Black Swan (2010)

There have been many movies in the history of cinema that deal with people descending into the realm of madness: Ron Howard's A Beautiful Mind (2001), Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver (1976), Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980), and Darren Aronofsky's own Requiem for a Dream (2000). Aronofsky's latest film, Black Swan, deals with obsession and madness through Natalie Portman's ballerina character Nina, who vies for the lead role in the widely-known swan lake.

But there is a catch to this Swan Lake: the director of the show, Thomas (Vincent Cassel), wants the same ballerina to play both the white swan and the black swan. For those who don't know swan lake, here is the quick rundown: a beautiful princess is turned into a swan, and must win the love of the prince to turn her back. Sadly, the prince is seduced by the black swan, the swan princess' sister, and so the white swan commits suicide. I'll be frank in saying this movie is not subtle about dealing with the duality of the swan characters and Portman's own inner struggle to embody both roles.

Portman's Nina is an uptight character who has a sense of entitlement to the role, and just wants to be perfect at everything. This is not what Thomas is looking for: he is looking for someone who knows how to let go, to inhabit the rigid, beautiful perfection of the white swan, and the dark, seductive nature of the black swan. Nina is a perfect white swan, but a terrible black swan. "Would you fuck this girl?" Thomas inquires of the ballerino (is that the correct term?). He can't answer. The point is made

(I have just googled "male ballerina." Indeed, ballerino came back as a positive name, though the french word "danseur" is also common)

This is a frighteningly tense movie, and it keeps you on the edge of your seat for so long that when Mila Kunis' character Lily shows up and takes Nina out for a night on the town, you relax because you can finally just let go, like Nina does. It is then to the director's credit that he keeps us as uptight as Nina, relieving us only when Nina does.

And the movie is incredibly effective as a horror film as well. Nina develops a rash on her back, and constantly has visions of peeling her skin off, cutting her toes, and even pulling feathers out of her back. The movie blurs the line between reality and fantasy so much that you get lost, with Nina, in what is going on. By the end all is clear, which is slightly disappointing because I would have loved some ambiguity left to whether certain events did transpire.

But where the movie goes too over the top is in its visual effects department. Nina's skin crawls, her legs bend awkwardly, and a whole assortment of weird stuff happens that doesn't need to. We get she is going mad, and crawling skin is too obvious a way to sell it to us. The audience is generally pretty smart and can figure out what is going on. The visual effects do pay off in when beautifully rendered shot near the end, as Nina fully embodies the black swan.

SPOILER ALERT

I really had a problem with the film's ending as well. I don't disagree with the events that take place, as it is appropriate for the story and the mirroring of the ballet taking place. No, what I don't like is how similar the ending feels to The Wrestler (2008), as Randy jumps from the ring and everyone chants his name before the screen goes black. Nina jumps too (it is the role of the swan), and then everyone begins chanting her name as the screen whitens out. It's not really that the endings are similar in story, but its also similar in the way he executes it.

END SPOILER ALERT

This movie belongs to Portman, who turns in a terrific performance that is sure to garner her tons of accolades and awards, perhaps an Oscar. Was it the best of the year? Hard to say, as I still have many more films to see. But Portman sells her role, and is able to transfer from uptight, to relaxed, and completely seductive throughout the course of the film. The Academy loves showy performances over the simply, quieter ones, and this one surely draws attention.

Black Swan, in the end, succeeds at being an exceptional thriller and performance piece, and showcase for both Aronofsky's excellent sense of tension and Portman's terrific prowess as an actress. Though it goes over the top and is not something I'd sit through again soon, I do recommend it highly. Just be warned that it is an exhausting movie emotionally, and as Nina feels relieved, so do we.

Rated R for hot lesbian lovin', hot Natalie Portman masturbatin', and creepy teacher-inappropriately-touching-student lovin'. Also blood.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Une (2010)

Harry Potter has come a long way from where he started as a wide-eyed child entering the magical gates of Hogwarts. Then, the magical world was a bright and happy place, with dangers lurking around corners, but easily solvable with a little determination and ingenuity. The films and books have become increasingly darker in tone as the characters age and the bright world shatters around them; indeed, a metaphor for all children growing up and realizing life is not the easy, happy experience they thought it would be.

Deathly Hallows opens with the cold-blooded murder of a Muggle Studies teacher, and the bodies begin piling up from there. Harry, Ron, and Hermione (do I need to tell you who plays them?) must set out to find and destroy Horcruxes, evil objects that conceal bits of Voldemort's soul. They start under the protection of their elders, but soon set out on their own and are stranded in the English countryside with nary a clue as to what to do.

As a Harry Potter adaptation, this is the film I have been waiting for. By splitting the book in two parts (also a clever ploy to make more money), writer Steve Kloves and director David Yates are finally allowed to take their time, and really let us get to know these people that we have seen grow up before our very eyes. The movie adds scenes that aren't in the book that help deepen the characters: in the opening we see Hermione erase her parents memories and Harry and Hermione share a dance when all is bleak.

Of course, the film neglects certain details that help flesh out other characters: Lupin's reluctance to stay with Tonks is something they eliminated, though I think that is a powerful scene that forces Harry to accept the fact that he really is on his own, and can no longer rely on adults. And Kreacher's development is thrown out, as he becomes a loyal slave to Harry Potter, someone he once resented.

Otherwise, this film is basically the book, even including long passages in the second half of the trio wandering aimlessly through the woods trying to decide what to do next. As far as a Harry Potter movie is concerned, it is decidedly quiet. There are explosions and chases at the beginning, and many deaths permeate the film; but the film lives and breathes with its quieter moments, including a scene between Ron and Hermione playing a piano, and Ron's continual monitoring of the radio to hear who has died.

The reason Prisoner of Azkaban has been continually lauded as the best in the Potter series is because Alfonso Cuarón gave the film a natural pace, and it flowed as a movie would. It also changed the landscape of the Potterverse and brought the series down to darker depths. Harry Potters 1 - 2 and 4 - 6 have always had a rushed sense about them, though I feel Yates found a better sense of pace in Half-Blood Prince.

When both films are combined they will probably total five hours or so, and will be glorious retellings of a story every Potterfan loves. The only real problem with the film is its eventual and unavoidable sudden ending, but that can be forgiven as it is only half a movie. People will be frustrated because it isn't the same Potter film of the past; its a slower film, and I loved that. And it raises the expectations even higher for Harry's grand finale next July as the Battle of Hogwarts takes place. Yates has delivered introspective Potter; now, the public is hungering for epic Potter.

One final note: the film contains a beautifully animated segment telling the story of the Deathly Hallows, narrated by Emma Watson. Its these touches that help the movie succeed.

The Social Network (2010)

When David Fincher's latest film (and quite possibly his best) ends, you may wonder what was it about this film that you loved? I find it almost indescribable to tell you what was so wonderful about the film, but let me try and explain.

The movie concerns the invention of the social networking site, Facebook. It is about Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), his friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), and the various other members who take part in this revolutionary invention. When it was announced two years ago that they were making a Facebook movie, many of us (including myself) scoffed at the notion. How could they make a movie about Facebook? Then when Fincher was signed to direct and Aaron Sorkin, creator and writer of the West Wing, signed to pen the script, many of us breathed a collective sigh.

And they have delivered. I think the film benefits more from Sorkin then from Fincher; his memorable dialogue is what drives every scene, and I would be surprised if this didn't win for Best Adapted Screenplay at this year's Oscars. Of course, Sorkin's dialogue would be nothing if he didn't have a fine cast to embody those words and make their own. And I am not diminishing Fincher's role in all of this; it was his sure hand that guided them through it all to the very finish.

Besides telling the story of how Saverin, Zuckerberg's only real friend, came to sue him for $600 million, the movie meditates on how Facebook has infiltrated our very lives. What made it appealing and different from MySpace or Friendster? Exclusivity. The site was founded solely for Harvard students, then expanded to Cambridge, Yale, and Stanford, and eventually across two continents and farther. When I first joined Facebook four years back, I had to be invited to join (I was only in High School), and it felt like I was being admitted into an exclusive club (I believe it had only recently be opened up to email invitation). Now to sign up is as simple as couple clicks, but then, it was something special.

The movie also does an excellent job of balancing between the invention and meteoric rise of Facebook, and the two depositions, one for Saverin, the other for three Harvard men who had an idea for a site called The Harvard Connection, which Zuckerberg essentially took and made better. These three men, two of the brothers, have a legitimate case, as does Saverin. In fact, from the very first scene, Zuckerberg isn't entirely likable. And I think that's what is amazing about this movie.

We've had unlikable protagonists before, but I think Zuckerberg's portrayal is so poignant because it proves that success and glamour don't go hand in hand, as people would like to believe. Before he invents Facebook, Zuckerberg is nobody, just a computer hacker and programmer (and an excellent one). But after, he gets groupies, and he suddenly becomes the person everyone wants to be friends with. If they spent time getting to know him, they might not like the person they see. The film opens with Zuckerberg on a date with Erica Albright (Rooney Mara, who will play Lisbeth in Fincher's remake of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), and she says, "You are going to be a successful programmer, and you are going to spend your whole thinking girls won't date you because you are a nerd. And I tell you, from the bottom of my heart, that that is not true. It's because you're an asshole."

The movie cites this incident as Zuckerberg's initial creation of Facebook. If you search Erica Albright Real on Google, you'll return articles contemplating whether this character actually exists or not. In fact, Zuckerberg said the movie plays out a lot like fiction, some of it weighed in fact, of course, but certain events dramatized or invented for the filmmakers benefit.

