Gallery

25 Thoughts on the Oscars:

1. The Oscars amuse me so much. Just think of the concept of all those actors gathered in one studio, all just sitting next to each other. The whole image is sort of hilarious when you take a step back.

2. I am sick of Neil Patrick Harris. I know, I know – he’s the gay ambassador to straight people, which makes him Ellen without a penis. But his whole schtick of “I’m gay and I sing but I’m more or less castrated and it’s funny that I’ll dance with lots of girls because you know I won’t make out with them and if I do I won’t enjoy it,” is just tired. Can someone take him out to pasture already?

3. Though, it was nice of the programmer to give Rob Marshall a job choreographing that number, considering Nine may have destroyed his career.

4. I dug Martin and Baldwin’s monologue for the most part. Particularly how it showcased why I want to be best friends with Meryl Streep. I really feel like I could say anything about her and she would just laugh merrily.

5. What the hell was up with the stoic George Clooney?

6. I’m relatively certain that the wife of Peter Docter has been crying since she first saw the opening 5 minutes of Up.

7. John Hughes so won the Dead Person Popularity Contest. And Karl Malden came in a clear second. Roy Disney and Budd Schulberg were tied for third. I was incredibly wrong. Also I wish the cinematographer for The Red Shoes and the writer for La Dolce Vita, La Strada, and 8 1/2 had gotten more applause.

8. The guy behind “Music by Prudence” was 1,000 types of fabulous. Why couldn’t the ceremony have opened with him instead of Neil Patrick Harris?

9. I can’t believe that "The New Tenants" won! I was so proud of the Academy for a brief moment. Then they started just playing winners off very quickly and I knew they were back to normal.

10. Maybe instead of playing those guys off so quickly, they should have cut that stupid tribute to horror, which only managed to showcase how much the genre has gone downhill. And I love how they said that it hadn’t been honored since The Exorcist, then proceeded to show clips from Best Picture Winner Silence of the Lambs. It accomplished, though, proving the point that the only horror music ever is from Psycho (apparently).

11. And why the hell did they not play Jeff Bridges off-stage after minute 3 or so of his incredibly staccato speech?

12. In things that would have been better than the prior two points: maybe showing some clips for cinematography? That might have been nice.

13. I am so sick of “I see you.”

14. The winner for Best Costume gave a pretty classy, small speech. Good on her.

15. Oh man, the scores. That was the dumbest, most Oscar-y, pretentious thing I have ever seen. Particularly when they did The Robot during Up. That whole display really defies commentary. I just feel ashamed for everyone who has ever danced right now. Ever.

16. While I liked Michael Giacchino’s speech in theory, I was wondering if he was wasting his time a bit with that video camera. After all, he didn’t win for anything visually. Womp-womp?

17. I thought the editor for The Hurt Locker was pretty ballsy when he brought up how the movie was a small, unfocused group movie and how he thanked the Academy for still choosing it. It seemed to reiterate the point brought up by the producer about how this is not the $500 million film (which got him banned from the ceremonies).

18. Man, they were not even subtle about cutting away from the guy with the “text Dolphin” sign. Love that the Academy will give an award to the movie, but won’t actually care about its entire message/point.

19. Was Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire really all that much of an underdog? I mean, it may have had typical “indie movie” woes in the making, but after that, it had Oprah behind it and was a story about a poor child overcoming adversity with every “hot-button, but not controversial” issue imaginable? It had HIV, rape (but only really dealt with the victim for most of the movie), abuse, poverty, illiteracy, etc. Hell, the stereotypical “Oscar winning speech” (as evidenced in Wayne’s World) culminates in “I never learned to read!” It felt as normal for an Oscar contender as they come.

20. Furthermore, what was with Mo’Nique’s speech about the politics? Yes, the Oscars are political, but I don’t see how the politics were against her. It felt awfully entitled. Though it was incredibly soulful.

21. The Best Actor presentation was spectacular…in that it was overdrawn and hilarious. And it sounded like everyone on stage wanted to jump the bones of the actor to whom they were talking. Sadly, that did not happen on camera. I would have loved to see some Colin Farrell/Jeremy Renner action.

22. Having Oprah talk to Fatty just made my life. And yes, I did giggle a bit whenever they would cut to Fatty.

23. The two huge upsets of the night: Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire beating Up in the Air for screenplay and neither A Prophet nor The White Ribbon winning foreign film. What the hell? to the latter. To the former, at least we got to see the director cut to EVERY black person in the audience.

24. This also meant that Up in the Air walked home completely empty handed. Pretty sad for a film that, back in December, was the favorite to win Best Picture.

25. Hurt Locker! Hurrah! This win may is the first time in a while I was happy at the end of the Oscars. This film was the real underdog that pulled ahead (unlike Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire). But the best part of the entire win was watching the intense bromance between the three stars going on behind Bigelow & crew.

Twas the night before Oscar,
And all through my head,
I thought of the picks,
That would make me wish I were dead.
Maybe my head wasn’t screwed on just right,
Or maybe it was that I wanted a fight,
But all the stars in Hollywood and all the –

Er, I’m a bit confused. Anyway, on Oscar Eve, I have decided to post my Nightmare Oscars. These are what I would least want to see win each Oscar. At least with this post online, I know that no matter what happens tomorrow…I can assure myself that it could have been worse. And, if I am correct…well, at least I’ve guessed all the right picks.

Best Picture “District 9″
Let’s face it: no one wants Blind Side to win. If that is victorious, I have legions of angry cinephiles on my side. Here, I have to deal with the fatuous masses praising the Academy for picking a really relevant action film or something like that.

Best Direction “Up in the Air” — Jason Reitman
I’ve already seen Ron Howard win once in my lifetime. I don’t need to see such a bland director win again. Daniels was a close second…but at least I could delude myself into thinking of it as an Aronofsky win.

Actor in a Leading Role Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
I can’t stand Morgan Freeman. Nuff said.

Actress in a Leading Role Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
See: my complaints about her back in earlier entries. Her win will just solidify that the Academy cares more about tracks of careers than singular performances.

Actor in a Supporting Role Matt Damon in “Invictus”
I had no strong feelings here. Damon rides my Freeman-hatred just as he rode the coattails of his performance to get a nomination.

