Last minute Pre-Oscar thoughts

It's been a little over a month now since I posted my views on the Academy Award nominations, and not much has changed. Now I'm looking forward to watching a show with some fresh hosts and worthy contenders. I have to say it's the first year in a while where I feel like almost every single nomination is deserved. There's no outrageous "Crash" nomination, there's no "Avatar" or Sandra Bullock nomination for a Lifetime movie. This year, about 8/10 movies in the running for Best Picture deserve their nomination. And the front runners at this point - "The Social Network" and "The King's Speech" - completely deserve it. Looking back on my views on the nominations, the Best Picture category is the only one where my prediction has changed. "The King's Speech" has picked up a lot of awards lately in critics circles as well as the BAFTAs. "The Social Network"'s hype looks to have petered out and left the excellent Brit movie to take the lead. "The King's Speech" is the safe, Oscar-friendly choice, and I'll be rather surprised if they go back to "The Social Network" now. The Brit drama will probably take Best Picture and Best Actor for Colin Firth while the Facebook movie takes Best Director for David Fincher and Best Adapted Screenplay for Aaron Sorkin.

Every other win seems decently predictable, although even if there is an upset, it's not going to be a case where a much hyped but mediocre performance wins over a deserving but less flashy one. Unless the Academy goes nutso and "The Kids Are All Right" wins for Best Picture, we're not going to encounter another heinous "Crash"-beating-"Brokeback Mountain" scenario.

As for the show itself, I actually kind of enjoy the In Memoriam and I hope it's a straight-forward memorial to those who passed. I'm still bitter about times when the In Memoriam played, but a celeb was singing the background music so the camera was on them more than the memorial video. No fancy camera work swooping in and out, please. Just pay respects to the dead in a tasteful way.

I'm cautiously optimistic about James Franco and Anne Hathaway hosting. I'm happy to see some fresh, younger faces in there (without sacrificing quality, that is. They didn't go with Kristin Stewart and Michael Cera or something crazy like that). Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin last year were fine, but they definitely aren't the way to intrigue younger viewers. I always hate forced awards show banter, but it's something you have to live with and if the host is capable, they can pull it off without too many cringeworthy moments. I'm just glad we don't have to deal with a Ricky Gervais scenario again, where the host is one-note and not particularly funny with his one note. Personally, I rather see a Neil Patrick Harris or Ellen DeGeneres hosting. They are seasoned hosts, they appeal to young and old, and they can be funny in a safe way in that they aren't pissing off the people in the room or boring the people at home by being too tame. I even enjoyed Hugh Jackman two years ago or Jon Stewart the year before that. Whoever they go with, I'm realizing that the Oscars has a much better track record for hosts than the Emmys or the Golden Globes.

It's differed over the years and over awards shows, but I hope the Oscars show clips from movies. The Golden Globes did this a little by basically saluting each film with a movie trailer. Rather than focusing on the actor as their name is announced, I prefer a short clip of them from their respective movie that shows why they deserve the Oscar. It would be a great reminder of movies that came out a while ago and it would be a refresher in why their nomination is deserved. But that's just me. And you would have to choose wisely so the clip is strong and short so the show doesn't run past midnight. (Maybe we could remove those documentary categories? Or at least speed those up a bit more?)

To conclude a post that ended up longer than I intended, I'd like to end with some humor. Both from the same website, the first is a Trailer for Every Academy Award Winning Movie Ever while the other is "6 Awards That Would Actually Make the Oscars Worth Watching." I think this article makes some great points about certain areas of filmmaking that go unrecognized by awards shows.

Thoughts on the Academy Award nominations

This morning the Academy Award nominations were announced. While most of the nominees were expected, there were some surprises and snubs that the web is abuzz over. As always, the Golden Globes were a decent predictor of the Oscar noms, except for the sudden recognition of "True Grit," which was by-and-large snubbed by the Globes. I'm going to go through the nominations, giving my two cents worth. I don't normally like to do this, but I'll go ahead and predict who will win using bold type. In the editorial, I'll elaborate on who I think should win.(Sorry, but I'm skipping over documentaries and short films, foreign language film, Art Direction, Costumes, and Best Makeup. My knowledge of these categories is slim at best, so any comment on them would be fruitless on my part.)

