Academy Awards: 4 out of 5 Ain't Bad

I saw JUNO on Friday night and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN last night, getting me to 4 out of 5 of the Best Picture nominees. Unfortunately, THERE WILL BE BLOOD won't get viewed in time{sorry, Doug, I can't help you out on that one}.

Random thoughts...

JUNO and NCFOM wre both good, but personally I don't see what all the fuss is about- I neither loved nor hated both of these. JUNO is a George W Bush film {a great divider}, and people are either raving about it or hating on it hard. I'm right in the middle- I didn't hate it but it's not the most amazing shit I've seen either. As far as the dialog, yeah maybe it was mildly annoying, but hell I have no idea how 16 year olds talk these days, so no biggie. My problem with this movie is that although it was wonderfully acted, I just didn't find Juno's character to be that believable or realistic. I find it hard to believe that a 16 year old would really be so nonchalant and flippant through that whole experience, and that her dad would be so chill as well. That's more down to the story and the writing, as I said the acting was great- I especially liked how Jason Bateman played his likable character and Jennifer Garner played her not so likable character so well.

NCFOM did an amazing job of creating truly suspenseful/tense/scary scenes that were unpredictable and made me genuinely on edge, but methinks that falls more in line with the Best Direction category than Best Picture. The unresolved ending didn't really bother me, as this movie doesn't seem to be about a linear storyline rather than the theme of being an old man and trying to come to terms with the world passing you by, so no worries there. The story was good but not great, and I'm trying to figure out if all the violence was really merited or if it was violence for violence sake & a bit of violence porn like in PULP FICTION.

Anyhow, that leaves ATONEMENT and MICHAEL CLAYTON, both of which I personally liked better than the aforementioned two, which along with THERE WILL BE BLOOD seem to be getting all the buzz. They are pretty damn different, so it's had to choose between the two, but I suppose in the end ATONEMENT gave me more to think about afterwards and got me pondering some pretty philosophical shit- how to you make amends for a sin that is unforgivable? etc, etc. On the other hand, I'm sure if I had read the book before hand I wouldn't have liked it, since the next movie that is as good as or better than the book will be the first.

So of the 4 I saw I would rank them 1A ATONEMENT, 1B MICHAEL CLAYTON, 3 NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, 4 JUNO.

Bardem was good in NCFOM, but not to the level that everyone is freaking out about. I thought that Wilkinson was better in MICHAEL CLAYTON, and I thought that Phillip Seymour Hoffman was better than both of them in CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR.

I didn't see 4 of the 5 films for Best Actor, so no use in talking about that. I did think that Tommy Lee Jones was outstanding in NCFOM fwiw.

And although I failed to catch either of the 2 documentaries about Iraq, or the one about the Afghan taxi driver, I did see SICKO and WARDANCE, and I am pulling hard for WARDANCE to win Best Documentary- I thought the movie was amazing, and if it doesn't win then I am running out to watch what beats it, cause you are going to have to come pretty damn strong to beat that.

So there it is. My $0.02, even though I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as Solon, whose Oscars breakdown can be seen here.

Show's in 1 hour. Enjoy.

The Oscars According To Solon, 2007 Edition

For years, film aficionado Solon has sent out a lengthy email to all of his so-called mates in which he breaks down the Oscars. Last year I shared it here and it generated some discussion, so here is this year's email, which I received last night. It's the shortest one ever, but still damn good as always.

If you really want to dork out, Solon's much more in depth review from years past:

Oscars According To Solon 2006
Oscars According To Solon 2005
Oscars According To Solon 2004

FYI the Academy Awards are Sunday night. Enjoy

Greetings all.

First things first, the PhD applications really stuffed me this year, so my movie-going experience is not nearly as prolific as it is most years--in fact, truth be told, I've seen less than 20 movies (as opposed to my usual 50 or so). But I have seen all of the big ones and people are asking, so I'll produce. But don't be offended if I missed your hip little independent film, I just didn't have the time.

Also, the format's a little different this year. Next year I'll be back to my normal lists. Until then, hopefully this will suffice. Enjoy.

Best Picture

Will win: NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Should win: JUNO

The standard beef with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is that the ending is poor. In reality, it is not that it is poor, but that it is uninteresting; I have not seen a movie lose so much momentum toward the end since (ironically) MAGNOLIA. It has other flaws as well--Woody Harrelson's character is unnecessary, for example--and while it's wonderfully shot, it most assuredly does not live up to its hype as a "classic American film" the way that THERE WILL BE BLOOD does.

I do not think THERE WILL BE BLOOD is Paul Thomas Anderson's best work--that honor still goes to the outstanding BOOGIE NIGHTS--but I can see where people are coming from when they call it an epic. I think it probably falls a bit short with what it is trying to get across--it's a poor man's CITIZEN KANE, largely since Plainview isn't as well developed as Kane is--but, as I said, I would not begrudge someone for believing the movie pulled off what it sought to accomplish. As for the story, while I did not particularly care for the ending--I think it descended a little too much into absurdity--at least it held my attention.

The year's best offering, however, is JUNO. The haters are out in force for this movie, telling everyone who will listen that the character of Juno is annoying, that the dialogue is unrealistic, or that the movie tries "too hard to be cool," but all of those people can just go and get stuffed (I mean, seriously, is there any more dickheaded appeal than saying something "tries too hard to be cool"? Please, let me know what is sufficiently cool, so I can bow down to you for making that determination for me.). I mean, anyone can get a stick up their ass and talk about how people who like a movie they hate don't know anything about movies--hell, I should know, I did it the last two years with LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and CRASH--but it doesn't mean they have any idea what they are talking about. For the record, I asked my 15-year-old niece if she thought the dialogue was unrealistic, and she pointed out that not only is Juno set in a different part of the country than she lives in, but that even at her high school not everyone talks the same way. In any event, she didn't find the dialogue to be unrealistic or distracting. Of course, she also has the benefit of not being a pretentious ass, so I suppose that helps.

Where to start with JUNO? The screenplay is great, of course, but the acting is also perfect--everyone's so wonderfully cast, it's hard to imagine any improvements. With a few minor exceptions, the characters aren't played for laughs--sort of the opposite of an Alexander Payne movie. All of them have good qualities, but they are all flawed as well. The plot is original and, for the most part, unpredictable (take that, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE) and I was fully invested in the story and the characters. It is, as I read somewhere, one of the rare movies that can warm your heart and break it all at the same time. Is some of the dialogue strained? Sure it is, but why isn't anyone bitching about "What business is it of yours where I'm from, friend-o" as much as they are bitching about "Honest to blog"? I mean, you want to talk about some seriously stupid shit, it's some psychopath calling someone "friend-o." Let's face it, most movies have a line or two that hurt it, but it doesn't ruin the movie unless you want it to.

Best Director:

Will win: Joel and Ethan Coen, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Should win: Paul Thomas Anderson, THERE WILL BE BLOOD

I like the Coens, but I think they are immensely overrated. I never really understood the hype surrounding FARGO, which is fine but strikes me as more of a quirky movie that caught on as opposed to an actual legitimate film (sort of like a lesser GHOST WORLD or HEATHERS--or, for that matter, a lesser THE BIG LEBOWSKI). In terms of direction, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is certainly the best thing they've ever done, but, to be perfectly honest, that isn't saying too much (what's it better than--BARTON FINK and O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU, I guess--and neither of those is a classic by any measure). I don't mean to imply that the job they did here wasn't good--because it was outstanding. And, in most years, they'd deserve an Oscar for the job they did--in fact, Bardem is going to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar as much because of their direction (and Deakins' cinematography) as for his acting. But this year they are second-best.

The ironic thing about Paul Thomas Anderson's job in THERE WILL BE BLOOD is that one of his greatest strengths as a director--his ability to match the perfect music to a scene, where he is arguably the equal of Scorsese, and better than Tarantino--is not really in evidence here. Jonny Greenwood's score is getting a lot of hype, but I thought it was a little heavy-handed, myself, and I found it to be a great disappointment given the effectiveness of Anderson's use of music in the past. That said, the rest Anderson's direction was pretty amazing; the movie is one great scene after another. The scene with the oil fire is one of the great scenes of recent years, and it's rare that such a great scene lasts as long as that one does (though this year there was a similarly great long scene, the Dunkirk scene in ATONEMENT)--and it's the one time in the movie that the music fits perfectly. I was a little concerned about Anderson after PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE--but he has come back in a big way here.

