Reviews: Clash of the Titans & Greenberg

Gods and Monsters

When James Cameron proclaimed his latest cinematic behemoth Avatar a "game-changer", I don't think he quite imagined the real consequences that would ensue. Instead of technological filmmaking being pushed further beyond the boundaries he pushed them, every studio is instead looking at the big bucks it earned and equating it to the high ticket price of 3D screens. Of course that's why the film made over two billion dollars; it had nothing to do with the level of storytelling, entertainment or the fact that Cameron shot it in 3D. Nope, it was just the price of the ticket. This has led to an outpour of new 3D movies, with the main problem being that most of these movies were shot in plain old 2D and later converted. An example this year was Alice in Wonderland, an okay movie not enhanced at all by the 3D. This is another one. Thankfully I skipped the 3D and probably saw a much better film.

Remade from the cheesy 1981 classic, this film tells a similar tale about Perseus and his battle against the gods. Sam Worthington, of the aforementioned Avatar fame, plays Perseus is his trademarked "everyman" quality. Perseus is part god, the son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) who along with his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) plots against man after one city declares war on the gods. In order to get revenge against Hades for killing his family, as well as save the princess before the dreaded Kraken destroys the city, Perseus has to face many obstacles in order to save the day.

This was one of the films I was significantly looking forward to in the new year, and for my taste, it doesn't disappoint. Director Louis Leterrier has given us films like The Transporter and The Incredible Hulk, and of his entire filmography, this is without a doubt my favorite from him. His speciality has always been the action sequences, and here they all find the right intensity to strike. The action is very engaging and fun to watch. Even though his direction has to suffer through a very clunky script, I still found Leterrier's method of delivering action to be surprising to say the least.

The acting is an element that is give or take in this film. Apart from Worthington who delivers yet another similar performance in his arsenal, nearly everyone here is devouring the scenery. Neeson and Fiennes ham it up in their godly personas, and other players like Mads Mikkelson as an antagonistic hero and Gemma Arterton as an ageless beauty who assists Perceus in his quest are obviously reaching a bit far. But even that is an element that makes the film fun. It's a grand spectacle with an extra help of cheese, but that's what I like about it.

Now, don't get me wrong, this movie does have problems and most of it lies within the script. The story is poorly drawn out, the characters are flat (Arterton especially feels like a cheat in the script), the dialogue is corny and there are plenty of slow spots. But I know that these elements were present in the original film, and Leterrier and company do their best to try to improve them as much as possible. I feel that they've succeeded, and even though I can cite the major faults, I still can't deny I had a hell of a time watching it. And if you can, please see this film in the regular 2D. You'll have a better movie going experience and save money at the same time. Thank gods for that. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Hipster Replacement

For the last couple of years now, movie theaters seem to have been bombarded by new kind of anti-hero film. Batman is without a doubt the most famous kind, but the indie crowd seems to specialize in protagonists that murmur about as if they don't want to be the center of their own stories. Noah Baumbach might seem like the kind of director who specializes in this, but Ben Stiller might not be the first name to come to mind. Yet their collaboration has occurred for yet another anti-hero indie film, and the result for me is less than stellar.

Stiller has the title role of Roger Greenberg, a forty-year-old construction worker who's gone back to L.A. after living in New York to housesit for his brother while he is on vacation. Greenberg isn't that much of a likable guy, but he wanders about his listless life trying to develop while simultaneously not develop a relationship with his brother's assistant Florence (Greta Gerwig). His biting personality also tries to reunite love with an old flame (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and hold onto a shaky friendship with an old friend (Rhys Ifan).

I wouldn't consider myself a huge fan of Noah Baumbach, as I have only seen one film in his career. However, that one film I have seen, The Squid and the Whale, is one of my absolute favorites for capturing the dysfunctional while also providing wonderful characters to explore. For some reason or another, Baumbach never reaches that level here, and the characters he creates are flat, boring, meaningless and a little too whiny for my taste. Baumbach is a talented artist, but his actions feel too deliberate which makes for a meandering pace the degrades any momentum the film could build up.