And I say good for them. My favorite biopic (which this essentially is) ever made is Amadeus (1984), but that movie makes a rivalry between Salieri and Mozart that didn't actually exist in real life. But do I care? No, because the movie plays out with terrific drama and is one of the best movies I have ever seen. If you want straight fact, go find a biography (which I'm sure we'll see one soon about the ACTUAL Zuckerberg story).

Fincher and Sorkin and everyone involved have crafted one of the year's best pictures, and one I eagerly await seeing again. It's a film about our times, about lives. It is also the story of how to skillfully screw your friend out of a business. Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the founder of Napster, exclaims to Zuckerberg "This is our time!" Indeed it is.

Cinebarre

Over a year ago, my local Regal theater Mountlake 9 closed its doors, never to open again. The building was purchased and renovated by a company that a ran a chain known as Cinebarre. The concept: eat and drink while you watch movies. It's kind of like seeing a live comedy show and a nightclub, or going to Second City in Chicago, except it's, well, you know, not live.

Because our glorious state of Washington has the most ridiculous alcohol policy (no minors in bars, no exceptions), no one under the age of 21 is allowed in the Cinebarre because every screen is, essentially, a bar. In the other four locations (Asheville, NC; Charleston, SC; Denver, CO; and Salem, OR), ages 18 and up can go see movies there, and those under 18 but not under 6 can see movies if accompanied and seated with parents or over 21-year-olds. Naturally, I had to wait until now to experience the Cinebarre, and I feel it is my duty to report on the experience. I have made two trips, and come out with the same feelings.

First, I like how they've renovated the entire place. The main lobby is a lounge area when you can sit and have a drink while waiting for a show to start, or after a show to discuss it. There are dozens of old movie posters all over the walls, along with posters for upcoming releases. They've also done a spectacular job with the screens. Mountlake had uncomfortable seats, but Cinebarre has replaced them with comfy seats, and taken out every other row so that you have a place to set your burger. They've also made the screens bigger, somehow; they stretch from left to right completely, and really fill the entire area.

The menu is also a lot of fun, with several items sharing names with popular movies. These include Blade Runners (french fries), Body Snatchers (potato skins), Goldfingers (chicken strips), Lawrence of Arabia (a pita pocket dish), Soylent Greens (salad), and, of course, an American Pie. There are also a few specialty drinks, such as the Pulp Fiction (a mimosa) and the Lolita Margarita (which is kind of wrong).

When you are ready to order a Blade Runner or the sort, you write down your choices on a piece of paper provided, and stick it up in the stand in front of your seat so as to draw your waiter's attention. They come by, take the order, and your food is delivered to you within 20 minutes...usually. My first visit was to see Inception a second time, and our order was placed ten minutes before the previews began rolling. By the time the first reel was over, I noticed we hadn't received our food yet, and after an hour, I hunted down one of the waitstaff and inquired as to why it takes an hour to prepare burgers. Apparently the computer palm-pilot thingys that the servers used had failed to send our order to the kitchen (as well as everyone else's in our row), so they gave is free tickets to another screening and delivered our food promptly (our drinks were delivered quickly, so the bar's computer must be awesome).

My second viewing was for The Other Guys, and our food was delivered in a timely fashion. Overall, the food is decent, but is nothing outstanding or out of this world. I actually like the fries a lot, as you can tell they are cut and made in the kitchen. But I'm not much of a food critic and have only had the burger, potato skins, onion rings (with the not so subtle name of Lord of the Onion Rings), and chicken strips.

But despite the issue with food on my first trip, there is just something irritating about the Cinebarre experience as a whole that I can't quite shake. First, the lights are never entirely dimmed because the waitstaff is continues to run around and take orders throughout the show, if you should write something else down on the paper. Second, when you do get your food, it draws you out of the movie because now you are focusing on eating this burger but being relatively quiet about it so as not disturb other patrons (though they don't always oblige). Finally, around an hour before the movie is over, the waitstaff drops your check off and then you have to think about paying, how much to tip, and yadda yadda yadda. Overall, it is the least immersive theater experience I have ever had.

So do I recommend the Cinebarre? Not really. I suggest you go check it out to experience it at least once, but I would not go there very often. It is a cinema to see a film you truly don't care about (for instance, a bad romantic comedy might be tolerable because you can down Pulp Fictions), but definitely not a movie you have been anticipating for a while. You are never really into the movie because you are always aware you are in a theater, with friends, dining while viewing a movie. Though if you are on a blind date, this place could be awesome because it combines dinner and a movie and eliminates most of that unnecessary talking business.

The one plus to it being 21 and up? No kids or crying babies. Hallelujah.

The Other Guys (2010)

The Other Guys was chugging along nicely, a rather stupid action-comedy starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg, but really what did I expect? Then the movie ended, and the most surprising thing happened: the end credits began displaying graphs, charts, and data on the bailout, CEO spending, CEO salaries, Ponzi schemes, and the like. For a minute, I wondered whether The Other Guys had been a smart satire on America's economy. Then I realized nope, Adam McKay just thinks throwing up a bunch of info like that will make us think the movie was smarter then it really was.

But really, it isn't half-bad. It opens with Sam Jackson and Dwayne Johnson being super-macho stereotypes of themselves, which is pretty funny, and Ferrell is actually hilarious in his early scenes as a subdued worker. It's nice to see him restrained and not the pompous idiot of Anchorman, Talladega Nights, Semi-Pro, or Step Brothers. Mark Wahlberg is less funny as Ferrell's partner, but he still does a good enough job. Much of their chemistry in the beginning is what makes the movie fun (a debate over tunas versus lions is the film's best moment).

But then the film becomes embroiled in its plot, and then the film becomes less inspired. Ferrell starts becoming hyperactive again, and the movie hits its lowest points when Eva Mendes comes onscreen. This isn't because Ms. Mendes is a bad actress (she was exceptional in Bad Lieutenant), but because the joke around her character is totally miscalculated. Ferrell completely disregards her beauty and mocks her constantly, yet hot women are still attracted to him. She is given terrible lines as well ("I show him my breasts every morning and tell him, 'these are waiting for you.'"), and overall is squandered.

Then there's the plot, which involves Steve Coogan carrying out a Ponzi-ish scheme, I guess. He keeps borrowing money from investors with no real intent on paying them back. What is particularly odd about this film is how Ferrell and Wahlberg spend most of their time protecting Coogan from the villains, when in the end, he is put behind bars and is himself the main villain. It's funny to have the heroes stake so much for the villain.

Finally, the action itself is less-then-inspired. I can tell this film was influenced by Hot Fuzz, the far superior action-comedy, and that's because that film had style. This film lacks any sort of style and is dead in the water. Helicopters fly around and car chases ensue, but there's really no awe coming from them, and in the end you are left yawning.

So, in the end, this picture fails because apparently it wants to be a satire on the economy and big business, when really, it is anything but.

SNL Digital Shorts

SNL has had a long, rocky history. I most commonly hear people decry the show for not being as funny as it once was, which is true. Tune into any SNL episode these days and most of the sketches are cringe worthy, and rarely, if ever, sport a laugh. But, SNL is churning out some of its best, most memorable moments with the Digital Shorts section.

Back in 2005, Andy Samberg joined the cast of SNL, though he was mainly relegated to the taped segments, such as commercials, and rarely appeared in the live segments. But then, in December of 2005, he produced a music video, dubbed a digital short, with Chris Parnell, dubbed "Lazy Sunday." This sketch was the funniest thing to come out of SNL in a long, long, long time and gave birth to the Digital Short sketches, which are by far the funniest thing to be featured on SNL in a long time. Samberg is part of the comedy group Lonely Island, whose other members are Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone, and they are responsible for the sketches and songs.

Now, after five seasons, they have produced more then 60 digital shorts, though most of them are very bizarre and some not funny, as is the case with SNL (you can't produce genius every week). But I thought I'd rank the top 10 funniest and best videos they've ever put out in the past 5 season run.

10. On the Ground (3502)

Samberg stars as a beatnik who sings about rejecting the system and throwing everything given to him on the ground, be it a free energy drink sample or cake at a birthday party. The video gets a lot of mileage out of the punch line "I threw it on the ground," accompanied by super slo-mo shots of said items hitting the ground. The end of the video has Elijah Wood and Ryan Reynolds, as themselves, tasering Samberg in the butthole after he interrupts their dinner. It's a bit of a lackluster ending, but Samberg's satire on those who oppose the system is still pretty damn funny.

9. Natalie Raps (3113)

The second significant video put out by the Digital Shorts features Chris Parnell interviewing Natalie Portman, who proceeds to rap about her life as being a "badass bitch," contrary to the sweet public image and 4.0 average at Harvard she had. It's a foul mouthed video that is pretty hilarious, followed by Andy dressed as Flavor Flav completing the rap. Samberg is the best in this video, though, as the pompous news reporter who continues to smile and ask questions no matter how vulgar Natalie gets.

8. Laser Cats 4-Ever (3415)

Laser Cats started in the show's 31st season, with Bill Hader and Andy Samberg eagerly presenting SNL Executive Producer Lorne Michaels with a short film they've made to air on the show, Laser Cats. Every year brings a new incarnation of Laser Cats, as Samberg and Hader bug Michaels in various environments, even interrupting a dinner he is having with Senator Dodd. I love the low budget quality because it reminds me of filming movies when I was a kid that turned out exactly like that. This particularly Laser Cats features Steve Martin pitching the Laser Cats idea to an increasingly exasperated Michaels. The plot of each one centers around cats that shoot lasers from their eyes or mouth or something, and Hader and Samberg's quest to stop an evil something-or-other from winning. Watching all five is a treat, and I look forward to further installations in the Laser Cat franchise.

