bonds with the audience and creates an emotional connection.

Similarly, Tom Hardy‘s character, John Fitzgerald, the antagonist of the film, makes himself known and hated fairly quickly despite having minimal character development. His strong character has a believable authenticity that makes him seem like he’s actually from the 1820s. The one thing that causes his character to suffer was not his fault. You could not understand half of what he said. I spent a significant amount of time lost when he was talking due to some terrible sound mixing (which I’ll get into more later).

The gorgeous cinematography captured the elements perfectly and drove the story along. They used natural light almost exclusively throughout the entire shooting process resulting in surprisingly clear and realistic shots. Lubezki is just a genius. Combine the painstaking cinematography with the unique film editing and you have a wilderness film that feels kind of like a Terrance Malick piece. There are certain scenes where Glass’ perception of reality shifts into dreams and hallucinations. There’s no transition into these stages. They just happen. Consequently there are moments where you have no idea what’s going on until it’s over. It takes nothing away from the story. It’s simply odd.

The production design also helps communicate Glass’ reality and strongly frames the impact of nature on our lost hero. The crew works with the elements in order to explain the story. That aspect was beautiful. The artificial locations (the fort, Native camps) felt authentic and kept the illusion of the historical aspect of the film intact.

The makeup and hairstyling team had an insane amount of work for this film. The makeup artists in particular had to create a number of flesh wounds and injuries for various characters as well as Native American body art. The costume design team created authentic (I assume) and intricate costumes. Each costume had a number of different elements to it.

I like Alejandro Iñárritu as a director. He made some bold choices with this film. They shot chronologically to make the experiences feel more authentic. This caused major budget problems for them when the snow melted at the end of shooting, forcing them to fly to Argentina to finish. He effectively directed several silent characters and characters speaking different languages. Overall, he did a great job. However, there were some minor issues that he had some control over that he should have resolved. Which leads me to…

The ridiculously awful sound mixing. The sound editing (creation of sounds for the film) was perfectly fine. Superb even. Elements of the mixing were good too, particularly with the incorporation of natural sounds into stereo. However, the biggest issue of the whole film has to do with dialogue. Half the time, you can’t hear the dialogue that’s in English. AND THEN a significant amount of the Native dialogue had to be redubbed after filming so the words don’t match the actors’ mouths. Iñárritu (supposedly) thought the latter wouldn’t matter because people would be focused on the subtitles. Mixing the dialogue into the background noises should have been given more of an effort. It’s possible that due to the time constraints of their post-production process, they just neglected it. I guess the Academy ignored that glaring issue when they nominated The Revenant for sound mixing.

Lastly, the visual effects. I know the whole motion-capture-bear thing has become a high-toned and fancy to-do in the technical circles. Yes, the technology is impressive. However, the end result for the bear and almost all the other animals leaves much to be desired. They all looked fake. Hair is hard to animate, but look at the recent Planet of the Apes films and you know it’s possible to create realistic looking animals. I think this may have been another area that suffered due to their time constraints. The real star of the effects team is whoever was in charge of the practical effects. So…many…fake dead animals. So…much…blood and guts. Seriously, this movie had significantly more gore than The Hateful Eight.

Best Picture – Probable but there might be a dark horse that takes the main prize
Leading Actor – I mean…if they don’t, there will be rioting
Supporting Actor – Possible
Director  – Highly likely
Cinematography – Highly likely
Costume Design – Unsure…
Film Editing – Unlikely
Makeup and Hairstyling – Highly likely
Production Design – Unlikely
Sound Editing – Unlikely
Sound Mixing – Please, lord, no
Visual Effects – Unlikely

Mad Max: Fury Road

Movie: Mad Max: Fury Road
What it’s up for: Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Makeup, Production Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects

I, like many, scoffed at the ten nominations for Mad MaxFury Road. On the outside, it doesn’t seem to fit your standard Academy film. It seems like a post-apocalyptic version of Fast and Furious. This is a perfect example of how you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover.

