Oscar Thoughts Part 2

While Oscar was kind enough to open its doors to more audience-friendly fare this year ("Blind Side," "District 9," etc.), the winners were still more often than not the critical darlings that I expect to see rewarded every year. The theme of the night was substance over style but overall I thought the Academy did a good job this time around in honoring the right films and performances. A brief "Cheers and Jeers" look at the big categories and the show itself.

JEERS
"Precious" wins Best Adapted Screenplay - Perhaps this is less a "Jeer" and more a "Meh." I haven't seen "Precious" though I've heard only good things. But Jason Reitman's script for "Up in the Air" is incredible in every facet of its content. The movie clearly didn't have the backing it needed to really get into the Best Picture race, yet I felt it more than deserved an award in this category. This had the feel of an award given more for social relevancy than for actual achievement in writing.

"Up" not a serious player for Best Picture - Sure it got nominated, but going into the night everyone knew this category was a two-way race between "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker." I'm not saying either of those movies is underserving of the attention. If I'd had a vote I would have voted "Up in the Air" fifth, "Avatar" fourth, "Inglorious Basterds" third, and "The Hurt Locker" second. They were all excellent films and I think "Locker" is one of those movies that gets better the more you think about it. But "Up" is absolutely brilliant, truly unique, and emotionally compelling. If it wasn't an animated film, it would win Best Picture hands down.

Producer pulls a Kanye - In the only real awkward moment of the evening, the producer of "Music by Prudence" (Elinor Burkett) ran on stage and pushed the film's director to the side so she could get in her own, semi-intelligible speech. Turns out the two are feuding, to the point of lawsuits, but still this idiot came across as the loser of the night. See for yourself.

">

CHEERS
Jeff Bridges named Best Actor ("Crazy Heart") - Personally this would have been a very difficult category to vote in. Jeremy Renner and George Clooney were incredible in their roles and maybe even equal to Bridges. But when I walked out of "Crazy Heart," I felt like I had just seen the best leading performance of the year. Bridges' Bad Blake is magnificently true and authentic. And in general, it's good to see the impressive body of work Bridges has put together honored in this way.

Christoph Waltz named Best Supporting Actor ("Inglorious Basterds") - Waltz was absolutely mesmerizing from minute one of "Basterds." He was terrifying, methodically brutal, and yet verging on likeable in the strangest way possible. The most eloquent Nazi of all time to be sure.

Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin hosting - The duo displayed perfect chemistry and managed to be funny and relevant without dominating the spotlight. In fact I think you could make a case for their being underused. I love what they brought to the table.

John Hughes tribute - Even for a guy who doesn't quite get some of Hughes' more popular works, his tribute, overseen by some of his bigger stars, was quite touching. The ovation given his family in attendance was even more touching. And for some reason it's always cool/weird to see Macaulay Culkin as an adult.

Lack of preaching - I can't remember the last time I was able to watch a Hollywood-sponsored event without feeling like I was being inundated by an agenda. I hate being preached to when I'm not in church, even if I agree with the theme of the sermon. Because it was honored so often, those associated with "The Hurt Locker" had numerous opportunities to slam the anti-war message down my throat. Instead, time and time again they opted to go with the overall message of the film which was to point out the atrocities of war without preaching about the politics. "The Hurt Locker" was incredibly powerful and significant and that message would have only been diluted by excessive preaching. Kudos to the entire cast and crew, particularly director Kathryn Bigelow.

Sean Penn is still a tool,
Brian

"Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief"

Here’s the problem with being a movie nerd. When you make a point of going to the theater as often as I do, you often run out of viable viewing options for those celebratory moments when you might want to see a movie with friends or loved ones. It was my birthday recently and my wonderful wife, knowing my love for the silver screen, thought it would be a great idea to check out a movie on said birthday. The idea was solid, clearly, but the choices…yikes. The first couple months of the year are pretty barren movie wise and I’ve already seen most anything that really interests me. Hence, we ended up in a Sunday afternoon showing of “Percy Jackson.”