Best Actor:

Will win: Daniel Day-Lewis, THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Should win: Daniel Day-Lewis, THERE WILL BE BLOOD

Daniel Day-Lewis--who, amazingly, has only been in 3 movies in the last 10 years, and only been in 8 since MY LEFT FOOT nearly 20 years ago--might have been the only actor who could have pulled off the character of Daniel Plainview, but pull it off he did. His character does seem to derive from John Huston in CHINATOWN, but that's not too bad a thing--Cate Blanchett won an Academy Award recently for playing a caricature, and she wasn't nearly as good as Day-Lewis was. I wish the character had been more developed--why does he have a competition in him, and not want anyone else to succeed?--but that's not Day-Lewis' failing. Sure, he probably takes the last scene a little too far, but I'm not sure there's a better way to play it--and even though he's also a nutter in the penultimate scene, he isn't too over-the-top in that one despite the necessary theatrics.

Best Actress:

Will win: Julie Christie, AWAY FROM HER
Should win: Ellen Page, JUNO

This is the strongest of the major categories this year, which I feel confident in saying despite not having seen Blanchett. Christie and Cotillard will battle this one out, but I think Christie rates the edge here. Both are great, but I personally think Cotillard overacts a little, whereas Christie's performance is much more subtle and that will likely serve her well. I was pretty amazed that Cotillard won the BAFTA but I think the Academy will turn the tables and Christie will get a well-deserved second Oscar. Also, Sarah Polley's direction was so great that it would be a tragedy if the movie wasn't rewarded in some way, and she won't win for adapted screenplay.

Ellen Page, though, dominates JUNO and gives a performance the equal of Day-Lewis' in THERE WILL BE BLOOD. Her great performance is no surprise--she was outstanding in a difficult role in HARD CANDY and has received accolades for her completed-but-unreleased performance in AN AMERICAN CRIME--but what's unfortunate is that it's easy to lose sight of how good her performance is. One can argue about how true-to-life Cody's screenplay is, but it's not really possible to argue that Page struggles with it even though it's a pretty demanding role. It requires her to wear many hats, and she runs through them all pretty seamlessly. Sure, she's great when she cries in the car, but she's even better when she's talking about shooting babies out of t-shirt guns in China. She's helped by a strong cast--no one in the movie is bad--but it's her show, and the movie is only as good as it is because she carries it.

Credit also is due to Anamaria Marinca in 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, 2 DAYS, who is outstanding (and I rate it as the 3rd best movie this year, behind JUNO and THERE WILL BE BLOOD). The three best performances this year are Day-Lewis', Page's, and Marinca's, and there's not much to separate the three of them. Her scene at the dinner table is arguably the most powerful scene in any movie this year, and it's pretty much just her facial expressions. Amazing. It's unfortunate that she isn't getting more credit for her performance, especially considering that it's her cinematic debut.

Best Supporting Actor:

Will win: Javier Bardem, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Should win: Tom Wilkinson, MICHAEL CLAYTON

The only thing that stuns me more than the hype for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is the hype that Bardem is getting. Sure, he acts like a crazy fucker, but he doesn't do much other than look like a nut and has a crazy look on his face. Really, he's only got three scenes where he does any "acting"--at the Texaco station, with Woody Harrelson, and with Kelly MacDonald--and, for the most part, the other person in each scene out-acts him (maybe not in the Woody Harrelson scene, but this is the weakest of the three). In my estimation, in his signature scene--the one at the Texaco station--he's not the one who dominates that scene, the old man does. "You have to call it, this is the best I can do"? "This coin took 22 years to get here"? Big fucking deal. Compare Bardem's performance to Ben Kingsley's performance in SEXY BEAST, and, well, there's no comparison. Kingsley's a small guy who comes off as this seriously intimidating scary dude, whereas Bardem just has a crazy look on his face and a gun (or that cattle stun-gun thing).

On the other hand, Wilkinson is great in MICHAEL CLAYTON--the scene where he is arguing with Clooney about his coming to terms with his life's work is amazing ("I am Shiva, the god of death."), as is the scene where he sticks it to Clooney when he is challenged on his area of expertise. To be perfectly honest, having worked in the legal field for so long, and seeing the complete lack of intellectual integrity on the part of many high-powered attorneys probably had me wondering why breakdowns like his don't happen more often, and had be cheering for him a little bit. Still, it's not easy to play a man in his position undergoing a breakdown with conviction, but Wilkinson doesn't take a wrong step. Unfortunately for him, he is a bit player in what is probably the year's most memorable scene, which, for the record, is much scarier than any of the shit Bardem participates in.

Best Supporting Actress:

Will win: Amy Ryan, GONE BABY GONE
Should win: Saoirse Ronan, ATONEMENT

Here is where my ignorance catches up with me, as I have only seen Swinton and Ronan of the nominees.

The favorite is Blanchett, but I can't imagine she'll win another Supporting Actress Oscar for essentially playing another caricature of someone with whom everyone is familiar. Ryan is by all accounts excellent in GONE BABY GONE, and while she's won her share of awards this season--enough to suggest she can win the Oscar--she hasn't won so many that the Academy will feel the need to even things up with Blanchett. So take the price and go with Ryan.

I didn't think much of Swinton in MICHAEL CLAYTON, which makes my decision pretty easy; and, in truth, watching her struggle with an American accent gave me a lot more respect for Day-Lewis' performance in THERE WILL BE BLOOD. But Ronan is quite good--probably not good enough for a win, but certainly good enough for a nomination. Really, all of the Brionys in ATONEMENT are good, and while Redgrave is probably better her role is so tiny that there's little question which one of the three is the most impressive.


The Academy Awards are this Sunday, February 24th. Enjoy.

War Dance: Go See This Movie. Really.

I didn't get out of my test last night in time for the show, but I did get out in time to catch the late viewing of a movie that has been on my radar since it came out.


Trailer, short version

It's called War Dance and in addition to the dozens of other awards that it has already received, it is up for Best Documentary at next Sunday night's Academy Awards.

It is amazing, and amazingly well done. It is the simultaneously tragic and uplifting story of children from wartorn northern Uganda who are refugees in their own country and how the music and dance program at their school gives them a little bit of joy and hope in their otherwise extremely difficult lives. Another well needed reminder to us that when we as Americans think we have stresses and problems in life, 99% of us really have no comprehension of how insignificant those alleged stresses and problems are compared to people such as these.


Extended trailer with some scenes that were not in the movie

If Cry Freedom, The Constant Gardener, The Last King Of Scotland, Blood Diamond, et al. were up your alley at all, then you simply must see this. Bring tissue, or a long sleeve shirt at least {Brain, bring a roll of Brawny}.

Wardance Official Movie Site

www.wardance.org

The Oscars According To Solon, 2005 Edition

To all my movie-loving mates:

Welcome, or welcome back, to my annual list of Oscar predictions. For the initiates, I started doing this a few years back, and the recipient list has expanded to the point where it now numbers in the hundreds of thousands. As always, your feedback is encouraged and appreciated.

As happens every year, I couldn't see everything I wanted to see. Here are the list of the ones I missed, in case any of you saw one of these and are wondering why I wasn't sufficiently impressed:

Kings and Queen

Black

Palindromes

Nine Lives

Saraband

Duma

King Kong

If any of you have seen these, let me know if they are worth watching or should be ignored. And, just one thing about Nine Lives--I've heard from multiple sources that Robin Wright Penn gives an all-time great performance in her one scene in this movie--can anyone confirm or deny that?

All right, there's not much to be said about this year's crop other than that about a month ago I almost gave up on it. I suppose I'm glad I didn't in the end, but this year's offerings are still clearly the worst of any year since 2000.

Nevertheless, here are the rankings and predictions:

BEST PICTURE

1 A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

2 MATCH POINT

3 LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

4 THE CONSTANT GARDENER

5 THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

6 DEAR FRANKIE

7 SYRIANA

8 MUNICH

9 THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA

10 TRANSAMERICA

11 PARADISE NOW

12 GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK

13 GREEN STREET HOOLIGANS

14 ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

15 2046

16 WALK THE LINE

17 BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

18 DER UNTERGANG (Downfall)

19 CAPOTE

20 MANDERLAY

For a long time, I was disturbed by the prospect of my favorite movie of the year being directed by David Cronenberg; perhaps the only thing more disturbing was that the only serious contender to A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE for the top spot was directed by Woody Allen.