Actress in a Supporting Role Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
In my own version of Hostel, I am just forced to watch Maggie Gyllenhaal’s performance in this movie over and over again. Eventually, someone takes pity on me and decides to instead drip corrosive acid on my balls.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay) “District 9” — Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
I haven’t been quiet about my disgust with District 9’s script that was simultaneously cookie-cutter and heavy-handed.

Writing (Original Screenplay) “A Serious Man” — Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen

Animated Feature Film “Coraline”

Art Direction “The Young Victoria” — Art Direction: Patrice Vermette; Set Decoration: Maggie Gray
Only because I was most bored by its trailers.

Film Editing “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Joe Klotz
District 9’s was pretty bland, but Klotz lifted far too much from Requiem for a Dream to allow me to be comfortable with his victory.

Cinematography “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” — Bruno Delbonnel

Costume Design “Coco before Chanel” — Catherine Leterrier

Foreign Language Film
Can’t say in all fairness.

Sound Editing “Star Trek” — Mark Stoeckinger and Alan Rankin

Sound Mixing “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” — Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson

Music (Original Score) “Avatar” — James Horner
Although I really want to say “anything that isn’t Up.”

Music (Original Song) “The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett
Crazy Heart’s music felt so manufactured to me.

Makeup “Il Divo” — Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano
Just because I am not familiar with it.

Visual Effects “Star Trek” — Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

Short Film (Animated) “Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin
Yes, “French Roast” is the least of the picks, but “Logorama” just seems so damn smug when it does not deserve to be.

Short Film (Live Action) “Instead of Abracadabra” — Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström

(No opinion on documentaries)

See you on the other side of the tunnel everyone! Feel free to share your own Nightmare Oscars!

Up to now, I’ve speculated and weighed in on quite a few categories and awards. But there is one I have not mentioned: The Dead Person Popularity Contest.

For those of you who are not Oscar savvy, the Dead Person Popularity Contest is the part of the Awards show where they “pay tribute to those who have left us in the past year” and some people stay to hear who gets the loudest applause but most people go to the bathroom, get some chips, or make themselves another Inglourious Cocktail, Avatarita, or Hurt Locker Car Bomb. They are fools. This race is the tensest one of any year.

Sure, there may be 10 Best Picture nominees, but there are dozens of contenders for this space! Furthermore, you never know who will win. One acclaimed director may seem to be zombie-walking away with this prize only for a beloved actress to snatch it from his cold dead hands. Obviously, I can’t weigh in on everyone who died this year. Some I’m not even sure will get mentioned in the telecast. Will Billy Mays manically smile at us on Oscar night? Will they honor one of final Munchkins to bite the Yellow Brick Dust, Mickey Carroll? What about pornographic thespians; is Jack Wrangler worthy of the Academy’s attention?

Sadly, I was forced to narrow it down to nine people. I won’t get scientific (or pseudo-scientific) with it; merely just give some thoughts and speculations.

Patrick Swayze

This guy is, in my opinion, the current favorite for the winner. He died semi-young, valiantly, and tragically. He was pretty, he was well-liked, and he’s most associated with younger, innocent roles like those in “Dirty Dancing.”

Who to cut to after picture is shown: his wife.

Michael Jackson

While MJ won 2009’s Dead Person Popularity Contest (perhaps the whole decade’s), this ceremony will leave him empty-handed. Hollywood looks after its own. Jackson may have been in a great music video/mini-movie and had a walk-on in Men in Black II, but he’s not an actor.

Who to cut to after picture is shown: the cast of Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire…as they will be the only other black people in the room.



Natasha Richardson

This poor girl looked like an early hopeful for the winner of the contest last March, right when the new season of contenders opened up. I remember thinking upon her passing that I might finally be able to make fun of Heath Ledger without getting a “too soon.” Little did we all know that the Summer of Death was to follow and she would just be a brief memory come fall, let alone Oscar time. She’ll get some applause, mostly out of guilt from forgetting her, but she’s just like Up in the Air is for best picture: she peaked too soon.

Who to cut to after picture is shown: Liam Neeson, or perhaps her kids. Slight chance of Vanessa Redgrave

David Carradine

Considering how he died, I wonder what the reaction to him will be. His death seemed one of the quickest ones to joke about and (since he was never that prestigious or iconic of a star) I doubt the guests will hold him in all too much reverence. There will be some polite clapping, but that’s all they will muster.

Who to cut to after picture is shown: Quentin Tarantino

Ed McMahon

There will be a brief pause as people try to remember who he is, followed by much louder applause than warranted to atone for the prior lacuna in sound.

Who to cut to after picture is shown: some random D-List celebrity. Or maybe they’ll go all out and have Kathy Griffin appear just so they can cut to her after him.

Farah Fawcett

Ah, the girl who turned the death of Ed McMahon (and the earlier one of Carradine) into an epidemic of celebrity deaths. Her glamor and tragic death should have her in Patrick Swayze territory (or at least close), but unfortunately, she’s now most famous for being upstaged by the King of Pop.

Who to cut to after picture is shown: let’s just hope they cut to someone instead of going straight to MJ.

John Hughes

He will receive a decent applause, but probably less than one would expect. This disappointment will most likely be due to the fact that he became a bit of a recluse for the past two decades and he is most remembered for pieces of 80s kitsch (and while Swayze will get more of the idealization from the nostalgia, he’ll get more of the derision and mockery in people’s heads). But he was quite a successful writer and director, so while there is still some good clapping in his future.

Who to cut to after picture is shown: Molly Ringwald or perhaps some young teeny bopper actress who has no clue who this man is.

Bea Arthur

She’ll get standard “old dead person” applause. Reverent of her long career, but realizing that her death was not all that great of a surprise and it’s not like she was expected to do anything else of note. Unless she could’ve guest starred on SNL as well.

Who to cut to after picture is shown: PLEASE have Betty White be at the Oscars!

Brittany Murphy

“Do I clap? Didn’t she OD? Wait, she didn’t? Are you sure? Okay, then I should clap. Are other people clapping? Would it be too much if I joined in? Well, some people are clapping. Clueless was good. I should probably commend that. And she was in Sin City, right? Was I in Sin City? I think so. I got a check. Or that might’ve been for a re-airing of a Simpsons episode I was on. Man, everyone was in Sin City. It’s like Valentine’s Day but with hookers and severed hands. Granted, I didn’t see Valentine’s Day. Maybe it does have hookers in it after all.”