“Percy Jackson” is based on the first book in a series written by Rick Riordan. The books and the movie follow young Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) as he discovers his ancestry and the abilities he owes to that ancestry. All in one day, Jackson learns he is the son of Poseidon, the Greek god of the seas, and he is in great danger. He is transported to Camp Half Blood by his caretaker Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) who turns out to be a satyr. At Camp he is reacquainted with his former teacher Chiron (Pierce Brosnan) who turns out to be a centaur. As you can tell, it’s quite an exciting day for Percy. Before he knows what has hit him he is thrown into a world in which the stories of mythology are very real. He, Grover, and his new friend Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) soon set out on a quest to track down the god Zeus’s stolen lightning bolt.

I give these books a whole hearted “eh.” The stories are interesting enough but the writing is marginal at best. In truth they come across as yet another attempt to replicate the magic of the Harry Potter series. But whereas the Potter books are written for children but sophisticated enough for adults, most of the knock offs are childish and immature. They only become popular because Potter fans are always attempting to find that next fix to fill the void left by the ending of the Potter world. So what happens, you may ask, when you take sloppy and average source material and attempt to hastily turn it into a feature film? Well, you get crap like this movie.

“Percy Jackson” was, for all intents and purposes, worthless. I tried to will myself to ignore the inane dialogue and witless comedic relief. I tried to pretend like the early special effects weren’t pathetic. I even tried to convince myself it wasn’t that bad and I was in fact enjoying my movie going experience. But within about 15 minutes I was contemplating whether or not I could get a refund for this mess. The acting of Lerman and Daddario is bad but truthfully I expected that. Both are fairly inexperienced and usually your first turn as a leading character is rough. The rest of the cast, however, have no such excuse. Pierce Brosnan, Joe Pantoliano, Catherin Keener, etc. all feel as if they’re here only to collect a paycheck. (Joey Pants! What the heck happened, man?! You haven’t been in a real movie in years and THIS is your triumphant return? You were in “The Matrix” dude, come on!) Uma Thurman, Rosario Dawson, and Steve Coogan all stop in for cameos and all sleepwalk through their respective scenes. Jackson, however, is the worst of the worst. And I don’t just mean this film in particular; I mean in all of Hollywood, this is my least favorite kind of acting. When comic relief isn’t comical, it makes a decent movie seem bad and a bad movie seem miserable. This is the latter. Jackson is AWFUL and every cliché line he speaks only serves to highlight the low quality writing and acting you are currently subjecting your brain to.

Writing and direction are even worse in “Jackson” than the acting. Screenwriter Craig Titley truly lives up to his IMDB resume that is “highlighted” by his writing of the story (not the script) for “Cheaper by the Dozen.” Dialogue, scene structure, you name it, it’s bad. And then there’s Chris Columbus and his sloppy work behind the camera. There was a time when Columbus was one of the premier family-movie-makers in the industry. “Mrs. Doubtfire,” the first two “Harry Potter” films, and of course, one of my all time favorites, “Home Alone” were all excellent works of kid-friendly fare that had at least some adult appeal as well. Then came “Rent,” “I Love You, Beth Cooper,” and now this. Suddenly he’s looking like a guy who’s on his last legs. The actors don’t seem as if they’ve been challenged in any way and the plot lines are laughable. “Jackson” doesn’t even have the decency to come across as desperate. Instead it seems uncaring and haphazard, like Columbus knew he had a pile of trash on his hands and there was no way to make it look like anything but a pile of trash so he just threw it on the screen and hoped enough fans of the book would show up to break even. The best comparison I can make about this would be to call it “High School Musical” without the musical. It is of that quality or lower.

