The Cluttered Mind of the Oscar Bum

Reloading the Pistol.... (With Results 1/24/12)

2012-01-20T11:46:00.000-08:00

I've been chatting with many of the Oscar following friends this season and there's one thing everyone seems to agree on: This year is just plain NUTS! Barely a month ago, I posted my annual "Calling My Shot" entry and I can't think of another year where some categories seemed like mortal locks and in such a short period of time, the pendulum snapped, rolled down a hill and crushed a Kardashian. (Okay, that last part is wishful thinking).

In the last week, I sat and watched the Critics' Choice Awards and the Golden Globes and got category after category wrong. Films like Tree of Life have fallen so far off the radar that it will take the Hubble Telescope to see where it went. Who the nominees will be has been a LOT easier to predict than who will finally win. But picking winners? It's been a nightmare this year. How often do you look at the Golden Globe winner for Best Drama and think "Not a chance!"? Almost never.

But, I will give it my best shot. Here are your nominees:

BEST PICTURE: (8/9 Correct)
The Artist
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
Moneyball
Midnight in Paris (if there's 6)
~~Bridesmaids (if there's 7)~~ Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
War Horse (if there's 8)
Tree of Life (if there's 9)
~~The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (if there's 10)~~

Prediction: The Artist. Of the Big 8 categories, this one has turned into the easiest. If you remember when I "called my shot", I went with The Help, because nothing else seemed to jump out at me at the time. Sure, The Artist had won a pre-award or two, but I really didn't think the momentum would continue the way it has. Leave it to the Weinsteins to keep it up.

BEST DIRECTOR: (4/5 Correct)

Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
~~David Fincher, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo~~ Terrence Malick, Tree of Life
Michel Hanazavicius, The Artist
Alexander Payne,The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Prediction: Martin Scorsese, Hugo. I may be a little prejudiced as this is my favorite film of 2011 so far, but I think there's reason to think this will happen. Scorsese doesn't have too many movies still left in him and you just can't let one of his LEAST memorable films, The Departed, be his only win. The only likely spoiler would be Hanazavicius.

BEST ACTOR: (3/5 Correct)

George Clooney, The Descendants
~~Leonardo DiCaprio, J Edgar~~ Demian Bichir, A Better Life
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
~~Ryan Gosling, Drive~~ Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Prediction: Brad Pitt, Moneyball. But I'm REALLY not sold on this right now. Just a few months ago, I was positive this was Gosling's category to lose and now, he may not even get nominated. Clooney and Dujardin won at the Golden Globes, but my gut tells me that Pitt might still prevail, despite having the less showy part, for two reasons: 1. He's never won despite after nearly 2 decades in the limelight. 2. He may hold true to his promise that he's retiring very soon and this might be the Academy's only shot at giving one of its more diverse actors an award. If not here, their last chance looks like World War Z next year.

BEST ACTRESS: (5/5 Correct)

Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis, The Help
Rooney Mara, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep,The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn

Prediction: Viola Davis, The Help. I was SURE this was Streep's year to return to the winner's circle. Despite the GG win, I just don't see it and that's fine. Davis knocked it out of the park in The Help. It's just funny that Streep will now have lost as many times as any other actor has even been nominated. This may also be the category with the most shocking spoiler: Glenn Close in Albert Nobbs, just because she has never won either and she's been at it a lot longer than Pitt. Although, there may already be too many sentimental choices this year for it to happen.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: (4/5 Correct)

Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn
~~Albert Brooks, Drive~~ Max von Sydow, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Prediction: Christopher Plummer, Beginners. THIS is what I'm talking about. Brooks seemed like the winner just a few weeks ago. Then, I guess, people started catching Beginners on screeners. It's a good performance by Plummer. It's a good film as a whole. I just remember watching it and thinking, "It's just not feeling Oscar-worthy" to me. I guess we've been spoiled the past couple years by some truly amazing supporting performances, Christian Bale in The Fighter, Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, Heath Ledger in Dark Knight, Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men. Those were just lights-out, great performances. Plummer's isn't.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: (4/5 Correct)

Berenice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
Octavia Spencer, The Help
~~Shaileen Woodley, The Descendants~~ Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs

Prediction: Octavia Spencer, The Help. Again, this is what I was talking about before. Chastain in, count 'em, FIVE solid-to-great performances this year seemed like such a shoo-in. And in The Help, she was such a BITCH! But I think the Academy will go with the less showy, but more solid performance of Octavia Spencer.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: (4/5 Correct)

~~50/50~~ Margin Call
The Artist
Bridesmaids
Midnight in Paris
A Separation

Prediction: Midnight in Paris. My #3 movie of 2011. If this one had come out in November instead of spring, I think this one would have been more of a contender for Best Picture. This will be its only win. The only possibility for an upset would be Bridesmaids, but I just don't see it.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: (4/5 Correct)

The Descendants
~~The Help~~ Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Hugo
Ides of March
Moneyball

Prediction: Moneyball. Please? I'm telling you right now, this is going to be one of my worst years for picking the winners. The Ides of March (STILL hate that name. What was wrong with Farragut North? Doesn't hurt the box office in the playhouses that show it) or whatever gets that slot is about the only nominee I can rule out. Right now, The Descendants is picking up steam and could wind up taking this.

BEST FILM EDITING: (3/5 Correct)

The Artist
~~Drive~~ The Descendants
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
~~War Horse~~ Moneyball

Prediction: Hugo. One of the MANY well done aspects of this movie. Dragon Tattoo should contend. Everything else is just there to fill slots. As a reminder, this is the category to watch to eliminate Best Picture contenders. No nom here, no trophy there.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: (5/5 Correct)

The Artist
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Tree of Life
War Horse

Prediction: Tree of Life. This is one of those film/category matches that you see every few years. Like Terminator 2 and Visual Effects or Raiders of the Lost Ark and Editing. Just an aspect of the film that is so overwhelmingly well done that to NOT award it would show how Joe Average Academy voter doesn't know squat outside of their own job in film.

BEST ART DIRECTION: (5/5 correct)

The Artist
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
War Horse

Prediction: Hugo. It damn well better. That's all I'm saying.

BEST SOUND MIXING: (2/5 Correct)

~~Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2~~ Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
~~Rise of the Planet of the Apes~~ Moneyball
~~Super 8~~ Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

Prediction: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. Come on! They have to give SOMETHING to this series. Here's their chance.

BEST SOUND EDITING: (3/5 Correct)

~~Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2~~ Drive
Hugo
~~Super 8~~ Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

Prediction: War Horse. Never, EVER, bet against the movie that has the sound of horse hooves. Although movies with trains do tend to win as well and three of these have them, it doesn't trump the sound of horses, which easily impresses voters.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN: (2/5 correct)

~~Albert Nobbs~~ Anonymous
The Artist
~~The Help~~ Jane Eyre
Hugo
~~J. Edgar~~ W.E.

Prediction: The Artist. This IS one of those categories that the voters don't come close to grasping. Here, they typically vote for most costumes, not best. Honestly, you know what movie had great costumes that spoke VOLUMES about the characters? Bridesmaids. Won't even get considered. They fail this category year after year.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: (4/5 Correct)

The Adventures of Tintin
The Artist
~~The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo~~ Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Hugo
War Horse

Prediction: The Artist. It's hard to argue against a movie that is ALL score. The score for Dragon Tattoo though is pretty intense. If they hadn't just won last year, this might be a closer race. I don't know if Hanna is in the running, but the Chemical Brothers work on that movie was pretty awesome as well.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: (4/5 Correct)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
~~Tree of Life~~ Real Steel

Prediction: Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The major difference between this film and most every other film this year was that the visual effects were also a performance and not just window dressing or explosions.

BEST MAKEUP: (3/3 Correct, but when you pick too many to begin with....)

Albert Nobbs
~~The Artist~~
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
~~Hugo~~
The Iron Lady

Prediction: The Iron Lady. This category always throws me. For one, Whether there's 3 or 5 nominees seems to happen randomly. And second, unless some film is pulling a Titanic/Return of the King type sweep, I never guess this one correctly. Until last year, I suppose. And so, I will follow last year's method of picking and choose the one I didn't seriously think would win.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: (2/5 Correct, thought I'd read there were only 3 nominees)

~~The Adventures of Tintin~~ Kung Fu Panda 2
Puss in Boots
Rango
A Cat in Paris
Chico & Rita

Prediction: Rango. This category was decided nearly a year ago. With the lack of a Pixar film this year (Cars 2 did not happen in my world), the race was presumably wide open. But the Happy Feet and Kung Fu Panda sequels left something to be desired, although I would argue that the originals of both were highly overrated. But Rango set the bar very high, very early on in 2011 and no other entry came even close.

I'm leaving out, as usual, other categories like the short subjects, documentary, foreign film, and song, simply because, in the case of the first three, I don't see enough of them, and with song, I quite simply don't care since the songs most often get judged on their own merits and not how they affect the film itself.

Calling My Shot

2011-12-11T19:06:00.001-08:00

I had been hearing gripes this year about how tough predicting the Oscars has been because there's nothing even resembling a clear frontrunner. I just chalked it up to the usual griping from people who don't happen to like the frontrunner and are simply in denial.

Then I started planning this column in my head.

They're right.

I am speaking honestly when I say that a few paragraphs below this sentence is my prediction for what will win Best Picture and as I am typing this sentence, I have no idea what that movie is going to be. In fact, there's very few categories at all that have a clear cut favorite. The Golden Globe nominations come out this week, but in wide open years like this one, they tend not to indicate where the Academy will go. In fact, I would wager that the Academy voters aren't totally sure yet who they'll vote for.

And now, I'm just droning on because I'm hoping I'll come across some movie I've forgotten that will make me say, "Oh yeah! That's the one that will win." It's not happening. So here it goes. I got 10 right last year. I doubt I'll do that well this year.

Best Picture:

Ummm...let me get back to this one.

Director: Terrence Malick, Tree of Life

I have a feeling this will be one of several instances of people being awarded for their careers over the job they did on the movie. This will be Malick's third nomination over a career that's spanned four decades and yet, has only seen 5 movies. Still, Tree of Life is a "director's movie" if there ever was one. It doesn't deserve Best Picture, but this is an award it does.

Actor: Brad Pitt, Moneyball

I think this category will be a 3-way street fight among Pitt, Michael Fassbender (Shame) and Ryan Gosling (Drive). Gosling would have been a shoo-in had The Ides of March been better received. But he was good in 3 movies this year. Fassbender has been getting rave reviews for Shame, but it's perhaps TOO daring. Similar to Gosling, Fassbender would have been a strong favorite had A Dangerous Method gotten better notices. So, that leaves us with Brad Pitt, who I'm sure many feel is overdue for an Oscar anyway and was nomination-worthy in two films this year. George Clooney will also be nominated for The Descendants, but he's won recently and given Pitt's rumored, impending retirement, I think they'll want to award him now rather than risk missing the chance later.

Actress: Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady

Meryl Streep has LOST more times than any person, except Katherine Hepburn, has been nominated. If she loses here, than she will have lost more times than anyone has been nominated. Period. That's a ridiculous statistic. And it's been almost 20 years since she last won. Come on. Let's throw the woman a bone to give her a reason to keep showing up year after year.

Supporting Actor: Albert Brooks, Drive

Among the 8 major categories, the supporting acting categories are the closest to being a lock. Brooks is well-liked in this industry for decades. He's playing against type. He's been nominated in this category before. There's a lot of things going for him. He didn't get a nomination for SAG awards, but I think it will still happen.

Supporting Actress: Jessica Chastain, Tree of Life

She is simply having one of the single greatest years of any actor in movie history. In any year, she could win for "Tree of Life". The funny thing is that she might get nominated for another movie. She may also win for "The Help". The only thing that might stop her is marrying a George Clooney or Ryan Gosling between now and then.

Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris
Unless there's a sweep by the "The Artist", I don't see Woody losing here. This was a prediction I made when the movie came out and I'm sticking to it.

Adapted Screenplay: Moneyball
This category could go a lot of ways. If the writers' branch embraces films like "War Horse", "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close", or "Hugo". Based on how things look this second, I'm sticking with Sorkin.

Editing: War Horse
Just as a general rule, the Academy should really give Michael Kahn an Oscar at least once a decade. He's a three-time winner, all for Spielberg movies involving people fighting against Germans. How can he lose?

Cinematography: Tree of Life
"Tree of Life" is more of a painting than a film. This will be a deserving win.

Art Direction: Hugo
I think there's a strong possibility that "Hugo" can be the winner in a lot of the categories above. Momentum changes a lot during the Oscar race. But where things stand now, I think this is the biggest award it will take. When the stories come out about the kind of financial disaster this film is (including marketing costs, it will lose close to $250 million), a lot of people will shy away from this one.

Costume Design: The Artist
Sure looks like there's a lot of costumes in this movie. And the Academy tends to vote volume over substance. More thought about costumes goes into a movie like The Descendants than films like The Artist, J. Edgar, or A Dangerous Method (all likely nominees). But they'll pick one of the latter because, well, look! There's so many costumes!

Sound Mixing: Hugo
Just taking a stab in the dark here.

Sound Editing: War Horse
Same here.

Visual Effects: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
I can't imagine any film this year more deserving. And the Academy loves giving it to CGI monkeys.

Makeup: The Iron Lady
I'd rather see a stunts category than the almost annually flip of the coin this category is.

Song: The Muppets, "Man or Muppet"
When in doubt, go with the song people probably heard latest in the year.

Score: The Artist
Since no silent film has won in over 80 years, it's hard to say there's a standard to award a movie that's ALL score. I just think it's a safe bet.

Animated Feature: Rango
It's been a while since there's been such a disappointing year for animated films. Particularly after a year that saw "Toy Story 3", "How to Train Your Dragon", "Despicable Me", "The Illusionist", etc. This year was so weak, I think "Winnie the Pooh" will contend. Even mediocre films like "Rio" and "Arthur Christmas" has a shot at nominations. Thankfully, even in a strong year, the brilliant "Rango" would probably win.

Documentary Feature: Cave of Forgotten Dreams
It's the only one I've seen this year. So let's go with that.

The Golden Globe nominations come out tomorrow, so I'm sure several of these choices will be proven destined to be wrong within 24 hours, but that's the fun, isn't it?

Oh yeah. I still need to pick Best Picture, don't I?

Best Picture: The Help

How's THAT for guts?

The Oscar Race: Lap 2

2011-12-02T12:48:00.001-08:00

The National Board of Review:

Yes. The critics group to which no actual critics belong. Who are these people? Why do the Oscar-obsessed care? Because they are as accurate an indicator of what the Oscars will look like as the Golden Globes. Since 2000, every single one of the Best Pictures has at least gone on to be nominated at the Oscars. Lately, they've tended to not choose the same Best Picture as the Academy, but they at least got a nominee correct.

Here are their choices:

Best Film: Hugo

The rest of their Top 10:
The Artist
The Descendants
Drive
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
The Ides of March
J. Edgar
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Director: Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Actor: George Clooney, The Descendants
Actress: Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk about Kevin
Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Supporting Actress: Shailene Woodley, The Descendants
Original Screenplay: 50/50
Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants
Foreign Film: A Separation

So, a VERY different group of picks than we saw with the New York Film Critics. In fact, the only category that matched is Foreign Film. I wasn't familiar with A Separation, but now I'm intrigued. Not just because of the picks, but what I've been reading about it. Many people calling it the best film they've ever seen! I always find that to be a stretch, but it's more rare than you'd think to hear people say that.

Beyond that, it was a very strong showing for Hugo, obviously. It really needs it too. Hugo is on its way to becoming a box office disaster of epic proportions. If it ONLY loses $100 million, the studio will be lucky. Winning these pre-awards should help in its advertising.

Also a strong showing for The Descendants, which many had expected to do much better with the NYFCC, but didn't win a single prize. There are some notable films missing from that Top 10 list. The Help was expected to be there. Moneyball is missing as well. Also, Midnight in Paris, which was not only considered a shoo-in for these kind of awards, but is being looked at as a serious contender for Best Picture.

A small break in the awards for the next week or so. Nothing until December 11, when the Boston and Los Angeles Film Critics announce their awards. Boston, in particular, is a good Oscar predictor, having voted for the same Best Picture as the Academy 4 of the last 5 years. The lone exception was that last year they chose The Social Network. The Los Angeles Critics usually choose an eventual nominee, but their choice rarely wins Best Picture.

Studios, Start Your Engines!

2011-11-29T14:22:00.001-08:00

With all the rules changes with the Oscars, it seems fitting that Oscar season would start completely differently this year. Traditionally speaking, it has always started with the announcements of the National Board of Review, which always seemed strange because A. no one in Hollywood (or anywhere) seems to have a clue who these people are and B. they always managed to pick, at the very least, a Best Picture nomineee, if not the Best Picture winner.

That all changed this year with the New York Film Critics' Circle moving their big day to be first. It's a good move, actually. As mentioned above, no one has a CLUE who the National Board of Review is. It's actually a running joke. At least with the NYFCC, we know who the voters are and probably read/watch their work. One other interesting factoid: The NYFCC live tweeted their awards. This was kind of cool. It's not like the Oscars where voters get ballots in the mail, fill them out, send them back, get new ballots after the nominations, fill THOSE out, send THOSE back in, and PriceWaterhouseCooper counts the votes and the winners are known ahead of time. These critics groups all meet in a room and hash out the winners. There have been years where fights broke out and no winner was declared until the 7th or 8th vote. So, it was interesting to follow the thing on Twitter today as some winners were announced seemingly back to back, while other categories (Best Actor and Best Director especially) seemed to take a while. I'll have to go back and look, but I think Best Actor took close to 40 minutes, while most categories took about 10. Here are the results:

Best Picture: The Artist
Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Best Actor: Brad Pitt, Moneyball/Tree of Life
Best Actress: Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Best Supporting Actor: Albert Brooks, Drive
Best Supporting Actress: Jessica Chastain, Tree of Life/The Help/Take Shelter
Best Screenplay: Moneyball
Best Cinematography: Tree of Life
Best Foreign Film: A Separation
Best Nonfiction Film: Cave of Forgotten Dreams
Best First Feature: Margin Call

So, some interesting, although not all that surprising, choices. The Best Picture win for The Artist could come back and bite it in the ass. It seems like a trend recently that the first movie to start collecting awards petered out by the time to Oscar voters started filling out their ballots. But, it is the Weinstein Brothers doing the pushing for it and they somehow managed to get The King's Speech past The Social Network juggernaut last year. Maybe they've found a way to keep their films winning.

Still, if the list above turned out to match the Oscar winners, it wouldn't be a shock. I like The Artist's chances. For both Picture and Director. Brad Pitt? Strong possibility. He's one of those "long overdue" actors and his main competition will likely be George Clooney (who has already won) and Ryan Gosling (who suffers from the Kate Winslet curse of he's "so good, he'll win plenty in the future").

Meryl Streep has lost at the Oscars 14 times! Think about that. She's LOST 14 times. Do you know how many actors have even been NOMINATED 14 times? 1. Katherine Hepburn. And she won 4 times. Other factors in Streep's favor? She hasn't won since Sophie's Choice! That was 30 years ago!!! You want to talk about LONG overdue. She was 32 years old when she won. She's been nominated 12 times SINCE she last won. Now she's almost retirement age. Not to mention that the early reviews say she turns in the kind of mind-blowing performance that made Helen Mirren a lock in The Queen a few years back.

I love the idea of Albert Brooks winning. I don't think it will happen. But I love that he's even contending. For one, it's not his normal type of role. Albert Brooks is kinda like Woody Allen as far as type-casting. That someone took a chance and cast this smart-ass, nerdy persona as the bad ass mob boss is pure guts. And it worked. There's no reason why he couldn't win. I just don't think he will.

It's funny. This was supposed to be Jessica Chastain's year. It was thought that she was going to be the biggest star on the planet after this year. She's in SEVEN movies this year. Co-starring with huge box office stars and Oscar winners. And in such a wide range of roles too. And that's part of the problem. People might not realize that it was her in Tree of Life, The Help, Take Shelter, plus The Debt, Coriolanus, Wilde Salome or The Texas Killing Fields. OR, it might be that, with exception to The Help, everyone skipped on seeing those films. That said, it's going to be interesting to see how or if she gets nominated. Let's focus on the first four I listed. Tree of Life: She was terrific as the strong, loving mom who flies in the face of Brad Pitt's tyrannical dad. I haven't seen The Help, but I hear she plays a bitch. Take Shelter, she plays the suffering wife of a man who is having apocalyptic visions. The Debt: She plays a cold-blooded assassin. But if that weren't enough, she has to play the younger version of the same character Helen Mirren is playing. In other words, she has to be as good as one of the most respected thespians on the whole freaking planet! And she apparently pulled it off. Here's where it gets tough: Which movie do you nominate her for? I say rule out The Help, because there's plenty of other support there. But the other three? Good luck.

I found Moneyball to be an interesting choice. Interesting because it could very well win Adapted Screenplay, but also because it is RARE for writers to repeat at the Oscars. I know a lot of Oscar trivia and I'm thinking you probably have to go back to the late 1940s-early 1950s when Joseph L. Mankiewicz won in consecutive years (I think). Writers often don't win twice, period. Much less back-to-back. But, if there is a screenwriter out there who deserves it. It's Aaron Sorkin.

The National Board of Review announces their winners on Thursday. Until then....

What Will Be #500? UPDATE

2011-09-20T11:52:00.000-07:00

UPDATE Bad Teacher crossed the $100 million threshold 99 days after opening in theaters. Next film to make $100 million will be #500.

My rare foray into box office prognostication had some hits and misses. Now that we are at 498 films breaking the $100 million barrier, I thought I'd break down how I did on my predictions.

Since I posted my predix, 11 movies broke that barrier. X-Men: First Class broke $100 million the day of the post, as expected. Proudly, I did correctly predict that, at this time, mid-September, we would be 2 movies away from 500. But how close was I to predicting WHICH 9 movies would make $100+? Let's see:

Prediction #1: Super 8. CORRECT!
Total Gross: $126,869,833.

Prediction #2: Green Lantern. CORRECT!
Total Gross: $116,551,122.

Prediction #3: Cars 2. CORRECT!
Total Gross: $189,679,088.

Prediction #4: Transformers: Dark of the Moon. CORRECT!
Total Gross: $351,331,987.

Prediction #5: Zookeeper. WRONG!
Total Gross: $79,234,201. NOTE: The Jason Bateman film Horrible Bosses was one I felt would do Zookeeper-type numbers and wound up making over $115 million. So technically, I missed on 2 movies that weekend.

Prediction #6: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II. CORRECT!
Total Gross: $378,180,621.

Prediction #7: Captain America. CORRECT!
Total Gross: $174,301,520.

Prediction #8: Rise of the Planet of the Apes. CORRECT!
Total Gross: $171,651,537.

Prediction #9: Apollo 18. WRONG!
Total Gross: $16,885,842.

I was also wrong the other way on The Help, which wasn't on anyone's radar and went on to gross almost $150 million.

One other side note: When I was going over what was still to come out this summer, somehow, I skipped over the last weekend in July, otherwise, I certainly would have put Cowboys & Aliens on the list and been wrong there too. It JUST missed, having grossed $98.8 million.

Predictions still pending:

Prediction #10: Paranormal Activity 3 or Real Steel.
At this point, I really don't think either will do it. I know a lot of people were disappointed by Paranormal Activity 2, myself included. Real Steel is basically a film version of Rock 'em, Sock 'em Robots. It might just be so stupid that it does well. Like Transformers.

Prediction #11: Puss 'n Boots
I still stand by this one.

Does It Pay to Sequelize Anymore?

2011-07-18T08:10:00.000-07:00

A few years ago, I had made the argument that putting name stars in movies didn't mean what it used to. Avatar became the biggest grossing film of all-time with an actor no one had heard of in the lead. And it beat a film, Titanic, whose "stars" weren't stars at the time. Sure, they both already had Oscar nominations on their resume, but they weren't actors you relied on for huge box office.

Since then, Hollywood apparently saw what I did and now you see relative unknowns put in tent-pole films more frequently. Most people had never heard of Chris Helmsworth before Thor. And most people have never seen a Chris Evans film, but he landed Captain America anyway. The logic, simply, is this: if you're going to spend a couple hundred million making a film, why spend an extra $10 million on an actor whose name will only bring you another $10 million at the box office. It's a wash. Instead, you cast someone who's RIGHT for the part instead, i.e., Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man; Heath Ledger as the Joker; etc.

Unfortunately, once Hollywood realized that it wasn't the names of the actors that brought in the big bucks, they began to rely on the names of the movies. The Sequel Syndrome seems worse now than it ever was. But the question is: How well does it even work anymore? Let's take a look at this year's sequels, starting at the bottom:

Hoodwinked Too!

Now, most people barely remember the first one. It wasn't exactly a huge box office hit ($51 million domestic), but someone at Weinstein Brothers obviously thought a sequel was easy money. I'm sure they weren't expecting a whopping 80% drop-off. Ouch! Kiss this franchise goodbye.

Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son

This one might fall under a special category of a studio banking on a sequel AND a star at the same time. Although, despite it's drop from the previous movies' numbers, this one will still likely break even. The first Big Momma movie grossed $117 million; The second, $70 million; and the latest, a paltry $37 million, barely above 50% what the previous entry made and likely the end of this franchise.

Scream 4

Another case where the sequel made just enough to not cost anyone their jobs. The first three Scream movies made, in millions, $103, $101 and $89, respectively. That's the kind of consistency a studio looks for in a franchise. And, it seems, they saw the writing on the wall after the drop in the third film to walk away for a while. 11 years to be exact and the fourth film could only bring in $38 million. It looks like the Scream franchise has been silenced.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules

I have a soft spot for this series. Most people just ignore it. And this is one of the cases where it seems the studio doesn't really care. On average, they cost about $18 million to make and, on average, they bring in almost $60 million at the box office. It's a smart investment. The downside is that those are the AVERAGES. The first Wimpy Kid film made about 20% more at the box office and cost about 20% less to make. (Although, worldwide, they grossed about the same.) That said, if they want to keep using the same kids, the studio could pump out more sequels based on the book series and not worry too much about losing their shirt.

X-Men: First Class

This was a solid film and an improvement, I felt, over Wolverine. I like superhero films, but the X-Men never really did it for me. I thought the first one was okay. The second one is overrated and not much better than the first. The third one is underrated and about the same as the first two. And Wolverine was just okay. First Class was at least an attempt to try something different. But that didn't help at the box office. It's the lowest grossing entry in the series. But when the previous lowest grossing entry was the first film in the series, it's hard to argue that other sequels won't do better. And, since it's already been announced that there is another Wolverine movie coming down the chute AND a Magneto film as well, we will soon see if this one can find its magic again.

Kung Fu Panda 2

This one I find interesting. The domestic gross for Panda is down $55 million from the first film, but the foreign gross is actually higher. Just not enough to justify making another sequel. Spending $150 million to make a film that brings in $160 just isn't good business. I would be surprised to see this one come back.

Cars 2

Okay. Cars 2 is still in theaters, yes. But its run is just about over and it won't make much more than it already has. Right now, it's made close to $80 million less than the first Cars. And what's worse, it cost $80 million MORE to make. In fact, it's going to be the first Pixar movie to not make its money back domestically. It took nearly 4 weeks for it to pass A Bug's Life at the box office, Pixar's all-time lowest grossing film. And it likely will not pass the first Toy Story. One can only wonder just how bad Cars 2 would have done if it weren't for the extra money paid to see it in 3-D.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

This JUST opened, but considering all the records it broke this weekend, I think Warner Brothers should continue making more Potter movies. If only....(sigh).