Mad Max: Fury Road tells the story of a woman named Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who helps a group of female slaves escape from a mad dictator. She attempts the escape through an expansive desert, hoping to find a place of peace on the other side. As she journeys, she’s joined by Max (Tom Hardy) who is battling his own demons.

George Miller had quite the undertaking as the director. First of all, there’s virtually no dialogue. The story is built and pushed almost entirely through the action going on. Secondly, the pace of the movie stays about the same (hectic) almost the entire time. There are stunts practically every five seconds. I don’t know how many extras worked on the film (or which extras were real and which were virtual) but they were numerous. Miller pulled an amazing number of variables together to create a seamless experience. I wish I’d been able to see it in theaters for the full effect.

The cinematography was intentional, creative, and effective. It set the tone for the film. It felt like a modern version of a 1980s film – which makes sense considering this is part of the Mad Max film franchise. (Full disclosure: I’ve never seen any of the other Max films. I did quickly skim the plots of the other three on Wikipedia before watching this one, though.) It was unique and memorable. Of course, this would all mean very little if the film editing wasn’t just as good. Which it is. Everything flows well from one scene to the next. It flows so well, that you just find yourself falling into the next moment without realizing that a scene change is happening. For a movie with so much action, it would be easy to get tired of things blowing up all the time. For a movie with very little variability in pacing, it could be easy to get overwhelmed. However, the editing – combined with a narrative score (which should have been nominated) – keep you interested and engaged the entire time.

The costumes and makeup designs tell their own stories. Both are intricate and dramatic, while subtly helping to explain things. The screenplay provides little in the way of background information for the societies that are encountered in the film. The costuming helps display the state of degradation that these people have found themselves in while also helping to distinguish between different groups or types of people. The makeup brings everything full circle by providing the futuristic sense that these people are not like us.

The visual effects of the film are almost indistinguishable from the practical special effects. Although most of the scenes are simply set in the desert, there are some truly epic moments starring the visual effects. Most of the film is one huge car chase that is creatively enhanced through some CGI work. Oh, and Charlize Theron is missing an arm the whole time. I had not even realized the broad scope of the visual effects work until I had to think about it for this post. While you’re watching the movie, the CGI/greenscreen effects don’t stand out from the actors and real vehicles.

The sound editing helped create the illusion of reality almost flawlessly. For the sound mixing, I felt like there were some off moments when the vocals were mixed in. Particularly with Tom Hardy’s lines (of which there were maybe five). I’m not sure if that’s just me being picky or if they did have some dubbing issues. Everything else related to mixing seemed strong.

Production design is my last to analyze for this post because everything I could say has probably been said about any of the previous categories. The production design stands out because all the other categories are so strong. They each work together perfectly to form this immersive environment. The fact that this film stands solidly in the realm of well-crafted stories without a significant amount of dialogue is evidence of exceptional production design.

Overall, it is a great movie. It’s not my normal type of film but I enjoyed it. Something that stood out significantly to me is the fact that there were numerous times where the filmmakers had an open moment for some gratuitous nudity and they chose not to do it. There was also very little profanity. In a time where those two elements are usually crutches for filmmakers, it’s impressive to see someone make a good movie without them.

Best Picture – Unlikely. Even though it’s very good.
Director  – Unlikely. Just because of the other contenders.
Cinematography – Possible….
Costume Design -I hope so! I think it’s in the top two.
Film Editing – Not sure yet.
Makeup – Possible. Old age makeup is usually the give away for this award so I’ll have to see what happens in The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed out the Window and Disappeared first.
Production Design – Unlikely…but I think it’ll be between this and The Revenant
Sound Editing – Unlikely
Sound Mixing – Unlikely
Visual Effects – Possible

Visual Effects

One of the purposes of this blog is to review movies that people may not have seen ahead of the Oscars to help provide more investment in the Oscars themselves. Since the majority of the following movies were blockbusters, I thought I would consolidate since no one really needs an in-depth description for our visual effects superstars.