7. Dick in a Box (3209)

This song, a collaboration with Justin Timberlake, is what really launched the Digital Shorts in stardom. It received a creative arts Emmy and became a hit all over the Internet. It's premise involves Samberg and Timberlake as two sleazy guys who decide the best gift for their girlfriends at Christmas is their Dick in a Box. The payoff is at the end, when Samberg and Timberlake dance around with Christmas Boxes hanging to them by their junk. It's wonderfully inappropriate humor that called for the return of these two characters in a far superior video.

6. The Japanese Office (3312)

The video opens with Ricky Gervais more or less commenting on how unoriginal the American Office is because, well, it's copied from his show. But then he reveals that his inspiration came from a Japanese version of the show, and we are treated to the exact same pilot episode as the UK and US Offices, just in Japanese. If you've seen either version of the Office, then this video is a non-stop riot, and if not, then the joke is probably lost on you. Steve Carrell, who has hosting the show, reprises his role of Michael Scott, but in Japanese. Finally, the show ends, and it's finished off with the best line in the whole thing: Ricky Gervais laughing and saying, "It's funny because it's racist."

5. Lazy Sunday (3109)

This is where it all began. A simple music video about two dudes rapping about their quest to go see The Chronicles of Narnia was the funniest thing SNL had put out in a long, long time. Not much more can be said about this video. You know it well enough by now, probably, and it gave birth to a whole new segment in the SNL series. The lyrics are fast and creative (Mr. Pibb and Red Vines equals crazy delicious), and what really sells it is the intensity of the performance by the two. Every time I watch it it never ceases to make me laugh.

4. Great Day (3522)

This was the most recent Digital Short, aired at the season finale, and it also has endless replay value. Samberg plays Dennis, a man who snorts coke and then proceeds to sing about how great his day is going to be in the style of a Disney number. He gets increasingly agitated and the song speeds up as he snorts more coke, eventually ending in a great gag where he and his fellow dancers imitate the Matrix. Also a hilarious punch line is when Samberg's face becomes distorted and his eyes turn red.

3. Jizz in My Pants (3410)

This far and away the most successful video they have done, receiving the most YouTube hits and being instantly catchy. It also features Jorma Taccone, one of Samberg's fellow Lonely Islanders, as they sing about premature ejaculation at the slightest thing (from a woman's touch to her voice to the ending of the Sixth Sense). Jamie Lynn-Sigler, who plays Meadow on the Sopranos, guest stars, as does Justin Timberlake and Akiva Schaffer. Basically, you know this song pretty well by now.

2. Motherlover (3422)

Season 34 was a terrific run for the Digital Shorts, from Jizz in My Pants, to the number 1 pick, to this sequel to Dick in a Box. Samberg and Timberlake reprise their roles as the sleazy dudes just getting released from jail for the mishaps of the first video. They realize it's mother's day and they didn't get their mom's anything. And, true to their nature, they decide they should swap moms and give them "company." The moms are played by Patricia Clarkson and Susan Sarandon, and the video is so wrong it is just hilarious. That's all I can say. I don't see how Samberg and Timberlake can top this one, because it is one of the best they have put out.

1. I'm on a Boat (3416)

The other significant piece from Season 34, this is by far and away just the best thing they've ever done. Every time I view the video, and insane energy courses through my body and as soon as the video ends, I want to watch it all over again. The song also holds up on its own and is just a great number to belt out to. The lyrics are fast and creative (I've got my swim trunks, and my flippy-floppys, I'm flipping burgers you at Kinko's straight flippin' copies), and the beginning of the video is funny as hell. The Lonely Island is eating breakfast when Samberg wins a boat ride from three and selects Akiva and T-Pain, who happens to be there as well, to accompany him. This will having you belting "I'm on a Boat" long after it's over.

The Worst of the 2000s

I realized today that I never really reflected on which movies were the worst of the decade that expired nearly 8 months ago. We all got obsessed figuring what was the best, what would live on in memory, and we forgot to reflect on the amount of shit that came out in the decade as well. Now I didn't see a lot of movies that I thought were horrible. There are a fair number of bad movies I missed (Battlefield Earth and Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever are two notable ones I never saw), so if you think there are movies worse then what I've listed, there probably are. I don't make it a habit to runaround and see all the awful movies out there so I can make a good worst of the decade list. There are also only 5 movies, because I don't think the worst should be dignified with slots (and it's more fun to figure out what really is the worst).

5. Troy (2004)

Dir. Wolfgang Petersen

This took a story I loved, the Trojan War (I haven't read the Iliad itself), and got everything about it wrong. Eric Bana, Diane Kruger, and Peter O'Toole (especially O'Toole) are the only good parts of the movie, and while I don't hate the rest of the cast, I think they were either miscast or their roles were underwritten. Brian Cox is Agamemnon, and he is good in the role, but the role is typified as a villain. Similarly, Achilles (Brad Pitt) seems like nothing more then a surfer dude who also happens to be a badass with a sword. And Sean Bean was about one of the worst choices for Odysseus. I should trust the guy, not suspect his every motive.

Even worse is how the movie tries and fails to be like Lord of the Rings, with battles as epic as any in that film, but with none of the emotional heft. Really, I find it hard to believe the whole nation of Greece would ride out against Troy without some motivation...which is where the Gods came in! Now, true, the inclusion of Gods can be ridiculous, but I think this is what the story needed. Most of what happens in these Greek stories is because the Gods are bored and trying to spite each other. The movie also takes a 10-year war and condenses it down into two weeks or so, the fastest war I've ever heard of.

This is also when Orlando Bloom had a brief run of popularity (but who remembers him now?), and he is probably the worst as Paris. I hated everything about this movie, except Peter O'Toole who can never be hated. I hope one day to see a movie that does the Trojan War justice.

4. Rush Hour 2 (2001)

Dir. Brett Ratner

The only time I saw this movie was when I was 12 or 13-years-old, and I remember even then thinking how horrible the script was. The jokes aren't funny, the story is all over the place, and Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan have zero chemistry (plus, Tucker is REALLY annoying). While anything with Chan will have fun fight sequences, this still can't escape the fact that it's a Brett Ratner film, who really is one of the worst filmmakers out there today. I don't remember much about the movie, but I was very unhappy with my friend who recommended it to me.

3. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Dir. Michael Bay

I continually name this as one of the worst because I was fool enough to go to the midnight screening and witness the heinous acts against humanity on the screen. The script is horrible, built around action sequences Bay devised while the writers were on strike, and the story doesn't make any sense. If the Fallen can only be destroyed by a Prime, then doesn't that make Megatron stronger then he, since he does succeed in killing Optimus Prime? The movie is also horribly racist, with two jive-talking robots that are the comic relief but also African-Americanish. They also can't read the language of the robots. Yeah. Just stay away from this pile of trash.

2. Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)

Dir. Steve Oedekerk

It's a spoof of the martial arts genre, and its about the most annoying thing I have ever seen. Oedekerk casts himself in the title roll, as a baby whose parents are killed by a thug and who grows up seeking vengeance for his dead parents. The movie uses an actual Kung Fu film, The Savage Killers, and while the movie gets a laugh out of dubbing, it gets several groans out of a love interest who makes an annoying sound, and a cow who knows Kung Fu. It's not a funny movie, it is a horrible one.

1. Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

Dir. Jared Hess

Comedy is the hardest genre: rarely do they get recognized for how funny and touching they can be, but the bad ones stand out worse then a bad drama. A bad drama you forget, but a bad comedy...you remember it because you can't figure out why it was funny. And I can't figure out why the world fell in love with this quirky story of a weirdo from Idaho who does...nothing! This movie is about nothing! Just this guy who is awkward and lives his life!

I guess it would help if I actually thought the guy was funny. And while I think Jon Heder is good, I don't think the character is that...interesting. He's just annoying. The audience laughs at Napoleon, not with him. Not once are we given an insight into this character, who he is, what his dreams are. We simply get random gags. His grandma is injured in a dune buggy accident. Ok, not really that funny. His uncle thinks he was once a great NFL star and goes wild in front of the TV. And his brother chats with women online all day long.

Really, I didn't like anything about this movie. I remember when it came out, and how much everyone loved it. I saw it because they said see it. But this movie is the worst because I don't think there is any other movie that has received as much public acclaim as this that I just can't...stand. It's a bad movie, and definitely one I have hated since the moment I saw it.

Inception (2010)

It's hard to really give a thorough description of what Inception is about, but here's the most basic ingredient to understanding how complex it is: Imagine the Matrix. Now imagine that there was a Matrix inside that Matrix. And possibly another one inside that one. You kind of get the head trip that Inception is about to take you on.

The movie concerns that which is most precious to movies: dreams. Movies realize our greatest dreams and greatest fantasies, and Inception is a movie to challenge all those notions. Here is the reason we go to the cinema: to see things we've never seen before, to experience thrills that we've never dreamed of. A Trip to the Moon was a modern marvel in 1902, and I'm happy to report that in a summer full of sequels, reboots, and whatever else, Christopher Nolan has delivered what could very well turn out to be his best movie.

I say could because I'm not sure of the movie's greatness yet. But it is a movie that, once over, immediately warrants a repeat viewing because you want to go back, knowing what you now know, and reconstruct the movie from there. Repeat viewings, as is true for all movies, test whether something is truly a masterpiece. For now, I will say Inception is one of the best of the year and maybe that opinion will change later on.

