My Official Oscar Nomination Predictions!

BEST PICTURE

Avatar

District 9

An Education

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Invictus

Precious: Based On The Novel Push by Sapphire

A Serious Man

Up

Up In The Air

(ALTERNATE: Star Trek)

BEST DIRECTOR

James Cameron – Avatar

Kathryn Bigelow – The Hurt Locker

Quentin Tarantino – Inglourious Basterds

Lee Daniels – Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire

Jason Reitman – Up In The Air

(ALT: Lone Scherfig- An Education)

BEST ACTOR

Jeff Bridges – Crazy Heart

George Clooney – Up In The Air

Colin Firth – A Single Man

Morgan Freeman – Invictus

Jeremy Renner – The Hurt Locker

(ALT: Viggo Mortenensen, The Road)

BEST ACTRESS

Sandra Bullock – The Blind Side

Helen Mirren – The Last Station

Carey Mulligan – An Education

Gabourey Sidibe – Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire

Meryl Streep – Julie & Julia

(ALT: Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Matt Damon – Invictus

Woody Harrelson – The Messenger

Christopher Plummer- The Last Station

Stanley Tucci – The Lovely Bones

Christoph Waltz – Inglourious Basterds

(ALT: Christan McKay, Me & Orson Welles)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Vera Farmiga – Up In The Air

Anna Kendrick – Up In The Air

Diane Kruger – Inglourious Basterds

Mo’Nique – Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Julianne Moore – A Single Man

(ALT: Diane Kruger, Inglourious Basterds)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

(500) Days of Summer (by Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber)

The Hurt Locker (by Mark Boal)

Inglourious Basterds (by Quentin Tarantino)

A Serious Man (by Joel & Ethan Coen)

Up (by Bob Peterson & Pete Docter)

(ALT: Avatar by James Cameron)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

District 9 (by Neill Blomkamp & Terri Tatchell)

An Education (by Nick Hornby)

Fantastic Mr. Fox (by Wes Anderson & Noah Baumbach)

Precious: Based On The Novel Push by Sapphire (by Geoffrey Fletcher)

Up In The Air (by Jason Reitman & Sheldon Turner)

(Alt: In the Loop)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Coraline

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Ponyo

The Princess and the Frog

Up

(ALT: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs)

BEST ART DIRECTION

Avatar

Inglourious Basterds

Bright Star

The Young Victoria

Where the Wild Things Are

(ALT: Nine)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Avatar (Mauro Fiore)

The Hurt Locker (Barry Ackroyd)

Inglourious Basterds (Robert Richardson)

Nine (Dion Beebe)

The White Ribbon (Christian Berger)

(ALT: Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince)

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Coco Before Chanel

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Inglourious Basterds

Nine

The Young Victoria

(ALT: Bright Star)

BEST DOCUMENTARY

The Beaches Of Agnes

The Cove

Food, Inc.

Garbage Dreams

Valentino: The Last Emperor

BEST EDITING

Avatar (Steve R. Moore, John Refoua & Stephen Rivkin)

District 9 (Julian Clarke)

The Hurt Locker (Chris Innis & Bob Murawski)

Inglourious Basterds (Sally Menke)

Up in the Air (Dana E. Glauberman)

(ALT: Star Trek)

BEST FOREIGN FILM

Ajami (Israel)

The Milk of Sorrow (Peru)

A Prophet (France)

The White Ribbon (Germany)

Winter In Wartime (The Netherlands)

BEST MAKEUP

District 9

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Star Trek

(ALT: Watchmen)

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Avatar (James Horner)

Fantastic Mr. Fox (Alexandre Desplat)

The Informant! (Marvin Hamlisch)

A Serious Man (Carter Burwell)

Up (Michael Giacchino)

(ALT: Hans Zimmer, Sherlock Holmes)

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

“Almost There” (The Princess and the Frog)

“Cinema Italiano” (Nine)

“(I Want To) Come Home” (Everybody’s Fine)

“Invictus 9,000 Days” (Invictus)

“The Weary Kind” (Crazy Heart)

(ALT: "I See You", Avatar)

BEST SOUND

Avatar

District 9

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

(ALT: Up)

BEST SOUND EFFECTS EDITING

Avatar

District 9

Star Trek

The Hurt Locker

Up

(ALT: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Avatar

District 9

Star Trek

(ALT: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)

