The 2016 Pennsylvania Auto Show

I make it a point to get to an auto show every year. I love cars, I love to drive, and I love to look at, sit in, and drive everything out there that's new. Over the past few years, I have alternated between Pennsylvania's three major auto shows in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and the smaller Pennsylvania Auto Show in Harrisburg. I decided on Harrisburg this year because Toyota joined Ford in hosting a ride and drive event this year, and I just didn't feel like driving three hours to Philly or Pittsburgh. Also, the Farm Show complex is just outside the city, so the test drive route has some hills and curves, as opposed to the auto shows in Philly and Pittsburgh, which is nothing but lights and bumper-to-bumper traffic. Also, the tickets are a reasonable $8 online, and you even get a 1-year subscription to Motor Trend magazine, which will come in handy if we run out of toilet paper. Anyway, if you are interested in cars, read on to see my test drive experiences, the cars I saw, and some overall impressions.

I will start with the test drives. I am glad I came on a Friday, because there was no line, and I was able to hop out of one car and into another at both the Ford and Toyota events. Here are the test drives in the order I took them. I started with Ford.

Mustang Ecoboost: Since I drive a minivan, this was a welcome change of pace. The test drive route took us into the state department of agriculture grounds, which takes you around curves and up hills. This Mustang has a 2.3 liter turbo 4, which makes an impressive 310 horsepower while getting 31 mpg on the highway. I did feel a bit of turbo lag, but the 'Stang was definitely quick enough when the power kicked in. As always, I love the balance and handling of a good rear-wheel drive car. This is also a great performance bargain at less than $30,000. Still, if I was ever able to get a Mustang, I would still go for the V8. I love the low-end grunt and neck-snapping power delivery of the larger engine. Besides, this is an American musclecar icon, and, in my opinion, it just isn't right to have a small engine in this kind of car, unless they rename it the Mustang SVO. And yes, I know you can also get a turbo four in the Camaro. Sigh.

F-150 2.7 liter Ecoboost: I drove this pickup because a good friend of mine is on the engineering team for this particular engine as a thermal dynamics engineer. I believe he works with the engine's coolant system. I apologize if I am mistaken. The latest version of America's best selling vehicle now has a lighter aluminum body (I jokingly tell my friend it is a Budweiser can on wheels), and a virtually infinite number of configurations. The pickup I drove accelerated briskly, and rode and handled very well for a pickup truck. I have always liked the way the F-150 drove, and, if I ever had the need for a pickup truck, I would get an F-150. That day may come, because I am sick of hearing my cousin moan and groan about how he is the only person in the family with a pickup truck, and is always being called to help people move or haul stuff. My only nits to pick are with the overly macho interior, which has too many sharp angles for my tastes. Also, this particular model stickered at $46,000, and it had cloth seats. The base model with rear wheel drive and a regular cab is about $26,000. Pickup trucks sure aren't cheap. By the way, this great engine will make its way into the 2017 Ford Fusion Sport, which will be the family sedan from hell. Can Ford rename it the Fusion SHO?

Fusion Energi: This is a plug-in hybrid version of Ford's midsized sedan. It can run on just electric power for 20 miles, but the gas engine kicks in when needed. The product rep told me that they can get between 80-90 mpg on the highway on long trips. When you run out of juice, the 4-cylinder gas engine still gets a respectable 38 miles per gallon. It was an interesting sensation to start the car and hear nothing. It wasn't until I went up a hill when I began to hear the engine. With a combined 183 horsepower between both powerplants, performance was adequate, although I am sure most Fusion Energi buyers aren't looking for a hot rod.  The Fusion Energi starts at $33,000, but the $7,500 tax credit from the Feds makes this a reasonable proposition. Also, unlike the Prius, which somehow got even uglier this year, the Fusion Energi actually looks like a normal car. This is good for most people, bad for pretentious tree huggers who want the whole world to know they are driving a fuel-efficient car.

Now on to Toyota, the world's finest maker of transportation appliances and vehicles for people who don't like to drive.

RAV4: The Rav is all new for this year. I drove a loaded model. The two-tone black and tan interior looked fantastic. I would call it the best in its class. The Toyota people took us on a much shorter drive, basically around the block, so I couldn't get a feel of how well it drove. Like any Toyota, the power, ride and handling were adequate and competent. It is a perfectly good SUV that I am sure will be reliable, and I would recommend it to people. My wife would love this car. The MSRP of the RAV is about $37,000, which is on par with other loaded vehicles in this class.