Stiller I am less a fan of, though Tropic Thunder tried to restore some faith in him. The limitations of his character get in the way of Stiller to fully flesh out Greenberg, but there are several moments when Stiller can use his more quiet sensibilities to showcase real drama. At the same time, Still also handles the more energetic outbursts quite well. A blunt epiphany from a cocaine influenced Greenberg is the main highlight of the film. Gerwig is perhaps given the greatest character in the film, and I was impressed by her performance as one that feels very grounded, and I look forward to what she can do in the future. Ifan and Leigh are nice additions but wasted under limited screentime.

I was mildly looking forward to this film, but despite Michael Phillips's four star rave, I just can't get on board. All the pieces that make up the film are more than capable to deliver, but at the end of the day, not a single interesting character crosses our path, and that means more than watching some respectable actors perform against a few well executed, but sparse moments. Indies will never be without their anit-heroes, but I could do without this one. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Reviews: How to Train Your Dragon & Waking Sleeping Beauty

Dragon Tale

It is no secret that in today's world of powerhouse animation, the biggest battles right now are being fought between Pixar and Dreamworks. More often than not, Pixar is the studio that comes out on top, as they should. After all, you cannot compare the likes of WALL-E, The Incredibles, Ratatouille and Up to films like Madagascar, Shark Tale, Bee Movie or even Shrek. Two years ago, Dreamworks did have a film that could have matched Pixar, one that avoided the contemporary pop culture references in favor of a good story filled with a rich landscape of character and visual. Kung Fu Panda couldn't upset that tiny, adorable robot that year, but it showed that this studio could deliver a film that was very satisfying. Their latest effort is further proof, one that isn't quite as good as the panda, but is very enjoyable and a feast for both the eyes and the heart.

The setting is a well-off Viking village in the distant past that is being terrorized by ferocious dragons. Viking leader Stoick (Gerard Butler) is the great commander who's a tough as nails but must deal with his meeker son, given the unfortunate name Hiccup (Jay Baruchel). Hiccup dreams to be a strong Viking like his father, so much so that he manages to take down the most elusive and powerful of the bunch known as Night Fury. But Hiccup can't bring himself to kill the creature, which he later befriends and affectionately calls "Toothless" because of its retractable dentures. Their relationship leads to Hiccup figuring out that the dragons aren't so ferocious as they seem, and his main struggle is to make the other members of the village, his father in particular, realize this as well.

Given the latest 3D boom, it's becoming more difficult to determine which films are necessary to see in that extra dimension, meaning which ones are absolutely worth the extra price. Alice in Wonderland wasn't; this one most certainly is. The greatest effect is the flying scenes, which will give obvious callbacks to Avatar. The visual intensity of those scenes are magnified by the creative use of 3D, and, much in another similar method to Cameron's film, is used as a tool to help immerse the audience in this world. The other methods of creating a real space of depth is also extraordinary, and this is one film that does benefit from that extra cost. I admire directors Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois for their creative use of the camera and visual landscape.

The voice talent, I will admit, could have been a little more forceful in the film, but they don't damage it completely. Baruchel's trademark shyness lends itself quite well to his character and Butler's booming oration goes hand in hand with his also. But secondary players ranging from America Ferrera to Jonah Hill to Christopher Mintz-Plasse to others feel as though they're a bit wasted in secondary characters with very little depth. The true magic in this movie is between Hiccup and Toothless, which seem to have taken notes from WALL-E and Up as to what can be accomplished through very little dialogue. The emotional moments between the two are warmly felt and come across very strong. It's the strongest portion of the film, and fortunately it is used to great effect.