Best of the Decade: Round 1: 35 Films, Unranked

** Note: This list was formed based on the newly released films I have seen from the years 2000 to 2209. To qualify, a film must be released in the U.S. during that period. Re-releases of past films do not qualify. The year attributed to each film refers to the year in which it was given a release in the United States. These are the films that I believe reached the decade's highlights in terms of artistry and personal appeal.**

2000

Almost Famous

High Fidelity

Wonder Boys

2001

Gosford Park

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring*

The Royal Tennenbaums

2002

Adaptation

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers*

Punch-Drunk Love

Spirited Away

2003

Big Fish

Capturing the Friedmans

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King*

Lost in Translation

2004

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Million Dollar Baby

2005

Grizzly Man

The New World

Munich

2006

Children of Men

The Departed

Letters from Iwo Jima

Pan’s Labyrinth

A Prairie Home Companion

United 93

2007

Juno

No Country for Old Men

Ratatouille

There Will Be Blood

Zodiac

2008

The Dark Knight

Synecdoche, New York

WALL-E

2009

Inglorious Basterds

Up

Up in the Air

Where the Wild Things Are

*= These films will be grouped collectively as "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy"

Interesting Facts About My List:

There are five directors with two films a piece on the list: Robert Altman (Gosford Park and A Prairie Home Companion), P.T. Anderson (Punch Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood), Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jima), Spike Jonze (Adaptation and Where the Wild Things Are) and Jason Reitman (Juno and Up in the Air). No director has three films on the list.

There are four animated films on the list, along with two documentaries and three foreign language films.

The oldest film on the list is Curtis Hanson's Wonder Boys (released on 2/25/2000), the newest is Jason Reitman's Up in the Air (released 12/25/09).

The most represented year is 2006 with six films, the least represented is 2004 with two films listed.

REVIEW: Michael Mann's Public Enemies

Public Enemies {dir. Michael Mann, 2009}

***/****

In telling the story of John Dillinger, it would seem that director Michael Mann had found the perfect fit for his personal aesthetic. Dillinger was a man of copious charm, and a taste for fine clothes,yet he was suitably cold blooded and violent when the situation called for it. Mann as a director who has always explored the lives of violent men, from Thief to Collateral, and his films have always looked impeccable However,in the end his new film Public Enemies is not the film it could have been. It ends up a middling Mann film, lacking the urgency of The Insider and the power of Heat (Mann's two best films.)

The picture opens auspiciously in 1933, with a thrilling jailbreak by Dillinger, who is introduced in glorious close up, and Johnny Depp playing Dillinger holds that shot like few other actors working. Mann utilizes the closeup to great effect throughout the movie. He and cinematographer Dante Spinotti make great use of the HD technology at their disposal, and they have much of the film resting on the power supplied by those closeups, fortunately Johnny Depp provides an alluring, menacing attractive quality. Later, we meet Dillinger's flame, Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard, very good in what is a poorly developed role) along with the two men in charge of capturing Dillinger, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup in a very solid, multi-faceted performance) and Melvin Purvis (Christan Bale, in another one of the film's underwritten roles.) However, the most intriguing of the G-Men is Stphen Lang's Charles Winstead, the man who would eventually be the one to shoot Dillinger. Mann also name drops Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd, yet none of the peripheral characters are really given enough time or work to be more than quick walk-ons.

While this is a film with a number of startling and powerful scenes, it doesn't hang together as a cohesive whole. The audience observes, admires and moves on. I can't think of a film with so many great scenes that left me feeling so cold.

But, this is ultimately a good film. It contains strong work by the actors and Cotillard and Depp have add a sexual chemistry to their relationship. I would add the look to the list of things that work in the film. Obviously the costumes were quite excellent and the sets looked wonderful, but the cinematography was stunning. I was entertained by the film, at times enamored purely by the keen visual style on display. Mann seems to bring a new, almost documentarian, approach to the period piece. I only wish he and his fellow writers took those leaps with the script.

Although it features a fantastic lead performance from Johnny Depp and stunning HD photography (both of which are the best so far this year), the script needed some serious work. Some characters seem undefined and others (like Christan Bale's Melvin Purvis) are bland clichés. Mann and his fellow screenwriters don't even seem to know what they want to say about Dillinger the man. As a result the film is a vaguely satisfying, at times intoxicating. However, in the end it provides only a sketch of a man who deserves a full, fleshed out portrait.