Camry: The Camry I drove was also loaded. It had the V6 engine, leather-appointed interior with attractive red stitching, and a complement of active safety features such as lane-departure warning, adaptive cruise control, and a pre-collision system, which will apply the brakes if it senses that a frontal collision is imminent. These features have been in high-end cars like Mercedes for several years, and it is good to see them trickle down to cars for the masses. This car was really quick, thanks to the V6, which, in the interest of fuel economy, may be phased out of the next redesign. Again, I couldn't get too much of a feel for the ride and handling, but they felt fine for the short drive. Again, not the world's most exciting car, but one I would definitely recommend to others.

Other comments from the test drive: I asked both reps if someone has ever wrecked a car on a test drive, they both said no, and both people had been doing this for several years. Both reps were very nice, provided good information, but did not outright try to sell the car. I had a very good conversation with Joe, the rep from Toyota, who knew a great deal about their products and the industry. He even admitted that the Dodge Grand Caravan, the car I drive, is startlingly fast, and can blow the doors off a Sienna, Toyota's minivan. I conceded that, as fast as it is, my Caravan at 80,000 miles already had two major transmission repairs and will be gone when it hits 100k and the powertrain warranty ends. I would guess that most Siennas won't have those kind of transmission issues.

Other observations from the auto show:

Prototypes and pre-production models: The big disadvantage to coming to a smaller show like this one is the lack of pre-production cars that are all over the news at the big shows in Detroit and Los Angeles. I give a lot of credit to Ford, who brought by far the most preproduction cars. I saw the Focus ST, which, with 350 horsepower, will be an unbelievably fast hot hatch. Also there was the Lincoln Continental, which didn't look bad at all in person. I think this is a good car to help save this brand. The rest of the Lincolns were awright, awright, awright. They also brought the pre-production Super Duty pickup, which borrows some of the styling cues from the new F-150 as well as the aluminum body made from the millions of recycled Pepsi cans that are being sent to Dearborn. Conspicuously absent was the new Chrysler Pacifica minivan. Judging from the pictures, this is the nicest looking minivan I have ever seen, and I would love to see one in the flesh.

Car I forgot even existed: The Buick Cascada 4-seat convertible is a rebadged, Polish-built Opel with a 1.6 liter turbo engine and a porky curb weight of just under 4,000 pounds. Since the Chrysler LeBaron convertible is no longer sold, Michael Scott would approve of this car.

Car I can't believe still exists: The Cadillac ELR. This is what happens when you take a Chevy Volt, put leather seats in it, and add $20,000 to the price. Virtually none of these cars were sold, but the ELR soldiers on, because this plug-in hybrid helps Caddy's image. This car was not present in the Cadillac display, nor were the new CT6 and XT5. (Update: It turns out Caddy pulled the proverbial plug on the ELR on 2/3/16, the same day Toyota killed the Scion brand).

Most expensive car you could actually sit in: A $115,000 loaded Corvette Z06 convertible. This sounds expensive until you realize this car can blow the doors off most Ferraris that cost double or triple this amount. Finally, the interior of this car almost justifies its price tag, and is no longer the GM plastic parts-bin nightmare that it was before.

Coolest interiors: The i3, the electric car from BMW, takes a minimalist, Scandinavian approach to its interior with eucalyptus wood on the dash and carbon fiber plastic in the door panels. Also there is no instrument panel, just one screen over the steering wheel, and another screen mounted in the center of the dash. Unfortunately, this car has a range of only 81 miles, which increases to about 150 if you pony up another $4,000 for the range extender.

The other interior worth mentioning is the Volvo XC90. With its small, but powerful engine, focus on  safety, and seamless use of technology, this SUV is a game changer. The interior is tastefully decked out in leather and wood, and has a large, vertical screen in the center of the dash which is intuitive and easy to operate. There are also a handful of redundant controls under the screen for the volume, defogger, and other functions. Volvo has created an interior that is both beautiful and functional.