The movie isn't perfect as there are some slow spots in the film, some lack in many of the secondary characters, not all the jokes land as squarely as others and the fortune cookie message may seem a bit simplistic at times. But so what; Kung Fu Panda had similar issues, and I still walked away loving that film. Like that one, this is another film that divorces itself from the usual Dreamworks tricks and instead focuses on story and characters. Added to it the tremendous visual landscape enhanced by the 3D and the amazing score by John Powell, and you've got a tremendously satisfying film. I certainly want to see this movie again, and trying for the gigantic IMAX format. Well done Dreamworks. Pixar, your move. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Beauties and the Beasts

It's an interesting notice when you get a film, or documentary to be specific in this case, that offers an in-depth look at a subject that has been present throughout your entire life but never quite understood to its fullest extent. I bet there are few people out there who are not aware of the impressive impact that classic animated Disney films had on their childhoods; it's inescapable. Those childhoods are usually divided into three sections now: the classic films of the 30s thru 50s, the rebirth from the late 80s to early 90s, and finally to the new decade where attention focused to the 3D animation branch known as Pixar. My early childhood was introduced heavily to the second era of Disney classics, and this film is a fascinating look at the tortured history leading up to those memorable films as well as the difficulty at even getting them made.

Made by two former Disney insiders, the film weaves the tale of how the animation department at Disney was nearly dismantled after a string of flops, most infamously The Black Cauldron, which went way over-budget and did terrible at the box office (it was beat out by the Care Bears movie). With that, the company brought in new management, with the three big players being Michael Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Roy Disney battling each other to keep the company afloat. Disney made strides starting with The Little Mermaid (though, apparently, Oliver and Company did quite well), particularly when they brought in the song-writing team of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken. This was a success that lasted all the way till The Lion King when Katzenberg resigned due to tensions between Eisner and Disney.

Despite being produced by people who had inside knowledge of these events, this isn't a glossed over version of the events, nor does it make it seem like the successes and failures of this company belong to one person. There's a fairly even handed attempt to keep the perspective as clean as possible, and to get such an objective look into a disguised messy situation is quite astounding. Director Don Hahn, the producer of films like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, never goes for the jugular, or even the arrangement of the talking heads spewing into the camera. The interviews are heard off screen to some archival footage, giving them a lot more meaning and emotional depth.

Adding to all this, if you are simply a fan of Disney filmmaking history in general, then there's plenty of tidbits the movie shows that can put a smile on your face. For instance, there's something magical about seeing a young Tim Burton, who worked as an animator on Cauldron and Fox and the Hound, shooting a distraught stare into the camera while an upbeat voice calls his name offscreen. The greatest treasure I think the film offers is, at last, a decent look at what Howard Ashman created for Disney, and how his relation to the films as musical theatre (Ashman and Menken created the Little Shop of Horrors Broadway show) really brought Disney out of its hole. Unfortunately, Ashman died of AIDS in 1991, eight months before Beauty and the Beast was released, and the film's loving tribute to his work is very much appreciated from at least one person out there.

If there's one complaint I have against the film, it is that it ends too early. That's not to say the film is short, but its story stops right after Katzenberg left and they were still flying high with The Lion King. It would have been interesting to see what the effect of Katzenberg leaving truly had on the company, and how films like Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame changed production and Disney itself. But even though the film has an intentionally glossy ending, this is still a fascinating look at a company that many know through their work but remain elusive in other ways. It's funny, endearing and, most of all, will make you want to go back and watch all those old Disney films again. The romanticism of Beauty and the Beast, the first animated film ever to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, made me want to return to that film more than any other. That is what I call Disney magic. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Reviews: The Runaways & A Prophet

Rock Pout

Among the few things that are certain in life, one is that audiences can never seem to get enough of the musical biopic. Make no mistake, even though we’ve seen a recent surge of this genre as Oscar-guzzling, baity projects from the likes of Ray, Walk the Line and even Dreamgirls (unofficially), this genre has had a long life stretching as far back as to the introduction of the sound era. Some of these pictures are good and others are a bit more cliched, but in the right hands, any of them can be successful. The latest outing takes a keen eye to this budding rock group in the seventies, and while it suffers from many of the same tired plot points of other films, it is bolstered by some fine performances that make it worth checking out.