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

This movie is, more than anything, a psychological study of the root causes and effects that violence has on the psyche, and also the role that violence plays in contemporary American society. In fact, this movie uses violence differently than any movie I've ever seen--certainly, there's a lot of violence, but it comes in short bits that are over almost as soon as they begin. Additionally, I've never seen sex scenes used the way they are in this movie--each of the scenes (there are two of them) are decidedly graphic, and also elemental to the development of the plot (for the record, one of the sex scenes is pretty brutal--I don't think anyone would classify it was rape, but it's certainly violent). One problem with this movie (at least, in the context of writing an email like this) is that you can't say too much without giving key plot points away, but suffice it to say that this is unlike any movie I've ever seen, and there's a complexity involved in trying to make sense of the movie through the different sets of relationships it deals with (Tom's relationship with Edie; Tom's relationship with Jack; Jack's relationship with the bully at school; Tom's relationship with his brother; etc.) that sets it apart from this year's other offerings.

MATCH POINT

The biggest problem with this movie, of course, is that it's directed by Woody Allen but unrecognizable in that regard. Most of the talk about this movie is dominated by this fact. When viewed independent of this, it's a great movie--a complex examination of relationships, class, economics, and the role that luck plays in determining our lives. Unfortunately, the strength of the acting is on the bottom--the leads are good, but not great, and the actors in the supporting roles are much better--admittedly, I'm not the biggest fan of Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and I'm not pleased with how Emily Mortimer was used in the movie--but, as a story, it's quite compelling and I was really impressed with the ending. And, another big plus--Woody Allen isn't in the movie, and there are also no characters that act just like him.

LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

First things first--for those who are unaware, this is a 6-hour movie, shown in two parts, that traces the lives of two Italian brothers over the course of 40 years, and it incorporates historical events into the narrative. Certainly, it's unlike anything I've ever seen, and, with very few exceptions, my emotional investment in the characters was considerably greater than what I'd have in a 'normal' movie. The benefit to its great length is that it doesn't need to hurry through anything, and it's able to fully develop all of the relationships and the motives of the characters--so, while at the end, you are interested in wanting to know what happens next, you certainly don't feel cheated about what you've already seen. For all the talk about Brokeback Mountain, I found this to be a much bolder movie--of course, I live in San Francisco, so maybe that stands to reason.

THE CONSTANT GARDENER

This probably isn't as good as CIDADE DE DEUS, but it's solid and if you can follow the rather complex plot (to be honest, I thought this plot was a lot more difficult to follow than that of SYRIANA), the payoff at the end is great. It's not so much that the plot is complex as much as it is that it's tough to get a read on the characters, largely because for the most part they are developing and changing throughout the movie. In the end, though, this 'complexity' makes for a much better film. Full disclosure--I'm probably going to like any movie that goes after big pharma more than most would, and this one does--big time.

THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

This is a very short movie--only 80 minutes--but it's so full of dialogue and develops so quickly that you'd never guess it was that short. The acting of the four principals are all great--and, really, everyone else is (Baldwin, Paquin, Feiffer), too--and if the movie had a little more to it I'd have probably ranked it even higher. Still, I'd assume it's a pretty accurate representation as to what happens to children of divorce (particularly since it's based on the director's personal experience), it's done very well, and it's certainly worth seeing. It deserves a screenplay Oscar, if nothing else, but it probably won't get it.

RE The Nominees (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN; CAPOTE; CRASH; GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK; MUNICH)

In terms of the quality of the movies, this is the worst year I can recall. I mean, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is fine, but it's pretty slow for the first 90 minutes, and while the end of the movie is pretty good, other than the gay angle there's not much to it. I understand that you can't replicate it exactly, but replace Jake Gyllenhaal with a woman and no one would give a shit about this movie. CAPOTE is fair but its inclusion among the nominees is comical, even in a year as weak as this one. MUNICH and GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK are by far the best of the nominees, and neither of them is anywhere near the best picture of the year. The less I say about CRASH the better, because amazingly there are people out there who liked it, and my attitude toward it could easily offend. Suffice it to say, about it I read somewhere, 'Welcome to the movie of the year for the people who say, "Some of my best friends are black.' " I couldn't agree more, what a self-serving piece of shit of a movie.

RE The Winner The only way BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN doesn't win is if there's a backlash--and since there's really not a lot going for it other than its boldness, there could be--and, if that happens, CRASH will benefit. The others won't win. Ang Lee will win Best Director either way, although my personal preference would be for David Cronenberg, for A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE.

BEST ACTOR

1 Philip Seymour Hoffman CAPOTE

2 Jeff Daniels THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

3 David Strathairn GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK

4 Viggo Mortenson A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

5 Heath Ledger BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

6 Bruno Ganz DER UNTERGANG (Downfall)

7 Ralph Fiennes THE CONSTANT GARDENER

8 Tony Leung 2046

9 Tommy Lee Jones THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA

10 Luigi Lo Cascio LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

A very deep category this year, so much so that I would not object if any of the top 8 won the Academy Award. Even so, Hoffman is the class of the field, and after several strong performances in the past (BOOGIE NIGHTS, MAGNOLIA, OWNING MAHOWNY) it looks as though he will finally be rewarded. There's not much to say about this performance other than that he will be a worthy successor to Jamie Foxx for RAY. I really don't understand how Daniels didn't get nominated; the reaction to his performance was universally positive, and with good reason. Strathairn and Mortenson also were great and each dominated their movies, and in a different year any of the top four could be comfortable and deserving winners of the Academy Award.

RE The Nominees (Hoffman, CAPOTE; Howard, HUSTLE & FLOW; Ledger, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN; Phoenix, WALK THE LINE; Strathairn, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK)

I didn't see HUSTLE & FLOW, although I did hear that Terence Howard was quite good in it. As far as the other nominees, Joaquin Phoenix wasn't anywhere near convincing enough for me--although admittedly that is probably more Johnny Cash's fault than Joaquin Phoenix's. Certainly his performance pales in comparison to the great performance given by Jamie Foxx last year in RAY. As far as the other nominees, they are all great performances and any of them would be worthy winners.

RE The Winner Hoffman, easily.

BEST ACTRESS

1 Reese Witherspoon WALK THE LINE

2 Felicity Huffman TRANSAMERICA

3 Emily Mortimer DEAR FRANKIE

4 Laura Linney THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

5 Juliette Binoche CACHE (Hidden)

6 Charlize Theron NORTH COUNTRY

7 Embeth Davidtz JUNEBUG

8 Radha Mitchell MELINDA AND MELINDA

9 Q'Orianka Kilcher THE NEW WORLD

10 Scarlett Johansson MATCH POINT

This category is, in my estimation, quite top-heavy. The top 5 are all great, and any of them would be a deserving winner. After that, there's a marked drop-off in the quality of the performances. I give the edge to Witherspoon, largely because I think Huffman's performance is getting a little too much hype. I could understand the hype if the performance had been given by a man (doing something similar to what Hilary Swank did in BOYS DON'T CRY), but as it is, she just puts on an affected voice and touches her boobies a lot. This isn't to say she isn't good--keep in mind that I have her listed 2nd here--but she's no match for Witherspoon, who was quite convincing as June Carter, as opposed to Joaquin Phoenix, who just didn't measure up as Johnny Cash. She did it all--funny, dramatic, happy, sad--and, she sang as well. A solid all-around performance that in my mind was tough to top. I'm also pissed that Mortimer didn't get a nomination for DEAR FRANKIE (for the record, I think her considerable acting talents were underutilized in MATCH POINT). She's one of the best actresses out there, and after not getting nominated for LOVELY AND AMAZING and now this, I'm starting to get pissed off.

RE The Nominees (Dench, MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS; Huffman, TRANSAMERICA; Knightley, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE; Theron, NORTH COUNTRY; Witherspoon, WALK THE LINE)

I didn't see PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, which is probably fine because by all accounts the nomination is not really deserved. I also didn't see MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS, which is also probably fine because Judi Dench is going to be nominated for everything she's in. Theron is all right, but being such a recent winner she's probably got very little chance here. Fortunately, the two best performances are among the nominees, and either would be a deserving winner.