The final act of “Jackson” has some decent action sequences which keep this movie from being a complete and total loss. But it’s pretty darn close. This is lazy, sloppy, and careless filmmaking based on source material of the same ilk. Like the books, it doesn’t fill the void left by the soon-to-be-concluded “Potter” films but rather leaves the viewer wishing those “Potter” films could just keep going. D.

A lovely cheese pizza just for me,
Brian

OK GO

I may be a little late to the party here but...

Check out the newest music video from visionaries OKGO. These guys put together amazing videos time and time again and this one is probably my favorite so far. So cool.

"Shutter Island"

If there’s anything I’ve learned about the movie industry over the years it’s that the studios haven’t learned anything. If they can screw up a project, they will, even one with a pedigree like that of “Shutter Island.” This movie was supposed to be released back in November, right in the middle of Award Season. Apparently it didn’t test well or Paramount didn’t feel it was Oscar caliber and as a result it was pushed back. That’s not the end of the world, it happens all the time, and it’s not necessarily cause for concern. What is cause for concern, however, is the new release date (mid February, a dumping ground for Hollywood) and the new trailer. I have see the “Island” trailer approximately 128 times in the last six months and suddenly, a few weeks before the release, we got a different trailer cut to play up the “scary” factor and make you forget that this was supposed to be an award winning movie. Therefore, my excitement going into “Shutter Island” was only equaled by my nervousness.

Opening in 1954 New England, “Shutter Island” is set an isolated mental institute (found on, coincidentally, Shutter Island) for the criminally insane. The institute is equally dark, depressing, and creepy, a place no one would ever want to stumble into even if it didn’t contain the worst of the worst nut cases. It is in this world that US Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) finds himself, summoned to the island to find an inmate who has escaped. Daniels is the definition of a flawed hero, struggling with both the ghost of his murdered wife and flashbacks of his actions in The War, but he is nevertheless extremely tough and determined. He has his own agenda for taking this case, namely that he wants to expose the acts of Shutter Island’s front man Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley). Before too long, however, Daniels becomes acutely aware that Cawley is on to his little game and is working diligently to lock him away with the crazies. The film is filled with mind games, fantastic twists, and extremely intense sequences, culminating in a final act that is both heavy and thrilling.

Though it is a departure from the type of movie director Marin Scorsese usually brings us, “Island” is nonetheless exquisite in its craftsmanship. It kind of made me wonder if Scorsese could have revolutionized the suspense/thriller/horror genre if he had dedicated himself to it so many years ago. The pacing is SPECTACULAR, never quick to move until the very end and yet I never once felt as if it was dragging or became even slightly disinterested. The tension and suspense builds throughout the film while using none of the typical gags and bits you expect to get in a thriller. Music, sound effects, and the like are used to heighten the suspense, not cause the suspense, adding ambiance to the feel of the movie. Likewise, there are some action sequences here and there but unlike so many other thrillers, the action doesn’t allow for release of the suspense, rather allowing it to plays further on the tension of the subject matter as well as your own emotions.

The technical aspects of “Island” are equally magnificent (though that’s what I expect from Scorsese). Shutter Island is a frightening place and the use of color, sound, and shot selection left me feeling as almost a bit claustrophobic, as if I myself was trapped inside the asylum. I am a big fan of a director allowing the actual sounds of the film’s setting and environment to provide the soundtrack. “No Country for Old Men,” for example, is soundtracked (not a word, I know) almost exclusively by the action of the film and the dusty plains on which it takes place. “Island” often does the same. One scene in particular in which Daniels lights match after match to guide his way is amazing in its use of sound. My wife jumped EVERY SINGLE TIME he lit a match. (Though maybe that’s more about her than the film but I’m going to spin it in favor of the film.)