The starting point is 1975, and hard, punk-rock is coming into its own. But ambitious, rebel artist Joan Jett (Kristen Stewart) is looking to revolutionize an industry that requires a shakeup every five years by starting an all female rock band. With the help of the extremely eccentric and flamboyant music producer Kim Fowley (Michael Shannon), she teams up with Cherie Currie (Dakota Fanning) and three other rock out chicks to form The Runaways. The group never had a huge following in America, and actually found more success overseas in Japan. With any rock’n’roll group, there are abuses of drugs, sex and personal relationships all the way until the group was disbanded in 1979. Currie went back to a normal life, and Jett became a more famous name with her new more famous band Joan Jett and the Blackheart’s.

If you are one of the lucky few that have avoided witnessing the black hole of entertainment that is Twilight, I’d advise you to continue your abstinence lest your opinion of every Kristen Stewart performance be tainted. I do believe she is capable of being a good actress, and I constantly refer to Adventureland as an example. But I saw that film before I was even aware she was in those vampire films. Now it’s hard for me to judge if she’s an accomplished actress here because I keep getting recalls of her bland work in Twilight. I will say she doesn’t harm the movie any, and her presence in the film does add enough of the angsty intensity needed, but nothing about her never catches on. Shannon probably has the greatest range of character ticks, and even though a little bit of Fowley can go a long way, he still manages to find ways to make him funny and insightful.

However, the real performance to check out here is Fanning. It’s true that we’ve never seen Fanning take on such a hard edge character, but I think she handles the material beautifully. Those who still remember the eight-year-old Fanning pleading to be reunited with a mentally challenged Sean Penn might find some of the drug and sexual content rather jarring, and even I did in some instances, I still look at it as a very talented young actress transitioning to a very talented young adult actress. You’ll have to be ready to hear all the phrases on your list of “Things I Thought I’d Never Hear Dakota Fanning Say”, but it will be totally worth it to see such a mature and well rounded performance.

First time feature director Floria Sigismondi does have an interesting style as director, and she manages to keep the wild spirit of the era alive and crafts the more quiet, intimate moments well also. However, it’s her screenplay that is filled with the usual rock band cliches, and the story never becomes quite ambitious enough to break free from what would normally be seen in a dramatized “Behind the Music” television movie. Often times the predictability of the plot takes away from the some of the positive elements, and it is the major flaw of the film, that plus some poor shooting choices, but the performances do help tremendously.

I can’t say this is a great film, or even a great biopic based on the current standard, because of the pedestrian plot that follows the biopic rules to a tee, and the film goes on for a bit too long. However, because the film is saved by tremendous performances, particularly from Fanning, the film is worth checking out for that reason alone. This will certainly not be the last musical biopic, and there’s plenty of room for improvement. But, in the end, I still look forward to them all. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Foreign Aid

I know I say that with every Oscar season that I try to get to see all the films nominated, but there are always some categories that I miss completely before the awards are given out. The Foreign Language Film category is one that I usually don't see because these films are not released in Chicago in time. Not too many people know of these films nominated, but there's generally two well known films that get beaten out by a lesser known film that ends up taking the Oscar. For instance, in 2008, Waltz with Bashir and The Class were two highly acclaimed films that lost to the little known Departures. This time, A Prophet and The White Ribbon were beat out by Argentina's The Secret in Their Eyes. I have not seen Ribbon or Secrets, but I can say that judging by how strong this particular film is, I would say this film deserved to be called an Oscar winner.