Who to cut to after picture is shown: the next trashy girl to kick the bucket. It’ll be the camera cut of DOOM!

In a supreme act of nerdiness and/or unemployedness, today I watched all the shorts that were nominated for Oscars, both live and animated. A local Clearview was playing both and since I get two free tickets to Clearviews thanks to my Optimum account, I decided I might as well watch.

Watching shorts in a theater is a bit odd. You are both less cogniscent of time (since you’re following smaller story arcs) and more aware of time (since after each short you know that X amount of minutes have passed, as they tell you the length of each short beforehand). Overall though, it was an interesting, different experience and something I’d like to do next year as possible. Now, for my thoughts on the nominees (in order they showed them):

Short Film (Live Action)

“Kavi” — Gregg Helvey

This felt a bit like Slumdog Millionaire (abridged), though I probably preferred it to its chai-walling predecessor. Granted, there’s no gameshow and the kid doesn’t grow up, but there’s still the adorable young boy amidst that distinctly horrid poverty that only India can supply.
Thankfully, this time there’s no great tale of half-assed romance and a lack of fetishization on how exotic such Indian destitution looks. The movie hits a bit hard with its message, but at least it’s so blatant and honest about it, that I can’t fault it too much. Overall, this movie feels, well, exactly like a movie I would expect to be nominated for best short film (Live Action). This was also the first one they played and I was almost certain I was in for another ninety minutes of this. This film stands a great chance of winning though because of A) the coattails of Slumdog and B) it has such a nice, relevant Academic message and the whole Academy can feel like they made a difference.

Where I’d rank it: 3 of 5
Where it stands in chance of winning: 2 of 5.

“The New Tenants” — Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson

I loved this short film/one-act play. I loved loved loved it. It occupies the same territory as In the Loop: it’s so rude, vulgar, well-written, odd, and untidy in its ending that I am still in shock that the Academy nominated it. I’d go again (though 15 minutes late to skip Kavi) just to see this film again. It’s funny, tense, surprising, and engrossing. I can’t remember the last time I found something that dark that funny (and because it got so dark). Furthermore, lo and behold: well-written gay characters! They exist!

Of course, this same adoration also comes with the price tag that this does not stand all that great of a chance of winning. It doesn’t stand a horrible chance (I’d be it just behind Miracle Fish…to the point where I almost had it in 3), but the two front-runners are indeed quite the front-runners.

Where I’d rank it: 1 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 4 of 5.

“Miracle Fish” — Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey

I just was not feeling this film. It was horribly slow (of course, where I say “drawn-out,” others say “Kurosawa”) and did not seem to have much of a point or pay-off. The child protagonist did not attract as much empathy as he required and I really did not see all that much of a reason to the final confrontation. But, it seems dark and brooding and contemplative and "hurray for child actors!", so I’m placing it at three for odds.



Where I’d rank it: 5 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 3 of 5.

“The Door” — Juanita Wilson and James Flynn

This film was beautifully done. The first minute or so, nearly every shot wowed me. The job remained strong throughout the rest of it. I would love to see the director and cinematographer work on a full-length film.

The script, however, was not the best. So, I’m tempted to say “SPOILER ALERT,” but I think this film would actually be better if you knew the twist at the onset of the it. But, if you want to see it as the filmmakers intended it, please skip down to the next entry.

I'm in the midst of post-apocalyptic exhaustion. Or at least, with very run of the mill stories of what happens after the end of the world as we know it. Yes, the apocalypse sucks. Yes, it shows a dissolution of society and your bonds are stripped down to a few people who truly matter/you can trust and something about materialism. I blame The Road. It felt so abysmally standard that I think it obliterated my ability to enjoy an entire genre. Or maybe, on a more positive level, Jasper Fforde’s own post-apocalyptic setting in his novel Shades of Grey was so odd, unique, and refreshing (his theory is that the end of the world will be very British and vanish in a poof of politeness) that I now find it difficult to buy into catastrophic works that take themselves so seriously.

So, this short film leads us down a, er, road where we first believe it’s a totalitarian, post-apocaltypic futuristic society. Then we flash back to an incident that seems increasingly Chernobylish. At the end, we discover it was about Chernobyl. I really don’t think the movie gained all that much from hiding such information. If anything, it got itself lost in an increasingly hackneyed genre before finding its way out.

But this film is both beautifully shot and has a nice important message. One is a good reason to choose it, another is an Academic one.

Where I’d rank it: 2 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 1 of 5.

“Instead of Abracadabra” — Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström

This was mildly funny, mildly clever, but overall felt like a forgettable mini-indie film. This by all means is the winner of the “Littler Little Miss Juno Award.” Also, the “failing magician” joke is so much harder to make after Arrested Development. I’m not saying you can’t make that joke…but if you do, you have to realize it’s like writing a novel about a man in love with a 12-year-old girl…you have gargantuan clodhoppers to fill.

Where I’d rank it: 4 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 5 of 5.



Short Film (Animated)

Before I go into the nominees, I’m going to describe a few thoughts on the overall experience. Firstly, unlike the live action ones, these nominees also came with three “highly commended” short animated films. I’m guessing this was because of the fact that three of the nominees were six to eight minutes long and one of the longer two was for Mature Audiences only, so if you were a parent who came with children, you would’ve shelled out about 10 bucks for under an hour of viewing time. One of the shorts was the Pixar one that came before up ("Partly Cloudy"), the other two ("Runaway" and "The Kinematograph") were clear cases of “interesting but not great.” While I would have put "Partly Cloudy" in the running, the Academy actually chose wisely with the other two.

I noticed that all of the films were either wordless or in English. “French Roast,” “The Lady and the Reaper,” “Runaway,” and “Partly Cloudy” were all silent, which I appreciated. Such a choice really allowed for the emphasis of animation as a truly visual medium and also hearkened back to Chuck Jones's toons such as “One Froggy Evening” or the majority of “Rabbit of Seville.” I’m wondering if the other ones (as in, “The Kinematograph” and “Logorama”) were simply dubbed (since there would be more children in the audience) or if they were made for an English-speaking audience despite being made around the globe. I assume the former.

