Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

We've moved well past the era of the known, popular superheroes and are now delving into new ones that the public may not be so familiar with. This summer we got Thor and Green Lantern, two comic heroes that are not as well known to the general public. Now Captain America, who everyone knows by name, but many don't know the story. You can count me as part of that group, as I had no knowledge of the mythology surrounding Captain America, the first junkie.

I'm being cruel. Captain America establishes the character of Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) as a 90-pound weakling, a kid who keeps getting beat-up despite his courage, and who keeps enlisting in the army despite his multiple rejections. His plucky attitude catches the eye of eccentric mad-scientist Stanly Tucci, affecting a wonderfully overdone German accent, who convinces him to undergo a (dangerous) new test that will make him a super soldier. Tommy Lee Jones provides a gruff colonel character, and Hayley Atwell puts her clothed assets and wonderfully red lips on display.

The experimental test goes well, and we receive Captain America, the idealized American hero who will not bat an eye in the face of evil and has the courage and resolve to sacrifice himself for his country (an early scene with a grenade is the filmmaker's way of practically punching you in the face with what the Captain will do later). But on the flip side is the villain, Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving, returning to the evildoer's chair after 8 years), who finds a cosmic blue cube thingy and then harnesses its energy into crazy super weapons that vaporize its targets. His scenes with Dr. Zola (Toby Jones) are Grade A pulp fun, as he develops his own breed of soldiers to usurp even Hitler. You know he's a bad guy when the SS's commanders come investigating, and he murders them.

The movie has a beautiful look to it, harkening back to that city of the future model we saw in a prior super hero film (wink wink, guess which one), and the production design's retro 40s outfitting is warm and welcoming. The goofy sets are great fun, and though they are primarily CGI, they are still wonderful to behold. It kind of fits this alternate take on our past anyways.

Roger's development as a character and hero is well done in this film, and is something we haven't seen in superhero films in awhile (though I can't speak for other offerings this summer, as I have yet to see them). His can do attitude and resolve in the face of adversity is admirable, and we spend a great deal of the first hour with Evans in his 90-pound CGI body. (I have to give the artists big kudos here, I thought they simply grafted Evans' face onto a skinny person. Instead, they actually reconstructed Evans' body, a truly remarkable feat).

But once Rogers becomes Captain America, and Schmidt pulls of his face to reveal he is the Red Skull, the movie lost me. No, I wasn't confused, I just suddenly wasn't emotionally invested anymore. The film establishes both the hero and villain quite well, and then suddenly begins rushing events as the Captain begins tracking down Red Skull, in a rather boring, though explosive, montage. It felt like the filmmakers realized they had to keep the film within a two-hour running time, and began condensing later events. The result is choppy and detached.

And there's no real relationship between Captain America and Red Skull. Oh sure, Skull has someone executed who matters to Captain America I guess (I shan't reveal who, but the character is gone before you know it). But they don't share a connection like Peter Parker and Norman Osborne, or a contest like the Joker and Batman. Besides threatening to blow-up America, Red Skull doesn't quite strike you as truly evil beyond his blasé plan to conquer the world, and he's hard to take serious in that silly red make-up. Hugo Weaving is way more terrifying as himself then spaghetti sauce face.

Ultimately its an enjoyable flick, but as far as the comic book film canon goes, it is below other superhero fare. This has all, of course, been building to Marvel's tentpole event of next summer, The Avenger, where we will see the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America unite. I will of course see Thor to better prepare myself for this coming film. I do look forward to that film.

Final note: The biggest crossover in the Marvel films occurs here, with Dominic Cooper playing Howard Stark, father to Tony Stark/Iron Man. He plays a large role in the film, and is one of the pleasures of Marvel's big giant crossover fest.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

It's odd to finally say goodbye to something that has been apart of my life for so long. The series of Harry Potter truly ended four years ago with the release of the seventh and final book, something we all anticipated with baited breath. That came out when I was making my transition from High School into College.

Now I have graduated College, and so it seems like fitting timing for the final of the Harry Potter films to be released, and for me to finally lay to rest and bid adieu the series that will define my generation. Truly, there have been few things in pop culture to rival the popularity of Harry Potter. We may never again have a book series so exciting that it causes all ages, kids to adults, to line up at midnight to purchase the new entry in the series.

And the films themselves are a remarkable achievement. True, they don't come close to rivaling the books, but the fact that the same core stuck with the film for so long, and that the only recasting came from Richard Harris' death is remarkable. The films have been magnificently successful, and the fact that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson have grown to embody these three iconic characters is owed in large part to the casting. Ginny Weasley is one of the few characters who was ill cast (Bonnie Wright has never been particularly compelling).