Fast Five

This is a franchise that continues to shock me. The first one was entertaining. The second felt like a money grab. It went away for 3 years, only to come back with Tokyo Drift which seemed REALLY desperate. Another 3 years go by and BOOM! The fourth film becomes the highest grossing entry in the series. Until the FIFTH one! And the 5th beat the 4th by over $50 million dollars! At this point, there's just no reason to stop. People still want to see this. Just keep going.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

This is another strange one. When this film leaves theaters, it will likely be the fourth highest grossing film of all-time worldwide. The only films that will have grossed more are Avatar, Titanic and the final Lord of the Rings. Why is this strange? Because domestically, it BOMBED! While $237 million is a whole lotta money, when you consider that no previous POTC movie made less than $300 million in the U.S., that's a HUGE drop off. But, when a movie makes over $800 million outside of the U.S., it's pretty hard to argue that a franchise is over. Expect to see more of Jack Sparrow.

The Hangover Part II

This one is another tough argument. This sequel is so far in the black, how can you NOT make another sequel? So what if the general consensus is that it pales in comparison to the first? So what if it cost more than TWICE as much to make? When your worldwide profit is nearly a half billion dollars, you're going to do another sequel. Enjoy.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

This series is done. While they managed to reel the budget in a bit with the third one, it's currently $100 million behind the gross of the second one. And I'm sure Megan Fox somehow thinks it has something to do with her not being in it. These movies are staggeringly expensive (though less than POTC) and I think the market is closing on it.

So how are the NON-SEQUEL movies doing this summer worldwide?

Thor nearly tripled its budget.

Bridesmaids cost $32 million to make. Has made over $200 million.

Super 8 cost $50 million. Approaching $200 million.

Bad Teacher has made its budget back SIX TIMES over.

Horrible Bosses has almost doubled its budget and only in the U.S.

Midnight in Paris is Woody Allen's highest grossing movie ever.

In fact, pretty much the only significant non-sequel bomb of the summer is Green Lantern. But hey, if it makes another $250 million before it leaves theaters, it should break even. The only problem is that it's already leaving theaters. Yeah. Someone will lose their job over that one.

The bottom line is this: Who knows? It seems that the right sequel can bring in big bucks (Fast Five, Harry Potter 8). The wrong one won't. (Cars 2, Scream 4). And then some make money regardless of demand or quality (POTC 4, Hangover 2).

But, in general, the right movie is going to make money if there's a number at the end or not. What IS interesting is that, with exception to The Hangover Part II, a bigger budget sequel isn't better. Just bigger.

What will be #500?

2011-06-13T11:24:00.000-07:00

At the time this is being posted, there are officially 487 movies that have broken the once important $100 million barrier at the box office. As film budgets increase, the significance of making $100 million at the domestic box office decreases. And, with the meteoric rise in ticket prices, $100 million is much easier to achieve than it was when the average ticket price was around $3. When you see that films that were considered disappointments at the box office (Yogi Bear, Evan Almighty, Gone in 60 Seconds) still managed to break the $100 million mark, it's hard to get excited about that number.

Even the $200 million mark was surpassed for the 100th time last year. In fact, that plateau was passed by NINE movies that came out in 2010. Remember when people talked about what a disappointment the numbers were for Disney's Tangled? It cracked $200 million, albeit, just recently.

What about $300 million? That's a huge number, right? It used to be. Prior to 2000, only 9 movies had ever reached it. Since 2000, 27 more movies joined that once exclusive club.

And $400 million? It's still somewhat rare. Only 11 movies so far. And 2 of them, Star Wars and E.T., only reached that level after being re-released. Prior to 2000, only 2 movies made that much on their initial release: Titanic and Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. Since 2000, it's been passed by the first Spider-Man, the third Toy Story, the second Pirates of the Caribbean, the second Shrek, The Dark Knight (part 2 of the Batman reboot) and Avatar. Basically, James Cameron is the only person who can seem to reach such heights without using a built-in audience.

$500 million? Just 3 movies. Avatar, Titanic and The Dark Knight. Drop Batman and you have the $600 million club. And Avatar is all alone for $700 million. Which makes $100 million seem so much more insignificant. That one movie about blue aliens outgrossed #'s 481-487 of the all time biggest hits combined shows how small that number seems these days.

Adding to that, the 500th movie to make $100 million domestic could possibly do it this summer and we're still 13 movies away from getting there. And by the end of today, June 13, 2011, that number will likely be 12 since X-Men: First Class finished yesterday at $98.8 million. It will most certainly break $100 million by dinner. Another possibility is the animated film, Gnomeo and Juliet. It was just released on DVD, but it's still in about 80 theaters. This matters because, as of June 9th, it was only $250,000 away from $100 million. Whether it was pulled from theaters remains to be seen.

So let's look ahead at what could be #500?

J.J. Abram's Super 8 opened this weekend with about $38 million. A little disappointing to some I'm sure, but considering that Kyle Chandler is the biggest name in the film and it only cost $50 million to make, I'm certain they're pleased with that number. Can it break $100 million though? Possibly, but it may take a few weeks, which makes it a contender to be #500.

Opening this week, we have The Green Lantern and Mr. Popper's Penguins. The Green Lantern will make $100 million fairly quickly, bringing the countdown to 11. Mr. Popper's Penguins didn't look THAT interesting in the earlier trailers, but I saw one before Super 8 this past weekend that made me want to see it. If it has a $40 million opening weekend, I think it will have the legs to bring us down to 10.

The following weekend is certain to bring us to 9. Cars 2 would have to be the lowest grossing Pixar movie ever if it only made $150 million, much less $100 million. The other release is Bad Teacher. Looks entertaining enough, but I don't see it making much more than $60 million or so.

Then comes the 4th of July weekend. Transformers: Dark of the Moon will undoubtedly make $100 million in its first weekend. 8 slots remaining. But 4th of July weekend brings us another question mark in Larry Crowne. Most Tom Hanks movies make at least $100 million. In fact, he's only starred in FOUR movies in the last 20 years that DIDN'T make $100 million. And, it's got Julia Roberts to boot. It's light-hearted, adult fare, which you don't get a lot of during these summer months (except for the exceptional Midnight in Paris, if you can find it playing near you). BUT, one of the four movies that DIDN'T make $100 million was one that he also wrote and directed, like Larry Crowne. We will see, but I'm going to leave it off the list at the moment.

Post 4th of July brings us Horrible Bosses and The Zoo Keeper. Jason Bateman doesn't have a strong history at the box office, so let's ignore that one. Kevin James, however, has had a surprisingly good run of hits. Paul Blart, Mall Cop grossed $146 million in a January slot. That's almost unheard of. It's the second highest grossing January release ever. The Zoo Keeper seems like Paul Blart meets A Night at the Museum meets Madagascar. After everyone's taken their kids to see Cars 2, they'll need another family comedy to go see and, let's face it, Bad Teacher and Horrible Bosses aren't it. 7 slots left.

The weekend of July 15th brings us the final Harry Potter. In 3-D, no less. The AVERAGE gross for a Harry Potter movie is $286 million. And this is the last one. If this one doesn't come close to topping The Dark Knight for the opening weekend record, I will be shocked. Winnie the Pooh also opens this weekend, because someone at Disney is asleep at the wheel. Poor Pooh will get buried. The genius who chose this weekend to release Pooh is probably the same idiot who thought Real Steel is a good idea. 6 slots left.

The next slot will certainly be filled by Captain America: The First Avenger. The only reason it might not is if audiences are just tired of super heroes. But, since this one ties into the Iron Man's, Hulk, Thor and next year's The Avengers, I'm sure people will give this one a shot. 5 left.

August is where things might get a little tricky. Rise of the Planet of the Apes looks like it could re-ignite that franchise, or at least make us forget about Tim Burton's take on it. (Side note: Can we just ban Tim Burton from doing remakes or franchise movies?) But if Rise of the Planet of the Apes doesn't do it, I will have probably missed on one of the others, so let's say 4 left. Actually 3, since Super 8 will cross $100 million around this time.

September is not usually a month for boffo box office, but I think Labor Day weekend offers some promise this year with Apollo 18. The success of Paranormal Activity 1 & 2 shows that people aren't yet tired of the "found footage" movies, especially when there's a lot of hype behind it. Apollo 18 has hype to spare. I have a good feeling that one will take off, even if only a handful of movies have made $100 million plus in September. 2 left.

October brings us another Paranormal Activity, as well as the previously mentioned, already over-hyped Real Steel. One or the other will do $100 million, but I'm thinking it probably won't be both. So, it's quite possible, we will head into November with 499 movies having broken the $100 million barrier.

So, assuming I've been at all accurate, which will be the first to do it in November? That's VERY easy. The first weekend of November brings us the fifth entry in the Shrek universe, Puss in Boots. And, if I overshot on what will make $100 million, November also will have Happy Feet 2.

If you have any thoughts as to what will be number 500, please feel free to comment.

Post Oscar Bliss 2011

2011-02-28T09:21:00.000-08:00

Another year, Another Oscars

Here's to hoping they return to using comedians to host the show instead of using movie stars. It worked with Hugh Jackman. Alec Baldwin had Steve Martin with him. James Franco and Anne Hathaway? It didn't work. Although, it might have. Anne Hathaway alone would have worked better in my opinion. I like James Franco, but they didn't use what he's best at. And one would think Seth Rogen would have popped up somewhere in a bit. Hathaway was charming and funny, but yelled "Wooooo!!!" FAR too often. All in all, it was still an entertaining 3 hours.

I can't really complain about my #3 movie of 2010 winning Best Picture, although it did end my streak of having my #1 and Best Picture syncing up. (If you can call 2 years in a row a streak). The King's Speech is a fine film. But I think The Social Network will be considered a classic. Several Oscar pundits compared a King's Speech victory over Social Network to How Green Was My Valley beating Citizen Kane. In yesterday's blog, I compared it to Rocky beating Network, but I would say now it's more akin to No Country for Old Men beating There Will Be Blood. Both highly respectable movies, but the latter simply expected to be more memorable as time passes. I mean, I doubt anyone in 1941 thought Citizen Kane would be regarded as the greatest movie ever made, so you can't really fault the Academy for not getting it right at the time. I would have liked The Social Network to have won, but The King's Speech isn't exactly an embarrassing choice.

I have to admit though, early on in the night, I was thinking King's Speech might not win. Art Direction and Cinematography were two categories where it was a strong contender. Alice in Wonderland winning was not as big a surprise as Inception taking Cinematography. In fact, at that point, I was anxiously awaiting Original Screenplay. If King's Speech lost there to Inception, there might be an upset of epic proportions, i.e. Inception as Best Picture. But it didn't happen.

5 biggest surprises of the night:

1. David Fincher losing Best Director. It shouldn't be a surprise since Tom Hooper did win the DGA, but to me, it was a surprise. I did learn that Hooper directed half the HBO miniseries John Adams, so maybe he's not some noob who just got lucky and we'll never like anything else he ever does. (I'm looking at YOU, John Madden!)

2. Randy Newman gets a 2nd Oscar for a song that sounds like it could be about stalking. He won for "We Belong Together". His first win was for "If I Didn't Have You".

3. A rock star wins Best Score. It's rare when rock stars are nominated, period. Daft Punk got snubbed this year. Danny Elfman and Clint Mansell have been snubbed repeatedly. Oscar geeks still gripe about the There Will Be Blood snub. So, it was nice to see the Academy give a non-traditional score recognition, especially to a very non-traditional rock star.

4. True Grit goes 0 for 10. I would have gotten 15 right if I avoided True Grit. It should also be mentioned that this is the second year in a row that the Coen Brothers got a Best Picture nomination and didn't win a single award. Although, A Serious Man going 0 for 2 was not as surprising.

5. Almost HALF of the 10 Best Picture nominees went home empty handed. Four to be exact. Last year was the first year of the experiment of returning to 10 nominees. How many went home empty handed last year? 4. I'm detecting a trend.

And now, for the most popular segment of my annual Post Oscar Bliss, your nominees for Best Picture at the 84th Annual Academy Awards.

Before I get to that though (channeling Kirk Douglas here), here are the films I picked to be nominated for last night:

Hereafter
How Do You Know
Tree of Life
Love and Other Drugs
The Social Network
Secretariat
The American
Eat, Pray, Love
Inception
The Debt

So 2 of them were actually nominated for Best Picture. (The Social Network and Inception. Yay me!) Hereafter got a single nomination. Secretariat had its supporters, namely Roger Ebert. The American and Eat Pray Love failed to live up to expectations. 2 got pushed back to Summer 2011 (Tree of Life and The Debt). How Do You Know and Love and Other Drugs were outright bombs.

So, you're 2011 Best Picture nominees will be:

1. Tree of Life - Rather than rehash what I said last year, here's the trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi612735001/

2. The War Horse - Steven Spielberg seems like a shoo-in most any year. Particularly in years where he puts out 2 films: A serious picture and an audience pleaser. It worked in 1993 (Jurassic Park/Schindler's List) and 2005 (War of the Worlds/Munich), but not in 1997 (Lost World/Amistad) or 2002 (Minority Report/Catch Me If You Can), but it can easily be argued that in a 10 picture year, Amistad and Catch would have made the cut. Usually, however, it's been one film released in the summer and one at Christmas. Right now, and I can only assume this will change, The War Horse is scheduled to be released on December 28. Spielberg's other film, The Adventures of Tintin is scheduled for release on December 23. Peculiar.

3. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - The first in the Millennium trilogy being directed by David Fincher has a lot of things going for it. For one, the Swedish version of the film did well at the box office. Two, the novels are still pretty popular. Three, it's a unique story in that it is a classic, Hollywood-style mystery told in a very, non-traditional way. And after The Social Network and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the Academy will be itching to give some love to Fincher.

4. Hugo Cabret - Speaking of mysteries, here's another one that I think could get some play. It's about a young boy who lives in a train station. He's very resourceful and solves mysteries with the help of a young girl. You're probably wondering what the hell I'm thinking even including such a childish movie on this list. It doesn't sound like an Oscar contender at all. Until you read who's behind it. John Logan, who wrote the screenplays for Gladiator, The Aviator and Sweeney Todd. How can it not, right? Oh. Did I fail to mention it's directed by Martin Scorsese? Yeah. I think I left that part out. :)

5. Anonymous - Sometimes, it's fun to throw one of these out there even though you know it sounds like it could be a spectacularly bad film. Choosing a film starring Rhys Ifans, Joely Richardson, David Thewlis and Vanessa Redgrave isn't exactly a huge gamble. All are respected actors. A fictionalized costume drama set in the Elizabethan era involving politics, greed and Shakespeare certainly has some Academy appeal, I'm sure. But, unlike Hugo Cabret, which gets on this list because of its director, Anonymous is a shocking addition to this list because of who is helming it. The reigning king of disaster movies, Roland Emmerich. God, I hope this makes it.

6. The Whistleblower - Academy award winning actors Rachel Weisz and Vanessa Redgrave. Academy Award nominee David Straithairn. Political film involving the UN cover up of sex trafficking in Bosnia. And it's a comedy? Okay. I'm kidding about the last part. But this does sound like Oscar bait to me.

7. We Bought a Zoo - Matt Damon, Scarlett Johannson and Thomas Haden Church in a film about a guy who buys a zoo and deals with his wife dying of brain cancer. Hey. It's the latest from Cameron Crowe. Why not?

8. Larry Crowne - Nia Vardalos, who's only known for My Big Fat Greek Wedding at this point, and Tom Hanks got together and did a script about a guy who reinvents his life after getting downsized out of job. Hanks co-wrote, directs and stars in this one. Julia Roberts is along for the ride. Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston seems like a perfect partner in crime for Hanks. Oscar nominee Taraji P. Henson is in it as well. But so is Cedric the Entertainer. I guess it all depends on how much balance there is between the comedy and the drama.

9. Water for Elephants - This one only makes it if it connects with audiences (Yes, some movies get nominated that make no connection with audiences). The bestselling book did. But a sweeping epic romance set in a circus and the guy they get to direct it is the guy who made I Am Legend? It's a high wire act of a story (Honest, no pun was intended) but the job of writing the script is in the more than capable hands of Richard LaGravanese who's made a career out of making these stories work. Reese Witherspoon is a fine actress in the right roles and looks good in the trailers. The wild card here is Robert Pattinson. Sink or swim time, vampire boy. Fail here and your non-bloodsucker career is probably over. You do have to appreciate the irony that both Witherspoon and Pattinson made movies called Twilight early in their careers. Witherspoon got naked in hers. Pattinson, thankfully, did not.

10. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow Part II - I really hope this makes the list. It's rare enough when a non-horror film series lasts 8 movies. Even rarer when they maintain the quality that the Harry Potter series has achieved over the last 10 years. Simply as recognition of a job very well done, this one should be given a place on the list. It's kept a LOT of British actors from starving.

Until next year.... Cheers.

The Final Go....

2011-02-27T11:35:00.001-08:00

I'm not sure if it's the increase from 5 Best Picture nominees to 10, but this is the second year in a row where, the day of the Oscars, it almost feels like a toss up. In 2010, while I was pretty certain The Hurt Locker would prevail, I was far from 100% sure of it. This year, while it feels like The King's Speech will take the top prize, it sure doesn't feel like a lock. In fact, it seems the buzz when the final votes were submitted, The Social Network got the support it had the first half of the awards season. What's more shocking to me is how many categories are toss-ups. It's tough to say whether it's because so many excelled in different areas or no movie was particularly outstanding. (See nominees for Best Makeup) It's a tough year for guessing and I won't be surprised if I miss half the winners this year. Here's my final guesses.

Best Picture:

Who Will Win: The King's Speech
Who Should Win: The Social Network

Several pundits have compared a King's Speech victory over Social Network to How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane. What they mean is that the film that seems tailor made for winning awards prevailed over a truly brilliant and unique film. The difference with this year is that The King's Speech is a terrific, well made film on its own and more unique than the die hard Social Network fans would like you to believe. That said, it's still no Social Network. No, I would say a King's Speech victory is more akin to Rocky defeating...well...everything else it was up against. Rocky didn't challenge audience the way Taxi Driver or Network did, but it was still a respectable choice.

Best Director:
Who Will Win: David Fincher
Who Should Win: David Fincher

And this is how the Academy will rectify its choice of King's Speech.

Best Actor:
Who Will Win: Colin Firth
Who Should Win: James Franco

Colin Firth gives an amazing performance, with a speech impediment, which voters like. James Franco IS 127 Hours. Everything about the film could be perfect (and it almost is) and the movie would be a disaster if the actor playing Ralston failed. 127 Hours is not up for Best Picture if it weren't for Franco.

Best Actress:
Who Will Win: Natalie Portman
Who Should Win: Natalie Portman

This one is a gimme.

Best Supporting Actor:
Who Will Win: Christian Bale
Who Should Win: Christian Bale

Because Batman should have an Oscar in his utility belt.

Best Supporting Actress:
Who Will Win: No Idea
Who Should Win: Jacki Weaver

My paper ballot right now is empty. Melissa Leo seems like a good choice. But her Oscar campaign has been an embarrassment to the Academy. Hailee Steinfeld shouldn't even be in this category. She may lose because it's a lead role. On the flip side, the amount of screen time, the most fully formed character of the choices and that all of the non-adult actors who've won, won here gives her a good shot. Bonham Carter could win just for a strong quarter century of performances. Jacki Weaver doesn't stand a chance. But her performance in Animal Kingdom is akin to Joe Pesci's in Goodfellas. And the scene in the grocery store is worth an award by itself.

Best Original Screenplay:
Who Will Win: The King's Speech
Who Should Win: Inception

If for no other reason because The King's Speech should have been in violation of Academy rules for what is considered "original". While never produced as a play, the script was discovered at a play reading. But it's a technicality.

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Who Will Win: The Social Network
Who Should Win: The Social Network

As big a lock as you'll ever see at the Oscars.

Best Animated Feature Film:
Who Will Win: Toy Story 3
Who Should Win: How to Train Your Dragon

Just part of my own personal bias against awarding sequels. Toy Story 3 is not as good as its predecessors and a little too self-referential. It's here because of the last 20 minutes, which, again, has as much to do with parts 1 & 2, as the third. And I'll say the same thing when HTTYD parts 2 & 3 are released.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

And the Nominees Will Be....And Now Are.....

2011-01-21T10:17:00.000-08:00

Oscar nominations finally come out next week. Here's my predix. Sorry for the lack of commentary. Doing this in a rush.

By request, I removed the "other possibilities." What was once merely an informative posting is now a test of my psychic abilities. And if I get them all right, you must buy me a car.

Best Picture:

127 Hours

Black Swan

Inception

The Fighter
The Kids Are All Right

The King's Speech

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Winter's Bone

Total Correct: 10/10. Not a difficult year.

Best Director:

Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan

Danny Boyle, 127 Hours

David Fincher, The Social Network

Tom Hooper, The King's Speech

Christopher Nolan, Inception

Total Correct: 3/5. Joel and Ethan Coen ("True Grit") and David O. Russell ("The Fighter") over Christopher Nolan and Danny Boyle?! Bad call, Academy. Bad call

Best Actor:

Javier Bardem, Biutiful

Jeff Bridges, True Grit

Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network

Colin Firth, The King's Speech

James Franco, 127 Hours

Total Correct: 5/5. I haven't seen Biutiful yet, but I like the other choices.

Best Actress:

Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right

Jennifer Lawrence, Winter's Bone

Julianne Moore, The Kids Are All Right

Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit

Total Correct: 3/5. I think The Kids Are All Right is pretty overrated anyway, so I don't mind the Moore snub. But Hailee Steinfeld is nominated in the wrong category. Nicole Kidman ("Rabbit Hole") and Michelle Williams ("Blue Valentine") are good choices.

Best Supporting Actor:

Christian Bale, The Fighter

Andrew Garfield, The Social Network

Pete Postelthwaite, The Town

Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right

Geoffrey Rush, The King's Speech

Total Correct: 3/5: Missed on Garfield and Postelthwaite. Perfectly fine with the noms going to John Hawkes ("Winter's Bone") and Jeremy Renner ("The Town")

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams, The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter, The King's Speech

Barbara Hershey, Black Swan

Melissa Leo, The Fighter

Jackie Weaver, Animal Kingdom

Total Correct: 4/5. I missed on Barbara Hershey because the Academy apparently thinks that a child is incapable of being a lead role.

Best Original Screenplay:

Another Year

Black Swan

Inception

The Kids Are All Right

The King's Speech

Total Correct: 4/5. "The Fighter" over "Black Swan"? Are you kidding?! Hey Academy!!! What is all that original about "The Fighter"? It's a recent and apparently well-documented true story. How much creativity even went into this script?

Best Adapted Screenplay:

127 Hours

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Winter's Bone

Total Correct: 5/5. And the right ones were chosen.

Best Film Editing:

127 Hours

Black Swan

Inception

The King's Speech

The Social Network

Total Correct: 4/5. The Academy must really love "The Fighter". If you'd asked me which of these I might be wrong on, the LAST one I would've picked is "Inception". Stunning.

Best Cinematography:

127 Hours

Black Swan

Inception

The Social Network

True Grit

Total Correct: 4/5. "The King's Speech" over "127 Hours"? I'm good with that. I hadn't seen "The King's Speech" yet when I made this list. Now that I've seen it, it's a good choice.

Best Art Direction:

Alice in Wonderland

Black Swan

Inception

The King's Speech

True Grit

Total Correct: 4/5. You know, I almost put "Harry Potter" on here instead of "True Grit". Definitely did not think "Black Swan" would be the one I got wrong.

Best Sound Mixing:

127 Hours

Inception

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Total Correct: 3/5. Hmmm. I really thought "127 Hours" would be nominated. And the Pixar films usually get a nod here. Instead, they went with "Salt" (Underrated film) and "The King's Speech", which, again, I had not seen when I made the list. It's a good call.

Best Sound Editing:

Inception

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Total Correct: 3/5. And I'm sure you can see why. I thought they only nominated 3 films here. Whoops. "Tron: Legacy" and "Unstoppable" were the other nominations.

Best Costume Design:

Alice in Wonderland

Black Swan

Made in Dagenham

The King's Speech

True Grit

Total Correct: 3/5. I didn't even know "The Tempest" had been released. Go figure. And I had no idea "I Am Love" was even contending. Still, another category where "Black Swan" got dissed.

Best Original Score:

127 Hours

How to Train Your Dragon

Inception

The King's Speech

The Social Network

Total Correct: 5/5. And I thought I might be going out on a limb with "How to Train Your Dragon".

Best Animated Feature:

How to Train Your Dragon

The Illusionist

Toy Story 3

Total Correct: 3/3. One of the easier categories of the year.

Best Makeup:

Alice in Wonderland

The Fighter

The Wolfman

Total Correct: 1/3. I'm lucky if I even get one right in this category. Thankfully, the Academy LOVES to nominated Rick Baker, so "The Wolfman" was an obvious choice. "Barney's Version" and "The Way Back"? Whatever.

And the Oscar Winners Will Be....UPDATED 1/25/11

2010-12-13T08:09:00.000-08:00

Have to rush through this one. May edit with commentary later. (Made an edit to Supp. Actress. I wrote this really fast the first time.)

UPDATE: I am merely updating the categories where my pick didn't even get nominated. My original picks got a strike through.Just for the sake of being a good sport, I did not change the categories I no longer think stand a chance, i.e., Annette Bening for Actress or most any Black Swan nomination outside of Natalie Portman.

Best Picture: The Social Network
Best Director: David Fincher, The Social Network
Best Actor: Colin Firth, The King's Speech
Best Actress: Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, The Fighter
Best Supporting Actress: Helena Bonham-Carter, The King's Speech
Best Original Screenplay: The King's Speech
Best Adapted Screenplay: The Social Network
Best Animated Feature: Toy Story 3
Best Film Editing: ~~Inception~~ The Social Network
Best Cinematography: Black Swan
Best Art Direction: The King's Speech
Best Sound Mixing: Inception
Best Sound Editing: Inception
Best Costume Design: Alice in Wonderland
Best Original Score: ~~Black Swan~~ Inception
Best Foreign Language Film: ~~Of Gods and Men~~ Biutiful
Best Documentary: ~~Waiting for Superman~~ Exit Through the Gift Shop
Best Visual Effects: Inception
Best Makeup: ~~Black Swan~~ The Wolfman
Best Song: ~~Waiting for Superman~~ 127 Hours

Eric Bird Movie Review: Let Me In

2010-11-03T08:41:00.000-07:00

Who's In It: Some little kid, the little girl from Kick-Ass and Richard Jenkins (No relation to Leroy).

What It's About: Typical boy meets girl. Girl drinks neighbors' blood. Hilarity ensues.

What I Was Expecting: I loved the Swedish film, "Let the Right One In", of which this is a remake. In fact, the original may make my list of the Ten Best Films of 2001-2010. But, as director Matt Reeves is part of the JJ Abrams circle, I had faith that this would be a quality remake.

What I Got: A solid remake. There were some tweaks that made it interesting for people who've seen the original and they're in all the right places. What I did find interesting is that in some areas of the film, it's less subtle and in other areas, it's even more vague. There's also more focus, if memory serves me correctly, on the details of the relationship between the little girl and her caregiver. I don't recall knowing the details of how their relationship came about in the original. And that is a case of not needing to know that much back story. Does this little girl (boy?) really care about the guy/boy or is she just using them? The original didn't address it. The remake wants to imply she's just using them. All in all, still a good film, if not as classic as the original.