RE The Winner Witherspoon...Huffman...Witherspoon...Huffman...I'll go with Reese, although apparently she's a bit of a wanker, and that could cost her here, which would be unfortunate because I think she deserves it. If any of the others win, I'll shoot myself in the face.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

1 Jesse Eisenberg THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

2 Alessio Boni LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

3 Jack McElhone DEAR FRANKIE

4 George Clooney SYRIANA

5 Paul Giamatti CINDERELLA MAN

6 Jake Gyllenhaal BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

7 Kevin Zegers TRANSAMERICA

8 Gerard Butler DEAR FRANKIE

9 Ed Harris A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

10 Owen Kline THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

Probably the strongest category this year, and all of these listed are strong performances. A good year for young actors, as 4 of them are in my Top 10. Eisenberg's performance is particularly impressive; in many ways, he's the central character in THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, because he's the one who gathers all of the information regarding his parents and their divorce, and the movie is really about how all of the information he gathers manifests itself in his attitude toward each of them, and his relationships with others. He's a bit of an ass and pretty unlikeable but that is something that works in his favor here. Boni's really good as well--and, for the first half of the movie, he's got the larger role of the two brothers in LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)--and there's not really much to separate the top two. To some extent, the character's complexity works against him, because he's difficult to assess on a first viewing--and if I watch it a second time, it probably won't be for a while, due to its length. I'd give those two a clear edge over the rest of the performances.

RE The Nominees (Clooney, SYRIANA; Dillon, CRASH; Giamatti, CINDERELLA MAN; Gyllenhaal, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN; Hurt, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE)

A decent job here, even with the best performances going unrewarded. And, as always happens, they nominated the wrong person from a film--certainly, Ed Harris was much more convincing, and had a much larger role than William Hurt in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. To be honest, I thought William Hurt was the worst thing about A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE--which is not so much an indictment of his performance (which was fine) as it is a testament to all of the other actors, who all played their roles with a subtlety that Hurt's performance lacked. Suffice it to say, Dillon did not do it for me, and I thought any number of other actors in the movie (Pena and Phillippe, most notably) were markedly better. Clooney, Giamatti, and Gyllenhaal were all fine, and although they have all had better performances recently that were unrecognized (Clooney--O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?; Giamatti--AMERICAN SPLENDOR; Gyllenhaal--DONNIE DARKO), I'll not be too upset if any of them win.

RE The Winner There's little doubt that this category has the most potential winners since all of the nominees, with the exception of Hurt, could win it. I'll guess that it'll come down to Giamatti and Clooney, and Giamatti will probably win because he wasn't even nominated for AMERICAN SPLENDOR and SIDEWAYS and voters might want to take advantage of this opportunity to right past wrongs.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

1 Rachel Weisz THE CONSTANT GARDENER

2 Amy Adams JUNEBUG

3 Michelle Williams BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

4 Ginnifer Goodwin WALK THE LINE

5 Jasmine Trinca LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

6 Maya Sansa LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

7 Melissa Leo THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA

8 Penelope Wilton MATCH POINT

9 Valentina de Angelis OFF THE MAP

10 Fionnula Flanagan TRANSAMERICA

This is a strange category this year. I'd throw any of the top 6 performances in a pot, and draw them out, and be fine with the order--they are all that good. That said, after the top 6 there aren't too many great performances--or, at least, none that are deserving of an Academy Award. I give the edge to Weisz, because she's got the largest role (when making my preliminary list, I had her listed in the Best Actress category, not Best Supporting Actress), and, she's the fulcrum of a pretty good movie. Adams holds JUNEBUG together, certainly, but as a movie it's far inferior to THE CONSTANT GARDENER--which isn't to say she isn't great (she is), but her performance can't measure up to Weisz's. Williams is also great--when I saw BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, she was the person whose performance impressed me most--but it's clearly a supporting role, and she's clearly a tertiary character. I'm disappointed that Goodwin didn't get nominated, she was totally solid and convincing--but I guess WALK THE LINE got its acting nominations in the other categories, and it was only going to get so many spots. Neither of the Italian actresses was ever going to get a nomination, but they were both great, in addition to both being smoking hot--always good when you are watching a 6-hour movie.

RE The Nominees (Adams, JUNEBUG; Keener, CAPOTE; McDormand, NORTH COUNTRY; Weisz, THE CONSTANT GARDENER; Williams, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN)

As noted above, the top three performances were nominated, so I'm quite pleased. Keener and McDormand are fine, but not really Oscar-worthy, in my opinion. I think Keener was probably better in THE 40-YEAR OLD VIRGIN than she was in CAPOTE, but she was never likely to be nominated for that.

RE The Winner Adams has a small shot, because she is getting a lot of hype for her excellent performance. In the end, though, it will probably come down to Weisz and Williams, and I'd guess that Weisz will win because BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN will certainly be rewarded elsewhere, whereas THE CONSTANT GARDENER will not. And that's not such a bad thing, really.

The Academy Awards this year are this Sunday, March 5th. Enjoy!

The Oscars According To Solon, 2004 Edition

To all my movie-loving mates:

Welcome, or welcome back, to my annual list of Oscar predictions. For the initiates, I started doing this a few years back, and the recipient list has expanded to the point where it now numbers in the thousands. As always, your feedback is encouraged and appreciated.

As happens every year, I couldn't see everything I wanted to see. Here are the list of the ones I missed, in case any of you saw one of these and are wondering why I wasn't sufficiently impressed:

The Sea Inside
Last Life in the Universe
Moolaade
Undertow
Valentin
Bon Voyage
We Don’t Live Here Anymore

This was a great year for movies in terms of depth, as good as I can remember. That being said, there aren't too many exceptional movies (unlike, for example, 2001)--but the solid ones outnumber my list below.

BEST PICTURE
1 Before Sunset
2 Hotel Rwanda
3 The Dreamers
4 The Motorcycle Diaries
5 Dogville
6 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
7 Bad Education
8 A Very Long Engagement
9 Kill Bill, Vol. 2
10 Badass
11 Maria Full of Grace
12 Bus 174
13 Closer
14 Young Adam
15 Million Dollar Baby
16 Garden State
17 Sideways
18 Kinsey
19 Ray
20 Vera Drake

The top three films stand above the rest. Keep in mind that any criticism of HOTEL RWANDA and THE DREAMERS is only to illustrate why they aren't #1--because all three of these are fantastic movies.

BEFORE SUNSET For an hour, this movie is just like an extension of its incredible predecessor, Before Sunrise. But it's during the last 20 minutes, starting with the scene on the boat, where this movie becomes great. The themes the characters are dealing with are universal--not necessarily in reality, but conceptually--everyone can relate to them. And, the ending is absolutely brilliant. I look forward to seeing the next installment in 2013, at which point the enterprise will hopefully have generated enough buzz to get nominated for best picture. Also, as to whether one has to see Before Sunrise to fully appreciate Before Sunset, there is no question that one does.

HOTEL RWANDA This is as difficult to watch as Schindler's List, which is a testament to how good this movie is. As much as anything else the movie is a character study of the Don Cheadle character, who stands alongside Atticus Finch and Oskar Schindler as one of the greatest heroes ever portrayed on film. Both Cheadle and Okenedo are both excellent here and the story is compelling and suspenseful throughout. The only thing that keeps this movie from being top is that I wasn't as impressed with Nolte and Phoenix as some seem to be, their scenes struck me as a little forced--kind of like how a self-righteous white person would act now, as opposed to how one would have acted when in that situation, if that makes any sense--not that people couldn't have, or wouldn't have, acted that way, it just didn't strike me as authentic (for the most part the Red Cross worker was better, although she has one scene that's a little trite).

THE DREAMERS A must-see for all the cinephiles out there. Bertolucci meshes sex, politics, and movies brilliantly here, intertwining his movie with clips from older classic movies. I don't think this movie has found it's audience yet, but it is a classic, and might be Bertolucci's best. In truth, I wish he had cast someone other than Michael Pitt in the role of Matthew--for the most part, he does a good job (though not nearly as good as Green and Garrel), but he really blows it in the final scene, which, if it had been better, may have made this movie #1.

THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES Probably the most beautifully shot movie of the year, along with A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT. Surely it disappointed some, as it about Che's early years, but I think this movie about his formative years will probably be more impressive than any movie about his later life (and I say this knowing full well that Soderbergh has a chance to prove me wrong in
2006 when he releases "Che", for which he has assembled a killer cast).

DOGVILLE Not sure why this movie got so much shit. Once you get over the fact that it is on a sound stage with chalk outlines (which I thought was a brilliant move, actually, for reasons that should be obvious if you have seen it, but might spoil it if you have not), you are free to focus on the interactions of the characters, which is what the movie is about anyway. I didn't find it anti-American as much as I found it anti-small town, which is something you'll find anywhere. And the truth is, people in small towns really should be ridiculed, particularly if they act like the people in Dogville. As for how I reconcile what I just wrote with the closing credits, there's really no reasonable explanation other than that Lars von Trier is a bit of an asshole.