“French Roast” Fabrice O. Joubert

This film was cute. I literally have nothing else to say about it that deserves mention.



Wait, I was wrong. I did like how the “camera” was placed in pretty much one location/dealt with the window/reflection. That was interesting and nifty.

Okay, that’s it.

Where I’d rank it: 5 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 3 of 5.

“The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” Javier Recio Gracia

This cartoon truly felt like the lovechild of Tex Avery and Chuck Jones. It had the craziness you can only get in a cartoon but tempered a bit by the higher concepts of animation to which Jones was partial. I mean, I can’t give this film higher praise than to say that it felt like it would belong in the good ol’ days when animated shorts preceded any movie.

However, the morbid nature of this film will probably be its undoing in voting time.

Where I’d rank it: 1 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 4 of 5.

“A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park

This felt like standard “Wallace and Gromit” fare. Which is still very good. Okay, I’m going to attract some hate now. I like Wallace and Gromit. I really respect what it is and what it does…but I don’t love it. This case is not even one of “I don’t get the love/adoration.” I get it. I can’t even say I disagree with the logic behind it. But something in "Wallace and Gromit" doesn’t click as much with me as it does with others. I enjoyed this film, I found parts very clever and enjoyable, but overall it did not make too great of a lasting impression on me.

The namebrand nature of this short is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is definitely the safe pick for those who do not know anything about animation. They at least know it’ll make a lot of people happy and no one will really denounce them for it (of course, no one really cares all much about this category anyway). On the other hand, it may have the Meryl-Streep curse. Wallace and Gromit are always in the public mind that voting for them does not seem all that special.

Where I’d rank it: 3 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 2 of 5.

“Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell

This movie was delightfully odd. Even in the frantic category of animation, it stood out like a cellphone playing Monty Python's "Sperm Song" going off in the middle of a eulogy. I was guessing this film would go one way, and it sort of did, but in the way that one orders a cheese burger and gets a halfpounder triple stacked burger with four types of cheeses, bacon, and barbeque sauce. It took “fairy tale retelling” to a whole new level. Six minutes of insanity.

As for odds, this is one of those cases where I’m surprised it was even nominated.

Where I’d rank it: 2 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning:5 of 5.

“Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin

There’s a part in Romeo and Juliet where one character keeps asking questions to a group of musicians. After each witty response, he exclaims “Pretty!” and “Pretty too!” Everything is very clever, an enjoyable little trinket that is nothing of real substance by the point in the play when corpses are beginning to pile up and the stars are really starting to cross.

I fear that my reaction to much of this short was “Pretty!...Pretty too!” Every use of a logo was clever and cute and enjoyable…but I felt an overall lack of substance. Now, were I to suspect that the overall message of this film was that, in the face of all this need for meaning, there is none and all you need is a bunch of “Pretty!”s, I’d be much impressed. However, I could not help but think that this was trying to make a point. And I worry that the majority of its point was a tired one about corporate America or globalization or the evils of the prevalence of marketing. It huffs and puffs with much gusto, but does not blow me over.

This movie has the pretentions and the buzz. Game, set, and match.

Where I’d rank it: 4 of 5.
Where it stands in chance of winning: 1 of 5.



I'm sorry. I know I promised a lighter entry for the BAH!scars. That'll come on Thursday.

Time for me to finish off my predictions and ranting. Well, sort of. I have a few more crazy things in store for the BAH!scars before the big night...but before I get to those, time to do my good duty as a blogger and weigh in on the rest of the big categories.

Best Direction
“Avatar” — James Cameron
“The Hurt Locker” — Kathryn Bigelow
“Inglourious Basterds” — Quentin Tarantino
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Lee Daniels
“Up in the Air” — Jason Reitman

I'm a tad ambivalent about Lee Daniels's job as director of Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire. I found some of the techniques interesting and effective at conveying what I imagine to be the feel of Sapphire’s prose. I appreciated how the camera really changed its style to fit each scene. However, the whole time, I was being irritatingly reminded that this was all just a trope on a much better director and a much better movie: Darren Aronofsky and his masterpiece, Requiem for a Dream. Lee Daniels does well because he has chosen the right guy to copy. Furthermore, I cannot help but be vexed by the fact that Aronofsky has directed three better films than this (I have to reevaluate Pi), but has not gotten a single nomination. Daniels of course gets it by making a movie that is almost textbook Academic.

About Jason Reitman, I barely have anything to say since I found Up in the Air’s direction unimpressive. As for feel, I’ve reiterated on numerous occasions how he went the completely wrong direction (see: Devin likes screwball comedies). As for camera, with the exception of two scenes, it conveyed the idea that Reitman would be more comfortable just directing a play with an innumerable amount of sets. The two scenes are the opening credits, which were horrendously obnoxious, and first scene of George Clooney making his way to his plane, which might have been a bit too flashy, but was just good enough to work.

James Cameron clearly accomplished what he set out to do in Avatar, but I’m not sure where to draw the line between director and visual effects and I’m pretty sure it veers towards the latter.

The Hurt Locker is a director’s movie. It’s a good, but not great script, that is buoyed by a phenomenal camera and well-done performances. Bigelow perfectly captures the right feel, where you are nervous even after you would be in a typical narrative (like when the bomb is already diffused). She does shaky cam right which nowadays almost seems worthy of some laurels in and of itself.



Finally, there’s Inglourious Basterds. Like I’ve said earlier, I think this might be one of the best films of the decade. As you may have guessed, Tarantino’s direction is definitely responsible for a good chunk of that. But, like Best Picture, this is ultimately a race between Bigelow and Cameron – the gritty vs. the pretty. While Best Picture seems tougher to call, I can say that Bigelow has a more noticeable lead here. Not so much that Cameron taking it from her is unthinkable, but as I see it, either the Academy will split the vote or give director and picture to the same film (okay, that’s a bit of a tautology). If they give it to the same film, it’ll be more on quality and therefore The Hurt Locker will get both. If they split it, they’ll do so to appease more people. They’ll give Avatar the big prize to really appease the masses and give Bigelow the slightly less important Best Director to appease the film geeks.