Grade: B+

Oscar Potential: If the rest of the year is slow, it might pull a Best Picture nom. Maybe editing, cinematography, score. But I wouldn't hold your breath on any of them.

Five Random Thoughts:

1. Movies just shouldn't have 12 year olds naked in bed with other 12 year olds. Just creepy. And yes, I realize that was the point.

2. How on earth are they shooting these scenes where the car rolls over and you can see it's not a stunt man inside?

3. The scene near the end where the vampire helps the little boy was kinda terrifying in the original. In the remake, the audience laughed.

4. Is this JJ Abrams crowd becoming the live action Pixar? Even if the movies aren't great, they are at least endlessly watchable.

5. Still not sure why they felt the need to change the title.

Trailer Park:

The Warriors Way: Crouching Cowboy, Hidden Donkey? Kung Fu in the Old West. Very curious.

Burlesque: I cringed.

Due Date: Trailer still amusing. Nothing new to say though.

Saw 3D: Having only seen the original, I just don't know why anyone should care anymore.

Black Swan: Leave it to Darren Aronofsky to make an interesting looking movie about ballet.

Skyline: I'm always up for an alien invasion flick. They don't even have to good.

Eric Bird Movie Review: The Social Network

2010-10-30T08:32:00.001-07:00

Who's In It: Jesse Eisenberg, some other guy and Justin Bleeping Timberlake.

What It's About: Guy decides to create Facebook. No one ever uses it. Hilarity ensues.

What I Was Expecting: I'm indifferent on director David Fincher. He's made more overrated movies than actual great ones. I am, however, a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin. Plus, one critic I respect called it the Citizen Kane of the new millennium. So, I had high expectations.

What I Got: One of the best films in recent memory. I'm writing this review nearly a month after seeing it and I still feel that way. And the Citizen Kane comparison is fair. It's every bit entertaining as it is intelligent. A fascinating story that you would think would be more common knowledge in this era of mass media. Or perhaps, I just wasn't paying attention. And, much like Citizen Kane, the last 15 minutes loses the momentum of everything that's happened up until then. But it doesn't matter. It's as close to a perfect film that we have seen in years.

Grade: A

Oscar Potential: It will be a Best Picture nominee. Fincher could easily win for director. Aaron Sorkin should be a lock to finally win for Adapted Screenplay. It's an ensemble piece, or feels like one, so zero acting noms wouldn't surprise me. Jesse Eisenberg could pull a Best Actor nod and, believe it or not, Justin Timberlake might get a supporting nomination as recognition for the whole cast. (I call this the "Kim Basinger Theory") Editing and Cinematography are likely. And possibly a music nod for Nine Inch Nails' mastermind Trent Reznor. That would be interesting to see.

Five Random Thoughts:

1. Is Jeff Zuckerberg autistic? Or is Eisenberg playing him like he is?

2. I'm beginning to think Justin Timberlake is a dork who's had sex symbol status thrust upon him. Not a bad performance at all.

3. I want a business card like that someday.

4. For those who expect the standard Aaron Sorkin banter, they do it right in the first moments of the film.

5. For events that are taking place so recently, this sure feels like a period piece.

Trailer Park:

The Tourist: Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie in... a remake of The Man with One Red Shoe? Umm. Interesting.

True Grit: Typically, I cringe at the idea of remaking a classic. The Coen Brothers have failed at doing this before. Looks like they've learned something. Looks amazing.

Hereafter: I usually appreciate not giving away too much in a trailer. This one is a little too vague however. This is one of my "Calling My Shot" picks for Best Picture back in March. I think I missed on this one.

Love and Other Drugs: Curious looking romantic comedy with Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway.

The Dilemma: Standard Vince Vaughn fare. Didn't look any different than his other recent stuff.

The Tourist: Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie. Funny, I'd SWEAR I've seen this trailer somewhere before.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Capsule Reviews

2010-09-20T07:42:00.000-07:00

Dear John - C+

Well, it's no "The Notebook", as desperately as it wants to be. Both are based on books by Nicholas Sparks. But what is seriously missing here is threefold: 1. Anything resembling a sense of humor or even an attempt at it. 2. A much more compelling leading man. 3. Lead actors who have actual chemistry. That said, there were some genuine surprises in the story. Plot twists that you don't see coming, but are true to the story and its characters, so it was refreshing in some aspects.

From Paris with Love - B

A surprisingly entertaining action flick. John Travolta is some sort of spy. CIA? I don't think they made it very clear. Essentially, it's a spy version of Training Day with Travolta showing the ropes to Jonathan Rhys-Myers in what would probably go down as the worst day in Myers' life. But it's exciting. Moments of genuine high tension and a couple of gotcha plot twists I wasn't expecting. I was pleasantly surprised by this one.

Kick-Ass - B-

Fun flick, but not nearly as cool as it thinks it is. And more than a tad over the top with some of the violence. Particularly the fight scene in which a grown man beats the tar out of an 11 year old girl. As a parent, that kind of thing is a little hard to watch. But there are plenty of funny moments and, despite its premise, probably isn't too far off from what it would be like if someone actually tried to make themselves into a superhero today.

The Wolfman - B+

Nearly everything you could possibly want from the Wolfman story. Terrific acting from Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving (although the accents tend to stray). A very moody feel with great special effects. The score and costumes are top notch. Great writing. So why only a B+? Well, I blame director Joe Johnston. I don't know what it is exactly about his movies. "Jurassic Park III" is, let's face it, basically the same as the other Jurassic Parks, but just isn't. "Hidalgo" was an entertaining movie, but just seemed to be missing that certain something. The same is the case here. Some day, I will figure out exactly what Joe Johnston is doing wrong. The really funny thing is that I thought Guillermo Del Toro had directed this and actually said at one point, "It's missing something. I can't explain it. It's like a Joe Johnston movie." Just making a movie nerd joke to myself. So you can imagine my laughter when the words "Directed by Joe Johnston" appeared at the end. Here's to hoping he figures out what's wrong before he's done with Captain America.

Capsule Reviews

2010-08-29T11:48:00.001-07:00

The Tooth Fairy - C+

There's a charming movie in here somewhere. The Rock plays a has been hockey player dealing with the issues of dating a single mother, while trying to decide his future and overcome his past. Now, imagine he also must learn how to be the Tooth Fairy. Which part of the story sounds like it doesn't belong?

Oscar Potential: Zero.

Legion - C

Mankind is on the brink of being wiped of the earth and only a guardian angel can save it...from God? Yes, God is the bad guy apparently. So, it's an action thriller remake of the Travolta comedy bomb Two of a Kind, I guess. There's some really creepy moments, mostly at the beginning. The rest is just sort of blah.

Oscar potential - Zero.

Edge of Darkness - C+

Mel Gibson is a detective who's daughter is murdered in front of him. The investigation leads to a convoluted conspiracy involving an evil corporation and government dirty dealing. All the plot takes away from the pain of a father losing his child. Gibson is good, even if his Boston accent wavers frequently.

Oscar potential: Zero.

When in Rome - B-

Charming, sweet romantic comedy that benefits greatly from a strong supporting cast of Danny DeVito, Will Arnett, Angelica Houston and Jon Heder. However, I was greatly distracted by the actor playing Kristin Bell's assistant. I knew I recognized him from somewhere. Couldn't figure out what movie I knew him from. Turns out, I actually know the guy from local theater productions of Fiddler on the Roof and, my all time favorite theater experience, Floyd Collins. Congrats, Brian Golub.

Oscar potential: Golub deserves supporting actor consideration, but I'm a tad biased.

Capsule Reviews

2010-08-17T19:04:00.001-07:00

Extraordinary Measures - C-

It's really hard to bash a movie like this. A true story about a father battling a pharmaceutical company, that he also works for, in a race to save his child's life. Despite Brendan Fraser's limitations as an actor, there aren't too many around his age who play loving fathers like he does. Harrison Ford doesn't usually play the scientist type, but he's effective enough. To be honest, I slept through the entire second act of the film. Didn't feel like I'd missed a thing. Seriously, I can't imagine what went on in between. It's odd, but I would suggest taking a nap as well.

Oscar Potential: Zero.

The Spy Next Door - B-

Deciding whether or not you will like this entertaining little movie depends greatly on how entertaining you think Jackie Chan is. It's rare when I don't. His acrobatics are still pretty amazing and the opening credits are practically his greatest hits. He's actually pretty believable as both the spy and the nerd he pretends to be. Not to mention a rare chance to show off his singing voice. Slightly less predictable than you'd expect, but just slightly.

Oscar Potential: That's pretty funny to type.

Clash of the Titans - B

Forget the original. Seriously, you'll enjoy this one more if you block it out of your mind. There are some story changes with the remake that make almost no sense and, in some cases, ruin the fun. Now that I'm writing this, more pop into my head. Hence, why judging it on its own merits is important. The Zeus/Hades storyline is the least effective change. That said, it's solid fun, from start to finish. Although, I would say that if the Kraken were created by the Gods, it would look more like the one in the originals, not like Cloverfield.

Oscar Potential: Visual Effects. That's all.

Eric Bird Capsule Reviews

2010-08-08T09:22:00.000-07:00

Leap Year - F

It's supposed to be a romantic comedy. The film's main issue is that it's neither funny nor romantic. What's worse is that it could've easily been both if it weren't for the motivations behind the two leads. Amy Adams' character is colossally stupid (going to Ireland to propose to a rich guy who had no intention of proposing to her) and Matthew Goode, whose original motivation is money, stays with a girl he has no reason to like and, in reality, probably cost him far more money than he needed. And what on earth is John Lithgow doing in this movie?

Oscar Potential: Zero.

The Book of Eli - B-

Call it the result of low expectations, but I enjoyed this film. Denzel Washington is a man motivated solely by his faith. Usually in modern movies, this character would be the bad guy, so it's refreshing. There is a wholly unnecessary and unbelievable twist at the end, which is intended to show the extent of Eli's faith, but mainly succeeded in making me cry "bullish*t!" But it's a solid movie from the Hughes Brothers and rarely dull.

Oscar Potential: Zero.

Youth in Revolt - B

Gee. Michael Cera in a movie about an awkward teenager. Haven't seen enough of those. It's a shame he's played this character so often in a short time because, outside of Juno, this is the best one. And Cera has a terrific supporting cast to work with Zack Galifianikis, Jean Smart, Ray Liotta, M. Emmet Walsh, Fred Willard, Justin Long and a terrific, against-type turn by Michael Cera (see the movie and you'll see that wasn't a mistake on my part.) The film is sometimes too quirky for its own good and never laugh out loud funny, but very watchable.

Oscar Potential: Zero.

Valentine's Day - B

Although it fails to be the American Love Actually it desperately tries to be, it does have some very funny moments and story twists you don't see coming, which is refreshing for a romantic comedy these days. A few story lines too many. Some that don't get fleshed out nearly enough. Some that drag way too long. Some funny play on the celebrity of its mammoth star cast (Taylor Lautner, of all people, has the funniest self-referential joke). If you watch the DVD, check out the deleted scenes. Some very funny cameos (Dwight Howard and Penny Marshall, especially) that landed on the cutting room floor.

Oscar Potential: Zero.

Martin Scorsese Film Festival

2010-08-01T07:25:00.001-07:00

Part 8: Boxcar Bertha

Well, if there's one positive thing to say about this film, besides a frequently naked Barbara Hershey in her early 20s, is that it drove Scorsese to make a more personal film, Mean Streets. Another positive is that it's probably a reminder to Scorsese what happens when he's not really in charge. You could not tell this was a Scorsese movie unless someone told you. It looks, feels and sounds like a B movie, or more to the point, a Roger Corman movie, which it is. As far as the "Scorsese" aspects, it's impossible to judge since they aren't here.

One film left to see in the Scorsese Canon. One I'd avoided seeing, not because of any religious beliefs (I'm Catholic and so is Scorsese) but because it just sounded dull. Now that I'm more than accustomed to the Scorsese style, I'm looking forward to it. Next up.... The Last Temptation of Christ.

Eric Bird Movie Review: Inception

2010-07-24T17:01:00.000-07:00

Who's In It: Leo, Juno and the Scarecrow.

What It's About: A guy is hired to plant an idea in someone's head via his dreams. Hilarity ensues.

What I Was Expecting: It's been one of the most talked about movies of the summer. I'm a fan of director Christopher Nolan, but not a huge one. I thought Insomnia and The Prestige were just okay.

What I Got: The best movie of the year so far. In fact, it will be pretty tough to beat in my mind. It's a labyrinth of a story. Mazes play a big part of this movie and that's an unlikely coincidence. It is the kind of summer movie you WISH Hollywood would make more often. Everything about it is top notch. The acting, the dialogue, the directing, the special effects, etc. It's a 2 hour plus movie that flies by. At its core, it's a heist movie in reverse. It's a LOT of fun, but I don't want to spoil anything with the plot. I will say this, if you go see this movie, do NOT try and figure out anything ahead of time. I think that's where some people find it confusing. It's our instinct, especially with movies, to attempt to get ahead of the story. We, as humans, like to know where we're going. Don't do that with this film. Let the movie take you. Listen to what's being explained and watch. Everything is made clear ahead of time. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Grade: A

Oscar Potential: It will be a Best Picture nominee. Nolan should pick up a directing nod. Writing, for sure. Leo and, especially, Marion Cotillard could pull nominations. Then just tick off the technical categories on the ballots. It deserves consideration in every one, except Best Song, I suppose.

Five Random Thoughts:

1. There are scenes so amazing, I can't stop grinning. And who'd have thought Joseph Gordon-Levitt would kick ass in what will go down as one of the coolest fight scenes of all time?

2. Is that Tom Berenger? Where on earth has he been? And the plastic surgery on him....eeek.

3. I love a movie where the only villain is time.

4. I cannot BELIEVE how quiet everyone is being in this theater. Kendall Village 16, this is why I love you.

5. Great reaction to the final shot, but again, if you were paying attention earlier in the movie, the "up in the air" ending was explained in one line of dialogue early on.

Trailer Park:

Dinner for Schmucks: My prediction? This movie will be just okay, but the dinner scene itself will be classic.

Tron: Same old trailer we've been seeing for months. With a December release date, we'll see it a lot more.

Wall Street Money Never Sleeps: I thought this came out already. Oh wait, this premiered at Cannes. The reviews ranged from mediocre to really good. I'll be checking this one out.

The Social Network: I'm not sure the audience I was sitting with understood what they were watching. I was expecting a stronger reaction.

Due Date: A road trip, buddy comedy with Robert Downey, Jr., Zach Galifianikis and Jamie Foxx. Has some good laughs with one great sight gag towards the end of the trailer that had the crowd roaring.

The Town: This was an interesting trailer in so many ways. First off, they say "From the acclaimed director of Gone Baby Gone", but never say who that director is. It's Ben Affleck. Curious that they hid that. Secondly, they hint at a plot twist that will happen in the movie. I thought it was pretty obvious what that twist was. Apparently, so did they and reveal it.This tells me there is a lot more to this movie then what they're showing.

Eric Bird Movie Review: The Last Airbender

2010-07-24T16:21:00.000-07:00

THE LAST AIRBENDER

Who's In It: A couple kids, the Slumdog Millionaire guy and some character actors. And I'm sure M. Night Shyalakalikimaka does a cameo somewhere, but I didn't notice.

What It's About: Couple kids find another kid in a snow globe who turns out to be Neo from the Matrix. Hilarity ensues.

What I Was Expecting: I'd read a couple of the reviews saying how bad it was. That's USUALLY a pretty good sign that I'll go in with really low expectations and wind up loving the movie.

What I Got: A true test of my moviegoing stamina. It was REALLY hard not to walk out. M. Night Shyamalan is getting brutalized for what he did to the Avatar series (Not related to the James Cameron film). In my opinion, it's not really deserved this time. The person responsible is the moron who hired him for the job. I've seen the Lord of the Rings movies. Does that make me qualified to direct The Hobbit? Nope. And that's the problem here. It's simply not the movie Shyamalan knows how to direct. He has an idea of how this kind of film should be done, but doesn't know how to do it well. It's like having A-Rod come in to pitch in the bottom of the 9th. Just because he's a baseball player, doesn't mean he knows how to do everything. Shyamalan is at his best in dark, moody films. To put it more simply, there's a reason Alfred Hitchcock never made a musical. Being a great director doesn't mean you can direct every genre well. Shyamalan, one, has no feel for the material and, two, doesn't know how to direct films on a large scale. The Wachowski Brothers would have been perfect. M. Night Shyamalan was simply out of his comfort zone. If I didn't like the story itself, I would have given it an F.

Grade: D

Oscar Potential: Zero.

Five Random Thoughts:

1. The child actors in this movie make Jake Lloyd (Anakin in Phantom Menace) look like freaking Daniel Day Lewis. There were times where it felt like I was watching an elementary school play.

2.They squeezed 20 episodes of material into 100 minutes. That's a LOT of source material thrown into the garbage.

3. Has Shyamalan even seen the Avatar series? This movie is WAY too darkly lit. In fact, most everything in this film is wrong. The score is inappropriate in a lot of places. The pacing is all wrong. The effects are just okay. The dialogue is so clunky it hurts to listen to. The cinematography is terrible. Just a good story very badly made.

4. They need to not let Shyamalan anywhere near part 2.

5. I wonder if there's a McDonald's near here. I'm craving an Angus Burger. (P.S. It was delicious.)

Trailer Park:

Legend of the Guardians: I trust Zack Snyder's filmmaking instincts. I believe he'll win an Oscar someday. This must be a hell of a story to want to follow Watchmen with, but if you need to come on camera and EXPLAIN why I should like your movie in your trailer, it's not a good sign.

Nanny McPhee Returns: I always feel a twinge of guilt bashing a movie trailer that isn't intended to entice me to see it in the first place. But wow, this looks dumb.

Sorcerer's Apprentice: At first, I was wondering why they are showing a trailer to a movie that's already bombed. It doesn't look half bad. Maybe it's to try and open people's minds a little.

Gulliver's Travels: This is an ODD trailer. It sets itself up like it's going to be one kind of movie and then it turns out to be something else. Hopefully, the title gives you an idea of what that something else is. It's Jack Black being Jack Black in a land of little people. I don't think the original novel was a comedy.

Rango: This has been Johnny Depp's pet project for a long time. An animated film about a lizard in the desert. Looks pretty creative. Can't wait to see more.

Mega Mind: I love this trailer, even though I've seen it several times. This one is going to be great.

Movie Review: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - A

2010-07-11T11:55:00.000-07:00

Who's In It: Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace amd a bunch of other Swedish actors you've never heard of. No, Max von Sydow isn't in it.

What It's About: A journalist investigates a 40 year old murder of a girl in Sweden unfolding a labyrinth of secrets among this weird family. Hilarity ensues.

What I Was Expecting: Never read the books. Hadn't heard much about the movie except that Lisbeth Salander is one of the best female roles ever written.

What I Got: The kind of movie I've been waiting a LONG time to see. I'd been griping to friends for years about the lack of a true mystery in movies. Hollywood tends to focus on serial killers being hunted in the middle of their spree. "The Butler Did It" scenario just doesn't happen in films anymore. This is the movie I've been waiting for. And more. The two protagonists, the journalist and the title character, are so well thought out, as are the peripheral characters. The back stories, and present situations, are credible and help you understand their actions in truthful way. Not as an excuse to make up for motives that don't make much sense. There's no figuring out the mystery ahead of the characters. It unfolds for the viewer at the same time it unfolds for them. The same goes for the motivations behind them. It is a truly brilliant film. I must warn you though. It is NOT for the faint of heart.

Grade: A

Oscar Potential: It's not entirely clear if it qualifies for the Oscars this year. It had a run in L.A. in November, but wasn't released in the U.S. until March. To make things more complicated, the sequel, "The Girl Who Played with Fire", opened in limited release last Friday. And, because of the Academy's rather strange rules regarding foreign films, Sweden can only submit one of the two. That said, a nod for Foreign Language film would be a shoo-in. Acting nominations for its two leads are well-deserved. Editing, cinematography and adapted screenplay should also be considered, if not Best Picture and Director as well. It's a classic.

Five Random Thoughts:
1. NOT for the easily disturbed. This film has, not one, but, TWO anal rape scenes.
2. A bisexual, computer hacking, ass kicking, goth chick protagonist? Ain't nothin' wrong with that.
3. I would LOVE to see Michael Emerson in the lead for the U.S. remake. Daniel Craig is rumored to play the lead. I'd like to see someone a little less tough.
4. I dread the thought of the American remake. This film is brutal at times and Hollywood has a tendency to shy away from it. And the casting of a well-known actress (Carey Mulligan is rumored) could really hurt this film unless she goes all out. David Fincher is rumored to direct it. He'll have to return to full-blown "Se7en" mode to pull it off.
5. You know a movie is really good when you are able to pause the film, but STILL refuse to go to the bathroom.

Eric Bird Capsule Reviews

2010-07-11T07:49:00.000-07:00

How to Train Your Dragon - A-

A surprisingly funny and touching animated film about acceptance of all kinds. The only thing that kept it from being an A was the deus ex machina ending. But even that didn't take too much away from a wonderful story about family, community and seeing things from all sides.
Oscar Potential: It should give Toy Story 3 a run for its money in the Best Animated Feature category.

Daybreakers - B

I knew almost nothing about this film going in. And learning it's about a vampire named Edward didn't give me too much hope. It's a vampire film almost in reverse. Only a few humans are left in a world populated by vampires. Some clunky scenes didn't take away too much from a clever story. (If circumstances are so urgent, does Willem Dafoe really have time to sing an Elvis song?) The logic is a little vague at the end, but for me to explain further would spoil an unusual twist on the rules of vampire movies. Sam Neill makes a great villain, but if you present a villain with a sound argument for his beliefs, you shouldn't have him commit an unspeakable act that no sane person would commit.
Oscar Potential: Almost none, but the makeup deserves consideration.

Grown Ups - B

I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Sure, with Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade and Rob Schneider, there's plenty of gross out and slapstick humor. But it's used sparingly. And, of course, there are certain elements that really could've been left on the cutting room floor or perhaps there was more to the story, but they left the rest out, i.e., Sandler lying to his wife, James being unemployed, etc. But the film does make an solid commentary on modern marriages, putting careers first and child-rearing. The cast, which includes Salma Hayek and Maria Bello, seems to be having a blast making the movie and it's hard not to share their fun.
Oscar Potential: Zero.

Martin Scorsese Film Festival Part 7

2010-07-11T07:18:00.001-07:00

Part 7: The King of Comedy

During so much of this festival, I've been able to sit back and focus on the Scorsese aspects of these films. The King of Comedy is the first one that I got so caught up in the movie itself, I forgot to pay attention to the Scorsese style. It's truly a great film and belongs on the list with his greatest achievements. At first, I was a little weirded out by the star obsession and found it off-putting. But as the plot progressed, it worked. A lesser filmmaker would spelled everything out a little more at the end, but I found this ending was far better. My favorite of the festival so far.

Martin Scorsese Film Festival Part 6

2010-07-10T15:07:00.001-07:00

Part 6: Who's Knocking at My Door

Well, here's a film you don't ever have to worry about being remade. A young Harvey Keitel finds out his girlfriend is not a virgin. And dumps her because of it. Oh, and the reason she's not a virgin was because she was raped. She even gets called a whore because of it. The movie itself is fairly plotless. A lot of the usual Scorsese tangents. But also a lot of the camera work that would become his trademark. Even at mere 90 minutes, it's a stretch. Not necessarily Scorsese's fault since it's basically a student film with footage added later (including a montage sex scene added even later) to get distribution. All in all, it's definitely a sign of things to come. A solid debut despite the actions of the protagonist.

Movie Review: Shutter Island - D+

2010-07-08T10:39:00.000-07:00

Who's In It: Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Creepy/Sinister TypeCast Villains.

What It's About: Leo goes to an island for the criminally insane to investigate a missing inmate. Hilarity ensues.

What I Was Expecting: It's directed by Martin Scorsese, which elevates any film buff's expectations. I had heard there was a plot twist that you either see coming or you don't.

What I Got: I saw it coming. In the FIRST scene, I saw it coming. Actually said out loud, "Oh...(insert spoiler here)". When that happens in a movie, especially in a film over two hours long, it makes you impatient. You see right through every red herring, every false lead is one you don't follow. It gets pretty excruciating when they don't steer you away from what became obvious at the beginning. That said, it would be a pretty mediocre film without the early tip off. It's dark, it's moody, but that would all serve a better purpose if I gave a rat's ass about any of the characters. And it's a Scorsese film that, frankly, could have been as effective if Brett Ratner were directing (see: "Red Dragon"). And good God, when the twist finally comes, it drags out FOREVER! This movie would have been better doing a reverse twist. You THINK you know one's coming, but it never happens. Might be something for wannabe screenwriters to think about.

Grade: D+

Oscar Potential: Cinematography, editing, nothing else stands a chance. Even in a week year.

Five Random Thoughts:
1. Max von Sydow plays so many German/Nazi Scientist types, I often forget he's Swedish.
2. HEY! It's Jackie Earle Haley playing a person in an asylum. That NEVER happens.
3. One rule this film does play with is The Economy of Characters Rule. Basically, you don't cast a recognizable face in a meaningless role. The audience will expect more from that character. Or maybe I just see too many movies that I expected more from Elias Koteas, Emily Mortimer and Patricia Clarkson.
4. This was a Dennis LeHane novel? I'm going to have to see how they differed. Just doesn't seem like it.
5. Is it too late in the day to make a pot of coffee?

Martin Scorsese Film Festival Part 5

2010-07-07T19:59:00.001-07:00

Part 5: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

Interesting piece of trivia. Ellen Burstyn won an Oscar for a terrific performance. Scorsese, in 1974, had already directed more actors to Oscars than Spielberg has as of 2010. Scorsese later directed De Niro, Newman, Pesci and Blanchett to Oscar gold. Spielberg has yet to have anyone win for his films despite winning two Oscars for directing. Just something I like to give to Mr. Scorsese.

"Alice" has a lot of the Scorsese elements he went on to perfect. The tracking shots. The dolly shots were particularly unique in the beginning due to the height, almost looking down on the houses. Like his later work, the film has filler towards the end, delaying the obvious dénouement, but it still works. I don't know if this particular film lost some of its luster due to the long running TV show. It's a great film. The kind of small scale, character and dialogue driven story I'd been saying for years I wished Scorsese would make.

Martin Scorsese Film Festival

2010-07-04T07:07:00.001-07:00

Day 4: Shutter Island

A separate review will come separately. This entry is a little shocking. Not the movie itself, which is not good, but the fact that nothing about this film feels like a Scorsese picture. None of his trademarks are here. And the plot itself seems a little mainstream for a film by Scorsese. Other than having the opportunity to direct a Dennis LeHane novel, it's not clear why Scorsese even bothered. Strange choice indeed.

Martin Scorsese Film Festival: Day 3

2010-07-03T19:28:00.001-07:00

Day 3: After Hours

A totally unique entry in the Martin Scorsese filmography. It's an amusing film, with a couple laugh out loud moments, especially during the last half hour. It's interesting how the Scorsese style adds to the film, adding a sense of urgency and danger, which is all the fun of the story in the first place. Definitely a case when the movie is better BECAUSE it's Scorsese. And one of the few of his films that could've been longer.