REVIEW: In the Valley of Elah (2007)

In the Valley of Elah {dir. Paul Haggis, 2007}

(*/****)

According to the age old bible story, David entered the Valley of Elah carrying a slingshot. However in the movie "In the Valley of Elah", director Paul Haggis (he of "Crash" fame or infamy, depending on your opinion) wields a heavy sledge-hammer, which he is content to bash over the audience's head whenever he wants to make a point. "Crash" inspired much hatred for its supposed cheap emotional stunts and unlikely coincidences, along with its rigid moralizing. However, I felt that in that film Haggis manged to pull of an emotionally tumultuous and powerful film. Here he has given us a movie that tells us what we already know, and does in ways that will most insult our intelligence.

Saved only by Jones's rich and deeply felt performance, this is one laughably directed picture. It purports to be both a murder mystery/ thriller and a commentary regarding our troubles in times of war. Yet as a mystery it bores and is poorly focused; and as a statement on the effect war has on the participants it seems to not even be attempting to shed any new light on the situation. Haggis the screenwriter, it seems, has lost his capacity to bring an interesting narrative, and Haggis the director has completely lost any semblance of subtlety, along with the inability to balance the message with the story Here he has the skeleton of what could have been a powerful and moving family drama, and he instead opts for simple obvious metaphors and a final shot the left me rolling my eyes. Yet through all this muck and mire, Tommy Lee Jones remains not only a solid presence, but seemingly the only person who knew how to handle the story. It is a performance so good that its is almost worth sitting through a movie this wretched. After his film "The Three Burials of Melquilades Estrada", we know Jones is quite the exemplary filmmaker, perhaps he would have been able to re- work the script to get a good, or at least respectable final product. As it stands, In the Valley of Elah is quite the opposite, a self- righteous and frustrating.

A Quick Word on Two Animated Masterpieces...

Spirited Away {dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 2002}
****/****

This is the first Miyazaki , and suffice to say the man made one hell of a first impression! The story is equal parts Wonderland and Oz, also incorporating numerous tropes of classic fantasy. Yet the story and the entire film feel unusual in their completeness, in their immersive quality and breathtaking majesty. Visually, this is one of the finest films of the decade. A great move rich with characters, ideas and most importantly life. Each frame of this picture jumps off the screen and inhabits the viewer's subconscious, imprinting images that will last for a lifetime. It contains rich characters, an enchanting and slightly off center world, along with a thankful lack of moralizing. Like the best childhood parables, Spirited Away has the capacity to frighten, enchant, and most importantly entertain audiences from any culture in any language.


Up {dir. Pete Docter, 2009}
****/****

Pixar's Up is the best film of the year so far, by far. In telling a simple adventure story, they cover ground that they had yet to cover before. Both the humor and heartbreak of the film seem completely more mature than any of Pixar's previous works. The film is perfectly paced and structured in a very careful way to allow each moment to have a satisfying and slightly surprising. Pixar continues to amaze not only with their technical bravado, but with their thematic courage. Up is definitely in the uppermost echelon of their work, a hilarious, and in turns heartbreaking, work of great magnitude and power. Visually the film is rich and thrilling and emotionally it is satisfying. I cannot wait to see it again!

Great Movies #4: Francis Ford Coppola's The Coversation

The Conversation {dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1974}

Lets get the definitive statements out of the way early. Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation is one of the finest thrillers ever made. In terms of thrills, in terms of originality, in terms of bravery, it stands on its own as a uniquely powerful film. Its premise is simple, concise and true and the craft employed in its making is truly masterful. Yet, as it currently stands the film is greatly unappreciated by most film enthusiasts. Sadly the film is a victim of circumstance, as it has the particularly difficult task of being the bridge on writer director Francis Ford Coppola's filmography linking The Godfather and The Godfather Part II. As such, film historians have been so busy heralding Coppola's exploits with the Corleones, that they allowed what is probably his best film slip them by. However, The Conversation is not a film of epic scale or grand thematic vision, it is an intense character study. Yet, it success is so considerable that it may even outshine all the other entries into the Coppola cannon.

This is the story of surveillance expert Harry Caul, played by Gene Hackman. Amongst those in his field, Caul is legendary; a man notorious for his ability and his insistence on using all his own, home made equipment. Harry is a man of extreme secrecy, a snoop with a crippling fear of being snooped upon. He seems unable to make any deep personal or emotional connections, and he is the man we are about to spend two hours with.

His current assignment is to infiltrate the conversation of a young married woman and her lover. Harry picks up the audio, but when listening to it closely Caul hears something that frightens him, shakes him, sends into into a state of frenzied paranoia. He knows what he heard, but are his fears justified or a result of his seemingly compulsive paranoia? We as an audience follow Harry as he attempts to unravel the underlying plot to what seemed at first to be a mundane day's work.