And how does the final film hold up? It opens right where the last one left off, with Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) stealing the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's grave. Then we pick up with Harry, Ron, and Hermione staying with Ron's brother and plotting their next move, a break-in at the great Wizarding Bank Gringotts to infiltrate Bellatrix Lestrange's vault, in the hopes they will locate another Horcrux.

After the first five minutes, the remaining two hours take place over a single 24-hour period, as the trio infiltrates the bank in a wonderful sequence that finally, FINALLY gives us the scope of the caverns that lie beneath Gringotts, something that many criticized film one for leaving out. There is also a dragon, that owns its screen time and becomes quite a sympathetic character, yearning for sunlight and savoring its freedom once obtained. It's moment that could easily have been overlooked, but the CG wizards make it an emotional instant that works.

Harry then returns to Hogwarts to locate another Horcrux, and inadvertently begins the final standoff with Voldemort. It's a rather well executed final battle, and my only nitpick is that we don't get to see more of the resistance against Voldemort's onslaught (his army indeed outnumbers the forces at Hogwarts by 10-1). But there's also so many loose ends and back story to tie up that this can be forgiven.

Rather then continue summarizing, I will instead break off and mention what worked and what didn't. Probably the most important element that they nailed was Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), who is above all the most complex character in the Potterverse. The emotional impact his story has, the final revelation of his true colors, nearly brought a tear to my eye and definitely choked me up. It drives home the central theme of the entire series, that love conquers all. To see Snape's undying love for Harry's mother, and his allegiance to Dumbledore to protect her and her son, is a touching yet heartbreaking moment.

And Fiennes is finally given a lot of screen time (after being absent in Half-Blood Prince), finally making Voldemort the terrifying, fantastic villain he was meant to be. Not only does he strut about, sure of his immortality, but he is also allowed to express vulnerability as he realizes Harry is slowly wearing him down. The villain is always more fun to play, and Fiennes makes Voldemort a truly frightening presence.

There are also other great British actors, though Jim Broadbent (Slughorn) and Emma Thompson (Trelawney) are decidedly wasted and do nothing significant. But others including Maggie Smith, Jason Isaacs, Robbie Coltrane, Gary Oldman, Helena Bonham Carter, John Hurt, Warwick Davis, and Michael Gambon are put to good use and round out this terrific, powerhouse cast.

But the real pleasure has been seeing all the kids in the cast, including Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom, grow up into capable adults. Their lives have been presented to us in a sort of shortened Up Series, progressing from 11 to 21 (all the actors are around the same age as me). Years from now, they have the rare ability to look back upon these films, a time capsule of their youth (and ours).

Now, what the film did wrong: The whole final ten minutes, including Voldemort's death, is slightly underwhelming and doesn't quite pack the epic, satisfying punch that I was hoping for. Sure the movie delivers several cheer worthy moments, including the destruction of Voldemort's snake, but Voldemort's demise is more of a fizzle then a bang, though Harry and Voldemort's final duel is decidedly more action-packed then the novel (Harry talked down Voldemort for a solid ten minutes and explained a lot of things). But Voldemort simply dissolves into the wind and the next scene is simply all the characters sitting around drinking tea and recuperating, instead of joyously celebrating the fact that Voldemort has died. It's a moment that should have the audience on their feet, crazy with applause, and instead Voldemort just disappears. Disappointing.

And a moment that didn't work in the book or the movie is the 19-years-later epilogue, which while it provides the necessary wrap-up, feels like something out of an SNL sketch showing these characters nearing middle age (especially Radcliffe's make-up). It does provide a sweet moment between Harry and his son, and brings the series full circle, but I've always felt it make everything too perfect. Harry and Ginny stayed together, Ron and Hermione stayed together, and all was well. For a series with such a dark view of the world, the ending is decidedly optimistic.

These quibbles aside however, one must applaud David Yates, the man bequeathed the task of taking Harry into the final run by directing four of the eight films in the series. If he hasn't come out as a stylist, he has successfully created a continuity between the universes of the films, and ended the series as satisfyingly as he could. Alfonso Cuaron, director of part 3, still made the most stylistic Potter, and the most filmic. His hand has never been rivaled and everyone wished he would have helmed more, but hey, you can't always get what you want.

The films may have never achieved what the books did, but you have to admire Warner Bros. for sticking it out, through and through (how could they resist 7 or 8 easily marketable and definitely profitable films). Plenty of other popular children books have failed to translate (including the wonderful The Golden Compass), and the fact that this series made it is a feat in and of itself.

Harry Potter's end serves, I guess, as my final closure to the world that I have embraced for 12 years since I first discovered the books. I have left college now, and must look on to a terrifying yet exciting future, without any more Harry Potter films to look forward too. I have grown with these movies; I was 11 when the first movie came out, and am now in my early twenties, ready to bid adieu to the series. There will be no other film series like Harry Potter, that takes us through such a long, emotional journey that spans ten years and actually ends on a mostly fantastic note. This type of thing is once in a lifetime, and though I hate to do it, it is finally time to say a heartfelt farewell to the characters, the actors, the books, the movies, the entire world of Harry Potter. Thank you for providing escape to a magical, far off world, something that I will share with my children in years to come.