Most British option: The "Bespoke interior charge" on the Rolls Royce Wraith, one of several options that pushed the price of this car up to a staggering $390,000, making this the perfect car for rappers or pro athletes. To paraphrase the great Colin Firth, "Now the first thing every gentleman needs is a good interior. By which I mean, a bespoke interior. Never off the peg."

Overall impression #1: After driving the Camry, and looking at cars around the show, the next generation of safety features is making its way to affordable cars, and not just Lexus and Mercedes. About 10 years ago, multiple airbags on the front and sides of the car were becoming common. Now just about every car has them, along with traction control and stability control. Even backup cameras will be required in every car by 2018. We are now seeing a new, more active generation of safety features trickling down from luxury cars to affordable cars. Features like adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, front crash avoidance and rear cross traffic alert systems are becoming more and more common, and it is possible they may soon become required equipment, and that's a good thing.

Overall impression #2: Boy, are new cars expensive. The average new car transaction is well over $30,000. The RAV 4 i drove was $37,000. A $65,000 pickup truck is not out of the question. Even loaded compact cars like the Cruze and the Focus push into the high 20s. Granted, these are based on the MSRP and not the out-the-door price from a dealership, but still, cars are a lousy investment, and this reinforces my belief that my money is better spent on a used car.

My take on the 2016 Oscar nominations

First of all, let me again preface this with the fact that the Oscars is the ultimate exercise in people in the film industry doing what they do best - pat each other on the back. Still, they are fun to follow and fun to predict. I think the Oscars do get more people interested in the movies, and that's a good thing.

So, they might as well call it the Achievements By White People In Film Awards. I thought after last year, they would overcompensate and nominate several African Americans, even if their performances weren't that great. Boy, was I wrong. Instead, for the second year in a row, all 20 acting nominees are white as rice. I am not the type of person who thinks that diversity should be mandated. I disagree in principle with affirmative action. But, to not have a single acting nominee for the second year in a row is unacceptable, and serves as evidence that the Academy needs to get their shit together. From what I have read and seen, there are worthy performances this year including Michael B. Jordan in "Creed" and Idris Elba in "Beasts Of No Nation." Hell, I wouldn't have even minded seeing John Boyega's name mentioned for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." Again, the Academy is made up of too many old, white people. Ideally, turnover in the organization will lead to a younger, more diverse Academy, but it's not happening quickly enough. The Academy may want to consider expanding its ranks to prevent this from happening again. I just hope they don't do something stupid like require a "minority" nominee in each category. With this rant out of the way, here are my insights and observations on the nominations. I have seen very few of the nominees, so most of this comes from what I have read and heard.

Best picture: I have seen a whopping two of the eight nominees. Here is my take on both of these movies.

The Martian: Loved it. Loved the book, which I read in four days. Loved the movie, which is a great adaptation of the book. Easily one of the best movies I have seen this year. I liked that it was "science fact," and all the technology and science in the movie is real. And, of course, this guy. He was great, and truly deserved his acting nomination. More on director Ridley Scott later...

Mad Max: Fury Road: I was pleasantly surprised to see such a balls-to-the-wall action movie nominated for best picture, and 9 other Oscars. The movie was essentially one long car chase, but the screenplay had just enough depth to get the viewer invested in the characters. The action scenes, which heavily favored stuntwork and practical effects over CGI, are impeccably staged, and the movie's vision of a post-apocalyptic world was sometimes bizarre but always inventive. Very entertaining to watch overall, which is not something that can be said about many other stuffy and artsy Best Picture contenders.

The snubs:

Before everyone starts moaning and groaning, let me get this out of the way. Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a good movie, not a great movie. It was entertaining, and I am glad I saw it in the theater. Yes, it was much better than the prequels, but that's not really saying much. It was, as far as I am concerned, not a Best Picture-caliber movie. Nor should the screenplay be nominated, because it was more or less a remix of Episode IV. It is truly deserving of the 5 technical awards it is nominated for, particularly John Williams' 50th nomination for score. One can use the popular argument that it is now the top-grossing movie of all time, but, as I have said before, just because McDonald's is the most popular place to eat in the U.S. doesn't make it the best. Also, I am not yet ready to mention Quentin Tarantino for The Hateful Eight, since I haven't seen it, the reviews are all over the map, and some, not all, of his work tends to be self-indulgent.