: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
What it’s up for: Visual Effects

This was probably my overall favorite movie of the year. I liked the first Cap, but I LOVED this one. Marvel always excels at visual effects. They employ several different visual effects companies to hit everything from flying heroes to crashing helicarriers.

The kicker for this one was dear, dying Peggy Carter. Now, apparently, the effects they created to show an aged Hayley Atwell are “groundbreaking”. That in and of itself is enough for a nomination. However, I personally found the effect off-putting. The lips were what gave her away. I know that old age makeup is the hardest makeup to utilize successfully (thanks, Face Off, for that trivia). I know that the effects artists tried to use prosthetics first. I understand why they would want to try and see if they could get help from the computer. Regardless, I think it would have looked better with prosthetics.

: Guardians of the Galaxy
What it’s up for: Visual Effects, Makeup

Speaking of Marvel, here’s the success story of the year in cinema. No one knew what a success this movie would become and I believe that part of this success is from the marriage of visual effects AND extensive use of makeup.

The visual effects were beyond belief. The key things that come to mind are the entire opening sequence with Star-Lord on Morag, the interiors of the Dark Aster, and, well, Groot. Using stand-ins for Groot and Rocket provided unique challenges for the cast and crew. The creation of brand new worlds is always a monumental task. Add that to the incredible array of makeup used on almost everyone and you’ve got an incredible look for a film. The fact that Zoe Saldana used makeup rather than CGI to make her skin green is a tribute to the makeup department. Then there are all the prosthetics on Drax – and even on the extras. They might lose to Budapest, but they’re definitely my pick.


Movie: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes   
What it’s up for: Visual Effects

Can someone please come up with an Oscar that Andy Serkis can be nominated for? He deserves some sort of recognition for all of his performance capture roles. He has basically defined that medium.

As a movie, I enjoyed this one more than the first one. It still wasn’t the greatest movie ever, but it was engaging. The visual effects, however, reached a whole new level. I thought the first Apes should’ve won in 2012 (Hugo won instead). I mean…HAIR! Hair is so ridiculously hard to create. They wrote new algorithms for the hair on these apes and you can tell. They look even better than the first ones. I was constantly impressed with how seamlessly they meshed the CGI apes in with the real environments. I can’t praise the visual effects enough.

Movie: X-Men: Days of Future Past
What it’s up for: Visual Effects

So, I had this movie explained to me, so I’m at the point now where I understand what happened here and why…but still. While watching the movie, I could not have been more confused. Hopefully now that this mess is done, we can move on in a linear fashion.

The visual effects in X-Men were great but standard. I’m not sure how else to put it. Compared to Apes or Interstellar, there wasn’t anything particularly groundbreaking present in the film. Not to say that what they did wasn’t incredibly difficult. They got nominated for a reason. Out of all the movies nominated, though, this one doesn’t make my top three.

Let’s be real, the Academy is no friend to the blockbuster. Interstellar is most likely going to win.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Movie: The Grand Budapest Hotel
What it’s up for: Best Picture, Cinematography, Costume Design, Director, Film Editing, Makeup, Score, Production Design, Original Screenplay

This is currently my favorite movie of the year. Well, my favorite movies of the Oscar nominees. Over the past couple of years, I’ve grown to be a big fan of Wes Anderson, but The Grand Budapest Hotel brings his work to a whole new level.

The primary story of this film depicts the foibles of M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel, after one of his wealthy patrons dies and he is accused of her murder. The story is told by his lobby boy, Zero (Tony Revolori), as he aids and abets Gustave’s flee from the police and search for justice.