Best Picture
127 Hours*(tie)
Black Swan*
The Fighter* (tie)
Inception
The Kids are All Right
The King's Speech*
The Social Network*
Toy Story 3*
True Grit
Winter's Bone

Nothing out of the ordinary here. Some are still quibbling over the ten nominee system for Best Picture, but this year I think it works well. There aren't a whole lot of fluff nominations that got in simply because there was more room. But if I had to pick just five, I would pick the ones I starred. I love "Inception," but it should be well served in other categories and if it really came down to it, I wouldn't include it in the top five. "127 Hours" and "The Fighter" are hard to choose between because, while I trust that they are both excellent movies, they are the only two on this list I haven't seen yet. I was considering leaving off "Toy Story 3," since it will win the Best Animated Film award, but in this case it should be in the running for the big one.

Best Actor
Javier Bardem, "Biutiful"
Jeff Bridges, "True Grit"
Jesse Eisenberg, "The Social Network"
Colin Firth, "The King's Speech"
James Franco, "127 Hours"

The race here is between Franco and Firth, but the Academy just loves Colin Firth. There's still some goodwill probably floating about after Firth didn't win for his superb performance in "A Single Man," which will most likely work in his favor.

Best Supporting Actor
Christian Bale, "The Fighter
John Hawkes, "Winter's Bone"
Jeremy Renner, "The Town"
Mark Ruffalo, "The Kids Are All Right"
Geoffrey Rush, "The King's Speech"

I was surprised to see Hawkes get in there, although he was good in "Winter's Bone." I was also pleasantly surprised to see Renner score a nom, although I wish "The Town" had gotten more recognition overall. I am absolutely livid about Ruffalo getting in there over Andrew Garfield, who delivered one of the best performances of the year in "The Social Network." The scene towards the end where his character realizes just how much he got screwed over should have earned him a nomination. Ruffalo was fine, but what about his role screamed "best performance of the year?"

Best Actress
Annette Bening, "The Kids Are All Right"
Nicole Kidman, "Rabbit Hole"
Jennifer Lawrence, "Winter's Bone"
Natalie Portman, "Black Swan"
Michelle Williams, "Blue Valentine"

If all the hype doesn't carry her, this is a category where we could possibly see an upset. I think that's highly unlikely though, seeing as how Portman's performance speaks for itself, hype or not. This is a tough one though, since Williams and Lawrence have some good buzz behind them for their great performances. But if the Oscars are going to recognize a great juvenile performance this year, it's going to be Hailee Steinfeld's for "True Grit."

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams, "The Fighter"
Helena Bonham Carter, "The King's Speech"
Melissa Leo, "The Fighter"
Hailee Steinfeld, "True Grit"
Jacki Weaver, "Animal Kingdom"

I don't understand how they can call Steinfeld a Supporting Actress, as she was the star of that movie, but she might not have gotten the nom otherwise. While she deserves the nom, I don't think she's going to get the win. I'm not super upset over Mila Kunis being left out for "Black Swan." I enjoyed that movie, but her role wasn't very meaty and she didn't actually have that much to do. Her performance has been a little overhyped, so while I'm surprised they didn't nominate her, I'm not disappointed.

Best Animated Film
How to Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Toy Story 3

I have to keep reminding myself that some foreign animated movie came out last year and they're not just nominating that Edward Norton magician movie years later. I'm curious how wide of a release "The Illusionist" received because I hadn't even heard of it until the Golden Globes. I'm surprised "Tangled" didn't get a nom. It's not like this category was overstuffed, they only nominated three movies! But this is the category will "Toy Story 3" will get its much-deserved award.

Best Cinematography
Black Swan
Inception
The King's Speech
The Social Network
True Grit

"True Grit," while not a great movie in my estimation, did look amazing. But I would love to see this one go to "Black Swan" and I think it will. Even if you hated that movie, you can't deny that the cinematography was fascinating. You could turn off the sound and just look at the movie and still enjoy it.

Best Director
Darren Aronofsky, "Black Swan"
Joel & Ethan Coen, "True Grit"
David Fincher, "The Social Network"
Tom Hooper, "The King's Speech"
David O. Russell, "The Fighter"

In my opinion, this was the most difficult category this year. You have hyped directors, talented directors, hyped and talented directors, and everything in between vying for a spot. I'm pretty peeved that Christopher Nolan got bumped from the category. So, "Inception" was one of the best movies, it was one of the most visually skilled, its screenplay was one of the best, but apparently the director had nothing to do with any of that? I really think the reason he got bumped was because his movie was the most popular, "popcorn," blockbuster movie to get nominated. When it comes down to it, the Academy will go for the "serious" or more "artsy" films every single time and Nolan fell prey to that. I agree with what I read on another site, that the Coen brothers could have made "True Grit" in their sleep. It was a solid movie, but nothing special. This is Fincher's to lose. It's the year of "The Social Network," a movie that performed well but also maintains its "serious" cred, and the Fincher/Sorkin team is a force to be reckoned with. Their combined buzz will lead them both to major wins on Oscar night.