I wouldn’t say the on screen performances are quite as good as the behind the camera work, but in all honesty, I don’t know how it could be. I was (clearly) blown away by the direction. However, DiCaprio is as strong as ever, continuing his work toward a lifetime achievement award for making me look like an idiot for calling him a crappy actor who’s only made it in life because he’s good looking. “Island,” “The Departed,” “Catch Me If You Can,” and “Blood Diamond” have all gone a long way in forcing me to forgive him for his part in “Titanic.” Teddy Daniels is rough, gritty, and haunted and DiCaprio pulls it off well. His support, including Kingsley, Max von Sydow, Michelle Williams, and Jackie Earle Haley, are all strong characters requiring strong performances. All of them come through admirably, with the exception of Mark Ruffalo. I just don’t know what to do with Ruffalo. I want to like him and I have nothing against him. It just seems to me that he is the exact same character in every single movie, whether it be a thriller like “Shutter Island” or a throwaway RomCom like “Rumor Has It.” He just bores me at this point and as he is perhaps the second biggest player in this film, I felt like he held the whole thing back a bit.

“Shutter Island’s” closing act is tremendous and the final words should, for my money, be added into the lexicon of memorable movie lines. My only real complaint about “Island” is that it often feels too self important. The script is based on a book by Dennis Lehane, who also penned the books that “Mystic River” and “Gone Baby Gone” are based upon. Those books cover hard, important subject matters that lend themselves to significant adaptations. “Shutter Island,” on the other hand, isn’t significant in terms of the topics and issues therein. It’s a straight thriller. An excellent, compelling thriller to be sure, but still not quite on the level of Lehane’s other works. At times it feels like Scorsese (or perhaps screen writer Laeta Kalogridis) is trying to make “Island” more important, more impactful than it really should be instead of just allowing it to be one of the better thrillers of the last few years. This forced significance by no means overshadows “Island’s” strong points but it does keep it from reaching its fullest potential. B+.

I have no idea how to pronounce that screenwriter’s name,
Brian

"Valentine's Day"

Because of what you are about to read and the opinion expertly crafted within, I have been accused of being a Movie Snob. I fervently disagree with this diagnosis and think the perpetrator should be forced to read the work of Owen Gleiberman (or any number of mainstream critics, for that matter) for a week so she can see what a true Movie Snob sounds like. But I’ll have to let you be the judge. Personally I think I’m the anti-movie snob. Sure, I call out the truly terrible movies but I also find good in movies that get seriously panned by the rest of the known universe. I mean, come on, I gave a B- to “Transformers 2” for goodness sakes! I ask a movie to do just two things: set a goal as to what type of movie it wants to be and work towards that goal as strongly as possible. For the most part it’s all about entertainment for me. Quite simply, I love movies. I did not love this movie.

“Valentine’s Day” is an ensemble set on a particular Memorial Day. No, wait, I mean Valentine’s Day. My bad. From a doctor to a football player, a florist to a soldier, the lives (and particularly their love lives) of a dozen or so Los Angelinos are examined for a brief moment in the effort to remind us about what love is all about. Whether successful in love or otherwise, these people are, I guess, supposed to represent the wide range of emotions we experience on Valentine’s Day. And, as always, all of their lives interconnect in one way or another. The best way to describe this movie would be to compare it to “Crash” but annoyingly upbeat or “Love Actually” without a competent writer.

My guess is we’ve all, at one time or another, come in contact with that relative who’s gotten a little older and started to lose it. You know, the one who used to be of major influence in the family, the guy who made decisions. Now he’s not quite all there but he doesn’t want to admit it and no one has the heart to tell him. You know the type, yes? That’s the feeling you get watching “Valentine’s Day.” You know director Garry Marshall used to be good at his craft but the longer this film drags on, the more you think the guy has lost his movie marbles. I will not for one minute argue that I, as a twentysomething male, am the primary audience for “Valentine” or any other Marshall film. But I have appreciated (some of) Marshall’s past work and I am not diametrically opposed to the Chick Flick. “Pretty Woman,” for what it is, is a classic and “Runaway Bride” is solid (though both would be better without a hack like Richard Gere involved). Even “The Princess Diaries” had redeeming qualities for me until I was stuck in a waiting room for six hours a few years back and had to watch it three times. But “Valentine’s Day” is the type of thing that happens when a big name starts to lose it and no one around him has the heart to tell him no.