I was surprised when I heard that a Wes Anderson movie was nominated for Best Picture. Now, after watching, I understand why. It’s not just a comical flaunt through an nontraditional landscape. The movie takes place over three different timelines: a girl reading a book (The Grand Budapest Hotel) at the grave site of the author, the author recording a commentary of how he was inspired to write the book (with flashbacks), and the story itself. The inspiration for the entire story came from writings by Stefan Zweig and throughout the film, particularly during timelines 1 and 2, you could feel a depth to what was happening as if it had been real. (Let it be known, that I did not know about Zweig before watching the movie.) Zweig seems like a terribly interesting person and I may very well be looking him up at the library soon.

Wes Anderson both directed and wrote the screenplay, in his usual fashion. His direction of the cast keeps things moving at a rapid pace without losing the audience. The script is witty and cerebral without being overbearing. (And here I will mention that Ralph Fiennes steals the show completely with his fabulous delivery and execution of a well-written screenplay. The brilliant way he and Tony Revolori interact throughout the movie should be noted as well: they are a dynamic duo who make each other better with their performance.) The overall production design is as unique as it can be but I was surprised that it was nominated for this category too, since it feels pretty similar to most of Anderson’s other works. The cinematography (by Robert Yeoman, Anderson’s go-to cinematographer) is so gorgeous and intriguing to watch. The beginning of the film uses a fisheye lens in some creative ways that really stood out for me. The use of models for special effects is fun to watch in modern films and Yeoman and Anderson utilize them so well. They also use three different aspect ratios (one for each timeline) which keeps you on your toes. Wrapping up the creative, out-of-the-box crew is the film editor, Barney Pilling. Pilling has quite a job with the rhythmic flow of the acting and synchronizing that with the fitting Alexandre Desplat score. He accomplishes it well and the effect of all these elements combined is fantastic.

Now to makeup and costume design. The costumes do a great job of accentuating the production design. They also help tell a story in a semi-fictional world that also reflects back to a reality that existed between the world wars. The makeup is fine and good but nothing spectacular…with one exception: Tilda Swinton plays the old lady that dies and her makeup was so outrageous that I had absolutely no idea it was her until the credits.

I highly recommend Budapest. It’s uplifting, fun, and thoughtful. Go get it from Redbox and enjoy the show.


Movie: Foxcatcher
What it’s up for: Leading Actor, Supporting Actor, Director, Makeup, Original Screenplay

Foxcatcher is a movie based on the story of Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) and his relationships with his older brother David (Mark Ruffalo) and John du Pont (Steve Carell), a rich benefactor for the USA wrestling team. Mark tries to make a name for himself apart from his brother by taking du Pont on as a coach and financial backer for his training.

All in all, this is an unremarkable movie – with the exception of one thing: Steve freaking Carell. This movie is worth seeing JUST for his performance. I’ve seen 3 of the 5 movies that were nominated for best actor and I would pick him right now. His Oscar-worthiness comes from the fact that John du Pont is completely different from any character he has ever played. There is a dark, brooding nature to du Pont that Carell captures perfectly. He is menacing without any obvious reason for it. He’s that guy that you feel creeped out by but can’t exactly figure out why. Carell has played serious roles before, but none that have completely transformed him. A large part of that credit goes to the makeup department. Their nomination was not unwarranted. They did excellent work not only with Carell but also with Ruffalo and Tatum.

Speaking of Mark Ruffalo, he also did an excellent job but, to me, didn’t seem any more remarkable than some of his other roles. It felt like his role was meant to be expanded. He and Channing both altered their physical and vocal performances to match the unique athleticism that comes from being a wrestler. That being said, I thought Channing Tatum did an amazing job and created a character that was farther out of his wheelhouse than Mark Ruffalo. I wouldn’t nominate him for a supporting actor Oscar, but I thought his transformation was more memorable than Ruffalo.