Best Editing
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
The King's Speech
The Social Network

How "Inception" was not nominated here, I will never know. I can understand it losing out in the bigger categories, but it should win every technical award it can. That movie would have been crap if not for the brilliant editing, and how can anyone watch the cross-cutting between the dream-levels and not think to nominate it? "The Social Network" could possibly take this one as its hype will probably bleed over into other categories, but "Black Swan" should take it.

Best Score
"127 Hours," A.R. Rahman
"How to Train Your Dragon," John Powell
"Inception," Hans Zimmer
"The King's Speech," Alexandre Desplat
"The Social Network," Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

I'd love to see Hans Zimmer win, but I'd put money down that it's going to go to "The Social Network." And I won't be that heartbroken. "Inception" had a great soundtrack, but so did "The Social Network." Its win would absolutely not be undeserved. "Inception" has received some harsh criticism from the Internet after random viral sensations lampooned its main theme, but the score was more than just that small snippet pounding during the fight scenes that people remember the most.

Best Song
"Coming Home," Country Strong
"I See the Light," Tangled
"If I Rise," 127 Hours
"We Belong Together," Toy Story 3

"Toy Story 3" will win over the other animated nom here. The only possible competition could be from the song from "127 Hours," but once again, leftover goodwill from years past when Randy Newman didn't win for "You've Got a Friend in Me" will help him out.

Best Sound Editing
Inception
Toy Story 3
TRON: Legacy
True Grit
Unstoppable

Best Sound Mixing
Inception
The King's Speech
Salt
The Social Network
True Grit

Best Visual Effects
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1
Hereafter
Inception
Iron Man 2

I've already stated my opinions on "Inception" regarding the technical categories above, so I won't elaborate on these three categories. These will be the "Avatar" categories - where the Academy acknowledges the popular movie, but this is all it will get.

Best Original Screenplay
Another Year
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech

I'm torn here. The Globes really liked "The Kids Are All Right," but I just have a feeling that it's not going to have as much luck at the Oscars since it's sharing categories with Dramas, not just Comedies and Musicals. "The King's Speech" is tailor-made to be an Oscar darling, and you know what? It completely deserves it.

Best Adapted Screenplay
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

Funny how sequels are considered Adapted Screenplays, huh? But this is another one where I would put down money (hell, I'd probably bet my life on this one) that Aaron Sorkin is going to go home with this award. He did a fantastic job, he deserves it, and he's going to win. No doubts here.

On DVD: "The Kids Are All Right" and "The Town"

Recently I had the opportunity to watch two movies I wasn't able to see in theaters. "The Kids Are All Right" and "The Town" just came out on DVD and both are likely to be recognized in some capacity in the coming awards season. "Inception" also came out on DVD recently and you can click here to read my review of it and "Toy Story 3." Read ahead for my reviews of the other two.

"The Kids Are All Right"I have to say I was very disappointed by this movie. I really wanted it to be a clever, unique comment on family and conflict. If not for the hype, I might have liked it better, but the way professional critics are going on about it you'd think it was a much smarter, more dynamic film that it is. The basic premise is that the son and daughter of two lesbians search out their biological father and complications ensue. It's not so much a family drama like I expected as most of the focus turns away from the children and onto the adults and the odd decisions they make. I'm not talking about the odd decision of lesbians to watch gay male porn, which thoroughly confused me until Julianne Moore's character hilariously explained it. I'm not talking about the odd decision to name their son 'Laser.' I'm talking about something so integral to the plot that I can't properly discuss the movie unless I spoil it, so SPOILER ALERT if that bothers you. Julianne Moore's character starts sleeping with Mark Ruffalo's character. There's some half-assed explanation like 'she hasn't felt appreciated,' but really, it just struck me as ridiculously unrealistic. It fed into the tired belief that all lesbians are straight women led astray who just need a rugged man to snap them back to normal. She seems to really enjoy sleeping with him, physically not just emotionally, and she initiates the act herself a few times. Cheating on her wife because she doesn't feel appreciated could make sense, but why she runs into the arms of the newly arrived sperm donor father is perplexing and the movie lost me at that point. The emotional resolution, the scene where Moore gets to really shine, is considerably less powerful when the issue it's resolving never made sense to me in the first place.

