Snippet Reviews

The Soloist
.
To paraphrase a quote from Roger Ebert, this is a film that is so bad that it could have only been made by very talented people. What trips this movie up is the incredibly disjointed pacing, especially when director Joe Wright (Atonemnt) indulges himself in long tracking shots that accompany the methodical classical music. The film also feels like it splits itself in two by trying to comment on the bigger issue of the homeless problem, and the depiction of that problem generally feels like it's predominately focused in the population's minority. Add these problems to a pedestrian and formulaic story, plus some really unnecessary scenes and jokes (there are two urine gags), and not even great actors like Jamie Foxx, Robert Downey Jr., and a constantly underused Catherine Keener can save what I think is the worst film of the year so far. *1/2 / ****; GRADE: C-


State of Play

An intriguing mystery, this is if sometimes it does falter every now and again. All the actors are top of the line here, as Russell Crowe shows once again that despite some choices in the past, he's still got what it takes to be a commanding screen presence. Ben Affleck also is good here as his congressional friend, and so is Rachel McAdams as the paper's new generation blogger and Helen Mirren as their tough as nails editor. The story doesn't always do every character justice, and the end might have one too many twisty reveals, but at the end of the day, director Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland), along with ace writers Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton), Billy Ray (Shattered Glass) and Matthew Michael Carnahan (Lions for Lambs), the film becomes a great commentary on the newspaper status of today as well as great thriller. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-


Crossing Over

With it's large ensemble cast participating in interconnecting storylines that play into a theme of minorities in the United States, it's very easy for this film to get labeled as a Crash rip-off. However, there is an element here that makes this different than that movie and at times a little better. This film deals with immigration, and where as Crash showed how people are participants of racism, this film shows how the immigration issue affects people's lives. This shows how the theme affects people, not how they affect the theme. I think that's why some didn't like Paul Haggis's Oscar winner, and that issue is fixed here. It's also nice to see the movie not only talk about immigration from Mexico, but from all the other countries. However, I will give it Crash for having a better ensemble, as people like Ray Liota and Ashley Judd don't always work. This is also one of the few films that could have been better if it were longer, as it seems it ends just as the storylines start to get interesting. Never the less, despite some flaws, it's a movie that pokes at the mind and offers up some interesting discussion. *** / ****; GRADE: B


Sin Nombre

There are really two stories going on in this film. One is the depiction of a Mexican gang and their brutal practices as they hunt down a dissenting member of their klan heading north. The other is a "race to the border" story following a young girl traveling with her estranged father and uncle to the United States. The former is far more intense, riveting, and better than the latter. But that doesn't bring the film down too much thankfully. The film offers great performances from nearly everyone involved and the story never hits too many wrong notes. Most of it feels like it is grounded in some sort of reality, and I guarantee that the ending will certainly reflect that. Add to it the purely gorgeous cinematography and not even the sometimes odd pacing of the film can make you deny one of the best the year can offer. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Reviews: Adventureland & The Escapist

Amusement Lark

Here we go again. The trend shows its ugly head once more. That is the trend I pointed out in my review of I Love You, Man about the comedy featuring the raunchy style that we have come to expect from Judd Apatow without actually having his name attached to the project. With all the advertisements and even some of the casting, one might consider this film to follow that same formula which is already beginning to get stale. However, upon viewing this film, one will actually see that the trend is not present, despite the best efforts of the trailers to make it seem that way. So, no, the trend is not here even though you may expect it. What is here instead is a surprisingly sweet and genuinely funny ride.

Indie favorite Jesse Eisenberg is James Brennan, a newly made college graduate who doesn't get the best of luck in the summer of 1987. His alcoholic father has just been downgraded meaning the funds for his European trip have been thwarted. Then to raise money for his grad school costs at Columbia, he has to take an immediate summer job and the only position he can get is at his local amusement park.

Here are the characters that make his life special, like the socially akward Joel (Martin Starr), the brash and loony Frigo (Matt Bush), the lust and desireable Lisa P. (Margarita Levieva), and the park's head managers (Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig). Kristen Stewart, most notable to many Twilight fans as Bella, is Em, the girl James falls for, who is also having an affair with Mike Connell (Ryan Reynolds), the unhappily married utilities manager.