The film centers on Malik, played by relative newcommer Tahar Rahim. Malik is a French-Arab who is sentenced to a six year prison sentence when he is nineteen years old. On the inside, he is taken under the wing of Cesar (Niels Arestrup), the veteran inmate with deep mafia connections from the Corsicans (close to Italy). After Cesar orders Malik to kill an inmate who poses a threat at an upcoming trial, Malik slowly rises in ranks, becoming his own mafia kingpin all within his prison walls.

There have been a lot of comparisons made about this film to the likes of The Godfather and Scarface. It's true that Malik goes through a similar transformation that Michael Corleone had, but fortunately Rahim is a talented enough actor for the character not to feel like a carbon copy. Rahim does a magnificent job at creating the complex change in character that Malik goes through, and it's quite an admirable job he does. Every scene of his feels authentic to the character, and he makes a good case for his name to be a recognizable on a global scale. Likewise, Arestrup is fantastic as the more villainous character, also showing many sides to a character that could have been one note. These two are the heart and soul of why the film works so much, even though other members of the cast, unknown to American audiences, are just as excellent.

Director Jacques Audiard always knows how to find the right balance to strike in each scene. When the quiet tension needs to slowly rise, the sly humor subtly sneaks in, the intense drama pierces the atmosphere, it is all delivered. The ambitions of the film never seem extraordinary, but Audiard direction and screenplay find the perfect way to tell this story. Even when some of the directorial choices seem a bit out of place, or give the film a strange beat to hold on, there's still a sense of the overall scheme of things, and the staging of the final moments of the film add a breath of astonishment that can only be achieved through such simplicity.

I know there's a lot of people who avoid the subtitles, and even those who don't mind them will notice a bit of difficulty trying to decipher the uses of three different foreign languages. But once again, I must beg you not to be afraid of the subtitles because you will discover a beautifully crafted film with fantastic performances from the two leads. I know I'm late on seeing this film, but the old adage of "better late than never" applies here. And I also know I'm cheating a little bit with this statement, but considering the movie didn't premiere in my city until March, I would say this is the best film of the year so far. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Reviews: Alice in Wonderland & Green Zone

Blunderland

Despite the obvious limitations that many attribute to him, I still remain a loyal Tim Burton fan. I still credit his wild imagination as the starting point for my current love of the cinema. While his style has gotten a little predictable over the years, I continue to look forward to his films, and believe that he can make great ones in that vein. His fantastic adaptation of Sweeney Todd dazzled me beyond belief, and I am still convinced that he deserved to take home the Best Director Oscar. The next item on his list is this yet another quirky reinvention on an old classic near and dear to so many childhood memories. What he gives us a fantastic visual spectacle that is often brought down by a tedious pace and one very strange performance.

Burton's Alice is not so much a remake of the original Disney animated classic but more of a continuation, almost inspired by Spielberg's Hook. Alice, played by newcommer Mia Wasikowska, is now a nineteen year old being put on the path of forced martial status by her family. But her fascination with the bizarre leads her back to a forgotten Wonderland (now called Underland), where the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) has taken over with a tyrannical rule. It is up to Alice, teaming up with Johnny Depp's super eccentric Mad Hatter, to defeat the Queen's most horrible creature in order to return the world she used to remember back to the way it was.

Even if you believe Burton to be a predictable hack, I can tell you that his visual style is not one that is arbitrary. Burton's direction is very controlled, and he continues to show the usefulness of that spectacle here. He floods the screen with vibrant images that make it all the more fascinating to behold. Unfortunately, the screenplay by Linda Woolverton is really a mess, riddled with an odd pace of serious and dramatic, an off brand sense of humor and a climax featuring an action sequence that its director could never handle well in any film he's done. Plus, there's an unusual amount of eye-gouging in this film.

The actors here are capable of providing good work, but their limitations are pretty much the ones seen in the Star Wars prequels; when all you're reacting to is a green screen, then it's hard to have a great connection. Wasikowska provides a good center to the film, but I have to admit I never found her to be mindblowing. Bonham Carter, probably the only member of the cast who is a standout, does give the film energy and passion desperately needed. Other smaller parts like Anne Hathaway as the Queen's much nicer sibling, Michael Sheen as the tardy white rabbit and Alan Rickman as the mellow caterpillar are fine additions, but aren't used to their greatest effect.