Movie Review: Toy Story 3 - A-

2010-06-28T12:33:00.000-07:00

Who's In It: Woody, Buzz, Hamm, basically anything from your toy box as a kid except Star Wars figures.

What It's About: Andy is growing up and heading to college. The toys are mistakenly donated to a daycare. Hilarity ensues.

What I Was Expecting: It's Pixar. They STILL have yet to make a bad movie 15 years running. And, as usual, the trailer made the movie look stupid, but I was not going to fall for it this time.

What I Got: For the first hour, I thought they blew it. I didn't laugh once. I thought it was too self-referential. Recycling jokes constantly from the previous Toy Story films. It doesn't work on Family Guy and it really doesn't work here. The entire opening is a rehash of the beginning of the first Toy Story. Maybe I was different as a kid, but when I was playing make believe, I varied the stories. I digress. About halfway through the movie, something just clicks. It gets a lot funnier. It's exciting. And it's as emotional as any of the Pixar films. I will admit, by the end, tears were streaming down my face. A beautiful ending to the series.

Grade: A-

Oscar Potential: I don't think it will keep up Pixar's streak of doing well outside of the Animation category, but it would be nice to see a Toy Story movie win there. The category did not exist yet for parts 1 & 2.

Five Random Thoughts:

1. It's obvious they are trying to avoid using Slink too much (previously voiced by the late Jim Varney). But whoever is doing the voice is doing a great job.

2. HEY! It's Michael Keaton! Where on earth has HE been?

3. Lottso is the worst villain in the series. And in the end, not all that necessary.

4. Wow! Did NOT recognize Whoopi Goldberg's voice in this. Such a memorable character, I don't even recall who "Stretch" was.

5. I do not see what benefit this movie would have in 3-D. Just see the 2-D version, your brain thinks it's 3-D anyway.

Trailer Park:

Mega Mind: A very funny trailer about an evil mastermind. They WISELY leave off the actual premise of the movie, thus, not giving it all away. Smart, smart move. (Note: the premise is great comedy fodder, but probably better if you don't see it coming.)

Despicable Me: A very funny trailer about an evil mastermind. (Didn't I just say this?) It looks less funny with each trailer. Here's to hoping.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: And the winner of worst movie title of the year is.... No. Let's not pick on this one. Disney will look like a genius for ditching this franchise. I thought the end of the trailer was cute. "Directed by Michael Apted". I don't think many in the Narnia crowd has seen any of the "7 Up" films. His biggest box office hit was "The World Is Not Enough", one of the worst in the Bond franchise. "Directed by Michael Apted" means nothing to this series' core audience. Or any audience for that matter. Maybe if "Gorillas in the Mist" is your favorite movie of all time.

The Smurfs: It's just a teaser trailer. Not much to see really. Thought the mash-up of the Smurfs theme with Tone-Loc's "Wild Thing" was amusing.

Secretariat: Ummm. Okay. It will be hard to separate this film from "Seabiscuit".

Tangled: Hand drawn animation? How novel. Tangled is the story of Rapunzel with a twist (and not just of the hair). An amusing trailer, if a little one-note in its humor. But, I said the same thing about "The Princess and the Frog", which was terrific.

The Martin Scorsese Film Festival

2010-06-20T07:12:00.001-07:00

For the last 12 years, a friend of mine has argued that Martin Scorsese is our greatest living director. I've changed my counterargument from time to time. For a long time, I argued Spielberg was the greatest, but he's had a mediocre run for most of the last decade. You can make a surprisingly strong case for Clint Eastwood. I think Danny Boyle has entered the argument. The Coen Brothers, for sure. Ang Lee. There are others who I will counter with on occasion, but his answer has always been pat: Martin Scorsese.

I never understood exactly why film buffs love Scorsese so much. Raging Bull is a classic. So is Goodfellas. I'll grant you Taxi Driver. If I'd seen it in its era, I might have liked it more, but now, it's been imitated so much, it's hard to appreciate. Same for Mean Streets. And then.....

I just conceded to four movies considered to be great; two of which, I don't particularly like. Scorsese has been making films for more than 40 years! That's one great film every ten years. Not a great track record for someone who's made 20-plus films. Spielberg made Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders and E.T. in a span of 8 years. And that's an era that probably won't be considered his best!

Besides the four I mentioned, I've only seen New York, New York, The Color of Money, Cape Fear, Casino, Bringing Out the Dead, Gangs of New York, The Aviator and the Departed. So, of Scorsese's 21 non-documentary features, I've seen 12.

There are elements I find common in almost all of Scorsese's films. For one, Master Martin cannot seem to make a film less than two hours. Even when the film doesn't have enough story to warrant it. The hyperkinetic feel, with the tracking shots and zooms on faces, are there whether the movie requires it or not. Again, there's a lot of his movies I haven't seen yet. Maybe I missed something.

And so, the film festival was born. I decided to watch them in no particular order.

Day 1: Kundun

This is the kind of film Scorsese was born NOT to make. You don't make a movie about the freaking Dalai Lama with the feel of a movie about Henry Hill. It was like he was trying to build a sense of urgency in a film that had none. Nor needed it. Scorsese's style actually got in the way.

Day 2: The Age of Innocence

I'd tried watching this movie in the 90s. Fell asleep. Tried watching it for this blog. Fell asleep. Tried a third time. Stayed awake. It's one of Scorsese's more unusual efforts. Unlike his other movies which have loads of physical violence, the violence in Age is emotional. A very good movie, but his style doesn't work in the early scenes. And there are moments when explaining New York society that feel ripped right out of other Scorsese movies. At least in those cases, it works well, even if it's apparent that he's stealing from himself.

Next up.... Day 3: After Hours

Post Oscar Bliss

2010-03-07T22:50:00.000-08:00

I probably shouldn't write this now. I'm still excited that, for the second year in a row, my #1 film of the year won Best Picture and I'm more than a little drunk. But, as someone who has thought that, while Avatar is a technical marvel NOW, it's not a very good movie. So here's the breakdown:

BEST PICTURE: THE HURT LOCKER

I don't normally do it in all caps, but I am so excited it won. This is the Platoon for Generation X and whole-heartedly deserved it.

BEST DIRECTOR: KATHRYN BIGELOW, THE HURT LOCKER

I actually teared up when she won. To be honest, a year ago, I could have made a LONG list of female directors I thought would have been the first and Kathryn Bigelow wouldn't have been on it. Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola, Jodie Foster, Barbra Streisand, Penny Marshall, Nancy Myers, Amy Heckerling, etc. Either way, it's a great acheivement.

BEST ACTOR: JEFF BRIDGES, CRAZY HEART

Jeff Bridges has been one of my favorites since I was a kid. He's always been one of those actors who gave phenomenal performances in roles not recognized by the Academy. I couldn't be happier.

BEST ACTRESS: SANDRA BULLOCK, THE BLIND SIDE

I'm glad she won, but it's one of those cases that the person won and not the performance. She's very popular among people in Hollywood and she's not exactly the type of actress who gets nominated. I wouldn't be shocked if this will be her only nomination.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: CHRISTOPH WALTZ, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

A terrific performance and I'm glad it was honored, but I will always argue that he had no business being in the supporting category. Yes, it's an ensemble piece. But so was Pulp Fiction. The first 15 minutes is almost all Christoph Waltz.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: MO'NIQUE, PRECIOUS

There was no question. It was easily one of the best performances of the year.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: THE HURT LOCKER

Missed this one. I picked Basterds. Don't mind this one.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: PRECIOUS

I picked Up in the Air here. I'm still surprised it lost and I owe Jason Reitman an apology. Sorry, dude.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: AVATAR

I argued in another post that Avatar shouldn't have even been nominated. Then I read an article about how hard it was to shoot. More than just CGI and green screen. Yeah, it deserved it.

BEST FILM EDITING: THE HURT LOCKER

I picked Avatar, but was hoping for a Hurt Locker upset. I got my wish.

BEST ART DIRECTION: AVATAR

My pick and it deserved it. Congrats to the Academy for finally recognizing the efforts of set decorators, even in a CGI world. Their job is still the same.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN: THE YOUNG VICTORIA

I had no clue and went with Nine.

BEST MAKEUP: STAR TREK

The first Oscar ever for the Star Trek franchise. I believe this makes Harry Potter now the most nominated franchise to never win an Oscar.

BEST SOUND MIXING: THE HURT LOCKER

I was surprised by this one. The work on The Hurt Locker was amazing and it's wonderful that the Academy recognized the incredible work there.

BEST SOUND EDITING: THE HURT LOCKER

I thought the Academy would go with Avatar here, but felt the The Hurt Locker was more deserving. Thankfully, the Academy agreed.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: AVATAR

If there was EVER a slam dunk in a category, it was here.

BEST SCORE: UP

One of many slam dunks for this year's awards. The piece called "Married Life" during the montage at the beginning of the movie is one of those pieces that chokes me up just by hearing it. Congrats to Michael Giacchino, who deserved it for his work on The Incredibles and Ratatoiulle. It'll look great next to his Emmy for his work on Lost.

BEST SONG: CRAZY HEART

Another gimme.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: UP

If Up didn't win, I would've torched my house. For all of the wins Pixar has had in this category, Up was one of its best achievements.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: EL SECRETO DE SUS OJOS

I haven't seen this one. Un Prophete is an amazing film, but I can't fairly judge.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: THE COVE

Terrific film. Deserved it. Although Food, Inc. would have also been a fine choice.

Now, what you've all been waiting for....

Last year, my Post Oscar Bliss predictions for 2009 were: Nine, The Informant, Lovely Bones, Invictus, The Boat the Rocked, Inglourious Basterds, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, The Road, Shutter Island, Away We Go. So, I got ONE Best Picture nominee. One movie that never even went into production. One that got bumped to 2010. Four movies that go no nominations whatsoever. And three movies that got just a few nominations. Not my finest moment. So on to this year:

THE BEST PICTURE NOMINEES OF 2010!!!!

1. Hereafter

Going on a limb here. Clint Eastwood directing a Best Picture nominee. Although Invictus and The Changeling didn't make the cut. But his genre films seem to make it. Throw in that it's written by the writer of Frost/Nixon, The Queen and The Last King of Scotland. It's a pretty safe bet even with supernatural elements.

2. Untitled James Brooks Comedy

James Brooks so rarely does movies anymore. Or ever for that matter. But after Terms of Endearment, Broadcast News and As Good as It Gets (and ignoring I'll Do Anything and Spanglish), he's Oscar bait. Especially when Jack Nicholson is involved (who has won two Oscars for James Brooks movies). Also with Oscar winner Reese Witherspoon.

3. The Tree of Life

Director Terrance Malick also has a pretty good track record with the Academy. Although The New World missed its mark, his previous two films, The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven, were Best Picture nominees. Oh. And did I mention it stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn?

4. Love and Other Drugs

Have to keep my streak going. Director Ed Zwick makes my list nearly every time he makes a movie and every time, I'm wrong. Be it Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai, etc. And with Judy Greer as his lead (basically best known for repeatedly flashing Jason Bateman on the show Arrested Development), but it also has Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway. Just a whim.

5. The Social Network

David Fincher finally got Oscar recognition with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Here, he's bringing the story of the world's most popular social networking site to the big screen. I can't imagine a great story teller like Fincher even considering it without a brilliant script. And since Aaron Sorkin wrote it, I'm assuming it is. Even with a questionable cast that includes Justin Timberlake.

6. Secretariat

Hey! It worked for Seabiscuit. Diane Lane and John Malkovich head a cast directed by Braveheart scribe Randall Wallace.

7. The American

Any movie with George Clooney deserves consideration at this point. World renowned photographer Anton Corbijn pretty much guarantees it will be visually interesting, especially with the Italian location shooting. It's a suspense thriller, but the Academy has gone there before.

8. Eat, Prey Love

I may be reaching here. This will be the second film directed by Ryan Murphy, who is best known for the TV shows Glee and Nip/Tuck. It's with Julia Roberts and if it connects with people, expect it to make the short list.

9. Inception

While Clint Eastwood often gets nominated for genre films, Christopher Nolan has not had as much luck. In fact, it's because of Christopher Nolan that the Academy nominates 10 films for Best Picture, instead of 5. His follow-up to The Dark Knight stars Oscar nominees Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe and Ellen Page, along with Oscar winners Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. It's a tentpole blockbuster, which don't usually carry over to Oscar glory. But we will see.

10. Debt

While John Madden directed Best Picture winner Shakespeare in Love, he has not fared so well since. This one is a remake of the Israeli film "HaHov" and starts Sam Worthington (and his dog, Spot) and Oscar winner Helen Mirren. The story is Mossad agents chasing a Nazi across Europe 20 years after World War II. Perhaps the voters who chose Spielberg's Munich will like this one too, although I still don't get why they liked Munich.

Until next year.....Cheers!

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland B-

2010-03-06T22:29:00.000-08:00

Who's In It: Johnny Depp, every British actor who's finished shooting principal for the next Harry Potter, some blonde girl

What It's About: Alice. She goes to Wonderland. Hilarity ensues.

What I Was Expecting: I'm not a huge Tim Burton fan. He seems to just make mediocre films that are visually stunning.

What I Got: A mediocre film that is visually stunning. In 3-D!!! I'm not entirely sure why it's in 3-D. Except for a few moments, it really serves no purpose. Much like the film itself. There are a few moments of classic Tim Burton whimsy. But just a few. A couple of moments where the story is interesting. But just a couple. From a visual standpoint, it's a wonder to behold. I've been making the argument since Avatar debuted that its revolutionary special effects will be passe in a few years and people will see it for what it is. Well, it's not even three months later and I thought this film surpassed Avatar in the special effects department. Scene after scene and I kept trying to figure out whether they were on a set or if it was green screened. You really can't tell. If you're impressed by astonishing filmmaking based on the visuals, by all means, go see this movie. Just ignore the disjointed scenes. I was expecting better from the screenwriter who gave us Beauty & the Beast and The Lion King.

Grade: B-

Oscar Potential: It's very early in the year, but it should still get consideration for the visual effects, art direction and costume design by 8 time nominee, 2 time winner Colleen Atwood.

Five Random Thoughts:

1. For a movie in 3-D, it takes a LONG time to use it to its advantage. In fact, the film takes a long time to do much of anything.

2. Well, "Off with their heads" will be a popular catch phrase for the next ten minutes or so.

3. Oh my God, is that...Crispin Glover?

4. Let's see, there's one Death Eater. Two Death Eaters....and three. Oh and Dolores Umbridge is in this too. It's almost easier to count which British actors HAVEN'T been in a Harry Potter movie. Even Stephen Fry, who is the voice of the Cheshire Cat, is the narrator on the Harry Potter video games.

5. Wait. That's not Crispin Glover. Is it? Has to be. (Yes, it is.)

Trailer Park:

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Very funny trailer of a movie about a kid going into junior high. Genius, at least in the sense that there's not an age where kids are more awkward and yet, Hollywood never touches on it.

Prince of Persia: Mike Newell used to make great movies with interesting characters. Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco. Well, I guess he needs to make up for Love in the Time of Cholera and do the paycheck movie.

Despicable Me: I would REALLY like to see a new trailer for this movie. I think this is the fourth time I've had to comment on it. The trailer they showed during the Super Bowl looks nothing like this.

Tron Legacy: Like the original Tron, with cooler graphics....I mean, visual effects.

Toy Story 3: I say this for just about every single trailer for Pixar movies. It looks okay, not great. Of course, I'm always wrong. This time, though, I think I may be right. The humor seems ripped right out of the Shrek movies.

My Take on All the Oscar Nominated Films

2010-02-20T07:48:00.000-08:00

UPDATE 3/7/10

A Serious Man - Nearly made my Top Ten of 2009. Great film from the Coen Brothers. Both hilarious and sad at times. Should have been nominated for more than Best Picture and Screenplay.

A Single Man - Haven't seen it.

An Education - Another that nearly made my Top Ten. Wonderful story of a high school girl falling in love with an older man. Star-making performance from nominee Carey Mulligan.

Avatar - #10 of my Top Ten of 2009. A movie experience like no other to date. Fails in all of the usual areas that Cameron films are weak, but a film that is a must see in 3-D. In 2-D, everything that's wrong with the film would be that much more obvious.

Bright Star - Surprisingly effective romance from Jane Campion.

Burma VJ - Haven't seen it.

Coco before Chanel - In my NetFlix queue.

Coraline - One of those films that some people rave about and I just don't understand why. Rather macabre animated feature that just felt redundant.

Crazy Heart - Haven't watched it yet. Screener is sitting next to me.

District 9 - Clever, inventive sci-fi film that just felt like it was missing something. The weakest of the Best Picture nominees, in my opinion.

Fantastic Mr. Fox - One of the most fun films of the year. Sly and subversive. Makes you wish George Clooney and Meryl Streep would do a live action movie together.

Food, Inc. - If this film doesn't make you want to become a vegetarian, nothing will. Definitely makes you think twice about the food you're eating.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - Terrific chapter in the series. Like most of the series, repeat viewings makes you realize what all they left out from the book.

Il Divo - Had never heard of it. Only nominated for Makeup. Probably won't ever see it.

In the Loop - #9 film of the year for me. Outside of The Hangover, the funniest film of 2009. The British and American casts are terrific and play well off of each other.

Inglourious Basterds - #2 of the year for me. Only gets better on repeat viewings. Quentin Tarantino's most mature film to date.

Invictus - Inspiring, highly detailed film about the first days of Nelson Mandela's presidency. Amazing performance by nominee Morgan Freeman. Hit or miss, "keeps losing the accent" turn by Matt Damon.

Julie & Julia - Entertaining, if a tad long, story of Julia Child and a woman inspired by her. Meryl Streep as Julia is good at times, but wasn't really Oscar-worthy in my opinion. Felt more like an imitation, rather than a performance.

Nine - I made it about 5 minutes into this film and turned it off. Found those 5 minutes to rival any 5 minute span of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen as far as irritation. Will try to push through another time.

Paris 36 - Had never heard of it. Only nominated for song. Probably won't ever see it.

Precious - Absolutely heartbreaking film. Just when you think things are going to be better, they get worse. And the main character perseveres anyway. #4 in my Top Ten of 2009.

Sherlock Holmes - Haven't seen it yet. Saw the first 10 minutes or so and it seemed pretty fun.

Star Trek - Does for the Star Trek series what Batman Begins did for Batman. May annoy some purists who aren't paying attention to why this Star Trek universe is different.

The Blind Side - Uplifting film, but pretty "by the numbers" overall. Sandra Bullock makes this film better than it should have been.

The Cove - #7 of 2009. Probably the most exciting documentary you will ever see. Could not have been better if it were scripted.

The Hurt Locker - #1. Hands down. Amazing film. Subtle in every place where other war films, like Saving Private Ryan, punched you right in the face.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus - Haven't watched it yet. Have screener and will hopefully get to it before Oscar night.

The Last Station - Haven't seen it.

The Lovely Bones - Keep meaning to read the book. Have a screener copy. Haven't gotten around to either.

The Messenger - Came very close to being in my Top 10. One of my favorite kinds of film. The kind that show you the life of someone who has a very important job, but one you just don't think about very often. In this case, military personnel who tells families their loved one died in the War of Terror.

The Most Dangerous Man in America - Another documentary I haven't seen.

The Princess and the Frog - The best Disney traditionally animated film in a long time. If not for Up, this could have been a serious contender for the Best Animated Feature category.

The Secret of Kells - Had never even heard of it. Still haven't seen it.

The White Ribbon - Hope to see it soon.

The Young Victoria - Ditto.

Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen - One of only 3 movies I actually gave F's to last year. (The other two: G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra and Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian) I guess if you want to win with me, don't have a colon in your title.

Up - #6 film of 2009. Pixar can seem to do no wrong. At times, both their silliest and most adult film to date. I can't imagine why anyone WOULDN'T love this movie.

Up in the Air - Another near miss for the Top Ten. Funny at times, romantic at times, sad at other times. A mirror to our society at this moment in time.

Which Way Home - Haven't seen it. Way behind (as always) on my documentaries.

MOVIES IN MY TOP 10 THAT GOT ROBBED:

#3 Where the Wild Things Are - Costumes, anyone? Turning a book that only had something like 72 words in total into a brilliant 90 minute film? This film has moments of such pure joy that it's amazing it didn't get a single nomination.

#5 The Hangover - The number one R-rated comedy of all time and not even a nod for screenplay. My God, they nominate Beverly Hills Cop, but not The Hangover. This was a travesty.

#8 (500) Days of Summer - Just one of those movies that is VERY good in every aspect, but only outstanding as a whole. Wasn't surprised that it missed out for anything except screenplay.

Who's Going to Win.....

2010-02-16T11:28:00.000-08:00

BEST PICTURE:
The Hurt Locker

At the beginning of the Oscar race, it seemed like it would be a battle between The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air. Until Avatar came out. Then the box office records started falling to the wayside. There were even articles in major entertainment magazines asking how any film could beat Avatar at the Oscars. And that was only 2 weeks ago. Now? Avatar has fallen by the wayside, as has Up in the Air. Sure, Avatar won the Golden Globe, but that becomes a less reliable indicator every year. The Hurt Locker, on the other hand, recently hit the trifecta: The Producers Guild, The Directors Guild and The American Cinema Editors awards. Slumdog Millionaire did it last year. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King won all three. So did Chicago. And Gladiator. BUT, there has been ONE instance where a film won all three and lost Best Picture. In 1998, Saving Private Ryan. Coincidence, that both SPR and The Hurt Locker are war films? We'll see.

BEST DIRECTOR:

Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

There's some talk that Avatar may lose Best Picture, but James Cameron will win here. I would argue that the opposite is more likely. Avatar is no more extraordinary an achievement by a director than Jurassic Park was for Spielberg. Take away all the groundbreaking, 3-D special effects and you have a B-movie. And because so much of the film is CGI, I would argue that James Cameron deserves no more consideration for Best Director than Pete Docter would for Up. At least the performances in Up seemed natural.

BEST ACTOR:

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

I'm giddy at the thought of this. Jeff Bridges has been one of my favorite actors since Starman. Even more so as Jack Lucas in The Fisher King. It's amazing that this is only his 5th nomination and only his 2nd in the last 25 years. AND, he's never won. His first nomination was for The Last Picture Show, where he lost to his costar, Ben Johnson. He was nominated again, four years later, when teamed up with Clint Eastwood in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. He lost to Robert De Niro in The Godfather Part II. Nomination number 3 was Starman. That was the year F. Murray Abraham won as Salieri in Amadeus. His fourth nomination came 16 years later for The Contender. Unfortunately, he was nominated against Benicio Del Toro for Traffic. After almost 30 years of being a bridesmaid, Bridges WILL be heading to the altar. If they took bets on the Oscars, this is about a sure thing as any category.

BEST ACTRESS:

Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side

She's going to win here for several reasons and none having to do with her actual performance. One, she's very popular in Hollywood. Her sweet, nice girl roles are supposedly never far from her own personality. When she plays against that type, it's usually with horrific results. This year will be the proof as Sandra Bullock will likely have the distinction of winning the Oscar and the Golden Raspberry (for All About Steve) in the same year. And she's going to be there to accept both awards. Because she doesn't take herself that seriously. Which leads to point number two. Sandra Bullock rarely gives performances worthy of Oscar consideration. Lord knows she's tried. 28 Days, Crash, Infamous. Just didn't happen. There's a strong possibility this will be the only nomination of Sandra Bullock's career. Which leads to point number three. The other contenders. Meryl Streep was terrific in Julie & Julia. This is her SIXTEENTH nomination. Her fourth in the last 10 years. It's a pretty safe bet she'll be nominated again at some point. Then there's Carey Mulligan who gave a performance in An Education that I would equate to Audrey Hepburn's Oscar winning performance in Roman Holiday. It's one of those where you just know this girl will be around for a long while. It was that belief that cost Kate Winslet the Oscar for Sense and Sensibility. You just knew she would be nominated again soon enough.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

I haven't seen the statistic yet, but I'm guessing Christoph Waltz has about as much screen time in the movie as anyone else. But, with Tarantino flicks, who's the lead, who's supporting can be tough to tell. With Pulp Fiction, Samuel L. Jackson had more dialogue that John Travolta, but Travolta was on screen more. So who's the lead? The first 10-15 minutes of Basterds is almost entirely Waltz talking. But then he disappears for a long part of the film only to come back and take over the film again. So, basically, Inglourious Basterds has no lead. But the same could be said about Woody Harrelson. Calling him supporting is like calling Susan Sarandon supporting in Thelma & Louise. Technically she was since the film is a little more about Geena Davis' journey than hers, but they're almost always on screen together. Stanley Tucci is the next contender and the one traditional supporting role. The other two, Matt Damon and Christopher Plummer, are just lucky to be there. Damon sucked in Invictus.

EDIT: I did find the statistic and Christoph Waltz is on screen more than "lead" actor, Brad Pitt. Go figure.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Mo'Nique, Precious

This is another lock. It goes to show you that you can't tell the actor by their role choices. Especially, if they don't have movie star looks and are black. At that point, you take the work you can get because they aren't going to look to you to star in Avatar. Mo'Nique previous three films? Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins, Beerfest and Phat Girlz. In Precious, she just owns the screen when she's on it. She makes you absolutely hate her and just when want her to just drop dead, she delivers one of the made-for-Oscar speeches that so rarely happens anymore because today's audiences know when they're being manipulated. But Mo'Nique pulls it off so well, that you actually feel sympathy for a character you've hated the whole film.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

Inglourious Basterds

Of the Big Eight categories, this one is the toughest. The Academy likes to give an Oscar somewhere to all of the Best Picture nominees, but now that there's 10, it's a little tougher. Especially since the three top contenders will win in other categories. A Serious Man shouldn't be taken very seriously. It's nomination was surprising enough. The Messenger is a brilliant script, but don't expect it to win. That leaves The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds and Up. The Hurt Locker is a stellar film. It just doesn't have a flashy script, which was kind of the point. Up is going to win in other categories and is a brilliant piece from Pixar. I can't think of any film this year that rode that fine line of mixing humor and pathos. If any film beats out Tarantino, this will be it. I just don't think it will. Tarantino shows with this one that he's grown up a bit.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

Up in the Air

Another case of "where else are we going to give it something?" This will be Up in the Air's only win all night. An Education is brilliant, but just doesn't carry a lot of excitement with it. Precious falters because an unwittingly racist Academy who probably had never heard of nor read the book and they'll write it off here. District 9 will be the "we were lucky to be nominated" film all night and won't win squat. This is In the Loop's only nomination and those films NEVER win here, despite the fact that it's actually the best script out of either writing category. Nope. It's Up in the Air's category, one hundred percent.

BEST FILM EDITING:

The Hurt Locker

I'm probably wrong here and therefore, defeating the purpose of the title of this blog entry. I'm strictly going with my gut that this will be the one tech category where it beats out Avatar. In my opinion, it's the one technical category where it's actually better than Avatar. The Hurt Locker became what it is in the editing room. The rest of the nominees (District 9, Basterds, Precious) are just filler. Mainly because of having 10 nominations, but this is one of the rare years where all Film Editing nominees are up for Picture. It's also worth mention that NO film has won Best Picture without an Editing nomination since 1980. So, you can rule out any upsets from A Serious Man, An Education, The Blind Side, Up in the Air or Up right here.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Avatar

I'm just not sold on it. I think we could be reaching a point where CGI will actually starting hurting films come Oscar time. It's not like Mauro Fiore (Avatar's DP) had to figure out how to light the Home Tree. Come to think of it, how often was he even behind a camera? So how much is a DP actually doing in a film like this. It's not like there was a bunch of Na'vi standing around waiting for magic hour. So what did he actually do here? James Cameron's a cinematographer also so I don't think he'd want another one to help decide how to light a CGI rock. That said, I'll go with it anyway. I haven't seen The White Ribbon yet, but I've seen the other four nominees. It really should be The Hurt Locker.