Coppola's control of tension is relentless and thrilling. In terms of goals set and achieved, this may very well be his finest effort. He plays with reality and imagination in a particularly blunt and effective fashion, presenting scenes numerous times with varying outcomes. Coppola waits until we lose our footing on reality and then pulls the rug out from under us in a way which is devastating and effective. Yet, this is not a film of twists and turns, but rather of developments. No dues ex machina to be found here.

There is not a wasted frame of film in this one, and the sound design and editing are so intricate and precise that it digs deep under your skin. The emotions The Conversation inspires, the claustrophobia an the alienation, do not fade away with the end credits, they fester in your mind and stay with you.

This is not a jigsaw puzzle thriller, it is a trip into the psyche of a fairly disturbed individual. Hackman, one of the finest of all actors, gives a performance that is so well studied and quiet that you really lose the movie star beneath that bald head and those thick glasses. The film's power relies on the character of Caul and the acting and writing cut deep, revealing a man uncomfortable even in his own skin.

The film is thrilling, heart stopping, frightening yes, all those things. But it operates more importantly as a meditation on personal privacy and psychological paranoia, right down to it haunting final image, which contains more sorrow, more anguish and more tortuous claustrophobia than any movie you're likely to see.

Across the Universe (2007)

Across the Universe {dir. Julie Taymor, 2007} (*/****)

I've never been one to bury the lead, so let me tell you straight away, I hated this movie with a passion. The more I think about it the more I'm enraged, even offended, by this film. It is an attempt to weave the songbook of the immortal rock band The Beatles into a grand, romantic, cinematic spectacle. Its production design and narrative conceit are at times engaging but only in the smallest of fits. Suffice to say the bad outweighs the good; the treacle drowns the sublime. It contains good songs, well sung by capable actors (all of whom are given types not characters) but its soul is so hollow that it can only rely on its naive intentions. The simplistic attempts at establishing time and place are ham fisted and cloying. The 1960's were a complex time; the decade brought about social upheaval along with revolutionary ideas regarding music art and cinema, yet if one were to judge the period by this film they would come out with a completely positive and simple message: peace and love conquered all. That is simply not the case; the hippies goals were ultimately unrealized, that is the sad truth.

As for incorporation of songs, Taymor's methods are flimsy (a character named Prudence is there specifically for the song 'Dear Prudence' to appear)and its entertainment value low. The more I consider this film, the more it enrages me and its been a few weeks since I've seen it. Get back, JoJo!

Titanic (1997)

Titanic {dir. James Cameron, 1997} (*½/****)

Somewhere on its way to becoming the all time box office champion and biggest Oscar winner of all time, James Cameron's Titanic etched out a place in my mind as the one film that can most easily send me into a frenzied rant against the dangers of big- budget, epic film making. Sure, I might not have put it that way when I first saw it (I was seven) but, upon first viewing I knew that this film was nothing special. Four years later, I was able to identify it as simply money thrown onto the screen with little room left for intelligence, emotion or character. Yet even as I professed the evils of this production and its vapid screenplay (penned by director Cameron), there were those who maintained that Titanic was an achievement. Among those people are esteemed film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert , both of whom included it on their top ten lists of 1997. Those celebratory citations led me to revisit Titanic again recently, for the first time on DVD, a disc which preserves the film's original aspect ratio and presents the clearest available picture and sound. The Verdict: As the old truism goes, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig."

The film isn't all bad; the cast is solid (considering the material..but more on that later), the score is rich, the cinematography is evocative and the production design and visual effects are impeccable. Yet as it turns out, all these elements do not a great film make. Titanic's greatest weakness lies at its very core: the screenplay. It reaches a level so wretched that I will be blunt in my metaphoric criticism. Cameron's script isn't just a turd, it is a floater; it refuses to just be flushed away to haunt us no longer. It insists on having an epic length and employing a framing device that may very well be the cause of a sudden onset of narcolepsy. I'm sorry to resort to such infantile comparison, but I believe that is best to convey the utter insult that is Cameron's screenplay. I consider myself a romantic, yet the so-called romance of this film left me cold, with nothing to do except roll my eyes. The film lacks any new vision or originality, and that can never be commended.

I'm fed up at this point; three viewing, each one revealing an un-plundered area of Cameron's incompetence. This film remains an interminable, and wildly popular, mash of tired formula only be idolized by starry eyed tweens.