Bennett Miller’s directing had its moments, for sure. There’s no doubt that the actors’ success was due to his direction. With the amount of unspoken tension and conflict inherent between different characters, their development was dependent on positioning, body language, and camera work. That being said, most of the cinematography was bland. There were some beautiful shots of landscapes but it came off as typical. There was also a big anachronism that could’ve been easily avoided. (Hotel room doors with card key entrances in the late 80s/early 90s? Although that’s when the transition began, it wasn’t until the late 1990s that most hotels had transitioned to key cards.) What’s funny is that the last time I noticed a big anachronism in a movie was in Bennett Miller’s previous Oscar nominee Moneyball… 

The screenplay was only ok. I wasn’t impressed by the script as a whole. I often felt confused about the goals of the characters and the point of certain aspects of the movie. The pace stayed the same throughout almost the whole film and as a whole, it was rather boring. Since I did not know the full story of the Schultz brothers and their relationship with du Pont, I kept waiting for conflict in the plot and kept being disappointed because *SPOILER ALERT* the real conflict didn’t come until the very end. I did read Mark Schultz’ complaints about the movie before I went to see it, but I felt like his objections were unwarranted. It did not come across as if Mark actually looked up to du Pont as a mentor, nor was there any suggestion of Mark being emotionally fragile or weak.

The movie was good but not great. The winning aspect was definitely Steve Carell. It would be interesting to watch it again knowing how it ends to see if that makes the story more intriguing.

Leading Actor: Probable but I have a hard time convincing myself that the Academy would actually give Steve Carell an Oscar. I think he deserves it though.

Supporting Actor: Unlikely

Director: Unlikely

Makeup: Very possible! Although the sheer amount of makeup required for Guardians of the Galaxy makes it quite the contender.

Original Screenplay: Unlikely. There are much stronger candidates in this category.

Dallas Buyers Club

Movie: Dallas Buyers Club
What it’s up for: Leading Actor, Supporting Actor, Best Picture, Film Editing, Makeup, Writing (Original Screenplay)

Alright, alright, ALRIGHT (McConaughey impression intended) I take back everything bad I’ve ever said about Matthew McConaughey.

What a heavy, heavy film. I didn’t know much about it beforehand except that Matthew McConaughey’s character had AIDS. I didn’t know it was based on a true story. I was, therefore, pleasantly surprised by the route this film took to tell the story of Ron Woodroof (McConaughey). Woodroof is a Texan cowboy electrician who is diagnosed with HIV. As he struggles to cope and find out more information about his diagnosis, he finds help from a doctor in Mexico who had his license revoked in the US. When his methods begin to help Woodroof feel better, he decides that he could make some money selling these “unapproved” drugs back in Texas.

The film flows beautifully. It tells its story often without words. The film editing is brilliant and amazingly well done. Each scene builds into the others and creates a deep and engaging storyline. The lighting is also amazing and I’m surprised it hasn’t gotten any recognition for cinematography. The screenplay is absolutely fabulous and takes into account the culture of cowboy Texas and the culture of the HIV/AIDS community and the strange overlap between them.

Now…for McConaughey. Ooooooh mylanta, I can’t believe how wrong I was about him. I don’t usually like admitting when I’m wrong but this time, I’m happy to. Besides the astronomical physical changes that McConaughey underwent for this role, he also transformed his personality several times throughout the movie. There were a few times where he had to pretend to be other people as he smuggled drugs into the states and also transformed Woodroof as a person from being selfish and insecure, to someone who truly cared about the well-being of others.

Jared Leto, as the transgender woman Rayon, was astounding. I don’t know how to describe this character and Leto’s transformation. It was an amazing role for the film and Rayon played a big part in the emotional impact of Woodroof’s story and the story of AIDS in general. He and Barkhad Abdi (from Captain Phillipsare leading this pack of supporting actor nominees. The makeup and hairstyling of both Leto and McConaughey were really well done, although it didn’t seem nomination worthy to me.

Overall, it was amazingly impressive. What makes it especially impressive is that it was filmed with a small budget (a mere $5.5 million) and shot in 25 days. It just goes to show that money isn’t what makes a film good, but the talent and the passion that goes into its creation.