The acting across the board is really good, but I didn't think that any of it was particularly Academy Award worthy. Moore and Annette Bening get to shine towards the end, but the moments are so short that I don't think it's enough for a nomination. Are we just pleased when people can actually act in movies these days? Or do we expect these two actresses to be great so we praise their solid performances as revolutionary? I would much prefer to see the two younger stars get recognition for their roles. Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson were much better than I expected and it was that much better because they weren't late 20-something actors playing young kids. I wish the movie had kept the focus on them more. For all the pains the movie goes through to show that this family has problems like everyone else, the big speech that solves everything (except Ruffalo's misery) clears away the complex family issues it tried to set up. Hutcherson's Laser is underdeveloped and issues of parenting and role models take backseat to the affair between Moore and Ruffalo.

All in all, I have to agree with the few other people who felt the same way I did - if this movie was about a heterosexual couple with adopted children who seek out their bioDad, would it really have gotten all this attention? The film felt like pure Oscar bait. It seems to fit in with the tendency of professional critics around this time to praise indie movies with high profile actors playing alternative characters. I have to be honest, aside from the nonsensical plot "twist," the movie isn't awful. It's enjoyable at times, but it's just not sheer brilliance. But I really think that critics like to praise "edgy" performances and a lot of times they get a little self-important. They like to recommend "serious" movies. Watching this movie I just felt like I was watching an attempt to say "lesbian families aren't perfect, they're just like yours! That's the point!" No, most families (of any kind) aren't perfect, but I really think a lot of the message gets lost when the motivation of characters' actions leading to the Big Conflict are unclear and make little sense.

My grade: C

"The Town"I'll admit that this one had a bias in favor of it coming in because I love crime dramas. But I've never been a big fan of Ben Affleck in starring roles so it kind of balanced things out. This was another interesting experience because I was expecting a more fast-paced, action-filled thriller than what I got. It had plenty of action, but it was smarter and quieter in an intense way that I came to enjoy. I worry that some might be disappointed because it could be too little romance for the female crowd and too little action for the male crowd. I hate to put it in black-and-white terms like that, but it does tend to skew that way and there's no way I can deny that. I do have to point out that the trailer is very misleading as it is edited to a very large degree. Dialogue is switched around and dialogue is added that I never heard in the actual movie. But it's still a movie that's worth your time.

I'm going to point out my favorite thing first - Jon Hamm. He is so great at playing a bastard that I relished his might-have-been cheesy action lines. He pulls off great badass lines like "this is the 'not fucking around crew.' Find me something that looks like a print so I can grab one of these assholes and shake their tree because this 'not fucking around thing' is about to go both ways!" Jeremy Renner as Jem is also fantastic as the explosive partner-in-crime of Ben Affleck's Doug. He's a fascinating character and I wish they had spent a little more time on the relationship between him and Affleck's character. He also has my favorite moment in the movie, where Doug walks into the room and tells him "I need your help. I can't tell you what it is, you can never ask me about it later, and we're gonna hurt some people." Jem pauses for a second, then asks "whose car we gonna take?"

I also have to point out that while Ben Affleck is not my favorite actor, he's turning into a pretty good director. I hope he continues his career behind the camera. He handles the action scenes nicely and shoots Boston beautifully. That's my only concern about his future - how will he handle films outside of his turf? But I really did enjoy the action scenes here, especially the car chase with the police through narrow streets. Often when you get car chases like these they take place in European cities down narrow lanes so it was nice to see an American take. The robberies and the action pieces aren't huge, epic sequences. They're closed in, tightly directed, and they have a nice claustrophobic intensity to them where you feel like you're right there and about to get shot. Also, the heist crew isn't made of movie thieves who are high-tech criminal masterminds either. Like it's mentioned at the beginning of the movie, robbery is treated like another trade that these men have down pat.

SPOILER ALERT for the ending, because I'd like to address that as well. I was pleased with the ending, which didn't wrap everything up nicely in a bow. I was so afraid they were going to go cliche and have Claire run away with Doug where they would live off the money from the final heist in Florida. But no, Claire fights with her conscience and works with the FBI even after she realizes Doug isn't villain through-and-through but she also tries to warn him away from a trap. The ending isn't some fairy tale where she runs away with him for true love and all his criminal acts are forgiven because he has a heart of gold. The ending was melancholy but not completely depressing. I felt like these characters were actually adults. In lesser movies, especially romantic comedies, you get grown men and women acting like they're teenagers. But this movie has a more blurred sense of morality and takes a sober look at romance and I appreciated that. Especially after the bizarre romantic relationship in "The Kids Are All Right." I also enjoyed the mommy issues, which they didn't need to put in but it added some psychological depth to the characters and some insight into the blue-collar Boston lifestyle.

Overall, good movie. I would have liked a few more scenes between Renner and Affleck, but it was still well done. I enjoyed the more realistic, down-to-earth feel when I was expecting a bombastic, overblown action flick.

My grade: A