FYI, Dogville includes depictions of rape.

All of the movies in the top 20 are recommended, and the top 12 are really solid movies. A deep, deep year for the movies.

RE THE NOMINEES It's hard to imagine how the Academy could have done a worse job. Obviously, movies like Before Sunset and The Dreamers are never going to be nominated, but I have no idea how they couldn't nominate Hotel Rwanda--that is just an egregious snub. To be honest, 4 of the nominated films (not Finding Neverland, which is all right but not anywhere close to
nomination-worthy) are pretty solid, but there were a lot of better options out there.

RE THE WINNER Either The Aviator or Million Dollar Baby. I would guess The Aviator, but the recent so-called "controversy" might help Million Dollar Baby enough to push it over the top.

Also, I'd guess that Scorsese edges Eastwood and finally wins the Best Director Oscar for his (1-Raging Bull, 2-Goodfellas, 3-Taxi Driver, 4-Casino, 5-Gangs of New York) 6th best directing job, even though Eastwood probably did the best job of the nominees this year. In a perfect world (i.e., if I were a one-man Academy), the Best Directing Oscar would have gone to Jean-Pierre Juenet, for A Very Long Engagement.


BEST ACTOR
1 Don Cheadle HOTEL RWANDA
2 Jamie Foxx RAY
3 Mario Van Peebles BADASS
4 Kevin Bacon THE WOODSMAN
5 Jim Carrey ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
6 Paul Giamatti SIDEWAYS
7 Christian Bale THE MACHINIST
8 Liam Neeson KINSEY
9 Leonardo DiCaprio THE AVIATOR
10 Clive Owen I’LL SLEEP WHEN I’M DEAD

Both Cheadle and Foxx are in just about every scene of their movies, and there isn't much to split them. I give the edge to Cheadle, because his character develops on many levels over the course of the movie and ends up being incredibly complex, which is all down to Cheadle. Foxx blows you away at the beginning of the movie, he doesn't really develop the character too much, even though there are (seemingly) a lot of opportunities to do so.
These are two of the best acting performances in recent memory, and it's too bad they both can't win.

Van Peebles is not too far behind the top two. Those three are better than the rest, but everyone in the top 10 is nomination-worthy.

RE THE NOMINEES This category is remarkably deep this year, and it would have been hard not to find 5 great performances to nominate. That said, Johnny Depp should not have been nominated (Eastwood was good, and his nomination is not undeserved). Paul Giamatti and Jim Carrey have obviously pissed off somebody at the Academy.

RE THE WINNER Foxx.


BEST ACTRESS
1 Nicole Kidman DOGVILLE
2 Annette Bening BEING JULIA
3 Eva Green THE DREAMERS
4 Julie Delpy BEFORE SUNSET
5 Catalina Sandino Moreno MARIA FULL OF GRACE
6 Hilary Swank MILLION DOLLAR BABY
7 Uma Thurman KILL BILL, VOL. 2
8 Kate Winslet ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
9 Imelda Staunton VERA DRAKE
10 Zhang Ziyi HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

I really believe that when it is all said and done, people will look at Nicole Kidman's Academy Award for THE HOURS (as opposed to MOULIN ROUGE, THE OTHERS, TO DIE FOR, and now DOGVILLE) the way people look at Denzel Washington's for TRAINING DAY (as opposed to THE HURRICANE or MALCOLM X), or the way they’ll (potentiallly) look at Scorsese’s for the THE AVIATOR (instead of RAGING BULL, TAXI DRIVER, or GOODFELLAS)--inexplicable. Not that she wasn't good in THE HOURS, it was just such a small part (although I personally thought it was one of her weaker performances). Here, not only does she carry the movie, which revolves around her, and give a great performance throughout, she gets to deliver one of the best rebukes in movie history at the end. Good stuff.

Annette Bening is nearly as good as Kidman, and fortunately was rewarded with a nomination for a fairly obscure movie. THE DREAMERS is the film debut for Eva Green, who is excellent. She has an amazing screen presence and I look forward to seeing more of her in the future.

RE THE NOMINEES It's disappointing Kidman didn't get nominated, but once the movie didn't go over well she was never going to get one. It's too bad about Delpy too, BEFORE SUNSET was on the radar (nominated for best original
screenplay) and she drives the movie. In the end, though, the Academy did not do too bad here, really. The 10 listed above are all very good performances, and all of the nominees are among them.

For the record, while watching the first half of VERA DRAKE, I thought Staunton had this award wrapped up--and then she didn't change her expression during the second half of the movie. Is anyone else with me on this?

RE THE WINNER Swank or Bening, just like in 1999. Swank deserved it then, and won. Bening deserves it now, but Swank will win again. No one else has a chance.


BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
1 Clive Owen CLOSER
2 Morgan Freeman MILLION DOLLAR BABY
3 Thomas Haden Church SIDEWAYS
4 David Carradine KILL BILL, VOL. 2
5 Jamie Foxx COLLATERAL
6 Paul Bettany DOGVILLE
7 Eddie Marsan YOUNG ADAM
8 Peter Sarsgaard KINSEY
9 Peter Wilkinson ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND 10 Richard Graham VERA DRAKE

Owen and Portman are the strongest performances in the very good CLOSER, which, while being minimalistic (because it was formerly a play, I suppose), still is as honest an examination of relationships that has been seen since LANTANA. Owen's plays his role (by far the best of the four leads in
CLOSER) with such passion and force (getting to say things like “Thank you for your honesty. Now fuck off and die you fucked up slag.”) that he gets a slight nod over Freeman, who plays wonderfully the same all-knowing-in-retrospect narrator that he previously played in THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. Church is also strong, but just a little to goofy to be rated in front of the top two.

RE THE NOMINEES Very good job by the academy here, recognizing 4 of the 5 best performances. The other, Alan Alda, is not bad (in fact, he's very good), but it is such a small role that I didn't rank him (and I thought Baldwin was better anyway). There's not much to separate them, any of the other four would be worthy winners.

RE THE WINNER Freeman. Church and Owen have small chances, but they won't be able to overcome the fact that he narrates MILLION DOLLAR BABY and plays a pretty large part for a supporting actor.


BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
1 Natalie Portman GARDEN STATE
2 Laura Linney KINSEY
3 Kerry Washington RAY
4 Natalie Portman CLOSER
5 Virginia Madsen SIDEWAYS
6 Sophie Okenedo HOTEL RWANDA
7 Cate Blanchett THE AVIATOR
8 Emily Mortimer YOUNG ADAM
9 Juliet Stevenson BEING JULIA
10 Tilda Swinton YOUNG ADAM

It happens almost every year, and it happens here this year. Natalie Portman is markedly better in GARDEN STATE than she is in CLOSER, and gets nominated for the weaker role. I do think her performance in CLOSER is very good--it's very nuanced, and what she does with her character in the last scene with Jude Law, where the character is acting (this probably won't make any sense unless you've seen it), is strong, but not nearly as strong as her performance in GARDEN STATE, where she begins as a bit neurotic and annoying but by the end develops into one of the more likable characters in any movie this year. A lot of people didn't like her performance, but it seems like the complaints mostly stem from her not playing what people expect from Natalie Portman--which is exactly why she is so good here.

I have to throw this out there, and I am willing to listen with an open mind with any disagreement on it--I think playing Katherine Hepburn is not difficult, insofar as everyone has a Katherine Hepburn impersonation--she just isn't hard to emulate. So, when someone does their impersonation, I think everyone thinks, "She's just like Katherine Hepburn!", whereas the truth is, just about anyone could do the same thing, maybe not nearly as well as Blanchett does, but at least somewhat legitimately. Just one man's opinion.

Please note that I am not dogging Katherine Hepburn, who is certainly among the 2 or 3 best actresses ever to have lived, in my opinion. I believe, for example, copying Susan Vance (the character Hepburn played in BRINGING UP
BABY) would be damn near impossible for anyone to pull off--but I just don't think copying everyone's idea of "Katherine Hepburn" is all that difficult.

RE THE NOMINEES A good job by the Academy here too, although they picked the wrong Portman performance. All of the nominated performances are pretty good, to be honest, and any winner among them would be just.

RE THE WINNER Blanchett. Piss.

Please note that the Academy Awards are this Sunday, February 27th. Enjoy.