Who will will: Kathryn Bigelow
Who should win: Quentin Tarantino, though I’m quite fine with Bigelow



Writing (Original Screenplay)
“The Hurt Locker” — Written by Mark Boal
“Inglourious Basterds” — Written by Quentin Tarantino
“The Messenger” — Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
“A Serious Man” — Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
“Up” — Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy

Aside from A Serious Man, I would not be too upset over any of these choices. The Hurt Locker in my opinion is a bit weaker in the script department than acting or direction, but not so much that I would find its winning a grave injustice. The Messenger is probably in a similar category but I would simply be amused by the oddness of such a small, not-known independent film winning over 4 Best Picture nominations. Up would be a perfectly suitable winner, though the Academy’s anti-animation prejudice is far reaching. Finally, there’s Inglourious Basterds. This movie will probably not take home too many awards in March (aside from Waltz’s), but it has a strong likelihood of winning this award. Despite bouts of extreme violence, this movie is all about dialogues between characters in the way that only Tarantino can deliver it (along with some great mini-monologues). The Academy may tend to lean towards a sweep (as is their habit) and go with Hurt Locker, but they might also try to throw Tarantino his bone. Ultimately, this is probably one of the closest races of the year, and I myself go back and forth on who will win day after day.

Who will win: The Hurt Locker or Inglourious Basterds – too close to call. If forced at gunpoint, I’d choose Basterds, if only because that’s what I want.
Who should win: Inglourious Basterds

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
“District 9” — Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
“An Education” — Screenplay by Nick Hornby
“In the Loop” — Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
“Up in the Air” — Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

The great irony here is that the surprise nomination (and the one that has not the slightest hope of winning) is clearly the best of the five screenplays. In fact, it may be one of the best of the ten. But sadly, In the Loop is too clever, too rude, and far too problematic to dream of ever taking home a little gold man. After seeing the film, I was even surprised that the Academy deemed to nominate it.

Also, little aside: I keep going back and forth on whether or not this script deserves to be in the Adapted category. While the scenario is based on a television show and one of the characters comes from that show, the story, dialogue, and majority of the characters are original. So yes, while this is not 100% from nothing…how could this be Adapted when Milk last year was under original screenplay?

An Education is the only other film I would be reasonably fine with seeing win this award. The dialogue is great, dramatic (and at times melodramatic) without losing itself (it constantly remains aware that the characters are prone to overreacting) and at other times just hilarious. Nowhere near as good as In the Loop’s, but very few screenplays this year are.

I’ve already gone into depth about my hated of District 9’s script and my warm to lukewarm about Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire. As for Up in the Air, I still do not get the love for this film’s “cleverness” or “wit” or “originality” or what-have-you. I mean, all of that love makes this the clear frontrunner and has guaranteed this film at least one prize…I just don’t see from where the love grows.

Who will win: Up in the Air.
Who should win: In the Loop.

Animated Feature Film
“Coraline”
“Fantastic Mr. Fox”
“The Princess and the Frog”
“The Secret of Kells”
“Up”

Neither The Secret of Kells or Coraline stand a chance. This is a symbolic race, between computer, stop-motion, and cell-animation. The Secret of Kells winning will mean nothing since nobody has seen it (including yours truly) and Coraline is not as emblematic (or good) an entry as Fantastic Mr. Fox when it comes to stop-motion animation. Yeah, I did not really like Coraline all that much. It was…good, but that was about it. I imagine how I felt about its style is akin to how many felt upon watching (and disliking) Juno with all its hipster affections. I love Nightmare Before Christmas, but all the Hot-Topic-Girl’s-Jerk-off Fantasy, semi-Tim-Burton-esque, mainstream-alternative style of Coraline bothered me. It wasn’t quirky or disturbing or whatever the designers were going for, but instead felt like a computer’s reaction if you fed it the past two decades of designs that met that description and asked it to make one itself. It felt artificial and forced and a bit bland and ultimately quite irritating. All of this is also an apt description for the character of Coraline. I’m sorry to all of you who felt that a girl who moves into a new town where she just doesn’t fit in and her parents don’t understand was such a breath of fresh air in the canon of cinema. The second half did a decent job with the final execution…but all that did was make me give it three stars on Netflix instead of a damnable two.



Now for the big three. If The Princess and the Frog wins, it will win purely because the Academy wants to see more 2-D animation. While the story was good and cute, the problem is that the mere evocation of the Disney movies of the late 80s and early 90s (as the trailer did try to summon up) only serve to highlight that while the story was good and cute (and Shadow Man was a fun villain), this movie is nowhere near the caliber of Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin. It’s a standard-good entry into the world of cell animation. In 1991, it would be pretty forgettable. Now, it’s Oscar-nominated.

Finally, it’s Up vs. Fantastic Mr. Fox. Now, we all know my adoration of Up. I think it was the second or third best film of the year. It’s a better movie than Mr. Fox. But, I would be completely fine if Fantastic Mr. Fox won. The fact that of the five nominees, only one is computer animated is refreshing enough. To see such a wonderful showcase of stop-motion animation and all its quirks and differences from real life win would be a lovely boost of energy for animation as a medium. It might even help stop the onslaught of Despicable Me and similarly subpar, mass-produced 3-D animated films. Granted, the chance of that happening is as small as the chance of Mr. Fox winning. Up has the award in the bag like it’s Lock, Shock, and Barrel and the gold statue is Sandy Claws. And if there is any upset, symbolic win, it’ll be The Princess and the Frog.

Who will win: Up
Who should win: Up

I don't exactly understand the title myself, but like many a line in a Bruce Springsteen song, it sounds cool despite not be completely decipherable. Now, without further ado, I present my take on the four acting categories.

Actor in a Leading Role
Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

As I said before, I haven’t seen Invictus, nor do I have any inclinition to do so and I’m pretty sure I would find Morgan Freeman’s performance as unimpressive as his last two decades of work. Jeremy Renner does not have a shot at winning since his very nomination was doubtful, which is a shame since his performance is the second best on this list. I do not understand the George Clooney buzz. He does a decent job with what he had to do in Up in the Air, but what he had to do was not all that much. Just because one does not screw up pan frying chicken breasts does not make one a gourmet chef. This role more or less cements his desire to be a modern day Cary Grant, but Clooney’s problem is that he is not willing to humiliate himself (well, except for maybe Batman and Robin) and go off-the-wall-bonkers like Grant often does. He always has to be the coolest guy in the room, but that is only half the game. Could you see Clooney leaping about in a frilly negligee screaming, “I just went gay all of a sudden!”? Neither could I.