It isn’t all bad directing, though. The writing, while not atrocious, is certainly far from good and leaves an all star caliber cast with very little to work with. It’s cheesy and laughable but not in such a sophisticated manner as to become tongue-in-cheek or campy. There are several things that immediately identify poor writing but the one that drives me the craziest is when a set of characters have a conversation that shouldn’t take place on screen. If two characters have been sitting next to each other on an air plane for somewhere between ten and twelve hours, they would not introduce themselves when the movie starts. Period. Stuff like this denotes half-hearted storytelling.

And then we get into the issue of the ensemble. Ensembles are, for me, almost always very good or very bad. There isn’t much middle ground. If your actors are invested and your source material is strong, you can produce fantastic results. On the flip side of that, poor writing and direction allows an ensemble cast to give lazy, mailed in performances that do nothing to bring the material to life. The result seems, for lack of a better term, sloppy. Plot holes and bad dialogue look and sound worse when they’re happening to and being spoken by characters that are undeveloped and uncommitted. It is never a good sign when Ashton Kutcher gives the best performance in any movie, let alone one with this much talent. Too many characters are miscast and/or misused. Jamie Foxx is so uninspired that it makes one wonder what could have happened for this guy if he’d used his Best Actor Oscar for good instead of evil. And Patrick Dempsey continues to amaze me and by that I mean I’m amazed that he has any sort of career resembling the one he’s carved out for himself. That dude has some incriminating evidence against somebody who is very important in Hollywood. Even Taylor Swift is better in this than these guys were.

There are some nice moments in “Valentine’s Day” and some humor. As mentioned, Kutcher is quite funny and even George Lopez provides a laugh or two. Up to this point I’d always thought it was illegal for him to tell a funny joke. It’s always a personal joy to see Julia Roberts on screen (even if she is horribly miscast) and there’s a solid scene here and there. The overall product, however, is mindless, lazy, and lacking in execution. It is overly sappy without connection or relevance and rendered me completely uninterested. And if that takes me into the realm of movie snobbery, then I guess so be it. C-.

I can’t believe I laughed with George Lopez,
Brian

DIIRRRKKKK!!!

Last week my dad called me and told me he had tickets to go to the NBA All Star Jam Session on Wednesday if I wanted them. My dad's boss is a Mavericks season ticket holder who, knowing what a fool I am for Mavericks basketball, passes on his tickets to me a couple of times a year. He was kind enough to pass on his Jam Session tickets as well and of course I jumped at the chance to go. I had planned to take my wife and some friends to the event on Thursday or Friday. I figured there'd be a better chance of there being actual All Stars on those days as opposed to Wednesday. But free tickets are free tickets. And it turned out to be an even better opportunity.

As I spoke to a friend on Tuesday about the event, he started looking for tickets to tag along with me for the Wednesday event. An iPhone internet search revealed that the Wednesday version of Jam Session was Maverick-centric and only open to "special guests" (meaning season ticket holders and anyone else who picked up a ticket at their local Minyard's Food Store). Somewhere along the line we came across a Craigslist post that mentioned that Dirk Nowitzki was going to be signing autographs. I got a little excited. Okay, a lot excited.

I love Dirk Nowitzki. Recently my sister did one of those Facebook question things that asked her, "Who would Brian Gill vote for as President?" Her answer was Dirk and she's totally right. If it was legally possible for Dirk Nowitzki to become President of the USA, I would totally vote for him (which is a perfect example of why not everyone should be allowed to vote). He's a top 7 player in the game today and has been for years despite being possibly the most underappreciated superstar in the history of the league. (Call me a homer, I don't care. I know basketball better than you do and Dirk gets nowhere near the respect he deserves.) Having grown up a Mavs fan, I have been through the absolute worst that any franchise could ask their fans to go through. My first indoctrination into Mavdom was an 11 win season, followed by a 13 win season in which my favorite player was traded. It didn't get much better until Dirk came along. Dirk owns a 40% share in the "Reasons the Mavericks Don't Suck Anymore" pie graph I have in my head (33% Mark Cuban, 8% Don Nelson, 8% Steve Nash, 5% Michael Finley, and 6% assorted others). Without Dirk this franchise would still be the joke that it was for most of my youth.