What is really important to understand about this movie is that it's a lot more sincere than the ads make it out to be. The movie is very proud to tote writer-director Greg Mottola, the helmer of Superbad, as the film's visionary force, but the film is nothing of the sort. The gross out gags and raunchy humor are kept at the bare minimum and it's the reason why the movie feels so refreshing. Mottola gives us a simple tale, no doubt based on some past experiences, that feel grounded and genuine. His characters are cartoonishly forced nor are their problems too distant to relate. He includes many tender moments in the film that pull off a great emotional leap for an audience.

Eisenberg, I thought, was absolutely wonderful in The Squid and the Whale a few years ago, and his talent shows through here as well. He's not meant to be over the top and because of that, we really want to believe in him and see him through. The same is said for Stewart, who's got real emotional baggage with her character and pulls it off very well. Other supporting players do great with their roles as well, particularly Reynolds who has a more subdued character that is no less endearing. The only one who strives for that Superbad style would be Bush, and at times Hader. They deliver some funny moments, but it feels out of place in a movie that really didn't need it.

I wasn't completely sure what to expect with Adventureland and wasn't totally confident that I wanted to see it. Now that I have, I can certainly say I'm glad I did, because I discovered the movie that finally broke the trend. A movie this tender, enlightening, sincere and funny deserves a much better campaign than it's getting. A wonderful cast and a fine script seal the deal for what is one of the best films the year has had to offer. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-



Prison Break

This is the part I really like. I really like getting to a movie that has made little headway in the number of movie theatres it has played in but has had enough people talking about it that I've become interested. I've always tried to make that effort more and more but sometimes it is not always successful. I am happy to report that I'm very glad to have made it to this one. It's a fantastic little movie that succeeds in nearly every avenue it takes.

Brian Cox has the lead role of Frank Perry, a man who has seen his fair share of prison crimes but now has the urge to escape his confines in order to see his daughter who is ill. The other men tagging along are his best friend Brodie (Liam Cunningham), his cellmate Lacey (Dominic Cooper), the handy man Lenny Drake (Joseph Fiennes) and the drug chemist Viv Batista (Seu Jorge). Not only must they avoid detection from the guards, but they must also watch their steps around the prison's top bully Rizza (Daminan Lewis) and his sadistic, perverted brother (Steven Mackintosh).

It has been said that this role was written specifically for Cox, and if that is true, then it is a great fit. In America, Cox has become a well known character actor, but here he shows us that he is more than capable of carrying a film. He has the personality to make us believe that rough edge while also making us care about his softer moments. He never goes over the top, and it is very much appreciated. His agony and triumphs within the story are deeply felt by Cox's sincere and earnest portrayal.

Surrounding him is an incredible supporting cast. Lewis and Mackintosh present real evil in the film and pull their characters off in an incredibly realistic level. Cunningham, Cooper and Fiennes also do great work as they add another layer of reality to prison life, from the somber elderly inmate with a life sentence, the hard edge tough guy who's always got something to prove to the newly inducted inmate traumatized by the sexual violations of the other inmates. The entire ensemble work well to flush out their parts and as well as doing a great job with each other.

Director and co-writer Rupert Wyatt creates a wonderful atmosphere with this film. The story might seem simple, but Wyatt's execution is well appreciated. He creates an disturbing and tense portrait of this prison and then an exciting and suspenseful world during the escape. In fact, the narrative of cutting back and forth between the escape's planning and the escape itself is what makes the film more than just a regular prion break movie. The only major fault I would credit the script is making the prison guards so passive that they could have been nonexistent. However, it's not enough to bring down the film immensely.