The movie is about a specialized group of people who steal ideas from other people's dreams. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, one of the best in this field, along with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I won't even begin trying to explain how this process, known as "extraction," exactly works, and I won't even delve too far into the concept of Inception except to say, it is the opposite of an extraction.

Marion Cotillard is also in this movie, as Leo's wife, and she has a stare that terrifies the shit out of you. There's also Ellen Page, who doesn't know how this stuff works and so serves as our entry point into the whole idea of the dream world. Her job is to construct the reality of the dream so that the subject doesn't realize there are other "dreamers" there.

Nolan, who is the sole writing credit on this one (usually his brother Jonathan collaborates, but this one was maybe to intricate for Nolan to lay out for him on paper), proves how adept he is at juggling multiple story lines. This movie is the perfect study of parallel editing over the course of an hour to build tension so high that you are about to burst at the seams with craziness just wanting it to all end.

Undoubtedly there will be several knockoffs of this film down the line, but we will weather them. People will try to be as brilliant as Nolan, but few if any will succeed. He is working on a whole new level, way ahead of the rest of his competition, and inventing the curve. Did I understand Inception? Yes. Can I explain it? Yes, but it would take far too much time to lay out, and honestly, you should just go see it. It's a movie that has to be experienced, it cannot simply be explained.

Midway 2010

Around this time, critics reflect on the first half of the year and usually name some of their favorite movies that you should go and see immediately. Last year I was able to do this because I had already seen a fair number of movies and had five I could easily recommend (though none of those made it into my top 10 at the end of the year). Usually movies that come out in the first half of the year are easily forgotten, with a few rare exceptions. I have seen less movies this year because I became busy with life's projects. Also, the majority of movies out there right now just look like plain shit.

I will tell you this. The best movie I've seen so far this year is Toy Story 3, and the worst movie I've seen is MacGruber. The rest of the movies I've seen this year are as follows (alphabetically):

Get Him to the Greek

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Iron Man 2

Kick-Ass

Shutter Island

Winter's Bone

A limited range of movies that I do not feel much like writing about. Let's just say only one of those movies is really good, two of them are decent, one is fair, and the rest are poor. So instead of focusing on the best so far this year (as there aren't many I have evidence of) I will focus on six movies coming out over the next six months that I really want to see.

Inception

Release Date: July 16th

In a summer filled with sequels and uninspired adaptations, here is what appears to be the only original movie to come out of Hollywood in the summertime. Thank God for Christopher Nolan, who can make almost anything he wants now that the Dark Knight is the third biggest money maker of all time, domestically. Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Michael Caine, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy, and Marion Cotillard all star in this intriguing thriller about dreams, or something. The trailers are intentionally vague, and I refuse to read any reveal about the plot elements. Nolan hasn't made a dud yet, so let's hope he doesn't start here. This movie looks amazing.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Release Date: August 13th

It doesn't look like a masterpiece by any means, but Edgar Wright is a talented director (he helmed Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz), and this movie looks endlessly inventive. Michael Cera is Scott Pilgrim, in a boy-meets-girl story with a twist: apparently they exist in some video game/comic book universe, because in order to date the girl Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) he must first fight off her seven evil exes. It's a nice set-up, and the film's palate reflects both a comic book and a video game as various actions are accompanied by their verbal form (for example, ding dong). This movie just looks like plain, awesome fun at the end of the summer, and one of only two movies I am actually looking forward to this season. Otherwise, it's the art house for me.

Machete

Release Date: September 3rd

The fake trailer that opened up the Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino double bill Grindhouse three years ago has actually morphed into a feature film of its own. There is no official trailer, though Rodriguez released another fake trailer on Cinco de Mayo that made the film look like it was about immigration (which it apparently isn't, according to Rodriguez himself). Still, the man can be entertaining when he's not doing Spy Kids sequels or Sharkboy and Lava Girl, and instead focuses on adult-themed movies. Lindsay Lohan is in this, as a nun or something, which is a big what? Overall, though, I will be happy to see this when it comes out.

The Social Network

Release Date: October 1st

A movie about Facebook? No thank you. Oh wait, it's written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher, starring Jesse Eisenberg? Sign me up! I don't know much about this film, except that it's about the invention of the revolutionary networking site that this entry will be published on (and you too blogger), and Jesse Eisenberg is giving Michael Cera a run for his money as the uneasy but sympathetic young male. The poster states "You don't get to 500 Million Friends without making a few enemies first," and is about how the creator had a falling out with one of his close friends, played by Andrew Garfield. I'll admit, if anyone less credible was attached I wouldn't be interested, but Fincher can usually produce something interesting.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I

Release Date: November 19th

I am a lifelong Potter fan, but the movies have never really done the stories complete justice. Current director David Yates is the oddest choice to take the series into the finishing stretch, but the film has been shot, and we are now getting Part I of two parts. This might become a trendy new way to capitalize on your ending series, as Twilight has now unnecessarily decided to break its final book into two parts, rather then make a three-hour movie. Whatever. Basically the final two movies focus on Harry's journey to find and destroy Horcruxes, which are dark magical objects that Lord Voldemort has hid his soul in to ensure immortality. Hopefully Yates delivers, but we'll see.

True Grit

Release Date: December 25th

The Coen Bros. are hit and miss with me. I love Fargo, No Country for Old Men, and A Serious Man, but could care less for The Big Lebowski (though I want to give that a rewatch) and Burn After Reading. I haven't seen John Wayne's True Grit, though I plan to before this is released. Really, I know nothing about this movie, but it's the Coen Bros., and with them you are always in for an interesting treat. This also marks the fourth movie they've released in four consecutive years, which is quite a feat for anyone. IMDb has three projects in development for them, but no word on if they are taking 2011 off. If they are, they deserve it. Either way, I will be there to see this movie.

MacGruber (2010)

Spoilers. But do you really care?

The fact that Will Forte, John Solomon, and director Jorma Taccone took a one-joke sketch from SNL and turned into a feature-length movie that is only half-bad is admirable. The original sketch spoofed MacGyver, a show I'm not terribly familiar with, and locked Will Forte, Kristen Wiig, and a random guest star in a non-descript location while the threat of a bomb going off was imminent (Wiig's only duty was to remind MacGruber of the countdown). The sketches are all about a minute long, are pretty funny, and always end with the bomb exploding and everyone dying.

Val Kilmer plays the villain of the film, Dieter von Cunth, and once you hear that name you can pretty much telegraph the trajectory of the rest of the picture. The film is filled with wall-to-wall raunch, some of it funny, most of it not. MacGruber is called into action when Dieter steals some missile, and he rounds up his old team of "Killer-Stoppers," which mainly consist of WWE wrestlers. Their fate is one of the movie's inspired moments, and forces MacGruber to recruit the much-less-80s Lt. Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillippe), and his old flame's friend, Vicki (Kristen Wiig, in the same role as the show).

The movie gets some mileage out of the joke that MacGruber's accomplishments are a bit exaggerated. He attempts to make a homemade grenade, which fails to work, and refuses to use guns only because "He never learned how." When he does finally fire a semi-automatic, he does so with glee, and wonders why he always bothered with those intricate gadgets in the first place.

But besides being a buffoon, MacGruber is also somewhat of a psychotic, disturbed man. A fellow driver insults his ride, and MacGruber memorizes the license plate of the offending vehicle. He even writes the plate down over and over in a steno book, and whether the audience is supposed to find this funny or disturbing is a bit of a mystery, though I assume it was supposed to be comedic. It was a bit more disturbing to me. When Mac finally finds the car, he burns it, and I guess we're supposed to feel good for him, but I didn't.

The origins of Dieter and Grubs' rivalry is also a tad more disturbing then you would expect. They were all friends in college, when MacGruber stole the woman Dieter was in love with and talked her into having an abortion (the apple of their eyes is Maya Rudolph), so Dieter retaliates by blowing up Maya Rudolph and their wedding. It's a backwards story, and I admire the filmmakers somewhat for making MacGruber not totally relatable, but he's still one messed-up guy.

But the movie's jokes are also hit-and-miss: MacGruber's technique of running around naked with celery sticking out his butt to distract guards is amusing, but not funny or worth repeating. And the sex scene between MacGruber and Vicki and then later the ghost of his dead wife are more annoying then funny (he makes love while hee-hawing), or the joke would be funny if it weren't played out so long.

But I also don't think the movie embraces its ridiculousness enough, and instead feels like its being restrained by its action-comedy quota. Wayne's World and The Blues Brothers are two terrific comedies that totally embrace absurdity, but also give us characters we more or less love, despite the fact that they're not really honorable. MacGruber isn't lovable, and instead can't seem to fully explore the realm of the absurd.

Part of the reason this movie flounders is that it feels like these men haven't grown-up at all. Immaturity is fine, but the script feels like it was written by a 13-year-old, though I firmly believe it was written by the 13-year-old spirits of the men who loved the 80s action movies they are spoofing, just injecting it with things their inner 13 would have found hilarious. That's fine, except this movie is rated R, and is a hard R, so adults will mostly come to see this (and frankly, 13-year-olds probably shouldn't. 14 is ok). Most of them will leave disappointed, but the few whose 13-year-old spirit still lives on in them will love it. I guess that means mine is dead.

Lost (2004 - 2010)

In the 24 hours since Lost came to a close I have spent some time pondering the conclusion of the hit television show that enthralled audiences for six years. I was not a member of that audience; I only started watch the show in March of 2009, so to say I am a true "Lostie" would be a lie. I jumped on the bandwagon at the very end of the run, but I can say Lost has been one of the single most interesting TV shows that has aired on television.