Dirk is my second favorite Maverick (and NBA player overall) of all time, having recently overcome Finley in my personal rankings and trailing only Derek Harper. “What? Still behind Harper? What's that about?" you might say. Consider that Derek Harper was my idol (in the "American" sense, not the Biblical sense of course) growing up. When everyone else wanted to be Michael Jordan, I wanted to be Derek Harper. If in 20 years I have a son who leaves Duke after one championship season and is drafted by the Mavericks, he still might only rank as my second favorite Maverick of all time. The fact that Dirk has gotten that close to Harper Territory should serve to illustrate how big a Dirk fan I am. The guy has carried the team through thick and thin without the kind of support other superstars have gotten across the league. And he has been the consummate professional through it all. The most unique player in the game, he is an absolute treat to watch night in and night out, despite not being the type of player who throws out Sportscenter highlight plays every night.

I digress. Some digging revealed that Dirk Nowitzki would indeed be signing autographs and so my uncle and I found ourselves in line to get into the Convention Center about an hour before it opened. He got in line while I ran to the “Absurdly Priced Pro Shop That Doesn’t Sell Anything You Actually Want and Charges You Way More Than Any Human Should Ever Pay for a Replica Basketball Jersey” to get something to be signed. (Security wouldn’t allow basketballs to be brought in. Everything else was good to go, just not basketballs, which was the one thing I had brought to be signed.) When I got back, my uncle told me a security guard had come by and told us Dirk would only sign for an hour and we probably would not make it up there before the hour was up. As a consolation, however, we would be close to the front of the line for Erick Dampier. Erick Dampier! Going from Dirk to Damp would have been a huge kick to the Gortats, no offense to Damp. As we waited, another employee came up and told the others that at some point they were going to have Security Guard X (who looked like a shorter version of Mr. Echo from “Lost”) jump into the line facing the crowd and anyone after him wouldn’t be able to meet Dirk. I would not have liked to have been the first person exiled by Mr. Echo.
Dirk arrived and started signing autographs. Every five minutes a lady would yell, “One item per person! No pictures!” Usually I hate these types of policies at signings like this but since I was so far back, I was happy to hear these instructions. The guy behind us started counting and figured that each person was on stage for about 10 seconds. After 15 minutes or so, the line had moved considerably and we felt pretty good about our chances. The line kept moving at a reasonable place and with the exception of the occasional long-talker taking upwards of 20 seconds to get off stage, everyone played by the rules. In one of the crazier moments of the day, a twentysomething girl asked if she could have the empty water bottle Dirk had just finished off. He gave her a weird look and said, “You want the bottle? Um, okay.” She ran off giggling like he’d given her the keys to his car. Ah, the power of the star athlete.

Finally it was my turn. I walked up on stage. I handed my criminally overpriced basketball to the security guard and told him where I wanted the ball signed. He pushed the ball over to Dirk who obliged. While he signed I motioned to my uncle to take my picture standing next to my German Hero, only just as he started to take the picture one of the guards brought this kid in a wheel chair onto the stage and it turned into an awkward moment of my uncle and I both trying to determine if this kid was going to cut through the picture while at the same time knowing we had approximately four seconds to get this thing done before security threw me off stage. This resulted in a truly terrible picture for which I apologize. Dirk handed the ball back to me and I forced him into a handshake because, get real, how am I NOT going to shake Dirk’s hand? I had thought about what I would say in this moment (gay, I know) but seriously, how do you sum up your appreciation for one of your heroes in 1.2 seconds? I stumbled through something like, “Um, thanks for being awesome” as we shook hands and then made my exit to stage left, my life forever having been changed.