This is a great example of a seemingly weak premise finishing out in a flawless way. Brian Cox and the many talented actors that surround him deserve a lot of that credit and the execution from Wyatt deserves some as well. With the exception of some thick accents and one section of weak characters, the film is nearly perfect. In fact, the only thing I regret about the film is I didn't make it to theatres to see it. I caught this film as featured with On Demand from Comcast. Whether you see it there or in the theatre, I highly recommend this movie. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Reviews: I Love You, Man & Knowing

Brotherly Love

This film is the result of two pop culture trends coming together, neither of which I'm particularly fond of. One is the "Apatow Look-a-like." This is the film that has the same raunchy humor that one would expect from a film directed or produced by Judd Apatow, and often contains many actors that he works with, but nowhere is his name found. Films like Role Models, Zach and Miri Make a Porno and the forthcoming Observe and Report are a few examples. The other trend has coined the term "bromantic comedy", a term that I despise. This is the film that dissects the relationship between two straight men as they search for the strong platonic love for one another (the reality show "Bromance" is the worst example of this as it gives the world another reason to hate Brody Jenner). As I said, I don't care for these two trends but they have combined to create this surprisingly pleasant film.

The always reliable Paul Rudd plays Peter Klaven, a well to do, but meek, relestator who is recently engaged to his fianceé Zooey, played by The Office's Rashida Jones. As they prepare for their wedding, Zooey and Peter realize that he has no best man, as Peter has had many girlfriends over the years but has never gravitated toward a male friend. After many unsuccessful attempts, then enters Sydney (Jason Segel) the brash counterpart to Peter's controlled life who eventually helps Peter rediscover himself and grown on him as a best friend.

Rudd is always a good guy to have in your movie, and I've always been convinced that he'd make a good leading actor. He showed us one side in Role Models, and it was an effort I appreciated from Rudd but didn't think carried all the way through to the end. Here, Rudd is always doing great work but this time he's got the material to back him up, and if this continues, I would hope to see more roles with Rudd as the top star. Segel is great in the film, and is actually the reason why the movie works. Sydney is meant to be a total opposite, but his character is never cartoonishly over the top. He's got real problems, and many of them are called out and shown him as a human being. He is crude, but in the most realistic way one can think of. Both Segel and Rudd have great chemistry together and their friendship is totally believable (unlike Rudd and Seann William Scott).

Circling them, the supporting players tend to range from good to throw away. For instance, Jones is a good sideline for the film as she always invests a warm spirit without stealing the focus away from the two leads. Jaime Pressley and Jon Faverau (yes, the director of Iron Man), play a couple friend of Peter and Zooey and the two can go over the top in one moment then bring it back down to a reality the next. Andy Samberg as Peter's gay brother and J.K. Simmons as his crass father are good saviors to a film, but others like Rob Huebel as Peter's real estate rival, Thomas Lennon as an awkward "man-date" participant, Joe Lo Truglio as a voice pitch impaired trainer and Lou Ferrigno as himself seem like parts of a movie striking below the smart bar, which didn't seem necessary for a movie that could have been a little smarter.

Director John Hamberg and his co-writer Larry Levin most of the time deliver well in the comedic scenes as well as the sincere ones. Not only are the moments between Peter and Sydney genuine, but so are the moments between Peter and Zooey, a rare find in these films. Still, there are elements of the story that don't always work and they seem included just to excite for excite sake. For instance, I don't really understand why Samberg's character is gay since the film does nothing with him, nor do I really get why all the friends circling Peter and Zooey tend to be one note characters. Fortunately, these concerns are not present all the way through.

As much as this film tries to be a little smarter than what you would normally expect, it still reduces itself to some sophomoric humor that really makes the quality lower itself. It's too bad because with such a strong execution from a wimpy premise, that would have been a major surprise. Even still, there's a lot to take from the film, particularly the stellar performances from the whole cast. I may not like the reasons for the movie's existence, but I do like the finished product. *** / ****; GRADE: B




Knowledge is Sour

I've always been amazed at how Nicolas Cage is one of those few actors who is able to let his own hair upstage him in nearly every scene. I've also been amazed at how Cage is constantly able to gravitate toward sub par material when we obviously know that he is much better than that. Why must the latter half of his career be plagued by Ghost Rider, Next, Bangkok Dangerous, The Wicker Man and the ridiculously silly, but money grabber that it is, National Treasure films. For his latest outing, I was going in with some pretty low expectations, as one can imagine. In the end, I found many elements to a film that made it a little more tolerable than I thought it would be.