That leaves us with the two big figures in my eyes: who should win and who will win. If the Academy could actually identify good acting, this award would be Firth’s. His quiet, restrained, tortured performance as a man in an intense state of grief and mourning was the heart of A Single Man. Every word of his, every action he did was informed by what he had suffered, yet he did not labor his points like other actors would. My only concern with Firth winning would be that, between him, Hoffman, and Penn all winning in recent years, that would turn "playing a gay man" into the new "playing a mentally challenged person" for "how to win Best Actor."

Jeff Bridges however has made a pretty clean getaway with most of the awards. This trophy is his. Now allow me to rant for a bit:

I despise Crazy Heart. Originally, I walked out of it just feeling bored and underwhelmed and wanting to kill Maggie Gyllenhaal for what she did to my sensibilities. The movie is The Wrestler, just with a less interesting screenplay, a completely bland director, and an inferior actor. In fact, this movie is a great rebuttal to anyone who said that The Wrestler was soley carried by Roarke's performance. Crazy Heart has been scrubbed and polished and Hollywoodized to the extreme, replacing pro-wrestling in New Jersey with the overly romantic country singing in the southwest and shoving in a trite happy ending. It feels contrived and created just to win awards and I honestly don’t sense the semblance of a soul or piece of artistic merit in it. Naturally, the Academy would smile even the slightest bit more favorably on this film than The Wrestler.

Now, when I see a movie, even if I hate it, I can usually find one thing good about it. Even Dark Knight, my sworn celluloid nemesis, has about 15 seconds that I thought were excellent (Joker fiddling with the explosive remote outside the hospital). (500) Days of Summer, District 9, A Christmas Carol – all of these had one aspect or another that I could praise, something that would make me hesitate or even stop before throwing all proof of these films into utter nihility. Crazy Heart has nothing I can praise. Nothing is noteworthy. Nothing ascends beyond its bile of insipidness and absolute forgetability. If Bridges’ performance can be praised as “good,” it is only good in the most average of ways that the world would not have suffered had it been deracinated at its inception as there are hundreds of more of those in the sweep of cinema.

Colin Firth delivers a powerful character study of a broken man. Jeff Bridges just goes through the motions.

Who will win: Jeff Bridges
Who should win: Colin Firth

Actress in a Leading Role
Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

I’ve already spoken about my disgust at the mere concept of The Blind Side (see prior entry if you suffer from amnesia). Of course, Bullock already should start dusting off a place on her shelf from her little gold man. The Blind Side got nominated for Best Picture and she’s the only other nomination it has. The Academy clearly finds her so great (or, to be honest, is so surprised that she is not a completely shit actor and can act in a serious role) that it nominated a movie for the top accolade because of her. She’s already won.

I haven’t seen The Last Station, so I’ll instead talk about the other three actresses who will be done a great disservice next month. First off, Meryl Streep, who was probably hoping for some time that she’d finally win her first Oscar in decades despite a bajillion and eight nominations. Every moment that she was Julia Child on screen was an absolute joy (I really think I had a smile on my face the entire time). As for Gabourey Sidibe, she really impressed me. Her performance may seem on the surface to be very simple – she just plays a victim. But she plays the role of a stoic, where she can’t overact or overreact, but instead must play the part of a character who keeps the same expression despite her turmoil of emotions (akin to Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain). Yet her body language (in large print font – hey-o!) changes so subtly yet effectively that you don’t even realize how much she’s growing as a character until the end.

Finally, there’s Carey Mulligan. She deserves this Oscar for her absolutely breath-taking break-out role as Jenny. She plays the role perfectly and, as one critic nicely put it, conveys that she is a girl making stupid decision, but herself is not stupid. Just as I mentioned how Sarsgaard seduces us, Mulligan is as necessary to that seduction. She must convince us how attractive David is and simultaneously place herself as a figure of identification and almost authority (so we can embrace her choices) and a figure who we know is headed towards a tragic conclusion.

Who will win: Sandra Bullock
Who should win: Carey Mulligan


Actor in a Supporting Role
Matt Damon in “Invictus”
Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

Yeah, this one still ain’t a contest. And I still have only seen two of the performances. And I still wonder why Stanley Tucci was not nominated for Julie and Julia since everyone seems to like that movie more and really only have nominated him for The Lovely Bones since for some reason that seems better than nominating him for Julie and Julia. Anyway, I love me some Waltz, though am sorry for Harrelson that he had to put forth such an outstanding performance this particular year.

Who should and win will: Christoph Waltz.

Actress in a Supporting Role
Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”
Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”

God, this category just vitiates the entire Oscars. I’ve already gone on in the BAH!scars #3 about the absolute, hyperbole-defying atrocity that is Maggie Gyllenhaal in Crazy Heart. Vera Farmiga was in that “Meryl Streep in Doubt, good but not astoundingly, uniquely good, just generically good” category. Penelope Cruz excels with her one musical number in Nine (and also probably successfully titillated all 12 straight men who saw it), but aside from that is stuck doing a decent job covering scenes from 8 ½ that could never surpass the original.

Of course, the buzz in this category is circling around Mo’Nique, who plays Precious’s truculent mother, particularly for her final monologue. Naturally, I differ from the masses. I liked Mo’Nique’s character for most of the film, as she simply sat in her chair, watching TV, smoking, and waiting to strike. She was like a scorpion in the room; you knew she was going to bring destruction eventually, but you knew that running away from her would only entice her sadistic tendencies. Furthermore, I liked that she was an unexplained evil and the same level of obstacle for Precious as poverty. She could not be reasoned away or reasoned with – she was just there. Very rarely is inexplicable evil done well - this could have been one of those times.

Then came that atrocious monologue. Firstly, I do not think Mo’Nique did all that impressive of a job with it. She was *ACTING!* instead of acting and that only works if you’re Gloria Swanson and the name of your movie is "Sunset Boulevard". As for the speech itself...no. Just no. It did not work. It did not provide a satisfying explanation, and whether it was trying to make me hate her more or elicit sympathy, I could not tell. At the end, I was just confused and ready for her to exit stage right.