Before Lost's finale last night, a two-hour retrospective aired in which the whole show was recapped, with interviews of the cast and creators Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse. The word groundbreaking was used frequently to describe Lost's first year on air. I think it's sad that a show is bold when have of its episode is subtitled and that's considered challenging for American audiences.

But I will say Lost had the balls to go wherever they pleased and not look back with any hesitation. Does the show make sense? Not in the least bit. We've learned what the island is, we've learned what Jacob was supposed to do, we learned what the Smoke Monster's deal was...yet we never learned what those damn numbers were, we never learned why Walt and Aaron were so important...indeed, we didn't learn much, and the answers they did give us were a mite disappointing.

I am disappointed Lost never answered all these questions? No, I can't say I am. The writers clearly had plans for some things and improvised with most of it, and the answers to what the whispers were and who the Adam & Eve skeletons were were not only letdowns, but killed the mythology of everything. I think Lost gets replay value out of going back and studying what happened and deducing your own theories. Honestly, what you assumed happened will be the only answer that satisfies you. Cuse and Lindelof proved that if they answered everything it ruin the show more then it even has.

This hasn't been much of a review of the series at all, but I am making the safe assumption that if you decided to read this, you know what Lost is all about. Was the finale ultimately satisfying? I guess so. It was nice to see all the characters come together and have one last moment, and the bookend of the show was also a very well-executed moment. I did find the ultimate resolution of the flash-sideways universe a little hokey, though, even by Lost's standards. The show has been deeply rooted in spirituality versus science, and it seems spirituality wins out, though thankfully Cuse and Lindelof never explicitly state if the characters are going to heaven or not. Some of them I would assume have earned their ticket to hell, but they are in the melting pot church of religious ideals, and that is a nice message to send out. Religion only works if they can all agree to live together, but since that is against most of the basic tenants of religions, it'll never work.

Lots of fans and the creators themselves say the show has never been about the mysteries, it's been about the characters. Well, I agree, in the first three seasons that is. Season Four onwards focuses largely on the island, the mythology, and while the characters are wrapped up in flash-forwards, time travel, and flash-sideways (I mean purgatory) the show lost its character-driven focus, especially in the action packed Season Five. Six was an attempt to return to that, and while it was nice to see the Lost survivors living out a life somewhat happier then their former ones, and wasn't really the same until they realized that this reality was false.

To Lost's credit, the ending is going to be examined and debated for a while, until the dust settles and a new show rears its head. I remember the creators stating at the beginning of the season that they had to make the ending memorable. What do you remember about Six Feet Under's last season? The Sopranos? The ending of course. You barely remember what went down in those final seasons, you just remember how satisfied or unsatisfied you were when the story ended (abruptly, in one case). Well, everyone is going to remember this finale.

Me? I'm in the middle. I've read comments from the people who love it, I've read comments from the people who hate it. There was no way they were going to create a finale that was going to satisfy everyone anyways, so why not be as polarizing as you can be? I will say this about Lost: it is the ultimate example of people having creative freedom to do what they want. People call the show stupid, and yeah, I agree that some ridiculously crazy and asinine things happen on the show. But these were people who took the show wherever they wanted, and I admire them for that. It's good to have something like this every once in awhile; a show that doesn't take itself too seriously and instead is willing to embrace and go places television hasn't gone and probably will never go again.

The Wire (2002 - 2008)

"You remember that one day summer past? When we threw them piss balloons at them Terrace Boys? You remember, just before school started up again. You know, I took a beat down from them boys. I don't even throw a shadow on it. That was the day y'all bought me ice cream off the truck. You remember, Mike?"

"I don't."

The quote above captures the essence of what The Wire is all about. It's a show about cops, a show about drugs, a show about politics and all the areas in between. It doesn't portray all the drug dealers in a negative light, though it certainly doesn't ask you to sympathize for them, just to understand their situation. The quote above happens near the end of Season Five, as two kids we've followed since Season Four, Michael (Tristan Wilds) and Dukie (Jermaine Crawford) are about to separate due to unforeseen events. The show is filled with moments like these, and this one stands above as a defining moment of these characters.

The show's main character, if any, is Det. Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West), a renegade cop who goes outside the system and pisses people off to get the results he needs. And though this character is a cliché from most every other renegade cop movie, the difference is McNulty pays for his deeds, and though he produces results more often then not the bosses are so angry at him for what he's done that they kick him out of the unit.

The show is about, of course, wire taps, and they are the centerpiece in all the seasons. The show gets a bit redundant as we watch the Major Crimes unit attempt to set-up a wire tap, get it up, have it pulled, and then fight to get it up again. Just a few of the characters that come through this unit include Lester Freamon (Clarke Peters), Kima Greggs (Sonja Sohn), Cedric Daniels (Lance Reddick), and Sydnor (Corey Parker Robinson). Freamon is the driving force of the unit, and is present for all wiretaps, the rest come and go.

Aside from the cops, there are also the street characters: the first season focuses on the wiretaps of the Avon Barksdale (Wood Harris) crew, as they run the West side of Baltimore, controlling the corners. In the Barksdale crew you get Stringer Bell (Idris Elba), D'Angelo (Larry Gillard, Jr.), Bodie (J.D. Williams), and Wallace (Michael B. Jordan). Together they paint the crowd of drug dealers who are more or less forced into this life because it is the only reality they know, and all their role models ended up in the exact same place.

And each season brought a different focus, either via wiretap or influence: Season One dealt with drugs, Season Two dealt with smuggling at the ports, Season Three focused on the political aspect of Baltimore, Season Four focused on the schools, and Season Five focused on the newspaper's role in Baltimore. Each time we are introduced to beautifully drawn new characters, whether it is Frank Sobotka (Chris Bauer), Thomas Carcetti (Aidan Gillen), the four boys Namond (Julito McCullum), Randy (Maestro Harrell), Michael and Dukie, or Gus (Clark Johnson, also the director for the show's pilot and final episodes, among others), each one is more interesting then the last.

The show is described as being realistic and some may proclaim it is too full of itself in the beginning. I would agree with that sentiment, but it is real and deals with real life. The happy endings rarely exist here, and by the time you get to Season Five virtually every gangster from Season One is gone, either dead or in prison. Things don't always go so well for the cops or politicians either, but they don't get screwed. But each season ends with an air of open endedness, as the characters are either sentenced, or the bad guys evade capturing. There are a few triumphs in the show, and they are indeed happy, but the show lets most of the other characters fail to get what they want. It is very true to life.

The show is filled with dozens of characters, and I want to briefly mention two characters who don't fit in with the cops, delears, politicians, or whatever: Bubbles (Andre Royo) and Omar (Michael K. Williams). Bubbles is a drug junkie, but also a CI to the Major Crimes unit, and he is perhaps the most interesting character in show. We watch him live through impossible moral situations, but I think what makes him the most empathetic character is he is a genuinely nice guy. Sure he steals things, he shoots up heroin, and does other dishonorable things, but Bubbles has a big heart and Andre Royo puts on one hell of a fantastic performance.

Omar, on the other hand, is the show's one plain awesome character. He lives outside the drug world, instead robbing Barksdale's stashes regularly and doing as he pleases. Omar is bonafide badassery, as his presence exudes fear over the entire populace. Everyone knows who he is, fears him, and wants to take him out. But the character couldn't get away with being a badass and still be good: Omar is sympathetic, if only because the Barksdale crew comes down on him harder then he could imagine in Season One, and you start liking him from that point on. True, he knows what the consequences are in his nature of business, but it doesn't make it any easier.

I could ramble on and on, and describe dozens of other characters I haven't mentioned or subplots that happen. But I will simply praise the show overall, and crown it's fourth season as the best season of the show. The four kids focused on in that season are all terrific actors, and give the viewer a good idea of how these teenagers are forced, from an early age, into the life of drugs and why they think they have no choice. They don't expect to live past 25 if they're lucky, and such a dictated short life is a sad one.

The writers do a terrific job of balancing all these characters in all these seasons, and giving you just enough of every storyline to keep you satisfied. If you go back to any of the latter seasons and just dissect the events of an episode, your head will spin with the amount of storytelling the writers accomplished so effortlessly (or so it seems). Knowing each character, their drive, what makes them them, is such a difficult task to accomplish and the writers have done it admirably. They also are not afraid to cast characters aside if they don't need them; indeed, McNulty appears rarely in the Fourth Season because the show has no reason to focus on him, and they are ok with that (Dominic West still gets first billing, though).

And the acting is so good that I forget these are not real people, that they don't exist. I would say that more for this show then any other I've seen, though The Sopranos and Six Feet Under both feature terrific ensemble casts and convinced me these were real people. But all these actors are terrific, and to find so many great actors for a such a wide reaching show is quite an accomplishment. I never research a show while I'm watching it because once I see the actor interviews or the director interviews, I'm reminded that this is a show, it doesn't exist, and that kills a bit of the magic for me. Maintaining that illusion through these five incredible HBO shows is something I feel I've done rather well.

So is this the greatest television show ever made? Indeed I may have to say its close. While the HBO kin The Sorpanos and Six Feet Under are both equally great, both suffered from less-then-stellar final seasons (though the endings to both shows, particularly Six Feet Under's, are incredible). The Wire's weakest season is its first, I believe, and it gets better and better until it reaches a pinnacle with its penultimate season. The fifth season, though terrific, is more exaggerated then we're used to, but, in the end, David Chase, the creator of this show, has made some of the finest television I've ever seen. I don't know if I can hope to find a show better then this.

South Park: Censored

Last night I returned home, eagerly anticipating the episode "201," a conclusion to last week's 200th episode special. I missed the original airing and caught the re-air that occurs ever Wednesday two hours after the initial one. I was slightly surprised it was a recent episode, "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerBalls" and thought maybe this was a joke: after all, I had thought South Park might not air the episode like they did 12 years ago to pull an April Fool's Prank.