Ridley Scott: This one has the most people talking, and justifiably so. The 78-year-old director of "The Martian" did a great job here, using the device of cameras mounted in the astronauts' habitat and rover. It is unfortunate that he gets nominated for mediocrity like Gladiator, but not this. My guess is the Academy doesn't see Scott as an artist, but rather a commercial director who cranks out blockbusters. In their defense, he has helmed many multimillion dollar productions, and some of them, like Legend and Hannibal, were complete junk. However, based on this film, he deserves a nomination. On a similar note, Steven Spielberg was shut out of this category again, even though "Bridge of Spies" was nominated for Best Picture.

Inside Out: Since they have space for 10 Best Picture nominees, and there were eight this year, this deserves a Best Picture nomination. This was a great-looking movie that told an original, engaging story. It is one of the best movies to come out of Pixar in years. The Academy hesitates to give animated films a shot at the big prize (only two animated movies were ever nominated), instead relegating them to the best animated feature category. I am sure this is because an animated feature doesn't require the same crew and filmmaking process that are required by a live-action movie. Still, if we are honoring the best movies of the year, "Inside Out" deserved a spot on this list.

Straight Outta Compton: I haven't seen it, but I am looking forward to watching this critically-acclaimed story about the origins of gangsta rap group N.W.A. Supposedly, this movie also deserved a Best Picture nomination. If this an indication of who picks these awards, this film's only nomination was for the four white people who wrote the screenplay.

Charlize Theron: Since Mad Max: Fury Road was nominated for 10 Oscars, why not recognize its performances? As Imperator Furiosa, Theron was the toughest, baddest action heroine I have seen since Sigourney Weaver's performances as Ellen Ripley in the Alien franchise. Female action heroes are few and far between, and are often pushed into the background (see The Avengers). Theron owned this part, and deserved a nomination for Best Actress.

See You Again: For the Best Original Song category, This Wiz Khalifa hit from Furious 7 is well-written and catchy, and supposedly packs an emotional wallop at the end of the movie given the untimely death of Paul Walker.  Sam Smith is great, but "Writing's on the Wall" from Spectre is not his best work.

Young people: 9-year-old Jacob Tremblay, who was supposedly outstanding in Room, a disturbing story about a boy and his mother kidnapped and held in a small room, was not nominated. Brie Larson, who played his mother, was nominated, and the film was also nominated for director, screenplay and picture.

Old people: Usually there are a handful of very old actors nominated, if only to recognize their body of work. This year, the oldest nominee is 68-year-old Charlotte Rampling for 45 Years. Supposedly, Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren both delivered worthy performances.

Other observations:

God may no longer hate Leonardo DiCaprio. After five nominations and no prize, he is the heavy favorite to win Best Actor for his performance in The Revenant. If it takes getting eaten by a bear to win an Oscar, so be it. Still I wouldn't be surprised if Eddie Redmayne, or this guy pulls the upset.

As of right now, this is one of the most wide-open Best Picture races I have seen in a while. The Revenant is the favorite right now, but I am also hearing and reading that Spotlight and The Big Short are possibilities. I am even hearing that Mad Max could pull an upset. We will probably get a clearer picture of what is going to happen after the guild awards, which take place over the next month.

I haven't seen Creed yet, but I can't wait to watch it. I couldn't be happier for Sly Stallone, who is certainly the sentimental favorite to win. I certainly won't bet against Rocky Balboa. By the way, if he does win, Stallone should take this opportunity to thank his co-star Michael B. Jordan and director Ryan Coogler, which he neglected to do at the Golden Globes.

Here's hoping the best movies win, and that the awards ceremony is not the usual long, bloated mess.

The best of Alan Rickman

Alan Rickman 1946-2016

Recently, we lost another great actor. I was going to say something about him on my upcoming commentary about the Oscar nominations, but Alan Rickman was such a great actor, I felt I had to give him his own post. By all accounts, he was a consummate professional and a nice guy. According to Daniel Radcliffe (the actor who played Harry Potter), Alan Rickman was one of the only people who treated him like a colleague and not a child. It is a shame he was never nominated for an Oscar (although he should have won for Die Hard!), but, according to the late actor, he didn't care much about awards, and said that acting awards come more from roles than performances. I am going to be highlighting what I believe is his best work as an actor. Spoiler alerts ahead.