Then, there's Depp. Don't get me wrong; I like Johnny Depp. He'd be an Oscar winner for Pirates of the Caribbean if I had my way, and I even enjoyed his odd choices in Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when other didn't. However, his choices here always strike a wrong chord. His screen presence is undeniable, but the character he creates is often annoying like nails on a chalkboard. I applaud Depp's ambition to make the character different, but I also think he shows us why the Mad Hatter has always been a secondary character.

There's plenty to admire in this film, but there's also plenty to dislike. I like many of the performances, and Burton's visual spectacle does impress many times, but the script is lacking, Danny Elfman's score feels lazy, the 3D is pretty lackluster and Depp brings down the film to a halt in many scenes that feel unbearable. I remain a loyal Tim Burton fan, but even I can recognize when something isn't working. He's got other projects on his slate, and I hope he can deliver in the future. Here, it never comes together entirely. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Mind Field

After 2009 wasn't quite living up to my expectations, I remember making a list of all the releases that 2010 had to offer and became very excited to enter that new year. Three of the films on that list were The Wolfman, Shutter Island and Alice in Wonderland, and all of those films disappointed. I was beginning to lose hope that the promise this year gave early on was not going to be fulfilled. This film was also on the list, and given the latest efforts concerning Iraq War dramas lately, I was still skeptical on the success of the film, and early word of mouth seemed to add onto the fear this movie would fail as well. Having seen the film, I'm very happy to report that this is the first 2010 release film I've seen, that I was looking forward to, that actually did not disappoint.

Matt Damon stars (obvious from the poster) as a U.S. Army officer named Miller who is on the ground in Baghdad in early 2003. The quest for Saddam Hussein's WMDs are in full swing, but Miller is noticing that the sites provided by a secretive source named "Migellan" keep coming up empty. So Miller, bouncing between a pencil pushing Neocon (Greg Kinnear) and an investigative reporter (Amy Ryan), goes on his own one-man quest to find the true answers as to what is going on. The rest, as they say, is regrettable history.

Paul Greengrass has been the man who has mastered the docudrama approach, his most successful effort being the superbly crafted United 93. Greengrass's strengths have always been that his projects feel real, and even though the shaky camera can sometimes give you a bit of a headache, it is still used as a tool to enhance the apparent realism that is being offered. It's interesting how his direction can seem controlled and loose at the same time, but it always appears that he is a man that knows what the goal of a scene should be, an element he has shown even in his Bourne action vehicles. However, Brian Helgeland, usually an accomplished writer, provides a script is often riddled with hindsight proselytizing and subpar dialogue. The script isn't a tight as the direction, but it's merely passable.

Damon is an excellent actor, and he shows how again how his intense presence does wonder to fulfill his character's needs. After giving two bland performances last year, it is refreshing to see how Damon can balance the action heavy set pieces with the somber emotional moments that can still seep through. While actors like Kinnear, Ryan, Brendan Gleeson as an American intelligence officer on Miller's side, and Jason Issacs as a ground soldier against Miller are very talented, the story doesn't feel like it gives them particularly much to do. Still, they make good on their limited screen time and work well given the limitations.

I won't deny that the film has some chinks in the armor, as the script is lacking and some of the characters are a little lacking on substance, there are still great things to behold here. Grengrass and Damon do deliver a tight thriller that finds a way to tastefully tell a woeful tale. I'm glad that just when I thought I had misjudged this year, there is a film that does fulfills a bit of that promise. I just hope the rest of the year cane make good gain ground after a series of broken promises. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Post Oscar Analysis

So yet another year has come and gone. For this event, The Hurt Locker ended up taking six Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director for Kathryn Bigelow. Her win makes her the first female director to win this award. Coming in second with three wins was Avatar, and following with two each were Precious, Crazy Heart and Up. Outside of that, the acting awards predictably went to Jeff Bridges, Sandra Bullock (first person to win an Oscar and Razzie in the same year), Christoph Waltz, and Mo'Nique.