Now I see that that is not the case. Comedy Central pulled the re-airing and as far as I've heard have pulled all scheduled re-airings for the next week. Why, you may ask?

It all has to do with the Prophet Mohammed. Remember back in 2006, when a Danish cartoonist depicted the Prophet and incited the unholy wrath of a bunch of pissed-off extremists? Well, South Park aired a two-part episode called "Cartoon Wars" in which the show Family Guy is coming under fire for trying to air the image. The episodes raised great questions on the limits on what is and what isn't ok to show on TV, and how you set that precedent. The episode ends with Family Guy depicting the image, though ironically Comedy Central wouldn't allow the image to be shown.

Why is it ironic? Back in 2001, South Park aired an episode titled "Super Best Friends" in which Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tsu, Sea Man, Joseph Smith, and yes, Mohammed, all teamed up to fight an evil David Blaine. Back then, no one cared. True, it was two months before 9/11, but Comedy Central set precedent that Mohammed was ok to show. And even after the "Cartoon Wars" episodes, "Super Best Friends" was re-aired on syndicated television (I know because I saw the episode on CW channel).

So that brings us to now. Last week, to commemorate their 200th episode, South Park went back and rehashed a lot of old jokes, one of them being the Mohammed controversy. The episode ended with Mohammed dressed in a bear suit, as the townspeople debate what to do with him. During the week in between episodes, a radical website called Revolution Muslim posted a note saying that Matt and Trey better watch out or they'll end up like Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh was a documentary filmmaker who made a film about Islamic abuse of women, and was killed by extremists in Amsterdam in 2004.

Though I wasn't able to watch the episode live, I did find it online and watched it there. I was surprised that the word Mohammed altogether had been bleeped completely. I assumed it was a joke and Matt and Trey's part, as did most of the Internet community. Additionally, the character Kyle gives a speech on what was learned, yet that was bleeped out completely. That, again, I assumed to be a joke.

Today, it was revealed that Comedy Central added the bleeps over Mohammed's name to protect Matt and Trey, and Matt and Trey later released a statement saying Comedy Central bleeped out the end speech as well. The episode isn't available uncensored, as all episodes are, for the show's website: instead, there is a note saying that Comedy Central won't allow them to put it up.

Now, I understand why Comedy Central wouldn't let the image of the Holy Prophet be broadcast: they were trying to protect the staff of South Park, who would all be in as much danger as Matt or Trey if these threats were somehow became real. But I think it is the start of a terrible chain reaction that they bleeped Mohammed's name from even being uttered. Muslims have no problem with his name! They say it all the time! And Mohammed spent the whole episode behind a black censored bar (which I firmly believe Matt and Trey put in there) and didn't say anything this week! Why bleep his name? And why bleep the end speech, in which Mohammed apparently wasn't mentioned but about intimidation and fear.

Even the episode "Super Best Friends" isn't on the South Park website anymore. It's gone. Kapoot. Luckily I own season 5 on DVD, and there are dozen other places you can find the episode. But still, it is a terrible move on CC's part. Last time Mohammed wasn't shown, Matt and Trey showed Jesus and George Bush shitting on each other, poop-a-flyin'. This week, Buddha snorts coke and Jesus is accused of watching Internet Porn. Comedy Central has now set the standard South Park warned against four years ago: if you give in to threats, then soon more people will threaten you. It will start a landslide until, boom, you can't do anything taboo anymore.

Ultimately, I'm not calling for the episode to air with Mohammed uncensored. I don't think that will ever happen. But the episode should become available without Mohammed's name or the end speech censored. It's just ridiculous and doesn't make sense. The name isn't the thing forbidden, it's the image. I'm quite interested to see what South Park does next week for it's mid-season finale.

Kick-Ass (2010)

Kick-Ass starts out with a noble goal: "Why hasn't anyone ever tried to be a superhero before?" inquires the hero, Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson). "Probably because they'd get their ass kicked," responds one of his friends. And when Dave first dons the outfit of Kick-Ass, he does get his ass thoroughly kicked, so much so that he nears death. You'd think this would stop him, but instead it screws up his nerves so that he can't feel pain as much and can endure more.

Dave is a normal High School nerd who dreams of the hot girl (Lyndsy Fonseca) and whacks off daily, with an ever-expanding collection of comic books. Fed up with getting pushed around, he becomes Kick-Ass, with the hope to do good, though he fully acknowledges he has no reason to seek vengeance: no murdered parents or otherwise.

It is sad then that the movie's best characters, Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) conform to the conventions of the comic book. Big Daddy is seeking revenge for one reason or another, and has trained his daughter to become a totally bad-ass killer. Yet in a movie that is trying to convey realism, it is these characters that shatter that realistic barrier, taking on dozens of villains by themselves and standing victorious over them all. And while their scenes of kick-assery provide much of the movies action thrills, I was more interested in Dave's story of grappling with the responsibility of being a superhero, rather then Big Daddy's quest to take revenge on Mob Boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong).

Some people may find the notion of Hit Girl altogether unsettling and quite disturbing. She is, after all, a kid who kills dozens upon dozens of people. And superheroes traditionally don't kill when they have to, right? I have no moral qualms over her actions (does that make me a bad person? Maybe so), but I think the movie has a bad sense of timing in the fun it's going after. In the first scene when we see Hit Girl annihilate a crowd of baddies, it is completely awe-inspiring. But when she storms D'Amico's New York penthouse to Joan Jett's Bad Reputation, the stakes have changed, and the fun factor is all but null. In fact, when Hit Girl is getting her ass kicked, it seems like the movie is still going for laughs. What?

I really enjoyed the movie, but I can't help but pick apart it's inconsistencies, and I have one more complaint: the movie seemed to be heading in a totally unexpected direction, and for a good minute I thought that this movie would do the unexpected. But, alas, it conforms to the clichés of the genre and disappointed me somewhat. While the tone of the film would have been much darker, I think it would have been a bold way of challenging audiences. Just saying, I think they pussed out.

But, overall, the movie is still a fun entertainment. It succeeds more then the film version of Watchmen (2009) did of examining the life of a superhero, so that's something. But, in the end, it's not near the satire it quite wants to be.

Pygmalion (1938)

People often say that there is no original work, that something had to stem from somewhere and everything is based off of something that came before it. OK, this is true a lot of times, but there are some instances where someone really used their imagination to take some original material and transform it into a great story set in then-modern times. Take the mythological story Pygmalion: it tells of a sculptor who had no interest in women, but carved sculptures of them, until one day he fell in love with one of his own sculptures. Praying to Aphrodite, or Venus, depending on which way you look at it, she took pity on him and brought the statue to life.

Henry Higgins (Leslie Howard) is obviously drawn to be comparable to Pygmalion: he seems to have no interest in women, yet obsesses over dialects and proper speech. He takes on the challenge of turning the lowly Eliza Doolittle (Wendy Hiller) into a lady, with proper speech and accent and all. And, of course, he comes to love her.

Movies back in the day liked to spell out their themes or references for the audience; after all, people didn't have access to the Internet and its wide bank of knowledge. The story of Pygmalion is told to us through text, at the beginning, so that we may know exactly what the filmmakers are aiming for and what their true intentions are. Today, no such scroll would precede the movie, and audiences would be forced to look up Pygmalion and discover the title's source.

The movie is exceptionally well made and is better, I think, then the musical My Fair Lady that came out 27 years later (the film version, anyways). For one, it's an hour shorter, and while I have no problems with long movies, I didn't feel that the plot supported the length. Here too the movie seems to meander, and it is only slightly over 90 minutes!

But the performances are also very good. Wendy Hiller and Leslie Howard may be no Audrey Hepburn or Rex Harrison, but they still deliver thoughtful performances and their chemistry lights up the screen. As we watch Eliza progress, we care about what happens to her. There is a hilarious scene where she tries out her new dialect, and speaks in tongue twisters as if they were normal conversation. The subsequent reactions to this are priceless.

Part of what drags the story of Pygmalion down, for me, is everything that happens after the ball scene. The whole movie builds up to that point, and then continues for an extra thirty minutes (My Fair Lady goes on for another hour). It's such a great scene, and the buildup is worth it. The Queen employs a former pupil of Higgins to find out where Ms. Doolittle is from, and he makes the astute observation that "...only people who are taught English can speak it well."

The movie delivers an important message of women being just more then objects, as evidenced by Higgins' treatment of Ms. Doolittle. Early on Higgins' assistant refers to her as "Ms. Doolittle," and that level of respect makes her smile. Of course, Henry sees her only as Pygmalion saw his creations: as statues. Until she comes to life and fights for herself, he continues to disrespect her.

All versions have a particularly odd ending, as Eliza returns to Henry after leaving him, and he really realizes he is in love with her. Upon her return, he simply states, "Where the devil are my slippers, Eliza?" I accept that as a game that they are playing with each other, by the end, and that Higgins really does have newfound respect for Eliza.

One note: David Lean, the acclaimed director of Lawrence of Arabia and several other epics, was the editor on this film. One should note he was an editor for several films before he broke out into the directing world, and didn't edit again until his final movie, A Passage to India. Just a fun note. I spotted his name in the credits.

82nd Annual Academy Awards: Morning After Thoughts

Man, that ceremony seems like one bad dream.