Cage plays John, a professor at MIT who is a nonbeliever about all things predestined and divine. As his son Caleb attends the opening of a time capsule at his school from fifty years ago, he discovers a piece of a paper scribbled with numbers all around. John discovers that these numbers correlate to major disasters that occurred over the last half century and three more dates remain until the numbers finally run out.

Knowing is a film that starts off with a good premise but finds some flaws within its execution. Director Alex Proyas, the man behind the cult classic Dark City the enjoyable joyride known as I, Robot dresses every scene up quite nicely, and he has a good sense of pace for the film. All the action is able to flow out at an even pace and we don't get a film that seems hurried along. Proyas's direction is also enhanced very well by the excellent lighting from Simon Duggan and the effectively eerie score from Marco Beltrami, particularly during some intense disaster sequences that accomplish their unnerving tasks.

However, it is the script that is the major fault of the film. John switches from skeptic to true believer with no stop in between and his quest is always one that feels it doesn't have energy. By the time we get to the third act, the plot no longer seems necessary. Some might laugh at the film's heavy religious ending, but I quite enjoyed the reminder of science fiction's strong parallel to religion. Still, that doesn't mean all of it easy to take in, and even I found myself rolling my eyes during some of the final parts of the film.

At this point, you're either going to like Nicolas Cage or you're going to hate him. Here, there are reminders that he provides which shows he is still a great actor, and there are other moments when his mind goes on auto pilot with that blank stare as he lets the action sequences take over. Overall, it's certainly not the best work Cage has done, but we've certainly seen him in a lot worse. Some other members do quite well, such as Chandler Canterbury, who plays Caleb as more than just the plucky kid and Nadia Townsend as John's sister brings some good natured humanity to the film. However, Rose Byrne doesn't really impress here and she's got a pretty basic throw away part.

The movie is far from perfect, and because of a tough call with the third act, I can't really say that the film is a recommendable one. However, knowing where Cage's career has been the last few years, to get a project that has an intriguing premise and a halfway decent execution is a nice surprise. Unfortunately, the film doesn't follow up all the way through, but I certainly found this to be a little more engaging that the poster might had led me to believe. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Review: Duplicity

Plan on Fire

I don't know what Tony Gilroy's personal and political views are like, but I'm starting to wonder why he seems to have such a resentment to corporate America. With this and his previous outing, Michael Clayton, the big businesses of the world that are particularly centered in New York City are not really painted in the brightest of colors. They are organizations that are sneaky, greedy, corrupt, and always doing dirty deals in order to eliminate the problems that others are causing. Even the CIA in the Jason Bourne films, which Gilroy has written, seem to be a model of a company trying to get silence a disgruntled employee with valuable insider information. This film isn't meant to be quite as serious but I still found it to contain a lot of smart and quick energy.

Mega stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen play two former spies, one who was with the CIA and one with MI-6 (can you guess which one?). They both have been hired by rival conglomerate companies that are in the business of making anything. Tom Wilkinson is in one corner that employs Roberts and Paul Giamatti is in the other with Owen. The zigzagging plot centers around the different sides trying to get their hands on a revolutionary product and the question of who's conning who is one that comes up very frequently.

I wasn't a huge fan of Michael Clayton when it came out, and one of the reasons was I didn't believe Gilroy was good enough to direct it. The film had a great script, but Gilroy could never move the action in scenes well enough for me to get totally invested. On his second try, the efforts seem a little more comfortable, and the sleek presentation from Gilroy feels more natural and the visuals are able to develop along with the story. The film is directed with a much more composed hand this time, and I believe Gilroy will only get better as a director as time goes on. Of course, his script is superb, occasionally needing a suspension of disbelief, but always smart and sophisticated, forcing an audience to constantly observe its ins and outs.