The Oscars According To Solon, 2006 Edition

My good friend Solon is a big time film aficionado, so much so that I always tease him by saying that he refuses to watch any movie that does not end with "fin" across the screen. I actually learned of his movie snobbitude shortly after we met in college when somehow the movie "Big" came up and I commented that I like the movie or thought it was good or something. To call this a big mistake would be a massive understatement. To this day he still snarks about that as in "yeah dude Y Tu Mama Tambien was a really good film. But come on, it's no Big".

Anyhow, every year he sends out an email to all his so called mates where he breaks down the "Big 5" Oscar categories, and this year, with his permission I am sharing it with you. Enjoy.

Greetings all.

Once again, I'm fusing my love of movies with my ability to babble (Babel?), and bringing you my thoughts on the 2006-2007 crop. I'm just glad I am living in Marin County--the only movies I really wanted to see, but didn't, were "Days of Glory," which opens here March 2nd, and "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu," which I probably missed earlier this summer. Not too much missed then.

Anyway, I think everyone knows what this is all about; let's hope it's all coherent and credible. Getting right to it then...

BEST PICTURE
(1) PAN'S LABYRINTH
(2) THE DEPARTED
(3) THE DEAD GIRL
(4) LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
(5) VOLVER
(6) CHILDREN OF MEN
(7) BLOOD DIAMOND
(8) BORAT
(9) THE LIVES OF OTHERS
(10) THE QUEEN
(11) SORRY, HATERS
(12) LITTLE CHILDREN
(13) UNITED 93
(14) HALF NELSON
(15) THANK YOU FOR SMOKING

2006 wasn't the best year for movies, but it wasn't the worst, either. None of this year's offerings would be would be in my Top 50, but the top three would be ranked somewhere between #51 and #100 all-time, and the next two would be between #101 and #150, and I could probably go 15-deep with legitimate movies this year. Please note that all of the movies listed below are well worth seeing--any criticisms listed below are only included to draw distinctions between the movies being criticized, and the movies rated above it.

PAN'S LABYRINTH The Spanish Civil War was, by most accounts, very different than any war in Western history up to that time; while it didn't have the carnage of World War One, the ruthlessness and brutality of the warring sides make it, as much as anything else, just an incredibly sad episode in human history. Attempting to make sense of this situation for an adult must have been damn near impossible; I can only imagine what it must have been like for children. Attempting to make a movie that sees the war from the perspective of a 12-year-old girl--one on the verge of becoming an adolescent but still very much a little girl, trying to establish some personal control over the circumstances in which she finds herself--is an audacious move, and Del Toro does it wonderfully. There's nothing wrong with the movie from a straight narrative standpoint, but seen as a psychological study it becomes absolutely brilliant. Unfortunately, the producers will have to make do with the best Foreign-Language film Oscar.

THE DEPARTED At over 2 1/2 hours, this is quite a commitment, but the direction of Scorsese and the editing of Schoonmaker--along with a killer cast--make it all go by quickly. Given the basic framing--mob boss has his gang infiltrated by a cop, while at the same time a cop inside the department is tipping off the mob boss--it would have been very easy for this movie to unravel. But, much like it's inspiration, INFERNAL AFFAIRS, it keeps it all together and delivers big-time (please note that THE DEPARTED is different enough from INFERNAL AFFAIRS that it deserves credit in its own right). There's not a single actor in it that does a bad job, and considering the strong ensemble of players (DiCaprio, Nicholson, Baldwin, Damon, Sheen, Wahlberg, Winstone, et al.), it really is an all-star sort of movie, not unlike an Altman film. While it's not Scorsese's best directing job--really, not even close to his best directing job--it's a worthy addition to his catalogue and an Academy Award for this would certainly not be considered an attempt to right past wrongs.

THE DEAD GIRL Director Karen Moncrieff showed some promise with BLUE CAR, but she has stepped it up with her second film. This film--consisting of five distinct stories about women who are all peripherally connected to a murdered girl found on a hillside--doesn't have a section that lasts longer than 20 minutes, but each of the sections carries enough emotional weight that the collective impact is even more than the sum of its considerably strong parts. It's impossible to say enough about the cast here. Certainly, economy has something to do with it--with one minor exception, no actor is in more than one of the vignettes, so no one's in the movie for more than 20 minutes--but, much like THE DEPARTED, every single person in the movie does a great job. As far as independent films go--and everything about this movie screams "Independent Film"--it's tough to imagine one that is more perfect than this.

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA I wouldn't have guessed it 15 years ago, but Eastwood can make movies. While this movie is getting way too many points for creativity--if I'm not mistaken, DAS BOOT did the same thing just as well (while it was made by Germans, they were West Germans making the movie 40 years after WWII, whose primary purpose was to humanize the soldiers, much like Eastwood set out to do here)--it's still a pretty impressive piece of work. The internal struggle between cultural notions of honor, juxtaposed against the natural human instinct to survive, makes for a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much of point to the movie, other than to make the movie from the perspective of the "other side"--and even though it's really good, it's a little empty and doesn't measure up to the top 3. That said, if you haven't seen DAS BOOT, you might think it was groundbreaking (no doubt there are other movies of this type, I just can't think of any I've seen at the moment).

VOLVER At some point in the past year, Kanu was over at my house while TODO SOBRE MI MADRE was on IFC, and, at one point, he happened to notice the subtitles and said, "Whoa--that chick just said she had a dick!" My response? "It's Almodovar, dude." Some might disagree, but I believe Almodovar has gotten better as time has gone on, and he doesn't feel the need to shock his audience. Arguably, VOLVER is his straightest story yet; there are supernatural elements, but the intention behind them is sweetness, not shock, and, more than any of his movies, this one has tenderness. While it's probably not as good as HABLE CON ELLA or LA MALA EDUCACION, it's a lot funnier than either. And I can't believe that I hadn't realized before now that Penelope Cruz was put together so well.

THE NOMINEES:
BABEL
THE DEPARTED
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
THE QUEEN

Piss-poor, as always.

First things first--at the risk of sounding elitist, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE is an overrated piece of rubbish whose nomination is an absolute joke and whose win would be nearly as great a travesty as that of CRASH last year. It's predictable and cliched (the van they were in had mechanical problems, that was such a novel idea), and the ending is, to put it simply, both a bit stupid and a bit ridiculous. I really have no problem with comedies being nominated, as long as they are legitimately worthy of Best-Picture nominations--a few that come to mind off the top of my head are GHOST WORLD and ELECTION--but this movie is not anywhere near their class. I don't even think it's anywhere near the best comedy this year--even if BORAT isn't your cup of tea, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING is markedly more clever, and has considerably more depth and profundity than LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE.

The rest of the lot are fine. BABEL is more a curiosity than anything else; I'm confused as to why the far superior AMORES PERROS and 21 GRAMS weren't nominated for Best Picture, and now BABEL--which is considerably more tangential and strained, and much less interesting than either of those--is. THE QUEEN is a good movie, although the hype it is receiving seems disproportionate to what it actually deserves. As such--no disrespect intended--I suppose it is a lot like the death of Princess Diana herself.

Only THE DEPARTED and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA would truly be deserving winners.

THE WINNER: THE DEPARTED stands to win, but just watch those fuckers give it to LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE. None of the others have any shot at all. Well, maybe BABEL does, but I doubt it.

BEST DIRECTOR
(1) Alfonso Cuaron, CHILDREN OF MEN
(2) Paul Greengrass, UNITED 93
(3) Guillermo del Toro, PAN'S LABYRINTH
(4) Martin Scorsese, THE DEPARTED
(5) Clint Eastwood, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA

Although any of the five listed here would have been (or are) worthy nominees, only the top two warrant a win.

Often times, the best directing jobs are not the best movies, and this year is a prime example. Really, without Cuaron's vision, there's not a whole lot to CHILDREN OF MEN, but his direction makes it one of the year's best films. If you had asked me prior to seeing the film to predict what the world would be like in 20 years' time, I'd never have come up with what he has; post-viewing it seems an entirely plausible scenario. While this macro-vision is the movie's strength, there are individual scenes that are brilliant as well; in particular, the one that starts with the flaming car--shot entirely from within the vehicle in which the protagonists are travelling, shot with a 360-degree camera angle--is absolutely remarkable, one of the better movie scenes shot in recent years (to be fair, the final scene of SORRY, HATERS is comparably great, although it was almost certainly not as difficult to make--but it's sure as hell audacious and looks pretty damn cool). This isn't the only great scene in the movie--the opening scene, the battle scene, the scene with Kee and Theo at Bexhill--these are all great scenes as well. In total, it's just incredibly impressive.