It’s always a tricky situation when you meet a personal hero. You’re not quite yourself, naturally, and while you’ll jump at the chance to have the experience, there’s always the chance that the guy will turn out to be a toolbag. When I met Derek Harper in the 8th grade, he was the coolest guy in the world. He signed every single thing I brought to the table and sat around talking basketball with me and my buddy for a solid 30 minutes. On the flip side of that, I also met Chris Arnold, a radio personality from my favorite station, in the 8th grade and was amazed at what a jerk he was. The Harper meeting was iconic and edifying; not only did I meet him but he was a heck of a guy and that left me feeling like I’d made a good choice in a role model (as weird as that may sound). Meeting Arnold on the other hand was embarrassing and somewhat crushing. I listed to that guy every day! I even risked detention listening on a walkman during Texas History and yet he had no time for a young fan. I’m happy to report that the Dirk Experience falls into the Harper category, only further deepening my hero worship of the guy. Dirk was fantastic with everyone, especially the little kids who probably couldn’t figure out why this giant was writing on their clothing. He was a true professional and I will be forever thankful for the opportunity to have those 10 seconds of awesomeness.

Now go get a title,
Brian

Oscar Thoughts

Oscar nominations are out and everyone in the Blogosphere has been discussing the most prestigious award ceremony over the last few days. I don't usually get too caught up in the Oscars because, for one, everyone else covers it so throrougly and two, I usually haven't seen a ton of the nominated films. Often the nominees are obscure titles that haven't been in wide release or ones that I have no real interest in. But what the heck, I'll throw my two cents in this time around. I'm covering only the major awards, of course, and for each category I'll be predicting who will win, who I would vote for if the Academy was dumb enough to induct me, and someone who I felt was worthy of nomination. That's not to say (generally speaking) that he/she/it should be nominated in place of someone/thing that was nominated. I think the Academy did a better job this year than they have in recent years in terms of nominating the right people. So way to go, Academy!

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"

Prediction: Jeff Bridges - I still haven't seen "Crazy Heart" but Bridges seems to be a sure thing here.
My vote: Clooney, though Renner was great as well. In truth, this is an extremely strong category this year. I don't think you can make a legit case against any of these guys.
Also deserving: Sam Rockwell, "Moon", Joseph Gordon-Levitt, "500 Days of Summer" - Rockwell was spectacular in his own version of "Cast Away"/"I Am Legend." Levitt showed great range in the unique "500 Days."

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

Prediction: Bullock - this one is completely locked up, the other nominees need not show up.
My vote: Having only seen one of these movies, it would have to be Bullock.
Also deserving: Maya Rudolph, "Away We Go", Amy Adams, "Sunshine Cleaning" - It was shocking to see Rudolph in a serious role and she delivered a stirring performance. "Cleaning" has gotten no award show love but I'm still not convinced Amy Adams didn't give the best female performance I saw all year.

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon, "Invictus"
Woody Harrelson, "The Messenger"
Christopher Plummer, "The Last Station"
Stanley Tucci, "The Lovely Bones"
Christoph Waltz, "Inglorious Basterds"


Prediction: Waltz - if Bullock is a lock, Waltz is like the kind of lock that goes on a state of the art bank safe. No one else is coming home with this award...
My vote: Waltz - ...and no one else should take home this award. Waltz was perfect.
Also deserving: Brad Pitt, "Inglorious Basterds", Jude Law, "Sherlock Holmes" - I thought Pitt was comedic genius as the head of the Nazi hunting troop in "Basterds." With his take on Watson in "Sherlock Holmes," Law breathed a new life into his career that he will surely destroy when his new film "Repo Men" hits screens later this year.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Penelope Cruz, "Nine"
Vera Farmiga, "Up in the Air"
Maggie Gyllenhaal, "Crazy Heart"
Anna Kendrick, "Up in the Air"
Monique, "Precious"