Die Hard (1987) - Hans Gruber: Greatest movie villain ever. Need I say more? He was ruthless, heartless, and unpredictable. Who can forget the moment when Takagi refused to give him the password to open the safe and said "You are just going to have to kill me." Hans promptly said "okay," and shot him in the head. However he was suave, calm and in control at all times. The character never went over the top like countless other movie villains (see Commando). The best moment in the movie for me was, after he convinced everyone that he and his henchmen were terrorists, he spoke to the FBI and asked for the release of a bunch of random terrorist groups, including the "Asian Dawn." When his partner in crime, Karl, asked what was going on, he responded by covering up the phone and saying "I read about them in Forbes magazine." It turns out that the villains were simply trying to rob the place -- of $600 million in bearer bonds. This was the then 41-year-old Rickman's first feature film. The director and producer of the movie were watching a stage production of Dangerous Liaisons in which Rickman played the evil Vicomte de Valmont. After the play, they both agreed they had their villain. Rickman managed to completely steal the show from headliner Bruce Willis, and that is back when Willis actually tried to act. He was one of the many elements that elevated Die Hard from a run-of-the-mill action flick to one of the greatest movies ever made. How he was not even nominated for an Oscar for this performance baffles me. Maybe it is because he was a newcomer, or because the Academy didn't realize how unbelievably good this movie actually was. Everyone said how great his reaction was during his character's death scene as he fell onto a blue screen. That expression of terror wasn't acting, it was real. A crew member deliberately dropped him one second early to catch him off guard.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) - Sheriff of Nottingham: In Die Hard, he turned a good movie into a classic. With this performance, he turned a bad movie into a watchable one. This was a dark, drab, overly violent movie with erratic pacing, a cheesy love story, and a horrendously bad performance by Kevin Costner. Rickman's scenery-chewing turn as the villainous sheriff brought a much-needed sense of humor and levity to the movie. I loved the line where he threatened to cut Robin Hood's heart out with a spoon. One of his assistants asks "why a spoon?" and his response was "Because it's dull, you twit! It will hurt more." His over-the-top death scene sealed the deal. By the way, did anyone notice that Nottingham won the duel with Robin Hood? The only reason the sheriff died is because Robin cheated by pulling out a dagger.

Galaxy Quest (1999) - Alexander Dane: I love this movie because it does a great job making fun of Star Trek, but is an original story and not an all-out parody. Rickman plays Alexander Dane, an actor who portrays the alien character with a huge fan base - basically the Spock of the movie. However, Dane, like Rickman himself, is a serious actor who adores the craft, and views this iconic character as being beneath him - until he realizes how many people idolize him and his character. I love his deadpan delivery of "By Grabthar's hammer, what a savings" as his character appears at a grand opening of an electronics store.

Harry Potter film series (2001 - 2011) - Severus Snape: Rickman does an outstanding job playing what is easily the most complex character in J.K. Rowling's novels. Is he evil? Is he good? If he dislikes Harry so much, why does he protect him? Rickman was told early on about his complete character arc by Rowling. He kept this a secret from the cast and the crew. The final scene with Snape, when we finally hear the whole story about him, is a real tearjerker as we understand his motivation, and all of his actions throughout all eight movies finally make sense. There were many instances where you could see the character, as a double-agent for Dumbledore, hold back his emotions, particularly the opening scene of Deathly Hallows, Part I, when his friend, a Hogwarts professor, is killed by Voldemort and his Death Eaters.

Love Actually (2003) - Harry: He doesn't play a villain here, just a dick. He does a good job playing a dick, too. In this star-studded movie, which juggles multiple stories about love during the holidays, Rickman's Harry gets caught cheating on his wife. He apologizes, and she stays with him because of their children. One would assume they lived unhappily ever after. This is one of the few romantic movies I enjoyed because not every story, particularly this one, had a happy ending. On a side note, remember poor Andrew Lincoln's character on the outside of their best friends' marriage looking in at Keira Knightley? At least he got to take out his frustrations by killing lots of zombies.

Before you ask, I have no desire to see "Sense and Sensibility," and "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was just OK to me. Same goes for "Dogma."

Finally, I hope Mr. Rickman is in a better place, sitting on a beach, earning 20 percent.