Paul Greengrass is one of the more underrated directors today, and I am pleased to see him getting hype for UNITED 93 (which, while a good movie, is not nearly as good as his BLOODY SUNDAY, the best movie of this type and one of the better movies of the last decade). His direction here also is a noteworthy achievement; almost every scene either takes place inside a plane, or in a room with multiple characters--very few of whom are professional actors--having multiple conversations trying to replicate the most chaotic situation in which any of them had ever found themselves. While he takes some feel-good liberties ( e.g., it's highly unlikely that the passengers on the flight ever got inside the cockpit), the fact that it doesn't come off as some B-movie feel-good amateurish rah-rah movie is, in and of itself, pretty remarkable.

While the others all do good jobs, they are helped by external (or internal) factors; del Toro's direction is helped by the incorporation of fantasy elements, Scorsese's is helped by the editing of Schoonmaker (a lock for the editing Oscar, of course--although Cuaron and Rodriguez are nearly as good in CHILDREN OF MEN), and Eastwood is helped by the fact that he is directing a war movie--not easy, but by virtue of their scope they tend to look more impressive than they actually are. This isn't a knock on any of these directors, all of whom had admirable accomplishments--just an explanation for their being rated after Cuaron and Greengrass.

THE NOMINEES:
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, BABEL
Martin Scorcese, THE DEPARTED
Clint Eastwood, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
Stephen Frears, THE QUEEN
Paul Greengrass, UNITED 93

I don't understand how Cuaron was left out and Frears was nominated (and I actually like Frears--but, bloody hell, he's done a lot better job for some of his other movies than he did in THE QUEEN). And, while BABEL's certainly more impressive from a directing standpoint than it is as a movie, but I don't think there's much doubt that they nominated the wrong Mexican director. Other than these, I suppose I can't complain too much.

THE WINNER: I've given up on predicting Oscars for Scorsese. But hey, Hitchcock never won, and Kubrick never won, so he's in good company. Inarritu wins for his worst movie yet.

BEST ACTOR
(1) Leonardo DiCaprio, THE DEPARTED
(2) Forest Whitaker, THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND
(3) Ryan Gosling, HALF NELSON
(4) Leonardo DiCaprio, BLOOD DIAMOND
(5) Sacha Baron Cohen, BORAT

There isn't a whole lot to split the top four performances, any of which would be a deserving winner.

Leonardo DiCaprio is unfairly maligned--probably a product of being in TITANIC--he showed a lot of promise with THIS BOY'S LIFE, and if you follow his career arc since the turn of the century--THE BEACH, GANGS OF NEW YORK, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, and THE AVIATOR--it's clear that he's progressing at a great rate and there's little doubt he's one of the better young actors today. I preferred his performance in THE DEPARTED to his performance in BLOOD DIAMOND--it helps that the former was a superior movie, and it also helps that his character in THE DEPARTED is considerably less cliched (the amoral money-hungry mercenary who eventually comes good isn't overly original--although this isn't to say he isn't good playing the role). In THE DEPARTED, I thought he did a good job keeping it together as his situation becomes more and more chaotic--and while it's always tough to play a character who is, in essence, playing a role within a role, he pulls it off with aplomb. Forest Whitaker is also strong in THE LAST KING IN SCOTLAND. While it'd be easy to overact when playing such a role, Whitaker is completely plausible, always within himself, and never descends into theatrics--unless by design. It helps that he's shot in a really cool style, too (I can't explain it well, having only seen it once, but he's shot in an interesting fashion, with a bunch of quick cuts to close-ups and shifts in focus). And, while I think playing a drug addict is a bit of an assist to having a role considered overrated, Ryan Gosling does enough in his other scenes--where he's teaching, where he's coaching, or where he's talking one-on-one to Drey--that the drug scenes simply enhance his performance instead of defining it. He has no chance of winning, but his nomination is well-deserved.

And, while I've been onto "Da Ali G Show" from the start, I'm amazed that Cohen is able to do what he does at all, let alone do it so well. Obviously, BORAT's not for everyone, but if there's ever any sort of comedic performance that should be rewarded with an Academy Award in one of the lead acting categories, it's one like this.

THE NOMINEES:
Leonardo DiCaprio, BLOOD DIAMOND
Ryan Gosling, HALF NELSON
Peter O'Toole, VENUS
Will Smith, THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS
Forest Whitaker, THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND

All things considered, these aren't too bad, although most of the standout performances of the year were pretty obvious. Peter O'Toole is fine in VENUS, but if it wasn't Peter O'Toole no one would have noticed the performance (not that he isn't good, but he isn't that good). Will Smith? Very weak. Full credit to them for nominating Gosling, that wasn't expected. Leonardo DiCaprio, while great in BLOOD DIAMOND, was better in THE DEPARTED--and given that film's high profile, you can't argue the performance slipped through the cracks.

THE WINNER: The smart money is on Whitaker, but I think he has a few things working against him. First off, he is 45, while Peter O'Toole is 72. Second, he's not really the lead character in THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND--James McAvoy is. Third, Peter O'Toole has had 7 nominations for Best Actor without a win--unfortunately for him, when he was nominated for LAWRENCE OF ARABIA he had the misfortune of going head-to-head with Gregory Peck in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD--and the Academy is always rewarding actors a little too late, and for lesser performances (John Wayne for TRUE GRIT? Denzel Washington for TRAINING DAY? Nicole Kidman for THE HOURS?). O'Toole wins in a big upset, and then Whitaker wins for his next credible role.

BEST ACTRESS
(1) Laura Dern, INLAND EMPIRE
(2) Penelope Cruz, VOLVER
(3) Helen Mirren, THE QUEEN
(4) Maggie Gyllenhaal, SHERRYBABY
(5) Kate Winslet, LITTLE CHILDREN

This is, by far, the deepest of the acting categories this year, as the legitimate nomination-worthy performances go 9-deep (along with those listed above, Maggie Cheung, Naomi Watts, Robin Wright Penn, and Jodie Whittaker all put forth legitimate performances). Any of the top four would be deserving of a win.

Laura Dern's performance in the largely puzzling INLAND EMPIRE stands out as arguably the best female performance since Naomi Watts' performance in Lynch's MULHOLLAND DRIVE. Much like Watts' Betty Elms/Diane Selwin, Dern's listed as playing two roles--in truth, her character has four distinct and separate performances over the course of the movie--and she is thoroughly convincing and authentic in all of them. Obviously, INLAND EMPIRE is no MULHOLLAND DRIVE--given that I rate the latter as the best movie of the last 10 years, and I don't rate the former among this year's best--but insofar as the performance of the leads go, they are to a large extent comparable.

As for the others, much like DiCaprio, I think Penelope Cruz is not as well-regarded as she deserves to be, largely because it's difficult for her to get a legitimate role in this country--WOMAN ON TOP, BLOW, and VANILLA SKY did not really make the most of her considerable talents. In VOLVER, she plays multiple roles within her role--mother, daughter, sister--and she carries the movie from start to finish, developing considerable depth over the course of the movie. Quite honestly, I'm just glad she got nominated, given that it's a foreign-language role. And, while I think Helen Mirren is great in THE QUEEN, I think her performance is vastly overrated. For the most part, she's just acting like she's got a stick in her ass, just like the real Queen Elizabeth. Of course, the supposedly impressive thing about her performance is the humanizing she does--but, for my money, these scenes are too few and far between to rate her ahead of Dern's dominating performance--or Cruz's, for that matter.

How good was Gyllenhaal? Everyone knows what she looks like--rail-thin, doll-face--and in the two scenes in SHERRYBABY where she threatens to kick someone's ass, she's totally plausible and you're convinced that if it comes down to it, she'll win. That's great acting.

THE NOMINEES:
Penelope Cruz, VOLVER
Judi Dench, NOTES ON A SCANDAL
Helen Mirren, THE QUEEN
Meryl Streep, THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA
Kate Winslet, LITTLE CHILDREN

Wow, look at that, Judi Dench and Maryl Streep got nominated--what a surprise. Other than those two, the nominations were good, of course. I can't believe that Gyllenhaal didn't get nominated, but apparently Gosling fulfilled the junkie quota as far as the nominations went.

THE WINNER: Mirren. I feel bad for Winslet--probably my favorite actress, who is about to go 0 for 5--but no one is stopping Mirren this year.