BEST ART DIRECTION:

Avatar

The Art Director, on the other hand, does play a big part, even when it's CGI. And they got so wildly inventive with Avatar that I can't imagine not giving it to them here. They deserve it.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN:

Nine

I haven't commented previously on Nine in any blog entry. I would like to say right now what an utter piece of crap it is. Or, what an utter piece of crap the first five minutes are since I turned it off during the opening credits. Or, at least, where the opening credits should have been since it would have justified taking so long to strut the entire cast out one by one. I may try and watch it again and skip those first few minutes. The costumes were nice though. And in large number and that's usually the best indicator of how the Academy will vote. Not by the best costumes, but the most.

BEST MAKEUP:

Star Trek

Yeah. Let's go with that one.

BEST SOUND EDITING and BEST SOUND MIXING:

Avatar

Some years, they just needn't bother nominating 5.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:

Avatar

Could you imagine a bigger travesty in the history of the Academy Awards if Avater DIDN'T win here?

BEST SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION):

The Door

Because that's what people who've seen them keep saying.

BEST SHORT FILM (ANIMATED):

A Matter of Loaf and Death

Two words: Nick Park. Three more words: Wallace and Gromit. Nick Park has only ever lost once at the Oscars. And who did he lose to? Nick Park.

BEST DOCUMENTARY (FEATURE LENGTH):

The Cove

This is actually a tough category this year. Food, Inc. is very disturbing. I haven't seen The Most Dangerous Man in America, but it sounds fascinating, although how relevant is a Vietnam War documentary anymore. Burma VJ sounds like a documentary about making documentaries. Which Way Home follows the plight of illegal immigrants into America. The Cove is just one of those stand out films that transcends the documentary style of filmmaking and deserves it.

BEST DOCUMENTARY (SHORT SUBJECT):

The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant

Hell if I know. These categories are impossible to predict. The general rule of thumb is: If it sounds Jewish, it'll win. Otherwise, go with the most topical.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

The White Ribbon

It's supposed to be good? I have a hard enough time keeping up with American films.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:

Up

Because it's Up.

BEST SCORE:

Up

Because there's nothing ethnic for the Academy to vote for. I mean that seriously. Avatar's score was too derivative of Titanic's (further proof that James Horner sucks.) I remember the songs from The Fantastic Mr. Fox. Not so much the score. Hans Zimmer never wins unless it's for Disney. The Hurt Locker's score was just okay. Michael Giacchino's score for Up was outstanding. So was his score for Star Trek. Even his score for Land of the Lost was notable. Winning here will make up for not even nominating his electric score for The Incredibles and as a consolation for not awarding his score for Ratatoiulle because the score for Atonement was just that brilliant.

BEST SONG:

Crazy Heart

I care so little about this category, I can't even be bothered to look up the name of the song. The one category that usually adds nothing to a film. Okay, last year was an exception, but this decade has sucked as far as song nominees go. Thankfully, this year, it's a slam dunk. This will win.

If They Had Ten Nominees for Best Picture During the 1990s......

2010-02-06T12:47:00.000-08:00

To clarify how I'm coming up with these lists: Obviously, the five Best Picture nominees remain. I then go to the Best Director category and look at the nominees that aren't tied to a Best Picture nominee. If the Director nominee's film also received a screenplay or acting nominations, it is automatically included. If not, did the film have multiple nominations in the technical categories? If there were at least two, it makes the list. (Example: Robert Altman was nominated for the film Short Cuts, but that was the film's only nomination and was left off the list.)

Then I skipped to the screenplay nominees. Again, how many other nominations did the film get, with added weight for acting nominations.

Then I went to the acting categories, since most Best Picture nominees get at least one. Were there multiple technical nominations as well?

Most likely, that would cover most years, although, you will see, that I had to cheat in at least one year.

And the Best Picture nominees for 1990 could have been.....

Avalon
Awakenings*
Cyrano de Bergerac
Dances with Wolves**
Dick Tracy
Ghost*
The Godfather Part III*
Goodfellas*
The Grifters
Reversal of Fortune

Ten nominees would not have looked good for 1990. That Ghost and Awakenings made the top 5 told us that. That forgettable films like Avalon and Cyrano are here just add insult to injury. But it was amusing to look back 20 years later, not realizing Dick Tracy was that well represented at Oscar time with 7 nominations. Eventual winner Dances with Wolves was the only nominee with more noms than Dick Tracy.

And the Best Picture nominees for 1991 could have been.....

Barton Fink
Beauty and the Beast*
Boyz N the Hood
Bugsy*
The Fisher King
JFK*
The Prince of Tides*
The Silence of the Lambs**
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Thelma & Louise

YES! I KNOW! I CHEATED! Terminator 2 was not nominated for ANY of the top 8 categories. I base its inclusion on two factors. One, the only other movie that came close to qualifying under my rules was Fried Green Tomatoes. It was FGT's 2 noms vs. T2's 6. Two, I vividly recall the Oscar night during the acceptance speech of one of T2's FOUR Oscars, the winner exclaiming that James Cameron should be given an Oscar for his film and the thunderous applause the comment received. One thought that keeps recurring in my mind: What if John Singleton had directed a Best Picture nominee? Would his career have turned out differently? It's a thought I have again later with Oliver Stone.

And the Best Picture nominees for 1992 could have been.....

Chaplin
The Crying Game*
Enchanted April
A Few Good Men*
Howards End*
Husbands and Wives
Malcolm X
The Player
Scent of a Woman*
Unforgiven**

One thing I'm discovering, going back and breaking down the Oscar of the early 1990s: There's just not a lot to choose from. Unforgiven is a classic. As is The Crying Game. I'll even throw in The Player. But good Lord, the drop off after that. Eeek. I can't help but wonder if this era is what gave rise to the independent film boom that hits two years later.

And the Best Picture nominees for 1993 could have been.....

The Age of Innocence
The Fugitive*
In the Line of Fire
In the Name of the Father*
Philadelphia
The Piano*
The Remains of the Day*
Schindler's List**
Shadowlands
What's Love Got to Do with It

This was another tough year. Films like What's Love.... and Shadowlands scored multiple nominations in major categories but were left out everywhere else. I can't help but wonder if Jurassic Park might have come close to making this list.

And the Best Picture nominees for 1994 could have been.....

Bullets over Broadway
Forrest Gump**
Four Weddings and a Funeral*
Little Women
The Madness of King George
Nobody's Fool
Pulp Fiction*
Quiz Show*
Red
The Shawshank Redemption*

It's funny how one's memory can fail you on trivial things. I TRIPLE-CHECKED to make sure I had my actual Best Picture nominees correct. I totally remember Bullets over Broadway being a nominee. Shocking that it received 7 nominations and not Best Picture. Especially considering that Four Weddings... only had 2 nominations.

And the Best Picture nominees for 1995 could have been.....

Apollo 13*
Babe*
Braveheart**
Dead Man Walking
Il Postino*
Leaving Las Vegas
Mighty Aphrodite
Nixon
Sense and Sensibility*
The Usual Suspects

I don't buy this list at all. THIS was a crappy year for film. But there wasn't much else to put on the list. Dead Man Walking and Leaving Las Vegas were gimmes. Both had directing and screenplay nominations as well as nominations for the lead acting categories. But after that? Ouch.

And the Best Picture nominees for 1996 could have been.....

The Crucible
The English Patient**
Evita
Fargo*
Hamlet
Jerry Maguire*
The People vs. Larry Flynt
Secrets & Lies*
Shine*
Sling Blade

Another case where once you get past the obvious contenders, there is a HUGE drop off. Evita makes the list for its five nominations, despite none in an major category. Most of the nominees in the Big Eight were either nominated for a Best Picture contender or were its film's only nomination. It didn't make it easy. At least Hamlet was up for screenplay. So was The Crucible, which had the benefit of its only other nomination being for Supporting Actress. But we are talking about a year where Oscars went to films like Independence Day, The Nutty Professor and The Ghost and the Darkness. Not exactly a banner year.

And the Best Picture nominees for 1997 could have been.....

Amistad
As Good As It Gets*
Boogie Nights
The Full Monty*
Good Will Hunting*
L.A. Confidential*
The Sweet Hereafter
Titanic**
Wag the Dog
The Wings of the Dove

It's years like this one that I'm even doing this research. A lot of people bitched about Boogie Nights being passed over for lighter fare like The Full Monty or As Good As It Gets. But when you look to see where the other nominations landed, it becomes apparent that Boogie Nights probably came really close. Films like Wag the Dog and The Wings of the Dove were also considered strong contenders. The Sweet Hereafter, with only two nominations (Director and screenplay) would have been a nice surprise. I think people would have griped about Amistad making the list, arguing "Of course it's there. It's Spielberg."

And the Best Picture nominees for 1998 could have been.....

Central Station
Elizabeth*
Gods and Monsters
Life is Beautiful*
Out of Sight
Saving Private Ryan*
Shakespeare in Love**
A Simple Plan
The Thin Red Line*
The Truman Show

I really had to stretch on this one. It's funny to me because it's one of the few years where I really liked all five nominees (although William Goldman's article for Rolling Stone about how much he hated all five is still a classic.) The fact that I had to resort to a film like Out of Sight and it's whopping two nominations (Screenplay and Film Editing) or A Simple Plan (Screenplay and Supporting Actor) shows what a weak year it was overall and makes the argument why there SHOULDN'T be ten nominees.

And the Best Picture nominees for 1999 could have been.....

American Beauty**
Being John Malkovich
Boys Don't Cry
The Cider House Rules*
The Green Mile*
The Insider*
Magnolia
The Sixth Sense*
The Talented Mr. Ripley
Topsy-Turvy

This last one would have not made Kevin Smith very happy. But Magnolia aside, the four other add-ons could have replaced a film like The Green Mile. Boys Don't Cry and Topsy-Turvy each won more awards than the Green Mile, The Talented Mr. Ripley had more nominations and Spike Jonze was nominated for Best Director over Frank Darabont. It had to have been close.

Thanks for reading. It was a fun way to kill a dull Saturday waiting for the Super Bowl.

What If The Ten Nominees Rule Came Ten Years Ago.....

2010-02-05T22:20:00.000-08:00

There was a fascinating article in USA Today on Friday explaining how the new Best Picture rules could shake things up. I won't go into detail, but they had a valid point. What else is interesting, in particular, were the comments of director Jane Campion (The Piano, Bright Star) who doesn't seem to like the idea of 10 Best Picture nominees. She claimed that it was the major studios who pushed for it since "their movies weren't getting nominated." She also seemed to feel that it somehow diminished the award itself.

I'm not quite sure what beef Ms. Campion has with the studios. They seemed to go out of their way to get her latest film, Bright Star, seen. In theaters, the film was distributed by Warner Bros. In the U.S., the DVD is being distributed by Sony and, in the U.K., by Fox. That's three different studios shelling out money to get her $8 million film seen. (The film grossed $4 million in the U.S.) She might consider that it was a collaborative effort of several studios just so her movie could get out there. It's not like the studios thought there was a huge demand for a movie about John Keats. She had a story to tell. They did what they could to get an audience to see it. And her little movie's whopping ONE nomination (Costumes) makes it seem a little bitter.

Another thing she should consider is that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences is its own entity and does not answer to the studios. If the major studios had any say whatsoever, this rule would've gone into effect back in 1996 when the one Best Picture nominee from a major studio was Jerry Maguire. While the argument is valid that having more than 5 nominees allows for more audience friendly films to make the cut, I think they were more likely trying to avoid the discussion that an important film got snubbed and thus, the argument that the Academy is too high brow for the general public. Expanding to ten nominees, in a way, shows how close the more mainstream movie get to being legitimate contenders without showing how many votes each one got. Hence, why "The Dark Knight Rule" went into effect.

When the nominations were announced last year, there was genuine shock among Oscar enthusiasts that The Dark Knight failed to be nominated for Best Picture. It was considered a "sure thing" and a possible contender to win. In particular, I was quite shocked when The Reader was nominated for Picture and Director over Christopher Nolan's masterpiece that set a new standard for the superhero genre. The Reader, which isn't a bad film, didn't resonate with many people and just doesn't stand out in my mind.

But what The Dark Knight Rule has eliminated is the "who got snubbed?" discussion. There has been little talk at all about ANY film that got left out of the Best Picture race. The only film that jumps out to me was the Golden Globe winner for Best Comedy or Musical, The Hangover. Is The Hangover typical Academy material? Hardly. But it is a well made film from an artistic standpoint. Watch the technical aspects of the film and you'll see it is beautifully shot and edited very well, has a nice score and notice how much the costumes tell about each character. The writing is outstanding and even Mike Tyson gives a good performance. But you don't hear anyone crying foul over its snub. In fact, the articles I've read about this year's snubs fail to mention a single one involving Best Picture.

Which brings up the point of this posting: What if they'd made this rule ten years ago? What would the ten nominees have been? What complaints could have been avoided?

Well, I set some ground rules. It will happen eventually, I'm sure, but this year, there weren't any movies nominated for Best Picture as its only nomination. Every film had at least ONE other nomination in one of the other eight major categories. So, the first rule I set was that each of the "bottom five" had to be nominated in at least one other category of the "Big Eight", OR be the winner in another best film category (Animated, Foreign or Documentary.) After that, I noted the presence of a particular film in other categories. The more nominations, the greater the likelihood that a film "just missed" being one of the Best Picture nominees. Basically, I tried to take my own opinion of a film out of the picture and chose movies that looked like they had the nominations that normally go along with Best Picture. So let's see how the first decade of the new millenium could have looked like.

*=Was actually nominated

**=Best Picture Winner

And the Best Picture nominees for 2000 Could Have Been.....

Almost Famous
Billy Elliot
Cast Away
Chocolat*
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon*
Erin Brockovich*
Gladiator**
Pollock
Traffic*
The Wonder Boys

2000 was considered a bad slate of Best Picture nominees. But tack on the "The Other Five" and, all of a sudden, that's not such a bad group of films after all. In a group like that, it's hard to imagine a movie like Gladiator even winning. See the difference having ten nominations would've have made when looking back?

Other Possibilities: Quills, You Can Count on Me

And the Best Picture nominees for 2001 Could Have Been.....

Amelie
A Beautiful Mind**
Black Hawk Down
Gosford Park*
In the Bedroom*
Iris
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring*
Memento
Moulin Rouge*
Shrek

Not quite the same effect that the extra nominations of 2000 had. But certainly, films like Black Hawk Down, which was also nominated for Best Director, and Amelie, which had the most nominations that year of any film NOT nominated for Best Picture, deserved to be in the same class as those that did get picked.

Other Possibilities: Ali, Monster's Ball

And the Best Picture nominees for 2002 Could Have Been.....

Adaptation
Chicago**
Far from Heaven
Frida
Gangs of New York*
The Hours*
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers*
The Pianist*
Road to Perdition
Talk to Her

Once again, a MUCH more well-rounded group. It certainly has the feel of a more wide open Oscar race.

Other Possibilities: About Schmidt, Bowling for Columbine, Catch Me If You Can

And the Best Picture nominees for 2003 Could Have Been.....

City of God
Cold Mountain
Finding Nemo
In America
The Last Samurai
The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King**
Lost in Translation*
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World*
Mystic River*
Seabiscuit*

One of the downsides of having just 5 Best Picture nominees is when a relatively weak film slips through the cracks. The all-time greatest example was the nomination of The Towering Inferno for Best Picture in a year that also saw Chinatown, The Conversation, Lenny and, the eventual winner, The Godfather Part II nominated. Seabiscuit, while a good film, just didn't feel like it belonged with the rest of the group that was nominated. But when you add the other five, it seems a bit more legit.

Other Possibilities: The Barbarian Invasions, House of Sand and Fog

And the Best Picture nominees for 2004 Could Have Been.....

The Aviator*
Closer
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Finding Neverland*
Hotel Rwanda
The Incredibles
Million Dollar Baby**
Ray*
Sideways*
Vera Drake

Now THAT'S a Best Picture slate! Ten very different films on ten very different subjects. Even the biopics were very different in tone and style. It does go to show what an AMAZING job Pixar does with their films that they would have pulled consecutive Best Picture nominations, even with using the rules for choosing. I do, however, have a hard time believing Closer would have made this list, but it was nominated enough not to presume it wouldn't.

Other Possibilities: The Motorcycle Diaries

And the Best Picture nominees for 2005 Could Have Been.....

Brokeback Mountain*
Capote*
Cinderella Man
The Constant Gardener
Crash**
Good Night and Good Luck*
Memoirs of a Geisha
Munich*
Syriana
Walk the Line

A more well-rounded race, for sure. The Constant Gardener and Walk the Line had to have come close to getting nominated. In fact, if you had asked me what films were nominated in 2005, I probably would have guessed Walk the Line and not Munich. Cinderella Man and Memoirts of a Geisha, not so much. Syriana is kind of in between.

Other Possibilities: A History of Violence

And the Best Picture nominees for 2006 Could Have Been.....

Babel*
Blood Diamond
The Departed**
Dreamgirls
Letters from Iwo Jima*
Little Children
Little Miss Sunshine*
Notes on a Scandal
Pan's Labyrinth
The Queen*

I like that list a lot. And that's assuming other multiple nominees like An Inconvenient Truth or Children of Men didn't sneak in. A very competitive year, for sure.

Other Possibilities: Children of Men, An Inconvenient Truth, United 93

And the Best Picture nominees for 2007 Could Have Been.....

Atonement*
Away from Her
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Into the Wild
Juno*
Michael Clayton*
No Country for Old Men*
Ratatouille
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood*

This is one of the years where the ten nominations fail slightly. Not many of the Other Five pulled in more that 2-3 nominations in total. And the five that they did choose were pretty solid. This is definitely one of the years that support the argument of what it would look like if there weren't enough to fill out 10 slots.

Other Possibilities: Away from Her, La Vie en Rose, The Savages

And the Best Picture nominees for 2008 Could Have Been.....

The Changeling
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*
The Dark Knight
Doubt
Frost/Nixon*
Milk*
The Reader*
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire**
Wall-E

It's easy to write off the ten Best Picture nominee rule as being "The Dark Kinght Rule". But when you consider great films like Doubt (5 noms), Revolutionary Road (3 noms), and Wall-E (6 Noms), along with The Dark Knight (8 noms), one can't help but wonder just how close the voting was last year for Best Picture.

Other Possibilities: The Wrestler

It's Oscar Time Again!

2010-02-02T08:27:00.000-08:00

BEST PICTURE:

Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

THOUGHTS: I was one of the few who didn't think District 9 would be here. I was wrong. I WAS, however, one who thought The Hangover would be. Again, wrong. Eight of the ten were mortal locks. District 9 and A Serious Man were the toss ups. Crazy Heart, Invictus or The Messenger (judging by their presence in other categories) could have easily filled those slots. I certainly would've taken Invictus or The Messenger (and, of course, The Hangover) over District 9. A Serious Man is the only one I haven't seen yet. I would like to say this: People have said what a crappy year it was for movies. Not for me. Of the 9 nominees I've seen, I gave EIGHT of them an A or A-. (Gave District 9 a B) Not a bad year at all. The Hurt Locker, FTW!!!!!

BEST ACTOR:

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

THOUGHTS: None. Exactly as predicted. Jeff Bridges is a lock.

BEST ACTRESS:

Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia

THOUGHTS: Again, no surprises. Maybe Helen Mirren over Emily Blunt, but not a big surprise. Earlier, I predicted Meryl Streep would win since it's been 25 YEARS and her TWELFTH nomination since she last won. Her FIFTH nom in the last 10 years! But, no. Sandra Bullock is very popular in Hollywood and she just doesn't do "Oscar-worthy" very often. In my opinion, it shouldn't go to either of them. Watching Carey Mulligan in An Education was like watching Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. An enchanting, star making performance.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

THOUGHTS: Well, Damon and Plummer were surprises, I guess. I thought Damon sucked and I like Matt Damon as an actor. I was hoping for Anthony Mackie to be nominated for The Hurt Locker. But all the other nominations are irrelevant. Christoph Waltz will win. This is a case of a performance being called "Supporting" even though he's only called that because his name's not Brad Pitt. Practically the entire first 15 minutes are just Waltz talking.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Penelope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Mo'Nique, Precious

THOUGHTS: No real surprises here. Utter joy that the "Zoe Saldana should be nominated for Avatar" hype was exactly that. I would like to say that this SHOULD have been Vera Farmiga's third nomination. I loved her in The Departed and she stole Nothing but the Truth. Up in the Air was another role that seemed tailor made for her. And she'll lose. This award belongs to Mo'Nique.

BEST DIRECTOR:

Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Lee Daniels, Precious
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

THOUGHTS: ZERO surprises. If this had been a five nomination year for Best Picture, these would have been your nominees. Now that the Producers Guild and the Directors Guild have spoken, you will see the first woman to win Best Director. The woman who brought us Point Break. JOHNNY UTAH!!!!

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The Messenger
A Serious Man
Up

THOUGHTS: Excited to see the love for The Messenger. Terrific film. Won't win. Of the 8 major catergories, this one is the most exciting. It's a three horse race among The Hurt Locker, IB and Up. I think I predicted a Tarantino win here before, so I'll stick with that. It'll be the only chance to give a brilliant film some props.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

District 9
An Education
In the Loop
Precious
Up in the Air

THOUGHTS: District 9 was a small surprise. In the Loop was a HUGE one. Being the Oscar dork I am, I actually WHOOed in the car when I heard it called out. Props to the Academy for recognizing a movie that was seen by so few people, the MPAA didn't even give it a rating. That said, this will be Up in the Air's only win of the night.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The White Ribbon

THOUGHTS: Anyone else remember when there was talk of Harry Potter being nominated for Best Picture? Anyway, the most deserving film of the bunch is The Hurt Locker, although I haven't seen The White Ribbon. This is probably one of the few tech categories where Avatar could lose.

BEST FILM EDITING:

Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious

THOUGHTS: Precious is a shock! Small movies RARELY get nominated here. I could've taken guesses at the nominees for an hour before guessing Precious. I thought Up in the Air was done very well. And a year that also saw Harry Potter, Star Trek and Sherlock Holmes, it's even more surprising. But again, The Hurt Locker deserves it. Avatar will probably get it.

BEST ART DIRECTION:

Avatar
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Nine
Sherlock Holmes
The Young Victoria

THOUGHTS: Avatar.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN:

Bright Star
Coco Before Chanel
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Nine
The Young Victoria

THOUGHTS: I hate this category. Unless there's a movie nominated for Best Picture that has thousands of costumes, you never know who will win this. I mean, LOOK at this list! The only movie to even get a wide release was Nine. Screw it. Let's go with Nine. In my "Calling My Shot" posting, I picked Inglourious Basterds.

BEST MAKE UP:

Il Divo
Star Trek
The Young Victoria

THOUGHTS: None. I usually miss this one. I picked Avatar in the "Calling My Shot". I guess computer generated makeup still doesn't count. They must think it's a computer programmer who comes up with the look.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:

Avatar
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Hurt Locker
Sherlock Holmes
Up

THOUGHTS: Fantastic Mr. Fox was a pleasant surprise. I loved that film. This is the one category I disagree with nominating The Hurt Locker. The score, what little there is, feels like it was lifted right off the There Will Be Blood soundtrack. But I am excited for this category. Michael Giacchino will win the Oscar he should have won for The Incredibles. To go along with the Emmy he won for Lost. In my opinion, he's the best composer in film right now.

BEST SONG:

Crazy Heart
Nine
Paris 36
The Princess and the Frog
The Princess and the Frog

THOUGHTS: I HATE this category. Not because it's hard to pick, but because it shouldn't even exist. There used to be a category called Best Song Score. THAT, to me, made sense. Award a movie for having great songs, not a great song. It's would be like having a separate writing category for Best Line of Dialogue or a sound effect category for Best Use of the Wilhelm Scream (which would go to Up this year. You don't expect a Wilhelm Scream to come from a dog.) Crazy Heart will win this. At least it's easy this year.

BEST SOUND MIXING:

Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Transfomers 2

THOUGHTS: Why the face?! ANOTHER year without a nomination for 20-time nominee, never winner Kevin O'Connell?! He hasn't gone this long without being nominated since the Drought of '93-'95. Apparently, the Academy didn't like how Public Enemies sounded. Perhaps he'll be back next year for his work on Prince of Persia. Or not. Avatar deserves this one and will win.

BEST SOUND EDITING:

Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Up

THOUGHTS: Avatar will win. The Hurt Locker deserves it.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:

Avatar
District 9
Star Trek

THOUGHTS: If there was EVER a category that was so unquestionably going to a particular movie, it's this one. 100% to Avatar. The ONLY reason there's even another nominee is because the voters had to pick three. I doubt even the people who worked on the other films would have voted against Avatar.

BEST ANIMATED PICTURE:

Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells
Up

THOUGHTS: Gee. Let's see. One of these films was actually nominated for Best Picture. So, I pick the Secret of Kells. Kidding. I'd never actually heard of that one until this morning. I didn't care for Coraline. Haven't seen the P & the F yet. But I will say this: I liked The Fantastic Mr. Fox ALMOST as much as I liked Up. But Up will win and deservedly so.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

Ajami
Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (The White Ribbon)
El secreto de sus ojos
Un prophète
La teta asustada

THOUGHTS: It's rare when I've actually seen one of these and 2009 was no exception. When filling out your ballots on Oscar night, go with the one that's been nominated outside of the catergory. I choose the White Ribbon since my pick in "Calling My Shot" wasn't even nominated.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:

Burma VJ: Reporter i et lukket land
The Cove
Food, Inc.
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers
Which Way Home

THOUGHTS: Like the foreign language category, it's rare when I've seen one of these, much less two. The Cove and Food, Inc. are the two heavy weights, but I can't imagine The Cove losing, barring some scandal that it was faked in any way. If you haven't seen The Cove, go rent it. It's a documentary that was more exciting to watch than the last Indiana Jones and a VERY important message.

HAPPIEST SURPRISE: In the Loop for Adapted Screenplay

UNHAPPIEST SURPRISE: The Hangover for NOTHING

NOM THAT MADE ME YELL "WHY THE FACE?!": Matt Damon for Invictus

MOST BEWILDERING SNUB: An Education for Best Costume Design. Those clothes were just cool.

P.S. I don't actually say "Why the face?" For the purposes of writing a family friendly blog, I just prefer to not actually say WTF?

Movie Review: Avatar - A-

2009-12-20T21:34:00.000-08:00

Who's In It: Sam Worthington (and his dog, Spot), Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana.

What It's About: It's the year 2154 and people still make references to the Wizard of Oz and the War in Iraq. The evil American military-industrial complex sends an obviously Australian marine to infiltrate and learn the ways of a group of people, who are so enlightened they apologize to their food for eating it.

What I Was Expecting: It's James Cameron. I expect bang for my buck, visuals like I've never seen and dialogue that causes physical pain to my ears.