In truth, there were actually very few surprises in this race. The only major surprise was probably Geoffrey Fletcher winning Best Adapted Screenplay for Precious over Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner for Up in the Air. I actually do think that Reitman and Turner deserved it, but I also loved what Fletcher did on Precious (despite the insane amount of online hate for the film now). I know many are steaming at this upset, but I am perfectly content with it being winning. The only other surprises for came came in minor categories, such as the shorts and both sound categories going to The Hurt Locker instead of at least one going to Avatar (which I find to be a bit of a crime).

Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin reminded us why good old fashioned comedians can be a good choice for the Oscars. The jokes from them were very funny and it looked like they had a good chemistry. The show itself could have lost a few bits like the dancing numbers set to the scores, but I'd say that the ceremony was pretty good all in all.

Before I do a recap of the winners, I'm just going to say that this might be the last Oscars I get really excited for. One reason is because after watching them for so long, you finally realize all the self-congratulation, masturbatory excess the whole thing really is and it's sometimes disenchanting. The other is that, plainly put, I'm tired of the films I love not getting nominated. I realize that not everything can get in, but two of the films in that made my top five of the year were completely shut out. Eventually, I just grow tired of it. I'll still follow the Oscars, only with a little less enthusiasm as I once did. But for now, here's a recap of the winners:

Best Picture: The Hurt Locker

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Best Actor: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Best Actress: Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side

Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique - Precious

Best Original Screenplay: Mark Boal - The Hurt Locker

Best Adapted Screenplay: Geoffrey Fletcher - Precious

Best Animated Feature: Up

Best Art Direction: Avatar

Best Costume Design: The Young Victoria

Best Film Editing: The Hurt Locker

Best Cinematography: Avatar

Best Original Score: Up

Best Original Song: "The Weary Kind" - Crazy Heart

Best Makeup: Star Trek

Best Sound Mixing: The Hurt Locker

Best Sound Editing: The Hurt Locker

Best Visual Effects: Avatar

Best Foreign Language Film: The Secret in Their Eyes

Best Documentary Feature: The Cove

Best Live Action Short: The New Tenants

Best Animated Short: Logorama

Best Documentary Short: Music by Prudence

Final Oscar Predictions: The Rest...

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Will Win: Up

Should Win: Coraline

-With Up making it in for the Best Picture lineup, it should have no issues with taking this award. Fantastic Mr. Fox could provide a possible upset, but I don’t think it’s very likely, even though Coraline is the most deserving out of all of them.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Will Win: Inglourious Basterds

Should Win: A Serious Man

-It’s a virtual coin toss between Inglourious Basterds and The Hurt Locker, but I see them wanting to give something to Tarantino, and since he’ll lose Best Director, this is all he has left. But Boal remains a major contender as well. Of these nominees, A Serious Man should win, though the glaring omission of (500) Days of Summer is simply atrocious.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Will Win: Up in the Air

Should Win: Up in the Air

-Probably the only award the film will get, which is deserved, as it will recognize the film and Jason Reitman at the same time. Although a highly unlikely In the Loop upset would work for me as well.

BEST ART DIRECTION

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Avatar

-Avatar’s visual spectacle should take an award here, and of these nominees, I’d say it’s deserved. However, Where the Wild Things Are should have been nominated and thusly should have won.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Will Win: The Young Victoria

Should Win: Bright Star

-This category has shown favor to the Victorian era costumery, but in terms of fitting into the fabric of the film (pun intended), Bright Star’s costume design were first rate.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

-The battle of “gritty” versus “pretty” make Avatar and The Hurt Locker seem like the only threats in this category, and I think the former will take it, though Richardson’s work on Inglourious Basterds could spoil as well. Among all the nominees, Harry Potter impressed me the most, though the very-little-seen Tetro had my vote since day one.