Best Picture: Possible

Leading Actor: I personally think that Leo is getting set up to win, but McConaughey definitely deserves the nomination.

Supporting Actor: Probable

Film Editing: This category is a tough call. I feel like DBC is unlikely to win though.

Makeup: This category is so weird this year it’s hard to say. I’m not sure why American Hustle didn’t get nominated for this actually…

Original Screenplay: I think it deserves the win just for the sheer amount of time and effort it took to get the screenplay made into a movie. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if it lost.

Visual Effects

Movie: Star Trek Into Darkness
What it’s up for: Visual effects

I don’t care what you say, I love the new Star Trek movies. I like the old ones too, don’t worry. The visual effects were great, of course, but there’s nothing groundbreaking to say about them. Strangely enough, we’re at that place in CGI where it takes something amazing to make visual effects really stand out.  As for plot, I enjoyed it a lot. I was removed from the internet at the time I watched it so I had no clue about certain important plot points. Watching movies WITHOUT knowing all about the plot through the internet is how it’s supposed to be. That’s how you can recognize the full effect of a screenplay. That being said, since I knew nothing about the plot beforehand, I loved all the twists and surprises.


Movie: Iron Man 3
What it’s up for: Visual effects

Not gonna lie, the Iron Men are my least favorite of the Marvel movies. As I went in to the theater to watch number 3, I suddenly realized that I hadn’t seen number 2. Good thing that didn’t really matter. There were too many things going on in this movie. I don’t even remember half of them but I do remember being overwhelmed while simultaneously thinking “Was getting Pepper Potts out of most of her clothes really necessary?” (Superhero films are definitely aimed at a certain demographic.) It did add a lot to the Avengers storyline as a whole, though. I like that. The visual effects were great, which at this point just means that there weren’t any obvious moments where things looked terrible.


Movie: The Lone Ranger
What it’s up for: Makeup, visual effects

I know that I’m probably the only one, but I really enjoyed The Lone Ranger. I watched it for what it was, without focusing on comparisons, and I thought it was enjoyable and very funny. The plot was intriguing enough to keep my attention during a midnight showing after a very long day of work. I jumped in my seat a couple of times, laughed out loud, and had just the right amount of tension that left me wondering how things would turn out. The makeup jobs on Johnny Depp and others were very good and complemented the costuming well. The visual effects were great. I think it’s harder to create believable CGI in a recognizable environment (like the desert of Earth) versus the creation of a completely foreign environment or completely foreign characters. These kind of effects are often way less flashy and get less attention than fantasy effects. It’s good to see those efforts recognized.

Gravity pretty much has visual effects in the bag. I’d rank the rest (from most to least unique) in this order: Smaug, Star Trek, Lone Ranger, Iron Man 3.

(I’ll discuss the makeup category later.)

The Iron Lady

Movie: The Iron Lady
What it’s up for: Actress in a Leading Role (Meryl Streep), Makeup

I love watching movies about women. They are few and far between. I didn’t know much about Margaret Thatcher besides the fact that she was the British prime minister at one point. I came into the movie with high expectations and they were all met.

The story takes place in what I assume is present day. The movie goes back and forth between flash-backs and real-time to tell the story of Lady Thatcher’s life. It transitions smoothly between the two throughout the film and creates a poignant portrait of her life.

The use of color in this film was fabulous, as was the rest of the cinematography. It was engaging, emotional, and educational. I’m not sure how accurate the movie is as a whole, but the story was well done, regardless.

I love Meryl Streep and she was absolutely amazing in this movie. She had to play Margaret during multiple stages of life and she pulled each of them off thoroughly convincingly. Her makeup artist is a genius. I didn’t even recognize her in the first few opening scenes. He successfully aged Meryl and made her look like Lady Thatcher.

Leading actress: Probably.

Makeup: Probably.

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