What I Got: Everything except the last part. Okay, there were a few zingers from James Cameron, who apprarently learned to write dialogue by watching Ed Wood movies. But, in general, it's not too bad. Or I was just so dumbfounded by what I was seeing on screen, I didn't notice. I have never seen anything like this film. This film should not even be shown in 2-D. There's no point. It was obviously made to be seen in 3-D. And it's the 3-D effect where Cameron really shows his genius. Most 3-D movies focus on having things come at the screen. Cameron focused on moving things away. It was brilliant how many times there would be a character or two up front and how much movement there would be some 50 feet behind them. That is what makes it seem like things are happening right in front of you. As for the rest of the movie, as brilliant and inventive as the film is visually, plot wise, it's just okay. There is not a single, non-cliche character in the film. The performances are just passable as well. Sam Worthington apparently learned to do an American accent by watching Russell Crowe movies. I did like Giovanni Ribisi, but I liked his character much better when Paul Reiser played him in Aliens. Overall, the film is an experience and needs to be seen in 3-D, in a theatre.

Grade: A-

Oscar Potential: This film will get a lot of Oscar love. Nominations for Picture and Director, for sure. And the technical awards, just check them all off. How many it will actually win is a different story. Visual effects and the sound categories. But that may be it.

Five Random Thoughts:

1. I wonder how much screen time actual actors must have in a movie to make it not qualify as an animated film. Or is it that the animation looks so real in Avatar that you forget that minutes go by where you don't see anything not created with a computer.

2. Invoking Rule 34 on the Na'vi in three...two...one..... (If you don't know Rule 34, google it.)

3. Any particular reason why the 3-D glasses look like Wayfairers?

4. They invent an entire language for this film, create all kinds of new species and the best sound they could come up with for the horse-like creature is an actual horse? And the best name they could think of for the Na'vi home tree is "The Hometree"?

5. James Horner should be shot for the score at the end of the film. If you've written one of the most recognizable film scores in recent memory, you don't rip it off. And it was an emotional moment and I found myself singing along to it, "Near...far...."

Trailer Park:

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief: I've reviewed this same trailer before, but it was the first time that I recognized the kid playing Percy as the kid from 3:10 to Yuma and the TV series Jack & Bobby.

Salt: Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Wait a second. Hasn't Angelina Jolie been nominated a couple of times for Oscar recently? What on earth is she doing making this crap? The problem with coming up with such an awful title for a film: No one will forget it. You couldn't change it at this point.

The Book of Eli: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman....and Mila Kunis? Malcolm X, Beethoven and...Meg Griffin? Okay, I'm game. Looks great.

Alice in Wonderland: I'd seen this trailer on the internet before and I didn't think much of it. Now that I've seen it in 3-D, it looks amazing.

Despicable Me: I've reviewed this one a couple times as well. Had no idea this one was also in 3-D. Looks fun. Especially with THAT cast.

Shrek Forever After: I hated this trailer. I hate this title. When have you ever heard "forever after" in a fairy tale. And what happened to the original title "Shrek Goes Fourth"? Well, if it makes me laugh once, it'll be better than Shrek the Third.

Revisiting Titanic

2009-12-20T09:57:00.000-08:00

Box office numbers are news under two circumstances. When a movie's opening is huge or its budget is.

Back on December 19, 1997, the most expensive movie up to that point was released. There had been a lot of noise about Titanic's budget, a whopping $200 million. And that's before marketing. It was estimated that Titanic would have to pull in over a half billion dollars worldwide before it even sniffed making a profit. Considering that it was an epic romance, people were questioning the studios' judgment in taking such a risk. There had only been 8 eight movies at that point to pull in that kind of money and six of them featured either aliens (E.T., Star Wars, Independence Day, Men in Black) or dinosaurs (Jurassic Park, Lost World). The other two were The Lion King and Forrest Gump. Titanic, on the other hand, did not have the names Lucas, Spielberg, Disney, Smith or Hanks attached to it. (Side note: Considering Jeff Goldblum starred in 3 of those, why isn't he a bigger star?)

Leonardo DiCaprio was not a household name. Kate Winslet did have an Oscar nomination under her belt, but wasn't exactly a big ticket seller. Who was the biggest name actor in Titanic? Billy Zane? Kathy Bates? Bill Paxton? Not what you would call star wattage. No, the biggest name attached to Titanic was James Cameron. A name that has been mentioned for too many times in his career with the phrase, "most expensive movie ever made." With the release of Avatar, I think this is the fourth time in his career he's held that distinction. Oh, the good old days when people screamed bloody murder over The Abyss' $80 million budget.

People forget that opening weekend for Titanic. You'll hear it mentioned on the news over the next 24 hours, Avatar's $73 million opening and what it means. How it was the second biggest December opening ever (ironically, Will Smith owns that record too.) But it's funny how people don't remember Titanic's opening weekend numbers. Titanic also had the second biggest December opening. Not of all time. Of 1997. The biggest December opening of 1997 happened the week before with a $32 million opening weekend for Scream 2. Titanic opened with $28 million. And executives at Fox and Paramount were panicking. A $28 million opening usually means a domestic box office of about $100 million. $100 million domestic usually means about $150 foreign. $250 worldwide means the studio will get about $125 million. And when you're movie cost $200 million to make and about $100 million to market, a $125 million return on a $300 million investment will NOT please your shareholders. Those kind of numbers end careers and sometimes entire studios. And when you're huge budget movie barely beats the new James Bond (Tomorrow Never Dies opened at $25 million), you're kind of screwed.

Then something interesting happened. You see, Titanic did $28 million over 3 days. That's just under $10 million a day. Now, when a movie makes $28 million in its opening weekend, it usually makes the same the over the four days following. Then in weekend #2, the movie will do about half what it made its first weekend. Theoretically, by the end of weekend #2, Titanic would have made around $70 million. By December 28, Titanic had made $88 million. Nearly 20% higher than expected based on the opening weekend. And things were looking up.

Neither Titanic's first or second weekends were anything extraordinary. Weekend #3 is STILL the fifth highest 3rd weekend of all-time. And on top of that, Titanic made $70 million the Monday-Sunday after weekend #2. Yes, all of a sudden, Titanic was averaging $10 million a day. Weekend #3 was actually $5 million HIGHER than opening weekend. That was unheard of.

Weekend #4? The highest 4th weekend of all time at $28.7 million. But Monday through Sunday, Titanic only made $40 million. A huge slowdown, probably because kids were back in school. The film still hadn't crossed the $200 million plateau.

Well, it didn't take the kids long to head back to Titanic. Weekend #5 (again, the biggest ever) saw Titanic back above $30 million again. To put it in perspective, the second highest grossing film of all-time, The Dark Knight, did $16 million in its fifth weekend when the average ticket price was $3 higher! That's how huge Titanic was at the time. Even with school back in, the Monday-Sunday was nearly $50 million.

Titanic also holds the record for:
Weekend #6 ($25.2 million. 2nd place? The Sixth Sense with $16.5)
Weekend #7 ($25.9 million, it went UP. 2nd place? Passion of the Christ at $15.2)
Weekend #8 ($23.0., followed by Home Alone, $12.6)
Weekend #9 ($32.8 million, Valentine's Day weekend, Home Alone in 2nd again with $9.8) Weekend #10 ($21.0 million, Slumdog Millionaire is #2 with $12.0)
Weekend #11 ($19.6, finally a weekend below $20 million. My Big Fat Greek Wedding is #2 with $8.4)
Weekend #12 ($17.6, Home Alone in 2nd again with $8.2)

They don't really keep track beyond that since most films don't remain in theaters much longer than 3 months. But considering Titanic was still doing better than $10 million per weekend for another FOUR weeks, it's unlikely any film even challenges it. Titanic's final weekend above $10 million was also it's first weekend where it wasn't number one at the box office, losing out to Lost in Space. Which holds a similar distinction to being the one who beat Ken Jennings. No one remembers who beat Titanic, just that it was eventually beaten.

Another amazing statistic about Titanic's numbers: To make it on the list of the biggest 12th week grosses, a film would need to make $3.5 million. That's in week TWELVE. The first weekend that Titanic DIDN'T make that much was in week number TWENTY-TWO! That's two and a half months later! By then, Titanic had made $577 million in the U.S. alone. That's over $100 million more than Star Wars and the Special Edition made combined. And the sick part is that Titanic went on to make ANOTHER $23 million before finally going away. $600 million in the U.S. alone. $1.8 BILLION worldwide. To this day, the second biggest worldwide gross (Lord of the Rings: Return of the King) is over $700 million short of James Cameron's bohemoth.

Titanic.

The only movie to break the $600 million barrier. Until The Dark Knight last year, the only movie to even break $500 million. If Titanic had sold the same number of tickets for the price that people paid to see The Dark Knight, it would have made $921 million at the box office.

When people say something is of "Titanic proportions", I can't help but wonder if they're referring to the boat or the movie.

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker

2009-08-02T16:59:00.000-07:00

Who's In It: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty and a dozen other actors you've never heard of. In fact, there's only 4 actors I even recognized.

What It's About: A bomb specialist defuses bombs around Baghdad with the 2 soldiers assigned to protect him.

What I Was Expecting: A lot of Oscar buzz for this film, but it's directed by Kathryn Bigelow, whose claim to fame is friggin' "Point Break." I went in very skeptical.

What I Got: A war film with the tension cranked up so high, I actually found myself closing my eyes because you knew something bad was going to happen. The film is unbelievably intense. It is similar in a sense to the brilliant "Black Hawk Down". The major difference between the films is that in BHD, the characters got trapped in a horrific situation and were simply trying to escape. In "The Hurt Locker", the characters walk into those situations willingly and repeatedly. Another aspect that makes this film so brilliant is that it doesn't pretend to know why, but seems to be looking for the same answer the audience wants to know. There's no real plot in this film. Much like "Platoon", it just follows these soldiers around during their last 40 days or so of their tour in Iraq. But unlike "Platoon", this is not a message picture. It's a character study. The performances are flawless. In fact, the only flaw in the film is when it tries to establish some sort of plot involving an Iraqi boy, but it doesn't dwell too long on it thankfully. Looking at what else is coming out this year, it's quite possible this is the best film we will see in 2009. It would be very hard to top.

Grade: A

Oscar Potential: At the moment, this is the film to beat. Expect nominations, if not wins, for Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, Score, Cinematography, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Effects Editing. In fact, I would say the last three are locks to win.

Five Random Thoughts:

1. I love how this film refuses to follow The Law of Economy of Characters. That means that, cameos aside, if there's an actor you recognize, he/she must be important to the story. This film has Guy Pearce, David Morse, Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly and none of them could be less essential to the film. They have one, maybe two scenes each.

2. The score is excellent, even if it sounds like a carbon copy of the score from "There Will Be Blood."

3. They should show this film at things like the X Games. Recruitment would go up for thrill seekers.

4. I love how finding out who is planting all these bombs is inessential to the film. All that matters is that the bomb be disarmed.

5. I was REALLY hoping for an explanation of what a hurt locker is.

Trailer Park:

Taking Woodstock: It's Ang Lee, so I guess he gets the benefit of the doubt, but this film looks lousy. Soundtrack should be good though.

The Time Traveler's Wife: I wish they'd have done something with this trailer that would make me think it's not as formulaic as it looks.

Shutter Island: This trailer would be MUCH more effective if it had told us less. Looks creepy though.

Sorority Row: I Know What You Did Last Semester? (Eyes rolling.)

Movie Review: Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince

2009-07-26T08:37:00.000-07:00

Who's in It: All the Harry Potter regulars plus Jim Broadbent

What It's About: Surprisingly, this is actually the one film in the series that ISN'T about someone trying to kill Harry.

What I Was Expecting: Let's see. It's the SIXTH film in the series, so basically, I was expecting to see how ugly the once cute kids have gotten over the last two years.

What I Got: To be honest, I'm torn. As Harry matures, so do the films. Much less focus on the action, which might explain the attack on the Weasley house, which I don't recall being in the book. Nothing had gone BOOM in a while, so.... For me, the film is paced brilliantly. The scenes that aren't all that important are short and usually montage-like. The scenes that do matter are fleshed out and take their time. Quite the opposite of, say, "The Prisoner of Azkaban" which feels like a 150 minute montage on repeat viewings. The students in this film are allowed to play to their strengths. Daniel Radcliffe, who keeps getting better, carries the film nicely. Emma Watson, who seems to get worse with each film, seems to just get a scene here and there. The kid playing Ron might as well have sat this one out. He wasn't very good, but he wasn't given much to work with anyway.

Grade: A-

Oscar Potential: With the new rules, Oscar potential is huge. If it's a weak year, it will not be shocking to actually see a Best Picture nod. It won't be a contender since there won't be any nods for directing, acting or writing. Editing, Cinematography and Sound are possibilities. Oddly, there's very few special effects.

Five Random Thoughts:

It was really nice to see Alan Rickman being used more often in this one, although there is not one single scene showing Snape teach Defense of the Dark Arts. Harry's inability to silently cast spells was interesting to me and I was a little disappointed to see it left out.
I hope they are shooting Maggie Smith's scenes first for the last two films. She looks like can't be with us much longer. For those not in the know, Deathly Hallows will be split into two .
How has screenwriter Steve Kloves not lost his mind yet? It's one thing for J.K. Rowling to have written the seven books. It's another thing to basically spend 10 years rewriting someone else's work. I can't help but wonder how many times he must have called Rowling to scream "If I'd known that would matter, I would've written it in 4 movies ago!"
By the end of the series, David Yates will have directed half of them. Will he have any career after the series is over? Both his films feel like Rowling is on the set saying "This is how it should look" and Yates just runs around the set with a camera. It's not directed badly, just not very creatively. Of course, the same could be said about the first two films.
Why did John Williams walk away from the series? Yes, I know he left after the third film. Just curious why.

Trailer Park:

2012 – Another mega disaster film (figuratively and literally) from ~~Irwin Allen~~ Roland Emmerich, who brought us Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow (Irwin Allen is responsible for 70s disaster classics like The Towering Inferno, Airport and The Poseidon Advernture). Who the hell knows what the actual plot will be of this one other than that ancient civilizations were right and the world is ending? Looks horribly stupid and I will be seeing it opening night, since my one true guilty pleasure in film is crappy disaster film. I can't get enough of them.

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief - Can I just say I look forward to the day when there is once again economy in film titles? Anyway, this was little more than a teaser that presumes the viewer has even heard of these books. Apparently, it's like a Harry Potter meets Greek mythology in modern day New York. Okay. I'm game. Right until the words "Directed by Chris Columbus." Sorry. Not gonna see it.

Despicable Me - It's a little daring to preview a movie starring Steve Carrell and not include any of his scenes. If the trailer is any indication, too much set up for too weak of a punchline. Although the Keith Olberman bit is cute.

Sherlock Holmes - Why do I feel like I've written about this one 100 times? Come to think of it....where are all my other reviews? Hmmmm..... I think Guy Ritche is capable, if not consistent. Curious to see how it's handled. My one major concern is the girl floating with the pentagram in the background. I hope the plot involves occult and not the supernatural.

Shorts - Well, the kids in the audience thought this was cute and got quite a few giggles. Just not any from me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xJRjKyCM4

Where the Wild Things Are - It's been 30 years since I've read the book and I can't remember a single detail about it. Possibly because I grew up in a Norman Rockwell home. My friends whose parents split when they were young or had traumatic childhoods remember every bit of it. It looks fascinating to me. It's certainly been a long time coming.

A Whole Blog Posting, Shot to Hell

2009-07-03T12:25:00.000-07:00

The day after the Oscars, I posted my annual Oscar bliss blog and made my predix for the following year. Obviously, since then, the ~~movie industry decided to capatalize on the free advertising of a nomination~~ Academy decided to expand the number of Best Picture nominees from 5 to 10. Something I lovingly call "The Dark Knight Rule." My previous picks were as follows:

1. Nine
2. The Informant
3. The Lovely Bones
4. Untitled Clint Eastwood (now titled "Invictus")
5. The Boat That Rocked

with the alternates of:
1. Inglourious Basterds
2. The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
3. The Road
4. Stutter Island
5. Away We Go

We're just over halfway into the movie year, most of those movies have yet to be released and already, there's obvious changes to be made. Unfortunately, not because great movies have been released. Starting at the bottom, "Away We Go" got some great reviews, but has been soon forgotten. The trailer for "Stutter Island" makes the film look mediocre at best. The buzz is still strong for "The Road." "Kavalier & Clay" still hasn't started production. And, unless QT makes a major save, "Inglourious Basterds" will not leave much of a mark.

Moving on to my gut instinct picks, "The Boat That Rocked" has already been released in most other countries and has gotten decent reviews, but whether that translates to U.S. appeal remains to be seen. "Invictus" is a question mark, just like "Million Dollar Baby" was a few years back. I'm still liking "Lovely Bones" chances, along with "Nine", even if it does look like "Chicago Part II". "The Informant" looks like a terrific film, sort of like a "Thank You for Smoking" about corn.

This may not sound like a lot of changes, especially since I still consider four of my five picks to still be serious contenders. But it's the OTHER six nominees that are going to throw people for a loop. If there aren't 10 "serious" films to consider, where are the other nominations going to go. THAT'S where things get interesting. What you are likely to begin to see are movies that people "loved", as opposed to "respected". Pixar's "Up" is likely to benefit from the new rules and that was everyone's first comment. But there are other non-Best Picture type films that could slip in. There's even talk about a movie like "The Hangover" slipping in if it's a particularly weak year. Something people really enjoyed. There's some buzz that J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" is a strong possibility, particularly since the DVD should be out around Christmas and hitting F5 on the voters' memory. Even the early buzz on the latest "Harry Potter" has people wondering if it could sneak in. But let's SERIOUSLY look at that for a moment.

It January 2010. The day of the nominations. And the nominees for Best Picture are...(Do me a favor and read this OUT LOUD)

Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
The Informant
Invictus
Lovely Bones
Nine
The Road
Sherlock Holmes
Star Trek

If THAT were the list, any takers that a 10 nomination list would be a one year and out deal?

The big problem is that this was simply the wrong year to try it out. While there are a few Oscar winning directors putting out films this year (Scorsese, Coppola, Eastwood, Jackson, Cameron, Howard, the Coen brothers, Ang Lee, Mendes, Zemeckis), for the most part, outside of Eastwood and Jackson, they aren't doing Oscar type films.

Wow. I keep re-reading that list of directing firepower and can't BELIEVE only two of them are doing films worth considering for an Oscar list. Okay, Mendes did "Away We Go", probably to cheer up from the uber-depressing "Revolutionary Road" and Zemeckis' take on "A Christmas Carol" with Jim Carrey and Gary Oldman does sound intriguing. But Scorsese is doing strange thriller. Coppola is doing whatever the hell he wants and who cares if anyone else cares. Cameron is probably either going to kill his career forever or establish himself as a total visionary. Howard did "Angels and Demons". 'nuff said. The Coen brothers seem to be remaking "You, Me & Dupree". Ang Lee is getting awful notices for his Woodstock film. All we need is Spielberg and Polanski and it's every Best Director winner of the last 15 years. This year should have been better. But it's not. And trying to come up with an additional 5 Best Picture nominees will be a stretch.

What they should have done is changed Best Picture to be more like the new rules for Best Song. In order for a song to be nominated, it must received at least 8.5 percent of the vote. Make it 20 percent for picture and I'm there. Remember, they pick 5 on their ballots, so 20 percent is not too hard. But it will make it a LOT more interesting. There could theoretically be as many as 25 Best Picture nominees, if each received the exact same number of votes. Let's see the Oscar prognosticators try and guess who would win there.

Right now, I'm just hoping "Avatar" bombs and Kathryn Bigelow's rides the huge wave of buzz for "The Hurt Locker" and sweeps so she can give Cameron the finger from the podium and apologize for making "Point Break".

Post Oscar Bliss

2009-02-25T09:10:00.001-08:00

Another Oscar ceremony, another Post Oscar Bliss blog.

For the first time since 1993, my favorite movie of a given year won Best Picture. If you haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire, you are missing out on what could be one of the best films of the decade. And after you see that, go check out Danny Boyle's other films, especially Millions, 28 Days Later and Sunshine. He's on quite a roll.

I agreed with most every one of the winner's so I won't break down each category. Even the ones I didn't necessarily agree with (Best Actor), I'm cool with the pick.

The show itself was okay. The last musical number was totally pointless. Just an excuse to have Zac Efron on the show, I suppose. Hugh Jackman was a decent host. The presenters were good for the most part except for the pinhead from Twilight and bimbo from Mamma Mia, who gave the evening the most boring and excruciating moment.

SO....on to next year.....

Your 2009 Best Picture nominees are (or will be)......

1. Nine

Yes, even with Fergie in the cast. Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) is making the film version of the Tony-winning musical based on the Oscar winning film 8 1/2. The script is by the late Anthony Minghella and Michael Tolkin (The Player). And the cast includes six, count 'em, SIX Academy Award winners. Daniel Day-Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren and Marion Cotillard. Not to mention a director who made a Best Picture winner and an Oscar-winning cinematographer (Yes, that's important), Art Director and probably Marshall's usual Oscar-winning film editor too. There's so much pedigree behind this film, it's tough to imagine this not being right up Oscar's alley.

2. The Informant

The Academy LOVES movies about whistle blowers and people who fight big business. This one is a Steven Soderbergh (Traffic, Erin Brockovich) film with Matt Damon as the VP of an agriculture giant who rats his company out to feds for price fixing. AND it's a comedy, albeit, a dark one a la the Coen brothers. Just playing a hunch on this one.

3. The Lovely Bones

Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings, King Kong) is filming the popular novel about a girl watching over her family from heaven. Two Oscar winners (Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon), two nominees (Mark Wahlberg and Atonement's Saoirse Ronan) and "how hasn't he been nominated" Stanley Tucci are your starts. Plus, it's got a December time slot.

4. Untitled Clint Eastwood

Well, if Gandhi is Best Picture material, why not Mandela? Clint Eastwood is on such an incredible roll right now. I suggested before, go look at his imdb and check out what a decade he's having. And why not Morgan Freeman as Mandela. And Matt Damon as the South Africa rugby captain! Yes, you read that right. That's not a joke. The film is about the newly elected Mandela trying to unify the country through South Africa's run at 1995 rugby World Cup. A political sports movie? Why the hell not?

5. The Boat That Rocked

Okay. A couple of years ago, I was dead wrong when I predicted Richard Curtis would strike Oscar gold with Love Actually. After all, he'd defined himself as the master of the English romantic comedy. He wrote Four Weddings..., Notting Hill and both Bridget Jones movies. This time, he's still doing the romance, placing it in a historical context, focusing on a tidbit of English music history. The boat in the title was, quite literally, a pirate radio station that was estimated to have as many as 25 million listeners, more than half the population of England. If nothing else, the soundtrack is going to be incredible.

Honorable Mention:

1. Inglorious Basterds - Here's to hoping Quentin Tarantino has escaped from genre hell. I liked Kill Bill and Death Proof, but enough is enough. It's getting an August release, so I wouldn't hold my breath. But if it is good, expect it to carry over to Oscar season.

2. The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay - Stephen Daldry. The dude seems to get nominated for breathing. 3 movies, 3 nominations. With so much focus on movies based on comic books, how about a movie ABOUT comic books. Kavalier and Clay created a superhero called The Escapist and "ushered in the golden age of comics." This might have been higher, but there's rumors of budget problems.

3. The Road - The Academy doesn't usually go for many post-apocalyptic thrillers, but this one does have Viggo Mortenson, Robert Duvall and Charlize Theron and it's a Pulitzer prize winning novel. We'll see.

4. Shutter Island - Dennis LeHane novels have been doing well at the Oscars. As has Martin Scorsese. But has it been too many trips to the well?

5. Away We Go - This one looks to be a lighter comedy which is a little shocking given that it's directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty) and written by Dave Eggers (A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius). Plus it's got a summer release. I'm kind of scraping the barrel here. There just aren't that many standout movies announced for this year. We will see.

Until next year.....

Movie Review: "Smart People"

2008-04-11T05:46:00.000-07:00

Who's in It: Dennis William Quaid, Thomas Haden Church, Sarah Jessica Parker and Ellen Philpotts Page

What It's About: Widowed professor tries to sell his book. Widowed professor flirts with former student, now his doctor. Widowed professor's loser adopted brother moves in to be his chaffeur. Widowed professor's daughter does a lot of things that aren't really important to the plot. In fact, not much happens that feels very relevant to anything.

What I Was Expecting: First time director. First time writer. Good cast. Trailer looked amusing.

What I Got: A disjointed mess. This film jumps around like you wouldn't believe. I threw out 3 of the storylines above and I can think of another 4 or 5 that they tried to squeeze in a 95 minute film. Some storylines are only hinted at in a scene or two and never addressed again (i.e., Sarah Jessica Parker's relationship problem). It seems to realize that the drama isn't all that dramatic and the humor isn't all that funny. So, when there's not much going on and it's not really going anywhere, they show us Church's bare ass. Audience chuckles. And here's the odd thing. The film is never boring even though it's never all that interesting. None of the plots and subplots are ever fleshed out into a real story. In fact, the film gives you the impression that there is a terrific 2 1/2 hour film sitting on a cutting room floor somewhere. I didn't like this movie as is, but if I hear about a much longer Director's Cut, I will definitely check it out.

Grade: D+

Oscar Potential: Zero. But it is the kind of film that the costumes subtly tell you a lot about the characters, but not the kind of costumes the Academy pays attention to.

Five Random Thoughts:

I can't help but wonder how much this film is hurt by the presence of Ellen Page. Her performance is just fine, but I think with the success of "Juno", the film was re-edited to beef up her part, when her part wasn't all that necessary to begin with.
I have zero idea what the time frame of the film is, it appears to be over the course of months, but Sarah Jessica Parker, who gets pregnant at the beginning of the film, never shows.
In reverse of the Ellen Page scenario, the part of her brother, I imagine, was probably a bigger part. It seems as if there was a stronger story with the son who writes poetry and the dad who is an English Lit professor. They don't go too deep into it.
There is one great moment in the film towards the end. Church instructs Quaid to tell Parker, "I'm sorry. I love you." When Quaid finally says it, it's said as just one sentence, "I'm sorry I love you." It says volumes about the Quaid character at that moment and is about the only subtle moment in the film. It shows his guilt over being such a pain in the ass. As if to say, "I'm sorry to do this to you. I know being in your life will make you miserable at times, but as long as I'm there, I won't be miserable too." And they did it in 5 words.
Quaid's performance is all over the place. Sometimes great, as in the line just described. Sometimes you wonder if he's playing some sort of crazy recluse, Maybe he is, but it doesn't quite fit.

Trailer Park:

Blindness – If this film is half as good as the trailer looks, it could very well upend the Oscars this year because it's about as non-Oscar as you get. The director of "City of God" and "The Constant Gardener" does this film about a woman (Julianne Moore) who fakes being inflicted with a virus that causes blindness, a virus that inflicts her entire town in one night, in order to take care of her husband (Mark Ruffalo). The dramatic potential is huge as the people who can see are shipped off to safety from the virus. The blind are left to fend for themselves. The book it's based on is by a Pulitzer Prize winner who is known for his allegorical work, so it's potential to be something really deep, and given the director, it probably is.

Movie Review: "The Bank Job"

2008-03-21T08:20:00.000-07:00

Who's in It: Jason Statham, Saffron Burrows and Daniel Mays (who I recognized from Atonement, but spent the whole movie wondering where I knew him from.)