Prediction: Monique - I haven't seen "Precious" and I don't intend to, but I've heard Monique is a shoe-in.
My vote: Kendrick/Farmiga - Honestly I can't decide who was better and I have a feeling that will only help Monique's campaign; Farmiga and Kendrick will split the vote too much for one of them to win. If pressed, I would vote Kendrick.
Also deserving: Emily Blunt, "Sunshine Cleaning", Melanie Laurent, "Inglorious Basterds" - Again, "Cleaning" got no love and it's a shame. Blunt was incredible. And for the first time, I'm calling foul on the Academy. Melanie Laurent was GANGBUSTERS in "Basterds." I haven't seen "Nine" but there's no freaking way Penelope Cruz did ANYTHING in that movie that equalled Laurent's work.

DIRECTING
James Cameron, Avatar
Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"
Quientin Tarantino, "Inglorious Basterds"
Lee Daniels, "Precious"
Jason Reitman, "Up in the Air"

Prediction: Bigelow - This will be the first time in the history of the Awards that a woman has won Best Director. Totally deserving.
My vote: Cameron - All of these directors are more than deserving (again, excluding "Precious" as I haven't seen it). But I don't know how I could not vote for Cameron. You can rip Cameron on his script and his story all you want (and it would be deserving) but as far as direction, the work he did on "Avatar" is so extensive that I don't think you can vote against him.
Also deserving: Neill Blomkamp, "District 9" - Blomkamp's work came out of nowhere. An excellent sci-fi tale with powerful yet subtle Apartheid themes, it is SHOCKING that this dude put this together on the budget he had (reportedly under $30 million).

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglorious Basterds"
"The Messenger"
"A Serious Man"
"Up"

Prediction: I think they'll balance this out. If "Avatar" wins Picture and Bigelow wins Director, I think the voters take care of either Tarantino or the Coen Brothers and vote for "Inglorious Basterds" or "A Serious Man."
My vote: "Inglorious Basterds" - I haven't seen "A Serious Man" yet but I think "Basterds" was the best, most inventive script I've seen put to the screen in a while.
Also deserving: "Moon," "500 Days of Summer" - Both were truly unique which is what I usually look for in this category.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
"District 9"
"An Education"
"In the Loop"
"Precious"
"Up in the Air"

Prediction: "Up in the Air" - And the splitting up of the awards continues. This was a fantastic, real, sometimes depressing but never devastating movie that was wonderfully structured.
My vote: "Up in the Air"
Also deserving: "The Road," "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince," "Where the Wild Things Are" - Bringing "The Road" to the screen without losing the tone of the book was a difficult process. "Harry Potter 6" was perhaps the best of the bunch in terms of bringing the book to the screen as it was invisioned. And "Wild Things" tackled an incredibly difficult task in turning a beloved children's book of about 8 pages into a full movie that captured the essence of said book.

BEST PICTURE
"Avatar"
"An Education"
"The Blind Side"
"District 9"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglorious Basterds"
"Precious"
"A Serious Man"
"Up"
"Up in the Air"

Prediction: "Avatar" - I think "The Hurt Locker" is "Avatar's" biggest competition. But for all its flaws I'm not sure the Academy is going to pass on "Avatar." Honestly, though, I don't think you can go wrong with "Avatar," "Hurt Locker," "Basterds," "Up," or "Up in the Air." They were all excellent.
My vote: "Up" - The first Pixar film to get the respect that company deserves, I personally think "Up" was the best movie I saw all year. It is unique, it is funny, it is visually appealing, and it is emotionally relevant in a way that most of these movies weren't.
Also deserving: "Moon" - Having no budget hurt but having no support from the studio hurt worse. This was a fantastic movie and unfortunately no one will ever see it.

I might actually watch this junk this year,
Brian