Part of the reason is that I got drunk last night watching the show, but it also has to do with just how bad the show was put on. Opening with a strange parade of the 10 lead actors up for an award and displaying them for all the world to see was one of the most miscalculated decisions I've seen in awhile. This was followed by a totally misfired musical number starring Neil Patrick Harris, who is a funny guy. Go to YouTube and find some of his Tony Awards antics, they are hysterical. But here, his number introducing Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin, as well as making fun of some of the nominees, was unmemorable and just plain awful.

Then down came our hosts, lowered from the rafters of the stage, and as they came out and began their rapport, I realized what a miscalculated decision this co-hosting job was. Martin lead most of the jokes, with Baldwin following suit. Baldwin looked uncomfortable up there, and it was more obvious then ever that the lines were scripted. The problem with two co-hosts is it makes improvisation harder, especially when they don't have a good chemistry. That is what the two lacked as well; a Colbert/Stewart pairing would fire up some great chemistry, or any number of, but these two are obviously funnier when there's an editor in the chair choosing their best lines.

Christoph Waltz's win was expected, as was Pete Doctor's for Up and T-Bone Burnett for Crazy Heart. Screenplay went with the WGA, so I guess Tarantino isn't as liked by his peers as we thought he was. Mark Boal still gave a rousing speech.

Then there was an unexpected but very sweet tribute to John Hughes, who died this past year. Matthew Broderick, Molly Ringwald, Macauly Culkin, and many others came out onstage and a very touching montage was shown of all his films. I've never been the biggest Hughes fan myself (Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is my favorite of his), but I recognize what makes him so loved, and he deserved these minutes. It came in place of the usual Honorary Award, which they didn't hand out this year, so I'm guessing this is who they meant it for.

In the short films I keep learning different lessons; Logorama won, which I thought was the best, and I guess I should have gone with my favorite from the Live-Action, The New Tenants. I thought for sure the Academy would take the bait Chernobyl, but I guess like Six Shooter, you should always go for the film that ends in bloodshed. And fuck Documentary Short; if there's anything I learned this year, it is to not even listen to what other people are picking and select a random title. I did it two years ago and got it right, and it is what I will continue doing.

Ben Stiller in Na'Vi makeup was a highlight of the night. Much better then his miscalculated Joaquin Phoenix impersonation, he fully embodied the character of the Na'Vi. Ironically, he pointed out, Avatar was not up for Makeup, and maybe he should have worn Spock ears. And the makeup was so good that I kind of wish Avatar had combined more of that. Stiller proved that actors have the most intense eyes, and are more alive then any computer will be able to imitate. Then Star Trek won, which is no surprise.

Then the biggest upset of the night, won that I don't think any official prognosticator saw coming: Precious upset Up in the Air for Best Adapted Screenplay, and a very emotionally overwhelmed Geoffrey Fletcher and gave probably the most passionate speech of the night. His upset was very unexpected, and I'm still trying to figure out how it happened. Up in the Air was so certain! But hey, that's why we watch, because there is always one big upset.

Avatar and The Young Victoria won Art Direction and Costume Design, respectively, and then Zac Efron and Anna Kendrick came out to distribute the Sound awards. We got a very funny clip narrated by Morgan Freeman about the Sound work in The Dark Knight, and clarifying for us what exactly the difference is. I've done Sound work and I even have a had time telling. The Hurt Locker surprisingly won both awards (I was sure Avatar was going to win one of them, so I put it down for both). That guy was strange.

Martin and Baldwin showed an amusing Paranormal Activity spoof of them to introduce the Horror montage. Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner came and made the introduction proper, though I noticed Stewart seemed either really nervous, or strung out on drugs. Or both, she is Joan Jett in the new movie The Runaways. The Horror montage was great, though one of them said Horror has been little recognized since The Exorcist more then 30 years ago. Excuse me, but what about The Silence of the Lambs winning Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay a mere 19 years ago? Horror isn't under-recognized, it's just done bad most of the time.

Mauro Fiore became another famous alum of my college Columbia College Chicago to win an Academy Award for Cinematography (for Avatar) though I still feel you shouldn't win for a movie that was created mostly in a computer. Following this was as a very odd interpretive dance to all the Original Score nominees, followed by Michael Giacchino winning for Up. Well deserved, well deserved.

Avatar wins visual effects, easily the most locked category of the night. The Cove wins best Documentary, and Ric O'Berra comes onstage and holds up a sign that says "Text Dolphin to 41....something something". I couldn't tell because the cameras quickly cut away to a shot of the audience, which made me mad. Let Mr. O'Berra, who is fighting for something he believes in, to have his moment in the spotlight.

Tyler Perry handed out Film Editing, and made fun of himself for probably never being able to hear his name again at the Oscars (I guess I can appreciate someone who knows their work isn't great). The Hurt Locker won, of course. Pedro Almodovar and Quentin Tarantino handed out the Best Foreign Language Oscar to El Secreto de Sus Ojos, which I haven't seen and merely predicted on the hunch that you can't go with anything that's already out. Finally, the final four, and the Oscars hit the 210 minute mark, already over-running their length.

They continued having people talk about the Actors, which I liked, and this time they made it old friends of the Nominees, rather then famous movie stars who might have nothing to do with the person they are taking about. Michelle Pfeiffer introduced Jeff Bridges, Vera Farmiga talked about George Clooney, Julianne Moore about Colin Firth, Tim Robbins about Morgan Freeman, and Colin Farrell about Jeremy Renner. Jeff Bridges won.

For Actress, Forest Whitaker introduces Sandra Bullock, Michael Sheen about Helen Mirren, Peter Skarsgaard about Carey Mulligan, Stanley Tucci about Meryl Streep, and Oprah about Gabourey Sidibe. Sandra Bullock, as expected, won. She said she wasn't going to cry (they all do), but she broke down a bit at the end. I've grown to like her as this Awards Season pressed on, but I still don't think she deserved it.

Then Oscar officially made history with Barbra Streisand walking to welcome the first female director ever into the white boys club. I think it would have been hilarious if Lee Daniels or Jim Cameron had won instead. Barbra makes the moment fairly epic; as she opened the card she paused and then said, "Well, the time has come, Kathryn Bigelow." She was great, and I was very happy she won.

Now the Oscars were 30 minutes into overtime, so Tom Hanks simply came out and opened the envelope. No recap of the ten nominees at all, he just came out, ripped open that envelope, and announced The Hurt Locker for Best Picture. Kathryn Bigelow was too stunned to give a speech, so Mark Boal spoke for her. It was proud moment that exemplifies the Academy honors what really is a great movie, not merely a great spectacle.

But overall this show as a step-back from last year. My advice: bring back Stewart, cut out all musical numbers. That would help. These shows can seem long and it doesn't help that the co-stars weren't funny.

UNTIL NEXT YEAR!

82nd Annual Academy Awards

Thoughts on the Red Carpet:

- Kathy Ireland is really annoying

- So is Miley Cyrus

- Taylor Lautner DOES NOT play the most famous werewolf. That was Lon Chaney, Jr.

And here we go...

Best Supporting Actor

Prediction: Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds

Winner: Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds

Animated Feature

Prediction: Up

Winner: Up

Original Song

Prediction: "The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)" from Crazy Heart

Winner: "The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)" from Crazy Heart

Screenplay, Original

Prediction: Inglourious Basterds

Winner: The Hurt Locker

Short Film, Animated

Prediction: Logorama

Winner: Logorama

Documentary Short

Prediction: The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant

Winner: Music by Prudence

Short Film, Live Action

Prediction: The Door

Winner: The New Tenants

Makeup

Prediction: Star Trek

Winner: Star Trek

Screenplay, Adapted

Prediction: Up in the Air

Winner: Precious

Supporting Actress

Prediction: Mo'Nique in Precious

Winner: Mo'Nique in Precious

Art Direction

Prediction: Avatar

Winner: Avatar

Costume Design

Prediction: The Young Victoria

Winner: The Young Victoria

Sound Editing

Prediction: Avatar

Winner: The Hurt Locker

Sound Mixing

Prediction: Avatar

Winner: The Hurt Locker

Cinematography

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Winner: Avatar

Original Score

Prediction: Up

Winner: Up

Visual Effects

Prediction: Avatar

Winner: Avatar

Documentary Feature

Prediction: The Cove

Winner: The Cove

Film Editing

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Winner: The Hurt Locker

Foreign Language Film

Prediction: El Secreto de Sus Ojos

Winner: El Secreto de Sus Ojos

Leading Actor

Prediction: Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart

Winner: Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart

Leading Actress

Prediction: Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side

Winner: Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side

Directing

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Winner: The Hurt Locker

Best Picture

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Winner: The Hurt Locker

Overall: 17/24

Boo ya motherfucker!

82nd Annual Academy Awards: My Predictions

And another year comes to an end. This will be the third official post I've made about the Oscars and what film I believe is going to win. This year was a pretty good year, with a lot of great little films peppered in. Will Avatar win tonight? Probably, but I'm staying true to The Hurt Locker, and Basterds could pull through if the Actors theory holds up. Most categories are locked, with the two toss-ups being Original Screenplay an Picture. So, what are my predictions?

Leading Actor

Last year I coin-flipped and guessed Sean Penn would win, and hurrah, I was right! This year, Jeff Bridges is the clear favorite, and there is no reason he is going to lose. He has tons of love from his acting friends, who gave him a standing ovation at the SAG awards, and he's been cleaning house with every other show. Colin Firth is better, in a complex, layered, and emotional turn in A Single Man. Morgan Freeman embodied Nelson Mandela, and it was a fitting role because Mandela himself told Freeman he would like him to play him in a biopic. George Clooney was once the frontrunner, and has now fallen back to least likely with Jeremy Renner, who was the "surprise" nomination (not really, we all knew it was going to happen). Jeff Bridges, this is yours to lose.