What It's About: The title pretty much says it all.

What I Was Expecting: Given that it's Jason Statham, I was assuming that it was going to be a heist film version of "Transporter".

What I Got: Something very unlike the "Transporter" films. In fact, there's only one fight scene in the whole film and it seems totally out of place when it happens. The movie is actually a surprise. It's well acted. It's never obvious. It's not perfect by a long shot. But very good and never boring. There's a long scene in which the police learn a bank robbery is occurring, but only have a vague idea what part of London in which it's taking place. And how our "heroes" manage to escape is truly inspired and unexpected. A few too many sideplots. I could have done without the undercover agent in Trinidad. I don't know how much of the film really happened, but it would be hilarious if it did happen that way.

Grade: B

Oscar Potential: None. The art direction isn't bad though.

Five Random Thoughts:

There are several stories going on at the beginning. Stay with it. They all tie in together.
Holy crap. Jason Statham can act!
Lots of actors you recognize but can't quite place. Ignore it and go to imdb later.
Stay for epilogue. There's an amusing title card at the end. For those who don't plan on seeing the movie, highlight between the arrows. >>>The names of the people in this film have been changed to protect the guilty.<<<<< It's a shame there wasn't more of that humor in the film itself.

Trailer Park:

Shutter – I know with every fiber of my being that this film will be crap, but man, did that trailer give me the creeps.

Ruins - I've been hearing rumors that this one is really well done. Have to wait and see. Creepy trailer.

Forbidden Kingdom - This movie is either going to really suck or it's going to get a huge following. This trailer kinda made me think the latter.

Midnight Meat Train - My jaw dropped when they gave the title. Followed by hysterical laughter. Number of Clive Barker movies that were any good: ZERO. That Brooke Shields was the best they could get for a lead, says VOLUMES!

Movie Review: "Be Kind Rewind"

2008-03-04T09:43:00.000-08:00

Who's in It: Jack Black, Mos Def and Danny Glover

What It's About: Two video store clerks recreate movies for customers after an accident erases all the tapes.

What I Was Expecting: Not much, to be honest. Sort of seemed like a one-joke film.

What I Got: A movie that knows it really only has one joke, so it tries to keep improving on the joke to some degree of success. The film takes a little too long to start telling the joke and goes on a little too long after the joke is done. But the ending did get to me a little bit. It's similar in tone and pace to last year's "Lars and the Real Girl". Jack Black is reigned in a bit from his usual manic self. He actually seems to be playing a part at first, but starts to stray towards the end. Mos Def gives a more genuine performance. Danny Glover reminds the audience that he can still deliver a good performance, even in a pimple of a part. The recreations of other movies are consistently funny and clever in how to reenact scenes on no-budget. Might have been more interesting to see a Kentucky Fried Movie style film of the two of them redoing more films.

Grade: C+

Oscar Potential: Zero, but art is not really what's being aimed for here.

Five Random Thoughts:

The film opens with a LOUSY special effects shot as the camera swoops down into the town. It's very obvious the freeway isn't there and the cars frequently changing lanes aren't real.
Mos Def should be hired more often. The range in doing Ford Prefect in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and this role here proves he has a lot of talent and, more importantly, pathos.
Are Mos Def and Jack Black supposed to be slow or are they actually disabled?
Why is Mia Farrow here? Are her children Danny Glover's?

5. The subplot involving Sigourney Weaver's character is not only pointless, but completely unrealistic. If what Def and Black are doing is copyright infringement, why do Bunny Theatre and Thumb Wars get away with it?

Trailer Park:

Never Back Down – Thankfully, the title is practically advertising that this is a film devoid of thought and should be avoided.

Run Fatboy Run - I was a little lost as to what this film was supposed to be about. I've read a plot synopsis and am even more confused. But it's got Simon Pegg and I'll go with it.

Get Smart - Lord, they need a new trailer.

Baby Mama - Tina Fey's new comedy comes out April 25, just before the summer movie season launches. A real shame. If they'd bumped it up a month, they could have ruled the box office for all of April and made $150 million. The trailer looks hilarious.

Sex and the City - I'm a fan of the show. I'll see it the first weekend. I just don't see how this will be little more than an elongated episode of the show. We will see.

Movie Review: "The Other Boleyn Girl"

2008-02-27T19:49:00.000-08:00

Who's in It: Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Eric Bana

What It's About: Anne and Mary Boleyn battle for the love of Henry VIII.

What I Was Expecting: Besides the historical inaccuracy of the previous statement, I really had no expectations. It was written by the same guy who wrote “The Queen” and “The King of Scotland”.

What I Got: Oh, Lord. Where do I start? Natalie Portman's back and forth between English aristocrat and Cockney accents? The mind-numbingly short scenes? The BIG laughs from the audience during scenes that should have been heartbreaking? (Note to wannabe filmmakers: incest in dramas shouldn't draw massive guffaws from the viewer.) The Portman comment pretty much speaks for itself. The brevity of the scenes was something that I noticed right off the bat. It was making me crazy to the point that about 10 minutes into the film, I actually started counting how many lines were in each scene. Here's a typical scene: Character #1 says something, usually a question. Character #2 responds with something significant to the plot. And...scene. For the curious, the longest scene I counted was 13 lines, during the trial of Anne Boleyn, and 12 of the lines were “GUILTY!”(sorry for spoiling the movie for those who slept through history class who didn't know Henry VII had 6 more wives after Anne.) As far as the laughs go, yeah, the incest scene really did not work. Anne's life was on the line and didn't see any other choice. She had just lost Henry's potential heir and needed to get pregnant fast. So why NOT turn to your brother? At that point, I started to wonder, “Is this MEANT to be funny?” I really don't think it was, but much like a lot of other dramatic moments in the film, it was met with much laughter. So if BAD movies make you break out in hysterics, this just might be the film for you.

Grade: D

Oscar Potential: Zero. Might even get some razzie consideration.

Five Random Thoughts:

ADCD: Attention Deficit Costume Drama. It's like watching an adaptation of the Table of Contents of the Cliff's Notes of the book.
I'm not sure if getting Portman or Johansson to go nude would've helped, but it sure as hell wouldn't have hurt.
The best line during the film: the woman behind me during Anne's beheading, “You know, I think this might be a true story.” The woman was around 45.
The second best line: Me to my wife as Anne is pouring a glass of water before climbing into bed with her brother, “Honey, I think you're gonna need something a lot stronger than that.”
Funny how after Eric Bana's bed scene with Johansson, he actually looks bored in the film.

Trailer Park:

Made of Honor – I'm not all that big on the McDreamy chick flicks, but this one looks pretty funny.

Movie Review: "No Country for Old Men"

2007-12-03T06:51:00.000-08:00

What It's About: A low income Texan finds a LOT of drug money.

What I Was Expecting: You know, it's the Coen brothers. Expectations have been really high since "Fargo." Given that many of the reviews called it the "best film this year." Yeah, I'd say my expectations were pretty high.

What I Got: And my expectations were exceeded. I still can't decide whether or not I liked this better than "Fargo". How about this? There are moments in this one that are better than anything in "Fargo", but "Fargo" was better. Now, that's a cop out. Not really. This actually would've been the better film if it ended when the plot did, but it goes on for another 20 or so minutes. I mean, it just meanders. When the whole movie has focused on the plight of one character, it's not the best idea to spend so much time on the resolution of issues with peripheral characters, and in one case, resolving nothing, that didn't play a huge part in the overall plot. That said, the first 90 minutes are just lights out brilliant. There are many moments that are so intense, it's amazing. And then it has the Coen brothers quirky sense of humor to make things all better again.

Grade: A-

Oscar Potential: Where do you stop? Best Picture, easy. Best Director, a lock for a nod. Best Actor nod for Josh Brolin, strong possibility. Best Supporting Actor nod for Javier Bardem, for sure. Best Adapted Screenplay, likely winner. Then throw in cinematography and editing to boot. This will be a big player at this year's Oscars.

Random Thoughts While Watching the Film:

1. Is that the dude from "The Goonies?" It sure is. Where did he learn to act?
2. Javier Bardem will go down as one of the classic screen villians.
3. I got a big smile on my face when they introduced Stephen Root's character. Stephen Root is probably best known as Milton from "Office Space." In my opinion, any movie he is in can't be all bad because any scene he is in will be good. This guy can play anything. He was also the fish obsessed with the bubbles in "Finding Nemo." And the boss on "Newsradio." And Bill on "King of the Hill." Just phenomenal actor. He also funded the Stephen Root Acting Studio at the University of Florida. Nobody's perfect.
4. Man, Tommy Lee Jones is getting old.
5. Seriously?! That's the older brother from "The Goonies"?!

The Trailers:
The Orphanage: I don't know much about the film, but the trailer scared the bejesus out of me.
In Bruges: If you thought really hard, could you come up with a worse title for a film? I was making my notes while watching the trailer. I wrote down "look up Colin Farrell" because 5 seconds after the trailer was over, I couldn't remember the name. That said, the film looks mildly amusing.
Pride and Glory: Is Colin Farrell the new Jude Law? Back to back trailers with him in it. At least this one has Ed Norton who does not make enough movies for me. They give WAY too much away as far as plot goes. Still looks good.
The Great Debaters: Denzel Washington and Forrest Whitaker about a debate team from an all-black college taking on Harvard's debate team in the...40s? 30s? Doesn't matter. It may follow the "Rocky" formula to a T, but damn, I'll go see this one. Looks terrific and inspiring.
Charlie Wilson's War: First trailer I've seen of this one. I cannot wait. Could play spoiler for "No Country" come Oscar time.
There Will Be Blood: Oh damn, I hope this one's as good as it looks. Daniel Day-Lewis pretty much playing the same character from "Gangs of New York", but this movie looks good. Can't wait.

Movie Review: "Enchanted"

2007-12-03T06:25:00.000-08:00

What It's About: Disney princess from the animated world gets thrown into Manhattan..

What I Was Expecting: My wife had seen the film before I had and kept spouting that it was the best Disney movie ever. I had seen the trailer and had serious doubts that it would be better than "The Lion King" or "Aladdin."

What I Got: Definitely not the best Disney movie ever. It's goofy. It's a lot of fun. It's entertaining as heck, but it runs out of places to go. The ending itself has almost no logic to it. In fact, I would go as far as saying that they chose the wrong ending. I would explain further but it would require spoiling it. The performances are near perfect. I can't imagine a better cast and the mostly on location shooting was inspired in how they used it. Particularly the scenes in Central Park which left me...well...goofy.

Grade: B+

Oscar Potential: Best song, for sure. I would also make the argument that Amy Adams deserves a recognition. So many actors get recognition for portraying real people, but she just nails the Disney princess stereotype. Close your eyes and just listen to her and you would think it was an animated film. Special effects is another possibility.

Random Thoughts While Watching the Film:

1. All these big musical numbers and not one using Idina Menzel who has made a career in musical theatre. Go figure.
2. Wow! This movie would've gotten an A if it weren't for that awful ending.
3. Are Amy Adams' eyes really that big or did they tweak them digitally to get the full Disney princess effect?
4. Is Patrick Dempsey supposed to be a mediator or is he an attorney for the wife? They aren't really clear.
5. For as little time she spends in the movie, Susan Sarandon is really good.

The Trailers:
Golden Compass: I can't help but wonder when this movie bombs, will the religious right try and take credit for it or will they just realize that it was the crappy trailers that drove people away?
Water Horse: I loved the movie Babe. I know it's from the same author, but man, this movie looks stupid.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: In a previous blog, I blasted a trailer for this movie. This was a new trailer. And I laughed out loud. This movie might be subversive enough to work.
Definitely Maybe: This trailer looked so good that I saw the title on my notes and for the life of me, I can't remember a thing about it.
College Road Trip: Oy vay. Is Martin Lawrence the new Robin WIlliams? When you make a career out being crude, don't do the family film please.
NT2: Wow. I need to take better notes. It took me five minutes to remember that NT2 meant National Treasure 2. I hope it's as fun as the first one. And just as implausible.

DVD Review: "Zodiac"

2007-08-18T08:20:00.000-07:00

What It's About: The Zodiac killer who terrorized San Francisco from the late 60s to the mid 70s.

What I was Expecting: I like David Fincher a lot as a director. On a blog posted on another site, I predicted that "Zodiac" would be a strong contender at the 2006 Oscars, but due to delays, the film failed to qualify for last year's awards. So, I guess you could say my expectations were a little high.

What I Got: Everything that I was hoping "Zodiac" would be. It's a slow-burning, creepy, highly effective thriller filled with a terrific cast. I missed it on its initial release due to my own personal post-Oscar burnout and I'm sorry I did. I imagine on the big screen that what was merely creepy on the small screen was downright terrifying. What I don't understand is the general reception to the film. Was it the lack of a shoot out ending or true resolution? Was it how it started off as a "Silence of the Lambs"-esque thriller and fades into something more less defined? That was a complement, by the way. The film plays out much like the real-life investigation of the murders. Tight with an attention to detail at first. Slow and unfocused as the details become more obscure. I believe this was entirely intentional. What the audience is made to feel towards the movie ("are they going to find out who did it or not?") is exactly what the characters thought and felt. How else can you do a film about a killer who was never caught?

Grade: A-

Five Random Thoughts:
1. The film is so filled with character actors who don't look like their normal selves, you'll find yourself often distracted and rewinding going, "wait! I know that guy."
2. It took watching the reading of the first Zodiac letter 3 times before I realized it was John Terry from 'Lost.'
3. Charles Fleischer is in this movie. The voice of Roger Rabbit. I boo him because he picked on me for a good 10 minutes at a comedy club one night. Boo!
4. So much for Roger Ebert's economy of characters. The rule is: Any recognizable actor must be important to the plot or else it would be a no name actor. Not true in this film. I kept expecting Ione Skye of "Say Anything" fame to turn back up after her one, albeit important, scene, but she never does.
5. Mark Ruffalo should be added to my list of actors who will win an Oscar soon.

Movie Review: "The Simpsons"

2007-08-01T06:52:00.000-07:00

What It's About: Much like your typical episode of "The Simpsons", there's about 10 storylines.

What I Was Expecting: Well, "The Simpsons" has always been daring for regular TV, so I was expecting them to, very slightly, push the envelope here. Basically, I knew they would probably use one obscenity because using one, and just one, would be their style.

What I Got: Well, I got my one obscenity. And it comes when you're not expecting it, from someone you wouldn't expect (not Flanders). Overall, it's right up there with the best episodes of the show. It's funny, subversive and heartwarming. The exact same tight rope the show has been walking since Bart kissed his teacher in season 1 after getting a D on his history exam. Basically, if you enjoy the TV show, you'll enjoy the movie. It won't win any new fans. But then again, after nearly 20 years, I doubt there are any new fans to win.

Grade: B+

Oscar Potential: It has a shot at Animated Feature and really nothing else. Somehow, I doubt "Spider-Pig" will make the cut.

Random Thoughts While Watching the Film:

1. The opening joke is really funny. To me, anyway. I was the only one who laughed at the screening I went to.
2. Gee, Schwarzenegger sounds an awful lot like Wolfcastle. Why bother making the joke about Arnold?
3. How many times has Albert Brooks done the Simpsons? Answer: Not enough.
4. They overpromoted the movie. It was mildly amusing, but audience members recited jokes that were in the commercials.
5. They credit the voice for Patty and Selma, but were they even in the movie?

The Trailers:
Dark Knight: The teaser trailer for the next Batman. Cool trailer, but a TAD disappointed that Heath Ledger was doing the Joker very similar to Jack Nicholson's.
Daddy Day Camp: Not only has Cuba Gooding, Jr.'s career sunk this low, but I had to explain to my nephew over the weekend that hugging Michael Jordan in the Hanes commercial does NOT mean he's gay.
Game Plan: This year's "The Pacifier". Take that as you may.
The Bourne Ultimatum: I think this one will be considered weak by default simply for not one-upping the first two films.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: Jason Lee's filmography for 2007 include Underdog AND Alvin and the Chipmunks? This makes me sad.
Horton Hears a Hoo: Because the last two films based on Dr. Seuss books were SO good. I don't think reuniting Jim Carrey and Steve Carrell will save this one.

Movie Review: "Hairspray"

2007-07-20T20:15:00.000-07:00

What It's About: The chubby Tracy Turnblad takes Baltimore by storm.

What I Was Expecting: I loved the original film. I've never seen the stage show, but my wife has and loves the CD, so i pretty much knew the music. But, beyond that, I really had no expectations.

What I Got: A classic. I noticed about halfway through the film that my cheeks were aching. I wasn't sure why until the next number started and the broad smile returned to my face. And then I started to think about what might make this film any better. The answer I came up with? Nothing. Hairspray is about as perfect as a film can get. Nothing seems forced or false. It is filled with one joyful moment after another. It's exciting and fun and damn near impossible not to like. Every actor, every song, every scene feels like it is exactly where it needs to be. It's funny. It's touching. It has this amazing, almost tangible, energy. Towards the end of the movie, the crowd I saw it with was clapping along with the songs and cheering the heroes and applauding at the end of the numbers. Almost as if you were there watching in person. In the ride home, I realized how truly great I thought this was when I asked my wife, "How many musicals would you say were better than that?" We started with the latest string and worked our way back. Chicago wasn't even close. Moulin Rouge? Nope, Hairspray is better. To make a long story short, we decided that the only better musicals we could come up with were Singing in the Rain, West Side Story, My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music. And that's it. And none of those are nearly as fun. Hairspray is a genuine classic.

Grade: A

Oscar Potential: I thought about this during the movie. I came up with 14 strong possibilities, setting a record. Picture and director if it's a slightly slow year. Strong shots for Best Actress and Supporting Actor. Adapted Screenplay. Cinematography is a possibility. Arti Direction, Costume Design and Makeup you can bet on. One, maybe two, nods for song. Score. Sound and Sound Editing.

Random Thoughts While Watching the Film:

1. What can one say about Amanda Bynes? How many actresses can make a successful career by being what can only be described as a knucklehead.
2. Does Queen Latifah still rap?
3. The songs that were cut out of the movie? Don't miss 'em.
4. You really do forget that's John Travolta. And I'm the kind of movie watcher that tries to look for the details.
5. I keep waiting for Corny Collins to shoot Michelle Pfeiffer with the lasers from his eyes..

The Trailers:
August Rush: I bet this movie looked great on paper.
Across the Universe: The preview they showed is one that worries me. That it might not be as brilliant as it looks.
Enchanted: Yeah, this one is going to be good. Disney cartoon on acid. I just hope it has more to it than just the gags.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age: The first Elizabeth, I loved. It was the Godfather as a costume movie. I don't think this one will have quite the same impact.
Rush Hour 3: What on earth happened to Chris Tucker? Is this all he does anymore? I looked up on imdb. He is one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood. And this is the third movie in the last ten years. The other two movies? Rush Hour 1 & 2. The man has talent. Why doesn't he use it more often?
The Golden Compass: If a studio tries to promote their new film by comparing to a previous movie they had success with, that's desperation talking. Comparing the story of a little girl in some land of magic to the Lord of the Rings movie, films that had some of the highest body counts in history, that's a stretch. This movie keeps looking worse and worse. But hey, it's from the director of American Pie.

Movie Review: "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix"

2007-07-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

What It's About: Our hero, Tom Riddle, tries to do away with the dreaded Harry James Potter once and for all.

What I Was Expecting: Gee. Fifth film in the series. I think the expectations are pretty much set at this point.

What I Got: I really don't care what anyone else says. This one is the best of the series so far. The critics seem to be basing their reviews on memory. My guess is that they haven't seen the previous films as many times as I have. "Prisoner of Azkaban" and "Goblet of Fire", the best reviewed films of the series, do NOT hold up as well to repeat viewings as the first and second films do (even with the line "Your phoenix may have blinded my basilisk, but he can still hear you!") In fact, I gave "Azkaban" an A when I first saw it. Now I can barely sit through it. Not much happens in that film. And after catching "Goblet of Fire" on cable lately, I find the character of Harry to actually be unlikable. "Order of the Phoenix", at first, falls into the same trap. Harry going off on his dearest friends for no apparent reason. But as the movie goes on, Harry becomes a sympathetic character again. There are so many elements to this one that make it superior to the previous entries, namely the bigger battles and montages. And that's what sets "Order" apart from the rest.

Grade: A

Oscar Potential: The techie trifecta, Sound, Sound Editing and Visual Effects are deserving. I was especially impressed by the art direction and costumes, but unless this movie has legs, it won't stick around come awards time.

Random Thoughts While Watching the Film:

1. Emma Watson has said she has no interest pursuing acting after the series is over. I can only say, "Thank God!" Her first moment in the film is "line of dialogue....pause...line....pause....line." When the whole thing should have been said in one breath.
2. The final battle at the Ministry of Magic is, by far, the best scene of the series to date. Will certainly be topped by the battle at Hogwarts in the next film.
3. I can't think of another film that wastes so much major talent. Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, Emma Thompson, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman....all of them are barely in the film. Alan Rickman's first line on screen is over an hour in.
4. If you hadn't read the book, you might think that Harry and Loony were going to hook up. They had real good chemistry. Especially compared to the forced chemistry of Harry and Cho.
5. One scene made me chuckle. Harry, Ron and Hermione are talking in the bridge, it's foggy. This must have been an issue because it seems that the lenses were taken out of Harry's glasses.

The Trailers:
Balls of Fury: At first, I was thinking "Dodgeball"/"Beerfest" meets ping pong. The difference looks to be that this one made me laugh.
The Golden Compass: This is one of the most hotly anticipated films of the year. I'm sure the anticipation will die now that the trailer is out. Looks BORING!!!
Water Horse: Legend of the Deep: If you put a bunch of random words in a hat, do you think you could come up with a worse title? I saw this trailer and remembered a joke I'd heard this week. To paraphrase, you're in a room with the guy who made this trailer, Hitler and Mussolini. You've got a gun with only two bullets. What do you do? You shoot the guy twice. There is a GREAT twist to this story and they give it away in the trailer. What looked cute is now on my "I never need to see this movie" list.
Enchanted: It has become a rare occurrence that a trailer for a comedy makes me laugh. Much less common is two on the same night. This trailer is funny as hell. It's going to be a HUGE hit.
The Bourne Ultimatum: I cannot wait to see this one. I'm really late in jumping on the Bourne bandwagon. I saw the first two movies at the same time...on DVD. That's late. But they are brilliant and this third one, particularly the bit when Bourne is in David Straithairn's office, is great.
Get Smart: When I heard this movie was being made (shortly after Evan Almighty hit theaters), I thought, "Wow! Steve Carrell is finished in movies!" Now that I've seen the trailer, he MAY have a shot. Some good chuckles.
Fred Claus: Three trailers in one sitting that made me laugh. I liked the teaser trailer better (although I don't think it showed any of the movie itself) and the story looks really obvious, but there's potential for a great comedy.

Never Nominated, but Will Win Eventually

2007-07-09T06:03:00.000-07:00

About 10 years ago, I did a list. A list of people who I thought that, even though they'd never received a nomination, would deserve an Oscar one day. I'd long since lost the list, but I do remember three entries that had caught flack. I had just seen "The Peacemaker" with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman. Although I didn't think the movie itself deserved any recognition, I felt, based on that film alone, that Clooney, Kidman and director Mimi Leder would win Oscars within 10 years. Oh, people also thought I was kidding about Paul Giammatti, based on his turn in "Private Parts."

2 out of 3 isn't bad. And, if "Pay It Forward" had a smarter ending and became the new "It's a Wonderful Life" it should have been, I might have hit all three.

Now, it's ten years later. And here is a brand new list for the world to see of five actors, actresses and directors who I think will go home with the gold in the next ten years even though they've yet to even receive a nomination for anything they've done.

THE ACTORS:
1. Christian Bale - Not a toughie here. Bale has done a number of award worthy performances over the last decade. What's especially unique about him is the wide range from "American Psycho" to "Batman" to "The Prestige" and, especially, his villainous turn in the better-than-it-should've-been "Shaft". Mr. Bale may not have to wait long with two films coming out this year that have Oscar potential, "3:10 to Yuma" with Russell Crowe and directed by James Mangold ("Walk the Line") and "I'm Not There" with Cate Blanchett and directed by Todd Haynes ("Far from Heaven").

2. Dennis Quaid - A perennial of the list. It's mind blowing, given his career, that Quaid has never even been nominated for an Oscar. His brother, Randy Quaid, not the highest caliber of thespian, has been nominated before. "In Good Company," "Far from Heaven," "Traffic," and "The Rookie" all deserved consideration. And that's just this decade. Throw in his turn as Doc Holliday in the otherwise forgettable "Wyatt Earp", as well as "The Big Easy", "Everybody's All American" and as Gordo Cooper in "The Right Stuff". He may still have to wait to get his Oscar. Nothing listed on imdb that he has coming really jumps out except for "Shame on You", which he's also directing. It worked for Roberto Benigni.

3. Ewan McGregor - Based on his choice of movies of late, this might not actually happen. But that may be changing. "The Tourist" with Hugh Jackman may have potential. "The Number 13", a Hitchcockian thriller that takes place ON the set of a Hitchcock film sounds good. And "I, Lucifer" could get him a supporting nod although Daniel Craig as the Devil will likely steal the show. Just please, Ewan, don't try doing a Southern accent like you did in "Black Hawk Down."

4. Bruce Willis - It WILL happen. He was not on the previous list because the only movies he'd done worth considering up to that point were "Die Hard" and "Pulp Fiction." Just keep working with M. Knight Shyalaman and you'll get one eventually. He needs you as bad as you need him.

5. Daniel Craig - The only actor on the list I hadn't even heard of ten years ago. Now he's James Bond. And could possibly go down as the greatest James Bond ever if he does three or four more and they're comparable to "Casino Royale." But he was the best thing about Spielberg's "Munich." He has the highly-anticipated "The Golden Compass" coming later this year. He'll also be starring as the Devil (see above) and in Edward Zwick's next film, "Defiance", which, like every Zwick film does but falls short, has Oscar written all over it.

Coming Soon....The Actresses

Movie Review: "Transformers"

2007-07-08T12:53:00.000-07:00

What It's About: A high school kid finds his first car is more than meets the eye.

What I Was Expecting: Let's see. It's a Michael Bay film (strike one) based on a toy (strike two) being released on the 4th of July and not starring Will Smith (strike three).

What I Got: The best of the big budget actioners so far this year. Far better than "Spiderman 3" in every regard. The movie is still basically a dumb, loud, special effects extravaganza, but it far surpasses what it seems to be trying to do, much like Michael Bay's previous pleasant surprise, "The Island." The film is far from perfect, for sure. But it is a lot of fun. Surely destined to be a cable classic. The kind you pass while flipping channels on a Saturday afternoon and stop, because you know it's worth it.

Grade: B+

Oscar Potential: The techie trifecta, Sound, Sound Editing and Visual Effects are locks. It will never happen, but Shia LeBouef's performance as the high schooler destined to save the world is one of the best performances in an action film I've ever seen and an open-minded academy should give it consideration. Watch his face when he's running with the cube. It's not determination. It's pure fear. It certainly won't happen with this film, but Mr. LeBouef will win an Oscar someday.