Owen and Roberts are two great actors, and their relationship feels really genuine, probably because they worked so wonderfully together in Mike Nichols's adaption of Closer. Both of them appear comfortable in their roles and they each know the right tones to strike. Owen delivers that great balance of sternness and charm, once again providing evidence that he would have been my 007. Roberts has been an actor that I've never fallen in love with, but it was fun watching her enthusiasm in the role and especially how she plays off of Owen. Giamatti is always great in anything he does as he can bring that everyman quality even to an enormously wealthy CEO. However, I though Wilkinson wasn't given that much to do, given his caliber as an actor. I saw his talents wasted in Michael Clayton and I'm still hoping that one day Gilroy will realize what a great actor he's got and give him room to shine.

The film's complicated plot structure might be a bit much for some. For me, it was a welcomed breath of fresh air, particularly from a writer/director that left me feeling cold after his first time out. The movie is fun and smart, the latter being the most important attractor even if the premise isn't always believable. Owen and Roberts shine, and the supporting cast excels as well, even if Wilkinson is again wasted here. Add to it the smooth score from James Newton Howard, and Tony Gilroy delivers another solid effort. At this point, I think he's still proving to me that he's a better writer than director, but his achievements behind the camera are gradually catching up. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Review: Watchmen

Indifference Made

For those who consider themselves serious fans of the famous Watchmen graphic novels by mastermind Alan Moore, I will give you a word of caution at the start of this review. I am someone who has not read the source material for this film, has no idea how faithful the intentions are to that source, and until a few months ago even had no idea what Watchmen was. I say this not to make you feel as if this review will be so ignorant that it will cause a polarizing emotion from reading it. I say it because I feel it is necessary to explain how I judge this movie. Like all of them, I judge them by how they function as a film that exists within its own world, not necessarily how much they remain faithful to the original source. On that scale, Watchmen has many good things that clash with many not so good things, making the film a tough call for me.

The present day for the film is an alternate 1985 where Richard Nixon is still the president (and in his fifth term), Congress has outlawed masks and nuclear war between the US and Russia is imminent. The film begins with the murder of The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), one of the original members of a superhero group known as Watchmen who have been involved in many of the American politics and actions since World War II. One member, the psychotic Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) is one of the few who believe the murder is connected to a conspiracy.

His investigation leads into tangent storylines of Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson), a reluctant superhero trying to discover his new path, Laurie Jupiter (Malin Ackerman), the daughter of another superhero trying to make sense of the crazy world around her, Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), a self-outed superhero who has turned to a global energizing tycoon, and Dr. Manhattan (part Billy Crudup, many parts CGI), a shape shifting, blue hazed experiment gone wrong who can work wonders with his mind.

All of these characters circle around an ambitious plot concerning international relationships and the high stakes involved when dealing with the human condition. Perhaps in the original graphic novel, these ideas seemed fresh and worked well with the source. For a film, the scope seems to broad, and David Hayter and Alex Tse's script tries too hard to be an all encompassing salute to the comic without fulfilling the needs of a workable story. Sometimes the story feels like it only needs to lose little things, like some dream sequences or gratuitous, and completely unnecessary, violence and sex scenes. Other things are a little bigger, such as Dr. Manhattan's trip to Mars. However, there are times when you can recognize what the movie is trying to be, and you can appreciate that effort.

Still, the movie doesn't really carry its theme of being a sort of "anti-superhero movie" all the way through. Director Zach Snyder seems as if he started the film like it was something that tried to be that type and dealt with issues bigger than ordinary comic book movies. But then, it feels like the film starts to devolve and it begins to include action set pieces that are wonderfully staged, but feel like their in a generic comic book movie and not really in this "anti" film. Toward the end, with one line (and you'll recognize it), the film turns around but it's a little late and doesn't forgive all. Still, Snyder's vision as a director is one that is very similar to the one we saw in 300, and this movie is not without its pervasive use of slow motion and spraying blood that is both stimulating and annoying.