Prediction: Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart

Supporting Actor

The Academy has a had a fond fascination with serial killers these past couple years, Javier Bardem and Heath Ledger being the last two to win for psychotic characters. This year will be no different, with Christoph Waltz being the clear favorite (and, like Ledger, he has been since the summer), for playing the ruthlessly smart, selfish, and evil Hans Landa. Matt Damon sported a satisfactory South African accent, Woody Harrelson cried, Christopher Plummer was gruff I guess (didn't see this one), and Stanley Tucci was also an evil serial killer. But none of them have had as much heat behind them as Mr. Waltz, who will dance away with this award. If my presumption is correct, this will be the first award presented too, so the lack of suspense will be over with quickly.

Prediction: Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds

Leading Actress

There are a lot of interesting performances in this category, but overall leading roles for men and women were weak this year. Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe should be the two duking it out for Best Actress, but Sandra Bullock somehow blasted in front of the competition and is now the clear frontrunner for this award. Admittedly, she gave a pretty good performance and was the only level-headed character in that entire film, but she certainly does not deserve an Oscar for it, not even a nomination (and how The Blind Side is even nominated is beyond me). Meryl Streep is the only one for a potential upset, but I don't see how Bullock can lose at this rate. The Academy loves a biopic performance, of which there are three in this case, so you gotta go with the most popular one (lesson learned from Marion Cotillard two years ago).

Prediction: Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side

Supporting Actress

The last two years this category has alluded me, but this year it is not doing it. Penelope Cruz is up again for Nine, but she is NOT winning this time; Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick are both nominated for their roles in Up in the Air, and they were both very good and should be happy to be there; and Maggie Gyllenhaal was the surprise nomination for Crazy Heart, but that film won't sweep. So, it's down to Mo'Nique, who has had buzz surround her since this film was mentioned way back when last year. Her performance was powerful and one of the best things about that movie, and it'll be a pleasure to see her win. Any other winner would be a huge upset.

Prediction: Mo'Nique in Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire

Animated Feature

Pixar is in it again, and is going to win for sure, but it should be noted that this is the first year there are five nominees. Coraline is overrated if you ask me, but still decent; Fantastic Mr. Fox is a delightful film and a possible upset; The Princess and the Frog is only here because it brings back traditional animation; and The Secret of Kells is the little-wtf film that nobody has heard of, but I hear is quite good. If voters were required to see all the films I would put money on Kells, but since it is one of the popularity contest categories, the clear winner will be the best of the lot, Up, though I feel the Academy is tiring of handing this one to Pixar all the time. Missing from this category: Ponyo.

Prediction: Up

Art Direction

I've only seen one of the nominees in this category, and it is also the one that will likely win. Avatar's design is massive and impressive, realizing lush forests and a futuristic space world. Sherlock Holmes could be upset, but I think this is a locked category.

Prediction: Avatar

Cinematography

This category is a toss-up: Avatar, Hurt Locker, and The White Ribbon all could win this award. Avatar I disqualify because 60% of the movie is created by the computer, so a lot of that wasn't lighting by the DP anyways. White Ribbon has sumptuous black and white photography that is visually arresting and could very well pull in a sneak attack win. But, I think this is Hurt Locker's category, with it's beautiful imagery of slo-mo bomb explosions. Harry Potter stands no chance.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Costume Design

The hard lesson I have learned over the past two years is never defy the Costume Drama (Elizabeth and The Duchess won the prior two years), so I will go with The Young Victoria as my pick for the Costume award. Though watch, now Nine or Doctor Parnassus will win this award and throw off my lesson to myself. Bright Star, the other costume movie, could very will win as well, but it's not about royalty, so its costumes are more plain and less extravagant.

Prediction: The Young Victoria

Directing

This one should be a shoe-in lock for Bigelow. If Cameron wins, fuck the Academy. Bigelow made a better, more courageous film anyways. And it's time to end the 81-year history of white men winning this award. It's an historical moment for the Academy, and I don't see them voting the other way. Bigelow.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Documentary Feature

I don't pretend to know anything about this category since voters have to view all five films to cast a choice. I have seen two of them, and of the two the better made film is The Cove: it is exciting, dangerous, and conveys an important message. I don't see any other film in that category beating it; it's simply too damn entertaining. But, again, I haven't seen three of the nominees, so what do I know?

Prediction: The Cove

Documentary Short

I actually have seen one of the films nominated in this category, China's Unnatural Disaster, and that was a powerfully made film about a terrible disaster and the government's unwillingness to flinch on the matter. But another film, The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant (unseen by me) is the clear frontrunner because it deals with an issue that directly effects us as Americans. I can't judge the quality of the film, but it probably connected the most with Academy voters and will most likely win. But again, I haven't seen four of these films.

Prediction: The Last Truck: Closing of GM Plant

Film Editing

I feel this category is locked. What District 9 is doing here I'm not certain, but if The Hurt Locker wins, it should indicate a Best Pic victory (though who knows). If Avatar wins, then it will take Best Picture. Or not. Editing doesn't necessarily correlate, but one assumes it should. Still, Hurt Locker relies a lot on precise editing to build tension and heighten those explosion scenes, and it worked very well, so there's no reason it shouldn't win.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Foreign Language Film

Another category I'm not going to pretend to know anything about, since I have only seen The White Ribbon. A Prophet is supposed to be excellent, but I'm going to pick El Secreto De Sus Ojos to win. Why? No reason, but I'm not confident in any of the films so it seems like a good option. Remember The Lives of Others and Departures upsetting? Well, Kris Tapley predicted those upsets and is predicting Ojos, so I'm just going with him.

Prediction: El Secreto de Sus Ojos

Makeup

With only three nominees, the winner should be clear. Il Divo and The Young Victoria are nothing fantastic, but Star Trek had that all green lady. So it wins.

Prediction: Star Trek

Original Score

Michael Giacchino will finally get his due with his beautiful score for Up, though Fantastic Mr. Fox deserves recognition for its fun score as well. The Hurt Locker and Avatar were unmemorable, and Sherlock Holmes...I don't know it. But Up deserves it, and will get it.

Prediction: Up

Original Song

No strong showings this year, unlike the past two years when we got Jai Ho and Falling Slowly. The Wear Kind from Crazy Heart will undoubtedly win, since the others are all unmemorable (especially Princess and the Frog). Go T Bone!

Prediction: "The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart) from Crazy Heart"

Short Film, Animated

I saw all the films this year, and wrote a review of all them already. I'm going with Logorama, although you should know that A Matter of Loaf and Death, the new Wallace & Gromit short, is the favorite and probably will win. But Logorama was something unique and very, very different. And I lot of people liked it, so I'm predicting an upset on Nick Park this year. Logorama all the way!

Prediction: Logorama

Short Film, Live Action

Again, I've seen all the films and already written a review on them. None of them were particularly strong, but you can probably go with The Door, since it is about Chernobyl and tugs at the heart strings. The others ranged from OK to good, but none stand out as Oscar bait more then The Door.

Prediction: The Door

Sound Editing & Mixing

They are different categories, but I'm lumping them together because my prediction for them both stands the same. Yes, they are very different arts, but I think Avatar is the clear winner for both. Of course, Hurt Locker could upset in the Mixing section, but otherwise this is Avatar's to lose.

Prediction for both: Avatar

Visual Effects

Locked. Avatar. Go home.

Prediction: Avatar

Screenplay, Adapted

This one is a lock for Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner. Up in the Air perfectly balances a multitude of themes and plots, and it wouldn't have been possible without a great script. I would love an In the Loop upset, but Up in the Air deserves it.

Prediction: Up in the Air

Screenplay, Original

This category is one of the biggest toss-ups, between the Guild-favorite Hurt Locker and Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. Basterds didn't make a show at the WGA because Tarantino himself is not a member, which is fair. It just makes it harder for us prognosticators to decide who will win since we don't know which way the writers themselves lean. But the actors really like Basterds, and Tarantino has a gift for building long dialogue scenes, so I don't see this one losing. Hurt Locker works more on a visual level then a script level, and I'm sure Basterds is a more entertaining read.

Prediction: Inglourious Basterds

Best Picture

This year, we have ten films nominated for Best Picture, and a new preferential system that could really fuck with the results. Three movies stand-out as the possible winners. First, Avatar, which has made more then $2.6 billion worldwide, which makes it obviously a favorite with the public, but it lacks support from both the Writers and the Actors (it has no nominations in either of those categories). Cameron himself has said give Bigelow director, but give us Picture. However, I feel Picture should mean that best overall elements, and Avatar is purely a technical achievement. Now, Hurt Locker, which has been cleaning house at the major guild awards; the only thing it has going against it is that it only made $13 million domestic during its run in theaters. However, it is a very popular rental item, and has been listed for the last month on Netflix as "Long wait" for availability. People are watching it. Finally, Inglourious Basterds, the dark horse that took the SAG ensemble award. It definitely has strong acting, strong writing, and strong directing. It's a terrific film, and one that I bet could upset and actually take the award. However, it is also a fanboy film, and most of the members probably vote by what is most popular. However, if people try and fuck Avatar and Hurt Locker over by putting them at 10, then Basterds could win. At the end of the day, though, I'm going with Hurt Locker; it will probably lose, but it is the best film of all the nominees and one of the best of the decade.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

And there you have it. I believe the show starts at 8:30/5:30 ET/PT, live all across the nation (and I guess in Australia). I'll come back after the show and tell how well I did. The worse I do, the drunker I'll be though.

LET'S DO THIS!