BEST FILM EDITING

Will Win: The Hurt Locker

Should Win: The Hurt Locker

-Yet another category where my personal winner, (500) Days of Summer, is not nominated. From this selection, I would choose The Hurt Locker, and I have a pretty good suspicion the Academy will as well.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Will Win: Up

Should Win: Up

-I’ve been trying hard to think whether or not I liked Giacchino’s score to Up or Star Trek more. I lean toward the latter, but since it isn’t nominated, I’d go with Up here, and the Academy probably will also.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Will Win: “The Weary Kind” - Crazy Heart

Should Win: “The Weary Kind” - Crazy Heart

-The Golden Globe curse is finally broken, and the song that has been winning awards left and right should deservedly keep winning here.

BEST MAKEUP

Will Win: Star Trek

Should Win: Star Trek

-I simply CANNOT understand how The Young Victoria is here and District 9 is not. With two weak nominees, the obvious winner is Start Trek, even though the work on The Road should have been recognized as well.

BEST SOUND MIXING

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Avatar

-One more technical category for Avatar to easily take, though I wouldn’t be completely shocked if The Hurt Locker made a surprise win.

BEST SOUND EDITING

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Avatar

-Yet another technical category for Avatar to easily take, though, again, I wouldn’t be completely shocked by a Hurt Locker upset.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Will Win: Avatar

Should Win: Avatar

-Yet another technical category for Avatar to easily take, this time no upsets though.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Will Win: The Secrets in Their Eyes

-Conventional wisdom says that The White Ribbon will win this, what with its multiple precursor wins, while others are also proclaiming the BAFTA winning Un Prophét could take it, and others are naming the Argentinean film The Secrets in Their Eyes to take it. The category is notoriously nutty, so my shot in the dark is Secrets due to a last minute surge in buzz.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Will Win: The Cove

-This has been the documentary that has gotten the most attention, and while I will concede that any of the other nominees could take it, The Cove just seems like it has the right amount of support.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT

Will Win: Wallace and Gromit in “A Matter of Loaf and Death”

Should Win: French Roast

-The Wallace and Gromit series has taken four of of five awards it’s been previously nominated for, and I don’t see any reason for it to miss again. However, the inventiveness of a short called French Roast won me over more.

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT

Will Win: The Door

Should Win: Instead of Abracadabra

-It is said that high production values are valued here. If that is the case, then the Chernobyl inspired The Door will probably take it. However, the wit and charm of the Swedish Instead of Abracadabra would get my vote.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT

Will Win: The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant

-A topical title is the only reason I’m predicting it. The emotional China’s Unnatural Disaster could possibly take it as well, but honestly, your guess is as good as mine.

Final Oscar Predictions: Best Picture

Will Win: The Hurt Locker

The Best Picture race this year is in total mystery. Because the Academy is using the preferential system for the Best Picture winner for the first time in a long time, this literally means that any film can potentially take this. I assume that in a tough battle between The Hurt Locker and Avatar, the former will take it, as it has the momentum of Bigelow and the fact that Cameron has been here before, plus Avatar’s dominance in the tech categories will probably be seen as enough of a reward. However, Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air or any other film could potentially take this award. I make the call for The Hurt Locker, but this is a very unpredictable race.

Should Win: Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

This was at one time considered a front runner in a Best Picture race that was still finding its footing. But it peaked way too early and will unfortunately have to settle on a single win for Mo’Nique. That’s a shame because this film managed to pull me in more than any other film I had seen this year. Lee Daniels managed to make me believe in a story and characters that I was skeptical to enter into, but his service is fantastic. No other film this year reached me on an emotional level as this one, which I declared my favorite film of 2009. I’m not guessing a lot of Academy members would agree, but for me, this is the Best Picture winner.