The acting the film has to offer left me with a curious set of thoughts. Haley, as will probably be the consensus, is marvelously talented and he pulls off this character well. Yes, Rorschach is pretty much one note, but Haley plays it to perfection, both with and without the mask. Next to him, the only other one I would try to pick as a standout is Goode. He's someone who physically changes himself in nearly every role and while there were times I thought the story wasn't doing his character justice, I managed to see that he was portraying him as best he could and elevating the material some. Other actors, like Morgan, Crudup and Carla Gugino, who plays Laurie's mother, are good enough, but it felt like there was always a personality trait in their characters that kept them from becoming well rounded and believable. They are acted alright, but never mindblowingly good.

However, I have to say that Ackerman is just downright awful. It's acting that is working at a level that is well below even the most one dimensional and limited characters. Even the Nixon impersonator with the ridiculously enhanced nose and jowles was more convincing than her in this film. Not only is it bad acting, but it is a character that I never felt was much use other than to reveal for sex appeal and serve as one important plot trigger. Other than that, it is a waste of screentime, and in a two hour and forty minute film, one should be careful of waste.

In the film, Dr. Manhattan gives a speech about life's contradictions. I could have cared less about what he had to say, but I recognized that I was contradicting myself a bit while watching it. So much so that I had to see it a second time. With the first viewing, I saw a film that was very bloated with okay acting but still warranted me saying I liked it enough to recommend it. Oddly enough, the second time I found myself pointing out more plot elements, liking the acting even more but feeling the film wasn't as good. I don't know what exactly changed that second time, but I think it might have been that I started to see how much Snyder wanted to make this like a comic book movie and not like a film, which is bad news for me.

Last year, we had a once in a lifetime phenomenon known as The Dark Knight. I loved that movie, and the reason was because it felt completely divorced from the source material. Sure, it was still a Batman film, but Christopher Nolan was thinking how this story could work in a real setting. Snyder doesn't seem to have that same mindset. He does some good things, as he gets a wonderful performance out of Haley and the visual spectacle is spectacular, especially as Alex McDowell's sets and Michael Wilkinson's costumes are enhanced tenfold by Larry Fong's lighting. But the movie is very bloated with an broad plot that makes the movie sluggish. Ultimately, I don't know if I can really say that Watchmen has the cinematic appeal to carry you through all the way to the end. It is a noble effort, but falls just short of becoming a true screen presence. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Post Oscar Analysis

Well, the event is finally over, and I do say that I am a bit proud of myself. Ever since I've been doing this, this was the year where I had the best average at predicting the winners, where I went 19 for 24 categories. With that, I do have some things to say as well.

For one, I'm glad that I went with that gut feeling and picked Slumdog Millionaire as the undeserving winner for Best Sound Mixing, making it's total of 8 Oscar wins exactly in the categories I predicted it to win in. In the other sound category, I have mixed feelings. One part of me is glad that The Dark Knight got another award beside Ledger, but another part is upset that the fantastic sound team behind WALL-E went home empty handed as well. Still, I'm somewhat happy.

Speaking of Ledger, the acceptance of his Oscar by his family was a deeply emotional moment, and seeing the teary eyes of everybody from Christopher Nolan to Brad Pitt made you realize the power in this event. Besides that, Cruz and Winslet were expected wins but always rather "meh" to me. And I know I am not the only one who agrees that Penn's win here was the more deserving performance. I wish I had had the guts to call it, but am still glad he won over Rourke. I could have done without the back half of his speech, though. If a political statement was to be made, I preferred it from Dustin Lance Black, who won for Milk's original screenplay, whose message came more from a softer heart.

In terms of the ceremony itself, I think Hugh Jackman did a nice job with the new outlook. Only Jackman could get away with it, though. I liked the opening number, but when the second one with Beyonce and Zac Efron came around, it felt a bit like overkill. Having five people introduce the acting categories seems like a nice change, only if you don't mind adding an extra ten minutes to each category (I really don't).

In the end, it was a rather typical night with very few surprises. If anyone happened to miss it, here are the winners. In the meantime, I'll be on the lookout for the next Oscar season.