I suppose I would give this award to Anna Kendrick. While she does play her part in an over-the-top fashion, she manages to make her choice become of the funniest, liveliest parts in a film that only wishes it were that funny and lively. She perfectly straddles the line of too-ridiculous-to-be-true and just-believable-enough-to-work-in-a-movie.

Who will win: Mo’Nique
Who should win: Anna Kendrick (at least of those nominated)



Because I'm a considerate sonuvagun, I'll do the rest of my Oscar predictions next entry to spare you from reading another 5+ page entry. Coming up next time: director, screenplays, maybe cinematography, possibly animated, and anything else you're really curious for me to weigh in on! Seriously, if you want me to do a category, just let me know!

Welcome back to another installment of the BAH!scars! This entry really requires no introduction...so I'll stop now.

Level 1 – the Other 3

These were the three films that were kind of the toss-up when it came to the Best Picture nomination discussion. Obviously, they all stand an Aronofsky’s chance of winning (despite Aronofsky’s films being able to wipe the floor with these pieces of poo).

The Blind Side

The one nominee I have not yet seen and, to be perfectly frank, have no interest in seeing. Anyone who I respect and who has seen it has nothing but condemnatory words to say about it. “Glorified TV movie.” “Bullock’s just okay.” “Boring then boring then racist then boring.” What can I say? I hate schmaltz, I hate sport movies, I hate mindless Oscar feel-good-inspiration bait. And I hate Sandra Bullock. I’d be miserable every step of the way and I’m not giving into the Academy by seeing this movie just because they threw two nominations at it.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 10

Odds of winning: 1 to 1,000. This film was the surprise nominee of the year, bolstered only by the awards/reviews for Bullock, very similar to The Reader last year. In a five-picture year, the odds might be 1 to 100, but now there are nine other films to beat, all of which have more clout/support than this one does. Of course, bad Bullock movies that take a heavy-handed look at race have won before against all odds. But if it happens this time, film-nerds nationwide may have their own “Rodney King Verdict”-style riots.


District 9

Like I said in a prior entry, this movie snatched up Star Trek’s “Token Summer Movie Nomination/Let’s Keep the Plebs Happy” prize. Ironically, despite thinking Star Trek is a better movie, I am annoyed less by this selection. Possibly because at least this choice seems more in line with typical Academy thinking (Little Indie That Could, Important Issue, etc.). That being said, the fact that District 9 is a nomination for Best Picture is a complete and utter joke. The plot was incredibly cookie cutter (I dare say it may rival Avatar’s), the commentary was heavy-handed, and I really do not think I should feel so bored when watching people explode.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 9

Odds of winning: 1 to 500. Note the “Token” in its prize. This nomination was an act of diplomacy by the Academy. Diplomacy is taking a few small hits to appease the other party. It’s not committing seppuku to show you were wrong.

A Serious Man

The more I thought about A Serious Man, the more it crumbled for me. Probably initially I was temporarily blinded by what so many people were blinded by: if a movie is that depressing, boring, dense, and contains no answers, it must be great stuff. It had a strong lead performance and a few good moments with the camera (and I did love the opening scene), but aside from that…it was a shaggy dog of a movie: a lot of hair that couldn’t attach itself to anything. While there have been great movies that have broken free of traditional norms of plot and character (e.g. Bunuel’s The Phantom of Liberty), this picture did not even have a single idea upon which to hinge itself, aside from the very tired Job one.

This nomination was probably a combination the aforementioned blinding with A) “Hey! We’ve nominated and awarded the Coen’s before!” and B) a desire for more cred among the film geeks who hate the Academy as much as the cretins.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 8

Odds of winning: 1 to 150. In many’s eyes, this was a doubtful nomination. I thought it had a good chance of making it to the race of 10, but that’s about it. This movie is bland, but not Academy-Approved-Bland and will therefore not grab voters’ eyes come check-off time.

Level 2

“We’re so happy the Academy amped it up to 10!” These two were the ones that were pretty much guaranteed 2 of the 5 extra slots. They never would have gotten a real nomination, but they were also not a question when filling out the list. They have the slightest chance of winning, though a picture of that moment would have to go in the dictionary under “upset.”

Up

Oh, how I love this movie. Oh, how it’s refreshing to see the Academy’s need to nominate token films used for good instead of evil. Oh, how this movie does not have a chance of winning.

Amazing - Up is a film that delivers well-developed characters, clever humor, tears, an uplifting message about the human condition, and adventure…and because it’s computer animated, it has a pretty infinitesimal chance of taking home the gold. However, this nomination does cement what everyone already knew: that Up will win Best Animated Feature.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 2

Odds of winning: 1 to 85. This nomination is almost as much of a token as District 9. However, this injustice has the benefit of having a more vocal, consistent, and intelligent group of complainers rallying behind it. There is a miniscule possibility that the Academy will try to appease the animated lobbyists in one foul swoop before returning to their usual antics. But it’s miniscule.

An Education

This film is a solid choice. The acting is phenomenal and the dialogue is top notch. Carey Mulligan deserves the Oscar, though she won’t get it, and a few of the other actors were quite snubbed. It by no means is a “Best Picture” film either in the Academy’s eyes (Ew! Girl sleeping with older man! Ew! Quiet British film!) or mine, but this film is a welcome addition to filling out the list, be it 5 or 10 films.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 4

Odds of winning: 1 to 60. Like I said, it’s a good pick for filling out the list, but it is not flashy enough for the Academy. Only if there were an incredible vote split would it have a shot.

Level 3

We’re now on the movies that would have been the five nominees had the Academy not decided to make a desperate attempt to get more viewers and pander to the masses.

Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire

I will admit I went into this movie with some biases against it. I thought (and still think) that the title is as obnoxious as a neon yellow sweatsuit (and misuses quotations). All the trailers made it looks exploitative, predictable, and mindless Oscar-bait (let’s all think about race for two hours! Hurray for triumphing over adversity!). I did not like how certain critics/marketers were trying to guilt the American public into seeing the film by saying they were racist if they did not (when really, the American public will only see “indy”-ish film if they’re quirky and cute). And, I really did not want to see Fatty walk down the red carpet in a dress, trying to look attractive or at least not completely repulsive.