Random Thoughts While Watching the Film:

1. Aren't the Transformers supposed to be able to join together into one huge robot?
2. This movie is great, but please, God, don't let anyone try to capitalize by doing a GoBots movie.
3. Why is John Turturro in this movie?
4. If the Autobots can use the internet to find the kid, why couldn't the Decepticons?
5. Does Michael Bay know his prior movies suck? He takes a dig at "Armageddon" that's pretty funny.

The Trailers:
The Simpsons Movie: I can't wait. Every trailer is funnier than the previous.
The Invasion: Of the Body Snatchers? That is what this is, right? With Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. It must be better than it looks to get them in here. At least it seems like the movie is going for creepy and not just another remake to do better effects.
Superbad: I've seen trailers that make this look funny. This trailer doesn't I'm not even quite sure what the movie's supposed to about.
Hot Rod: Well, it has Isla Fisher. That's a plus for any movie. And a comedy about a guy trying to be Evel Kneivel has potential. Just didn't see it in the trailer other than when the stunts painfully fail.
"Cloverfield": I use quotes here because that's what the film is rumored to be called. They don't actually tell you anything other than produced by J.J. Abrams and coming 1-18-08. Basically, it looks like "Godzilla" meets "The Blair Witch Project." Someone had sent me the trailer via email. Looked better with less sound. On the big screen and better sound (e.g. you could hear the monster), it kind of lost something. We'll see.

Movie Review: "Ratatouille"

2007-07-02T08:12:00.000-07:00

What It's About: A rat (blue russian rat, to be a rat snob) that knows how to cook.

What I Was Expecting: It's getting to be the standard, but it's yet another Pixar film whose trailer left me "bleh!"

What I Got: This year's Oscar winner for Animated Feature. Hands down. And if they still gave animated films consideration for Best Picture, I'd say it belongs in that hunt as well. From a technical standpoint, the animation is ASTONISHING! No detail goes on the screen without being given the utmost care. From a story standpoint, it is by far the most adult of the Pixar films. And that's saying something. I went with my 7 year old son, who loved it as well, but I imagine most of what's really happening on screen was lost on him. In a nutshell, the film deals with the very serious issues of what one feels called to do versus what one feels obligated to do. And making the choice between the two. That's an issue that, even at the ripe old age of 34, I still deal with on a daily basis. And this "kiddie" movie had me relating to a rat. That's quite an accomplishment. This movie is very funny, as well. Well worth seeing regardless of your age.

Grade: A

Oscar Potential: Animated Feature, for sure. Possibly screenplay and score.

Random Thoughts While Watching the Film:

1. This may seem a tad infantile, but that's a pretty hot and heavy kiss for a kiddie film.
2. Was it my imagination or, when Remy is about to float down the waterfall in the sewer, did I hear an echoing voice say "Dead men tell no tales?"
3. I'm not familiar with the guy who voiced Remy, but great work.
4. Peter O'Toole. Busting out the kiddie film. Another great performance.
5. Warning. After you see this film, you WILL want to eat. Desperately.

The Trailers:
Bee Movie: Where has Jerry Seinfeld been anyway? Hope the movie is as good as the trailer. Lots of good chuckles.
Daddy Day Camp: Yet another sad chapter in the post-Oscar career of Cuba Gooding, Jr.
Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium: Wow! This one is either an instant classic or a complete bust.
Mr. Bean's Holiday: I didn't think the last film was funny. This one doesn't look to change my opinion of this character.
Underdog: This one hurt to watch. They aimed for the kiddies and not the subversive nature of the original cartoon. Could've been great.
Wall E: Wow! Can Pixar do anything wrong? The big whopping 10 seconds they actually show of the film makes look like the next E.T. Cannot wait.

Oscar Bum Movie Review: "Spider-Man 3"

2007-05-09T18:30:00.000-07:00

"Spider-Man 3" starring Tobey Maguire and what's left of Kirsten Dunst.

What It's About: The countinuing adventures of your friendly neighborhood spider person, just not so friendly this time.

What I Was Expecting: The reviews and advance buzz weren't good, so my expectations might have been a tad low.

What I Got: A suprisingly moving comic book movie. I thought the reviews were rather unfair. Oddly enough, I thought the review were off-base for the second Spidey film, which I felt was WAY overrated. It's not a perfect film by any stretch. But it's a nice companion piece to the other 2 films. Where the first film was about discovery and the second about duty. The third movie is about redemption. Maybe the critics have been ripping it because it's a more mature spidey. A spidey where things are not all black and white, or red in this case. The major flaw in this episode is the villains. It's overkill. One villain too many. And that's a script problem since all three villains are necessary for the payoff at the end. Which I felt was a beauty.

Rating: B+

Random Thoughts:
1. For the love of God, someone please give Kirsten Dunst some money to buy food. Or at least tell her that her boobs wouldn't fly all over the place if she hadn't dropped all the weight.
2. I can't help but wonder if the movie would've been better received if the Sandman had stayed man-sized.
3. Stan Lee. Stupid cameo. Bruce Campbell. Great one, although the scene was overlong and unnecessary.
4. I just loved how the Spidey/Sandey battle resolved.
5. In another unnecessary scene...you know what...the movie's full of them. Scenes where the only motivation is to setup the next scene.

The Trailers:

1. Catch a Fire - What is this title even supposed to mean? It's an apartheid movie, I think. I don't know if you knew this, but I guess apartheid is bad. So grateful to Hollywood for pointing these things out.

2. Deja Vu - Okay, if you are going to do a movie called deja vu, you CANNOT do a film that looks like every other Tony Scott/Jerry Bruckheimer P.O.S. Props to any critic who can review this film and NOT turn the title into a description of the film itself.

3. Stranger than Fiction - I cannot wait for this film. Will Farrell, Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman? Looks hilarious.

4. The Good Shepherd - Bob De Niro pretends he's Martin Scorsese and even casts Matt Damon in the "real history" of the CIA's beginnnings. Ummm...if it were "real", it'd be a documentary, folks.

5. 300 - What the hell is this garbage? I thought it was a joke at first, like I was going to hear a cell phone ringing at any point. Nope, this is serious. 300 is also the number of reasons this film should never have been made. I could only stop and think all the starving people the $60 million spent to make this garbage could've fed. This movie will NOT crack $10 million at the box office. I guarantee.

6. The Blood Diamond - This one could go either way. I kind of got the impression that they're going for an Indiana Jones meets Black Hawk Down. Takes guts to even try. The controversy from the diamond industry over their potray

Who Should Have Won? (Part III)

2007-03-14T20:18:00.000-07:00

Heading further into the 80s, there was an almost unbroken string of wrong choices. Some, certainly debatable. Others, unquestionable. But, on the other hand, there were one or two toss-up years, where any of the nominees were worthy.

1986:
Winner: Platoon
Deserver: Platoon

1986 was certainly a year for building up an Oscar race for the sake of making it interesting. Hannah and Her Sisters is one of Woody Allen's finest movies. But put any scene from that film against the march out of the arsoned village from Platoon. Yeah, I didn't think so. And who would've thought that out of that entire cast, Johnny Depp would be the "serious" actor 20 years later. Ah, hell. I still see him as that annoying 21 Jump Street guy and I didn't watch the show.

1985:
Winner: Out of Africa
Deserver: Toss Up

Frankly, there's not a really memorable film in the bunch. If I had to choose, I suppose I'd go with Witness or Prizzi's Honor. I thought Africa and the Color Purple were overrated and boring. I still haven't seen Kiss of the Spider Woman, so I can't comment there. 1985 was a year of ALMOST great films. Agnes of God, Silverado, White Nights, Ladyhawke, Mask. All at least watchable, but all somehow missed the mark. In fact, in retrospect, the only film receiving nods in 1985 that has had any staying power is Back to the Future. Can't see that winning in any year. Although, I always wondered, "What if Back to the Future was made in the 50s? Told from the perspective of the mother?" That would be interesting.

1984:
Winner: Amadeus
Deserver: Amadeus

Very similar to 1985 in the sense that there were no great films nominated. Except for Amadeus. This film could have been done so many ways. For one, they could've used accents. But didn't. And it doesn't matter. They could've used name stars, but didn't. Mel Gibson, Kenneth Branagh or Tim Curry, instead of Tom Hulce. But it still works. I don't know if it's Peter Schaeffer's script, Milos Forman's directing, or what. It just works. The other nominees that year, solid films that fall short of greatness.

1983:
Winner: Terms of Endearment
Deserver: The Right Stuff

You can say it. It's because I'm not a chick. I can take it. TofE doesn't do it for me. The Right Stuff is perfect for my Star Wars addled brain. Ok, there's not much in common with Star Wars, but anyone who bothered to read the book The Right Stuff will tell you that the film is a minor miracle. Philip Kaufman is a genius for pulling that adaptation off in the first place. Which makes the whole thing absolutely shocking that Kaufman was not nominated for director nor screenplay. Shocking, I tell you.

1982:
Winner: Gandhi
Deserver: Tootsie

Yeah, I know E.T. is a classic. But Tootsie is better. Tootsie should've been a one joke comedy. Lord knows we've seen enough of them to know how bad these films can go. But it's not. It's a damn serious film that has a lot of funny stuff happen. Gandhi just doesn't do it for me. How a film about a dude who did so many amazing things just drag on and on....So, why not E.T.? This may sound weird but E.T. was too easy. Tootsie could've fallen apart anywhere, but doesn't. For me, it's a greater acheivement.

1981:
Winner: Chariots of Fire
Deserver: Raiders of the Lost Ark

1981 is one of Hollywood's and the Academy's better years. So truly fine films made the cut. Reds, Atlantic City, On Golden Pond, but the two that really stood out were Chariots and Raiders. Chariots is a great film, don't get me wrong. But Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of those all-time great cinematic experiences. You are taken to a completely unique time and place. It's amazing how many people can remember the first time they saw it. I know I was completely blown away and I saw it in a drive-in. As good as Chariots is, there aren't that many films from any year that beat Raiders.

1980:
Winner: Ordinary People
Deserver: Raging Bull

But not by much. People want to write off Ordinary People for a ton of reasons. It's actually more of a testament to how good Raging Bull is because Ordinary People is just as violent of a film, just not physically. Mary Tyler Moore...I want to write that again...Mary Tyler FREAKIN' Moore turns in a classic performance and her emotional self-destruct is just painful. Why did it beat Raging Bull? Same reason Crash beat Brokeback Mountain. More of us can relate to it. So why do I say Raging Bull deserved it more if Ordinary People is so damn good? Have you seen Raging Bull?

1979:
Winner: Kramer v. Kramer
Deserver: Kramer v. Kramer

I know what you're probably thinking. That Dustin Hoffman film over Apocalypse Now?! Yes, as a matter of fact, I am saying exactly that. It's much easier to say Apocalypse should've won now. But I think it's because of the legendary production problems and the miracle that it even got finished. Apocalypse is chock full of great scenes, but the overall story kind of left me blank. Kramer on the other hand has lost so many points over the years because of how much it's been copied, mainly by crappy made-for-TV movies. But I think a revisit to its brilliance is warranted. The performances alone make it worth watching. But the overall film itself is what puts it over the top. This could have easily fallen into the "message" picture bastion, but it dodges it beautifully and just tells a story that is at times both eloquent and simple.

1978:
Winner: The Deer Hunter
Deserver: The Deer Hunter

Michael Cimino's best film. Okay, that's saying nothing, but even today, it's a brilliant film. People tend to give it crap for the wedding scene and the events leading up to Vietnam, but the film doesn't work any other way. There were some other good nominees that year, namely Coming Home and Midnight Express. How Heaven Can Wait pulled a nod is lost on me. It looks like crap now, but I don't think it would've looked much better than. And it's one of the worst performances I've seen Warren Beatty give. No, The Deer Hunter was, by far, the most deserving film that year.

1977:
Winner: Annie Hall
Deserver: Star Wars

If those Academy Awards happened now, Star Wars would still win. Much like Raiders, it's a one-of-a-kind moviegoing experience. With the countless Special Editions, re-releases and the lousy prequel trilogy, it's easy to discount how good the original really was. It wasn't until this past weekend when I plopped down and watched the original theatrical release when I remembered what a great movie it is. Particularly when you are watching a version that hasn't been screwed with. Annie Hall is, in my opinion, Woody Allen's best film. But pit it against Star Wars and there's really no comparison.

Who Should Have Won? (Part II)

2007-03-10T18:11:00.000-08:00

1996:
Winner: The English Patient
Deserver: Fargo

If only Fargo had come out in Oscar season instead of 8-9 months earlier. I have no doubt that the Coen brothers would have Oscars already. Oh...wait. They do. Well, for Best Picture then. I am a fan of The English Patient. Although I do agree to a point that the title can substitute as a description of a Brit who likes this film. But Fargo was such a unique experience. Funny and even chilling at times. It's not likely the Coens' will do any better than this.

1995:
Winner: Braveheart
Deserver: Babe

Oh, God, where do I start? Braveheart had no business winning ANY award, much less the top prizes. It's crap. It has one or two decent moments, but it's crap. And that was such a good year too. Dead Man Walking missed the cut. So did Leaving Las Vegas. And if you want to look at lasting impact, how about Toy Story and The Usual Suspects? Not to mention the other films that DID get nominated, Apollo 13, Sense and Sensibility and, of course, Babe. Unusual does not begin to describe it. But saying it's an ordinary film told in an extraordinary way does. Wonderous is the first word that comes to mind and if the Academy would have opened its eyes that a universal message picture about a talking pig shouldn't be written off as a kiddie movie, it could've won against films like Il Postino.

1994:
Winner: Forrest Gump
Deserver: Toss up

Who would have thunk it? A little more than ten years later and the most beloved film of the nominees from 1994 is....The Shawshank Redemption? I saw Shawshank opening day, first showing. I couldn't wait and I loved every moment of that film. And then sat in utter shock after seeing it open in TENTH place at the box office. Duds don't win Best Picture, usually. Which is why could've ruled out Quiz Show as well. A dynamite film, but just missed that extra added who-knows. Four Weddings? You can wipe my butt with that movie. Which leaves probably the most influential film since Star Wars. Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. So influential that it has lost a ton of its impact from being copied so often.

1993:
Winner: Schindler's List
Deserver: Schindler's List

It's odd to look back and think about what year that was for Spielberg. People tend not to remember where his career was at that point. He hadn't had a non-Indian Jones hit since E.T. And then came Jurassic Park. And Steven was back on top of the box office. Little did we know what would hit later that year. Certainly not something as gut-wrenching and powerful as Schindler.

1992:
Winner: Unforgiven
Deserver: The Crying Game

I will always argue, probably because I'm a writer, that the Best Picture is usually won in the Original Screenplay category. This year was a perfect example. Unforgiven is tremendous. My favorite Western of all-time. But The Crying Game was something special. On a personal note, it has the distinction of being the film I have seen the most times in the theater. Even knowing "the surprise", I just loved that film. So, rather than make the logical argument, let me just chalk this up as a personal preference rather than make the futile argument why I feel it's better. At least Scent of a Woman did not win, as it had at the Golden Globes.

1991:
Winner: The Silence of the Lambs
Deserver: The Silence of the Lambs

No twist endings. Nothing really that exceptional, from a story standpoint, about the film. And yet, there is something really remarkable about it. Everything is so matter-of-fact. It lays it out there and we just suck it right in. Deserving of every Oscar it won, although Anthony Hopkins had no business being in the lead category. But if he had been, Nick Nolte might have an Oscar and we never would've seen Jack Palance and the one arm pushups.

1990:
Winner: Dances with Wolves
Deserver: Goodfellas

Yeah. I was kidding in the previous blog. But only only the merits of the release versions. Both films run too long. Goodfellas is more painful because of how strong it is earlier in the film. Where as, Dances with Wolves works better when it's longer. The four-hour extended edition is even better than the original. So many of the side stories are fleshed out, whereas in the origunal version, they just felt like little asides. Goodfellas on the other had, it brilliant right up until they kill off Joe Pesci.

1989:
Winner: Driving Miss Daisy
Deserver: Driving Miss Daisy

I'm really not sure what the beef exactly is with Daisy's win over Born on the Fourth of July. Is it the lack of a directing nomination for Bruce Beresford? The lack of "epic" quality? The fact that it's a comedy? I don't know. But if seriousness is an issues, how about Daisy's Pulitzer Prize win? How about the fact that the film greatly expands on a 3-person play? Or how about the fact that it is just one terrific character study? Driving Miss Daisy is about good as it gets and totally deserved its win.

1988:
Winner: Rain Man
Deserver: Rain Man

I'll tell you right up front my own personal bias towards this film. Two children with autism. Before then, I didn't care much for the film. I just didn't buy it. But seeing what a autistic person is like on a daily basis, it became shocking to me the attention to detail in it. And then I started to believe it. Whereas before, I didn't quite believe Hoffman's performance, now I see him completely disappear. The other films nominated that year were okay. Working Girl is fluff. Mississippi Burning should work, but doesn't. If it did, it would've won over Rain Man. The Accidental Tourist didn't belong in this group. A Fish Called Wanda was more deserving. I'll admit, I've never seen the film Dangerous Liaisons, mainly because I didn't like the play. Although seeing Donna Mills in the Glenn Close role might've had something to do with it.

1987:
Winner: The Last Emperor
Deserver: The Last Emperor

I didn't see Bertolucci's masterpiece until about 5 years ago. It just didn't seem like the kind of film I just had to see. So I plopped down on the couch one afternoon and watched it. Completely blown away. The very critic-like phrase of "masterful epic" comes immediately to mind. I sat there transfixed for 3 hours, losing all my bitterness and certainty that Broadcast News was the real Best Picture of that year. Just a superb film.

Up next: 1977-1986

Why couldn't the Academy get ANYTHING right for most of the 80s? Woody Allen or Oliver Stone? Was 1985 the single worst year for Best Picture nominees? Amadeus vs. 4 Salieris. Man in diaper or cuddly alien? How about neither? Man running for his country or man running from 2 ton boulder? Raging Bull or raging menopausal mother? How on earth do you choose from the 1979 slate? Soldiers in Vietnam or out of Vietnam and why the hell is Beatty nominated? Woody Allen or George Lucas?

Who Should Have Won? (Part I)

2007-03-09T19:57:00.000-08:00

The Academy Awards are a beautiful thing in the sense that it tends to bring up the kind of fire, passion and devotion usually reserved for the Super Bowl or the World Series. People have their favorites and watch the show to root for them. Which is why the years films like Return of the King and Titanic do so well in the ratings and why the years when films like Chicago and The Hours are the front-runners, no one watches. And most every year, a debate begins over who deserves it more. Not since Schindler's List won in 1993, has there been a year where there was an overwhelming preference to one particular film to go home with the statue. And hence this list:

WHO THE ACADEMY SHOULD HAVE PICKED!

2006:
Winner: The Departed
Deserver: The Queen

There was no question that Martin Scorsese was going to win Best Director. It was so long over due, it was disgusting. But, for me, The Departed did not even belong in the Best Picture category. For one, it's a remake of a very good film. Secondly, if it doesn't have the name Scorsese attached to it, it doesn't even get considered. Thirdly, just by looking at its other nominations, it's obvious the Academy wasn't thinking that highly of it either. A film with DiCaprio, Damon and Nicholson and the only acting nod is for Dirk Digler? No nod for Cinematography or most any other technical award except Editing (which it most certainly did not deserve.) No, the Best Picture of 2006 was a much smaller, more personal film. Stephen Frears' The Queen told a story that most nobody knew, yet it was about a situation that touched most of our lives. The film's most amazing ability is to take extremely well-known figures in our time and make us feel like we really don't know them at all. Plus, a mind-smashingly, epic performance from winner Helen Mirren. If the weakest turn in a film is James Cromwell, you know something is going right. Of the five films chosen, The Queen was the true standout film.

2005:
Winner: Crash
Deserver: Capote

Screw Brokeback Mountain. Time will more than likely bring a much truer to life love story between two men. Hell, I have a script about two gay NFL players that has more impact than this one did. And Crash? It's a watered down Do the Right Thing. It is a good film. But there were much better choices that year. Capote was nothing short of brilliant. Philip Seymour Hoffman delivers one hell of a performance and rightfully walked away with the Oscar. But the whole movie is full of terrific performances. And just plain heart-stopping from start to finish. Definitely a case when the "message" films should've taken a backseat to the better story.

2004:
Winner: Million Dollar Baby
Deserver: Sideways

2004 will probably go down as one of the Academy's finer years for their choices in the Best Picture category. It was painful to watch Martin Scorsese lose to an actor turned director for a third time. But at least Clint Eastwood has been directing for a while. The Aviator is good, but bloated and not one of Scorsese's finer moments. Baby is a great film, but will not have the lasting effect of Sideways. Notice that 3 years later, the wine section in your supermarket is still much bigger than it was before Sideways came out. It's both funny and heart-breaking. It uses it's gimmick merely as a stepping stone to a larger commentary on love and the choices we make.

2003:
Winner: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Deserver: See above

There was no question who would win this year, although many were rooting for a Lost in Translation or Mystic River upset. But it wasn't meant to be. Nor should it have been. There's no question that the Rings series will go down as a monumental achievement in filmmaking. Is the final chapter the best one? It's debatable. The multiple endings does get a little wearing. But the sheer spectacle of the whole business along with some classic storytelling and there was just no reason to hand out the grand prize any other way.

2002:
Winner: Chicago
Deserver: The Pianist

Where Schindler's List told its tale on a much grander scale, The Pianist drove the added nail home. The holocaust from the perspective of one person. The argument could be made that Polanski's long overdue directing win was about the career more than the film itself. But Adrien Brody's win sort of nullifies that argument. Unlike most people, I still think Chicago is an amazing film. But it's flash over substance leaves it off the list of movies you just had to give it to. Likely, it was more of an award to finally getting it made versus actually being the best picture of the year.

2001:
Winner: A Beautiful Mind
Deserver: Moulin Rouge

Much like 2006's Pan's Labyrinth, the film Moulin Rouge was unique in its ability to take a relatively ordinary story and tell it in an extraordinary way. Some people were turned off by the use of modern tunes in turn of the century Paris. But they are just not looking past the fact that they weren't just picking the well-known songs, they were picking the lyrically correct songs for the scene. For me, the scene where we are shown the Moulin Rouge for the first time and the can-can dance that follows it, it is, very simply put, why I go to movies in the first place. It's been just over 5 years since A Beautiful Mind took home the gold and it's already considered an unwise choice.

2000:
Winner: Gladiator
Deserver: Traffic

The other time this decade where the better film won Best Director, but the showier film won Best Picture. I'll be honest. I didn't particularly like Gladiator. Outside of Chocolat, I thought it was the weakest of the nominees. And considering this was also the year it went up against Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Erin Brockovich, not to mention Almost Famous, Billy Elliott, Wonder Boys and Requiem for a Dream, films that weren't even nominated, it's kind of amazing that Gladiator was even a contender at all given it's rather cliched subject matter. Traffic, on the other hand, manages to be both entertaining and enlightening. A handful of outstanding performances and carries the kind of multi-layered story the Academy prefers of late. (Crash, Babel)

1999:
Winner: American Beauty
Deserver: The Insider

1999 truly left me scratching my head. True, The Insider did not stand a chance, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. It's a Hollywood insider story. That should've appealed to a lot of people. Pacino and Crowe, there's two more great reasons. True stories tend to win this category. So why not give it to The Insider? It's quite simple. Disney has no idea how to market a serious film for the Oscars. And it was right in the FYC ad wars of Miramax vs. Dreamworks. As a result, a brilliant film like Insider fell by the wayside and an exercise in nihilism takes the prize.

1998:
Winner: Shakespeare in Love
Deserver: Toss-up

To this day, I still have no beef with Shakespeare beating Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg's WWII epic is only brilliant in the first 20 minutes. It's just good after Normandy. The story has some major holes and that's what kept it out of the winners' circle. If more people had seen it, The Thin Red Line might have had a shot. Elizabeth felt a little too much like a recycled Godfather. And Life Is Beautiful, that just wasn't going to happen. At the time, and even now, Shakespeare was not a bad choice.

1997:
Winner: Titanic
Deserver: L.A. Confidential

It's funny that one of the gripes about Brokeback losing to Crash was based on the former's dominance of the awards leading up to Oscar night. But few remember how badly Confidential obliterated the competition in those same pre-awards in 1997. It swept. But Titanic was the overwhelming crowd favorite. And walked away with the trophy.

Next up in Part II:
Who should've beat The English Patient, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Unforgiven and Schindler's List (?!). Why Dances with Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy, Rain Man and The Last Emperor really did deserve it. Until then, see ya next week....

2007 Oscar Recap

2007-03-08T09:56:00.000-08:00

Another Oscar year has passed us by and for an unprecedented two years in a row, I picked the wrong damn Best Picture. Well, the Academy did anyway. How they managed to screw it up in each of the feature categories is beyond me?

The only Best Picture nominee NOT better than "The Departed" was "Little Miss Sunshine." But after blowing several opportunities to reward the right Scorsese film, they give it to the wrong one. "The Departed" wasn't even the best version of the film.

"Happy Feet" was definitely not the Best Animated Feature and I thought the timely release of "Cars" on DVD would've given the Academy a second chance to see why.

To be fair, I haven't seen the film that won Foriegn Language film yet, but I can't even imagine it is half the that "Pan's Labyrinth" is, since there are only a handful films that can even compare.

And don't get me started on Documentary. Okay, "An Inconvenient Truth" is an important film. It should be shown in classrooms everywhere. But that's not really how you're supposed to judge these films are you? "Fahrenheit 9/11" would've won for the same reason, but I'll be damned if it was half as compelling as "Super Size Me", which didn't win either, but hey. "Truth", as important and informative as it is, is not nearly as fascinating as "Jesus Camp."

The awards for Director, Actor, Actress and Supporting Actress were gimmes, as well as Original Screenplay. Supporting Actor was a mild surprise, but very mild. Adapted Screenplay was a little more surprising. I was sure this was where Hollywood was going to thumb its collective nose at the right wing and award "Borat." But on repeat viewing of "Infernal Affairs", I think giving it to "The Departed" is a good call.

Among the "lesser" awards, you know, the awards most people don't care about but are the people who make good movies great, "Pan's Labyrinth" got what it deserved in Art Direction, Cinematography and Makeup. I thought "Pirates of the Caribbean" would've snagged Sound Effects with its Visual Effects win, but "Letters from Iwo Jima" was a good choice, if for no other reason than to put this year in Oscar trivia history as one of the few years where all Best Picture nominees won at least one award. Sound for "Dreamgirls" and Score for "Babel" were deserving. I thought the costumes for "Prada" were more impressive, but Costume Design is one of the Academy's most subjective categories.

The only category I vehemently argue is Film Editing. As good as it was in "The Departed", it did not hold a candle to the work in "United 93." Watch the film again some time. It's subtle, but pay attention to how much faster the edits come as the tension grows. It's what made it a brilliant film. The whole film falls apart without it, much like "Black Hawk Down" a few years ago. Why the Academy got it right then, but not now, who's to say?

To sum up, respectable picks this year and everyone can FINALLY shut up about Scorsese never winning. Now, maybe people can start paying attention to the fact that Spielberg has won 2 directing awards without ever having directed an actor to an Oscar. Hell, he's been nominated for 6 times for director, almost as many as the 8 times an actor has even been nominated from one of his films. And 3 of those were for "Color Purple". 2 were for "Schindler's List." In other words, 6 Directing nods, 5 films with any acting nominations. That either makes him even more brilliant or totally overrated as far as spectacle over substance. Let's go there.