BEST ACTOR, SUPPORTING
(1) Mark Wahlberg, THE DEPARTED
(2) Kazunari Ninomiya, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
(3) Michael Sheen, THE QUEEN
(4) Steve Carell, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
(5) Jack Nicholson, THE DEPARTED

In the supporting categories, while it's easy to find nomination-worthy performances, you have to set the bar a little higher for a win--and this year, only the top two are deserving.

The truth is that the supporting cast for THE DEPARTED is so deep, I could have filled all five spots here with actors from that movie and made a credible case for each of them. Wahlberg is the best of the lot; when playing a hard-ass--especially a hard-ass cop--it's easy to go too far with it, but he doesn't, which is pretty amazing when you consider that his character really is largely one-dimensional. Ninomiya is also very strong--he's also arguably a main character, not a supporting one--and from someone who is a singer-turned-actor, it's an impressive performance. I thought Sheen was pretty good in THE QUEEN--nearly the equal of Mirren--although the scene where he chews out his assistant seems a little contrived and is pretty weak, even though it's supposed to be a dramatic moment in the movie. The truth is, I thought his was a lead performance, but since the BAFTA's listed it as supporting, I will as well.

THE NOMINEES:
Alan Arkin, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
Jackie Earle Haley, LITTLE CHILDREN
Djimon Hounsou, BLOOD DIAMOND
Eddie Murphy, DREAMGIRLS
Mark Wahlberg, THE DEPARTED

A poor job, once again. There is no way in the world that Arkin should have been nominated over Carell--not only does Arkin do half of the acting that Carrell does, all he does is overact, except for that one scene in the hotel room with Olive. And, while I thought Haley was good, his acting is shit--no doubt, he's really damn creepy, and until he talks he's really good--but as soon as he's in scenes with dialogue--except for the few lines when he's on his date with Jane Adams (at the restaurant, not in the car)--he's not very convincing. Hounsou and Murphy are fine, I suppose.

THE WINNER: I initially thought Murphy had this wrapped up, but I really think there might be something to this whole NORBIT controversy (i.e., Eddie Murphy's new movie NORBIT--not exactly an "Oscar-worthy" film--has just come out with some heavy promotion, and it could be a bit of an embarrassment to the Academy if Murphy wins). At this point, I think Arkin is probably a more likely winner.

BEST ACTRESS, SUPPORTING
(1) Maribel Verdu, PAN'S LABYRINTH
(2) Rose Byrne, THE DEAD GIRL
(3) Marcia Gay Harden, THE DEAD GIRL
(4) Lola Duenas, VOLVER
(5) Carmen Maura, VOLVER

Just like the supporting actor category, I could have filled this with actresses from one movie (in this case, it would be THE DEAD GIRL; in addition to those listed above, Kerry Washington, Mary Beth Hurt, Toni Collette, Brittany Murphy and Piper Laurie all give strong performances). All of the performances listed above are strong ones, and in my estimation any of the top 3 would warrant a best supporting actress win.

Even so, Maribel Verdu is so strong in PAN'S LABYRINTH that she stands above everyone this year. It's a large role, and in many ways she's the most important character, filling the role of surrogate mother and being the one who allows Ofelia to participate in her fantasies. She's brilliantly cast against type here--while she's usually cast as a sexpot, her character in this movie couldn't be more asexual--and she pulls it off without a hitch. Oddly enough, Rose Byrne is in the worst of the vignettes in THE DEAD GIRL ("The Sister"), but her performance is such that it stands out even the story she was given is lacking. The scene where she is talking about her sister to her parents at the restaurant is probably the best acting anyone did all year. Byrne just shades Marcia Gay Harden, who is (along with Kerry Washington) in the best of the vignettes ("The Mother"). Between the two of them, a story that could easily fall into melodrama instead has a very strong emotional impact, and that's entirely down to the two performances.

THE NOMINEES:
Adriana Barraza, BABEL
Cate Blanchett, NOTES ON A SCANDAL
Abigail Breslin, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
Jennifer Hudson, DREAMGIRLS
Rinko Kikuchi, BABEL

By far the worst of all the major categories this year, I don't think there's any doubt they missed the best of the bunch. Blanchett was pretty average with a role that had a lot of potential, in my estimation. I thought Barraza was good in BABEL, but Kikuchi is getting way too much hype for not really doing too much other than acting like she's deaf. I mean, she flashes those guys, and gets naked, but that's about it; I just didn't see too much there that impressed me. Jennifer Hudson is good (I'd have had her 7th here, with Kerry Washington being 6th), but I wasn't as impressed with her as everyone else seemed to be. I mean, she sings, that's cool, but her acting isn't nearly as good as the six I have listed above her.

And Abigail Breslin? Please. It's so comical it's not even worth addressing.

THE WINNER: Hudson. "Fat" girl + sympathetic + singing = Oscar statuette.

Please note that all predictions are listed for entertainment purposes only.

The Academy Awards are Sunday, February 25th, 2007. Enjoy.

Weekend Review: Sticking It To The Man Edition

Amid all the rain...

Chel$ea 1-1 Arsenal.

Halfway through the 2nd half it had 0-0 draw all over it, and I was thinking about an interesting article I read on Friday about how the Prem is now the lowest scoring league in Europe this year, the new Serie A if you will. But things soon came to a boil.


Tasso Flamini puts Arsenal ahead.

A great Flamini goal gave the Arse a 1-0 lead with 12 minutes to go and it looked like it might just be Old Trafford all over again. An absolute blinder be Essien put those thoughts to rest in the 84th minute - a stunning strike, absolutely unsaveable. At that point it was frustrating because Ash Cole fouled Hleb to gain Chel$ea possession that led to the goal, but no foul was given. But after Chel$ea hit the woodwork not once, but twice in the added 4 minutes, both with the goal at their mercy and one from 2 yards out, the frustration of 1-1 turned into happy/lucky to get a point 1-1. Chel$ea hit the post 3 times in total, and after Porto hit the woodwork twice on Wednesday you have to say it was a fortuitous week for The Gunners.

In addition to being a really talented footballer, Didier Drogba has always been a cheating, diving cunt, but yesterday he really stepped it up. His performance was like a one man re-enactment of Portugal's 2006 World Cup campaign. After about the 5th incident, which ironically was the most legitimate of the match, Mats had seen enough: he promptly went into Mad Jens of North London mode and pushed Drogba, who fell like he had been shot. DD then got up and went over and pushed Mad Jens to the ground. After much deliberation the ref gave them both yellow, which I have to say was a pretty level-headed decision. Many refs, who like to be the center of attention (Graham Poll, Mike Riley, Steve Bennett) would surely have sent them off (or in Poll's case given them each 3 yellows).


As predicted, Mats pulled a classic Mats.

And of course Mourhino was a classless fool afterwards and lured Wenger into yet another verbal bitch fight like two 14 year old girls. So pretty damn entertaining for a 1-1 draw.

Speaking on stunning strikes, did you see Matthew Taylor's 45 yard volley on Saturday? Wow. Not off of a 30 yard cross at an angle like RVP's goal of the season nominee, but much farther out, which in the end will probably be internalized as better.

Oh, and Kanu's goal that put him back into the EPL scoring lead was pretty great , too.

Red Stripes playoff campaign was rained out, so next week then for that.

One of the highlights of my weekend was sticking it to the man, the man in this case being Ticketmaster. I bought my tickets for the January G Love show from the local venue box office, thus saving the $8.50 "convenience" charge per ticket and the $5 "processing charge". It made me feel all warm and fuzzy to put one over on those vile & evil fuckers. I think Kris Kross had Ticketmaster in mind when they famously said, in their badass 12 year old way, "you can get the finger. The middle".


Kris Kross: hates Ticketmaster, too.

Finally, I watched The Game Of Their Lives last night. It is pretty horrible, and Patrick Stewart as the narrator was painful, but if you are going to make a movie about one of the biggest upsets in soccer history then eventually I am going to watch it (the upset being the US beating England 1-0 at the 1950 World Cup, a scoreline that was literally so unbelieveable that when the news was wired back to England, no one in England thought it was real, they just assumed that the telegraph was a typo and that the score must have been England 10-0 US. Allegedly...).
So you've been warned. The historical information gleaned from watching is interesting, but the movie is so cheesy, formulaic, stereotypical, and poorly acted that you might need to do some eye-rolling exercises before you fire up the DVD to be sure that you don't pull a muscle rolling your eyes during the film.