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Director: Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire
Best Actor: Sean Penn - Milk
Best Actress: Kate Winslet - The Reader
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Best Supporting Actress: Penélope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Best Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black - Milk
Best Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy - Slumdog Millionaire
Best Animated Feature: WALL-E
Best Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Costume Design: The Duchess
Best Cinematography: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Film Editing: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Score: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Song: "Jai Ho" - Slumdog Millionaire
Best Makeup: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Sound: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Sound Editing: The Dark Knight
Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Foreign Language Film: Departures
Best Documentary Feature: Man on Wire
Best Live Action Short: Spielzeugland (Toyland)
Best Animated Short: La Maison en Petits Cubes
Best Documentary Short: Smile Pinki

Final Oscar Predictions: The Rest...

Best Animated Feature
Will Win: WALL-E
Should Win: WALL-E
-Do I really need to explain why this will and should win? I didn't think so.

Best Original Screenplay
Will Win: Dustin Lance Black - Milk
Should Win: Dustin Lance Black - Milk
-Being the only Best Picture nominee in this category should give Milk a well deserved edge. WALL-E and In Bruges are likely spoilers, but look for Black to justly take this award.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: Simon Beaufoy - Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Simon Beaufoy - Slumdog Millionaire
-This is another category where Slumdog shouldn't have any problem picking up after its inital sweeps. To be fair, I think Doubt was a better written film, but Shanley didn't really do that much in terms of an adaptation, so I'd give my vote to Beaufoy.

Best Art Direction
Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Should Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
-The year's most abundant visual spectacle should deservedly win here.

Best Costume Design
Will Win: The Duchess
Should Win: The Duchess
-The Duchess spent a long and hard campaign for Michael O'Connor's costumes. This and the Victorian era wardrobe are big pluses for the film.

Best Cinematography
Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: The Dark Knight
-This is a category where really anyone can win. The Slumdog sweep should work here, which is actually very good. But in terms of the enhancement for the film, Wally Pfister's photography on The Dark Knight was magnificent. I wouldn't count on the Academy to see it that way, though.

Best Film Editing
Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Slumdog Millionaire
-Again, I expect the sweep to continue here for the lively editing that kept the film's pace and one of only two awards I completely agree with it winning.

Best Original Score
Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Slumdog Millionaire
-Here's the other one I agree with, as Rahman's score was without a doubt the best part of the movie and everyone seems to agree on that.

Best Original Song
Will Win: "Jai Ho" - Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: "Down to Earth" - WALL-E
-The Bruce Springsteen snub is still blasphemy, but with only three nominees, I found "Jai Ho" to be a tad overrated and "O Saya" to work better within the context of the film. Therefore, "Down to Earth" gets my vote, but rather by default. Though Slumdog should take this for it's catchy tune.

Best Makeup
Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Should Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
-Making Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett look like ugly old people is not an easy task. That accomplishment alone deserves an Oscar.

Best Sound
Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: WALL-E
-If WALL-E or The Dark Knight take this, then I'll kick myself for not listening to my insticts. But something tells me the irrational Slumdog sweep is going to be present here, and it seems all Best Picture frontrunners nominated here tend to win. The incredible sound team behind WALL-E should win, but I'm guessing they'll lose to the frontrunner.

Best Sound Editing
Will Win: WALL-E
Should Win: WALL-E
-Unlike the sound mixing category, I don't think the Best Picture frontrunner will win, leaving WALL-E the room to take this well deserved award.

Best Visual Effects
Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Should Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
-The dazzling innovations were noticed by everyone on the planet. Both Iron Man and The Dark Knight are possible spoilers, but Benjamin Button should very much take it.

These next categories are ones that I predict, but have seen usually only one or none of the nominees. I can't say who should win or give an extensive analysis, so I'll just say my prediction.

Best Foreign Language Film
Will Win: Waltz with Bashir

Best Documentary Feature
Will Win: Man on Wire

Best Live Action Short
Will Win: Toyland

Best Animated Short
Will Win: Presto

Best Documentary Short
Will Win: The Witness from the Balcony of Room 306