Now, little sidetrack. Sometimes, I see a movie that I expect I’m going to hate and it surpasses my expectations as to how repugnant it can be. I will then say, “Yes, it was indeed as horrible as I surmised...and then some!” and people will say that I went in prejudiced against it and did not give it a fair chance. I always argue with them that even if I go in with expectations, I still do not let those cloud my judgment. In fact, if the movie is even the slightest bit decent, it benefits from my bias. I often will think “Wow! This isn’t horrible!” and that will quickly transition to “This is quite good!” If anything, most movies find that my preconceived negative opinions ameliorate my final judgment, just as my excitement for a film has a tendency to lead to ultimate disappointment.

Upon reflection, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire is still predictable (it's only a step or two up from Avatar), a bit exploitative, and nothing all that special. But the acting is mostly strong (Fatty in fact so exceeds with what her role requires that I lament the reality that she probably will not have a career after this movie), the script is just interesting enough, and the directio – er, I’ll describe my ambivalence towards the direction in my next Oscar post – that it won my over. I approve of Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire, as a movie. It may not deserve to be in the top 5, but it’s better than a lot of other nominees.

Of course, I may not have actually seen Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire since both my ticket and the marquis for the theater only said "Precious."



Where I rank it amongst the ten: 6

Odds of winning: 1 to 25. It’s the recipient of the “Little Miss Juno” Award. Part of the deal with that award is that the recipient has not all that great of a chance of getting any award past the “Little Miss Juno” Award.

Up in the Air

Back when this movie had a very good shot at winning, Entertainment Weekly ran this piece. It simultaneously interested and bothered me. Why did it vex me so? Because Up in the Air is not a triumph of witty dialogue and plot and great characters. It only thinks it is. It half-wants to be a modern day screwball comedy (as this article belies) but cannot bring itself to abandon its seeming-sophistication and unabashedly invite in the immaturity that allows such a pleasant juxtaposition. As a result, it drags. Furthermore, I simply did not find Clooney’s character as funny, sharp, distinct, roguish, or fascinating as the film expected me to. He seemed like a partially-formed idea that never fully took route into a person, and without that, the script continued its collapse. There are moments of greatness in this film, sure, but this is not a great film or anything close. There are just briefs flashes of what could have been one.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 7

Odds of winning: 1 to 10. This movie was probably the favorite back at the turn of the year, but it has lost steam like a kettle taken off the stove. I think the problem was that people started actually seeing it and realized it really wasn’t all that special. It’s only true shot comes from the fact that it carries with it a very timely and Academic message: having loved ones >>> having money and a job.

Level 4

These are the ones that are really duking it out for Best Picture. Any other one will be some level of an upset. None of these three have a definite chance of winning and therefore there will be surprise no matter which one wins, but not too much surprise.

Inglourious Basterds

Forget about the year; I’d rank this film as one of the best of the decade. It’s a remarkably clever, incisive film masquerading as a mindless, frat-boy gorefest. Yet, it’s façade of Eli Roth controlling Quentin Tarantino like Brainiac puppeteering Lex Luthor only manages to enhance the film’s overall message and make it more brilliant (I may have to gush about this more in depth in a full-length entry). I walked away from this movie back in August not knowing what to think. I did not even know if I liked it. Repeated viewers and what probably amounts to hours of thinking and discussion have affirmed its place in film history in my mind (and probably also guaranteed that I’ll be writing a real academic essay on this at some point in the future)

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 1

Odds of winning: 1 to 4. On one hand, we have a director that has already been nominated, the SAG win, nominations in director, screenplay, editing, and cinematography, and general good buzz. On the other hand (SPOILER), we have a movie that ends with Hitler getting a machine gun to the face. The Academy may not look too favorably upon a film that exposes all other “good” WWII films for being as bloodthirsty as any slasher flick. However, this film may be able to rise above the rubble that will ensue in the Avatar/Hurt Locker brawl.



Avatar

I’ve already defended Avatar in this blog (read “Avatar’s Gross!” if you need a refresher). That being said, this movie is not Best Picture material. Too many necessary elements are lacking from the film to allow it to make the leap from “enjoyable” to “great” (by the way, I know I use the word “great” a lot when discussing films…I owe that quite a bit to Roger Ebert’s Great Movies. It’s more of a status than an adjective for me, hence why I don’t vary my vocabulary when it comes to that).

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 5

Odds of winning: 3 to 7. It will definitely eat up Technical Awards like they were white dots and it was Pac Man. And the Academy is really trying to appease the masses this year (see: ten nominations), so how better to do that than awarding the top grossing movie of all time the top prize? Hey, it worked over a decade ago! And then of course, there’s that whole Golden Globe thing and the fact that the last thing the director did was that movie where the boat sinks.

The Hurt Locker

The great paradox of the Oscars is that they make no one happy: not the masses, nor film nerds. The plebeians complain that the Oscars only choose prestigious, boring films that only a few people see. People who actually know about film bewail that the Academy only chooses films that tend to gross over $100 million and only give the illusion of being “small, independent films.” Yet, ironically, the plebs’ conception might finally be the case for a change. Up against the movie that everyone saw is the truly great film that only grossed about $10 million in its initial release in theaters.

Barely anyone saw The Hurt Locker this summer. Only a select few film nerds and friends of film nerds were lucky enough to enter the theater in July to see one of the tensest films in years and the best film about the Iraq war to come out so far. It was a film lover’s/thinking man’s action movie, one that delivered a few explosions but knew that the mere promise of an explosion is so much scarier and so much more thrilling.

While I prefer Inglourious Basterds to this movie, I will be more than happy if The Hurt Locker wins. This movie is the one that has the best chance of beating Avatar and it will be the first time in a while that I can really rally behind a Best Picture winner. Hurray for that.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 3

Odds of winning: 1 to 2. This movie not only took home a lot of critic’s year-end awards, but has been catching up pre-Oscar awards like they’re Pokemon (what is with me and videogame similes?). By all means, it should be a hands-down favorite to win. But it’s a small movie. And therefore, it’s going to be a struggle. It has a slight advantage over Avatar, but that’s about it.