Super 8 (2011)

*This review contains spoilers*

J.J. Abrams, the writer and director of the new summer blockbuster Super 8, should be praised for putting what is likely to be the only original movie this summer (meaning there is no prior existing source material or it is not a sequel). How disappointing, then, that this movie lacks the inspiration that audiences need in this day and age to remind them that good, original filmmaking is worth fighting for. That there can be a heart to a film, not just loud explosions throughout.

Abrams more or less succeeds at this noble goal in the first hour of the film, in which the only major action set pieces are a ridiculously huge train crash, and a scary gas station attack. It is in this first hour that we are introduced to the child cast, lead by Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) and auteur Charles (Riley Griffith). There are other various stereotypes that make up the group, including a pyromaniac and two anxious nerds. A love interest is introduced in the form of Alice (Elle Fanning), who agrees to act in the super 8 film these kids are making, and tender scenes between her and Joe abound. They really are well done.

But then the monster is introduced, and it is here that the movie unravels. The scenes where the monster attacks are well done and thrilling, but the film takes a complete 180 at the end as it is discovered this beast really just wants to go home. You can tell Abrams wants you to feel sorry for this creature, but after watching an hour of this thing viciously kill dozens of innocent people, the moment Joe and the beast have at the end borders on the ludicrous and as the movie imitates E.T.'s ending, you are filled with tears of disappointment for what this movie could have been.

Abrams effectively establishes his characters but seems to have no idea how to make their character arcs more organic. Both Joe and Alice have daddy issues which are neatly resolved inexplicably by the end. Things come to happy yet unsatisfying conclusion.

And the real problem is that damn monster, a stranded alien from outer space. Spielberg made aliens lovable and friendly with Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T. (1982), and Abrams clearly is modeling his film after both of these. Yet in Close Encounters people are abducted, but no one is harmed and everyone is returned safely at the end. And E.T. is as harmless as can be. I don't mind Abrams wanting to have the alien monster be a savage killer, but the creature needs to be introduced to us as more sympathetic then this movie's lousy excuse. King Kong shepherds Anne around the whole movie, never intending on harming her, and we see his gentle side and feel sympathy when the nasty humans take him. This monster doesn't even have a memorable design.

Abrams is a skilled director, but he's more a craftsman then an artist. Star Trek is essentially a lot of action scenes, and its a well done film, but it lacks heart. Super 8 sows the seeds of Abrams injecting real emotion into a story, but in the end, he's just a kid with a big budget looking to make his monster movie.

End note: stay for the end credits, the Super 8 film shown is better then the movie you just saw.

The Office

Thursday night saw the airing of the episode Goodbye, Michael, Steve Carrell's final episode of the show as his iconic character, Michael Scott. After one final interview at the airport, Michael finally removes his lavalier mic, and gives one silent, final "That's what she said," before departing. As I see it, that is the perfect ending moment for the entire show as a whole.

It was always Michael that drove the show. He was the emotional center of it all, and he's always been the most interesting character, for all his faults. Jim (John Krasinski) and Pam (Jenna Fischer) got pretty boring three seasons ago, and now that they are settled down with a baby, they pretty much have nowhere to go. Will Pam's dreams as an artist be realized? Or will she be stuck with her husband at the failing paper company?

Dwight (Rainn Wilson) has always been a comic relief character, and he pretty much went as absurd as possible with season 4 Super Bowl episode where he stages a real-fake fire that is definitely one of the show's funniest bits. But Dwight as a character has never been particularly compelling beyond his random flings with Angela (Angela Kingsley).

Andy (Ed Helms), Erin (Ellie Kemper), and Gabe (Zach Woods) have been involved in a love triangle, but I felt this was properly resolved in Michael's final episode, as Erin asks Michael who she should choose. He wisely replies neither, and that she should wait and will know when the right man comes along.

Even Andy himself is given a victory as he resigns one of Michael's old clients for another year, after the "new" boss Deangelo (Will Ferrell) flubs the sale with horrible tactics. Even this guy is fine, if you ignore the ending bit where he freaks out over eating cake (which of course builds the final string of episodes for the season, which will rotate many guest stars vying for Carrell's old position). They lose one incompetent manager and are given another, and life goes on.

And Ryan (B.J. Novak), the temp who rose to power in the company and then screwed everything up, improbably ended up back with Dunder Mifflin, except now he works in a closet. I'm not even sure what his function is, other then to be there because, well, Ryan has always been there.

My point is, there is no where else for this show to go, and it felt like it was dragging its feet with Michael. Imagine what it will be like without him? I don't really care for the rest of these people enough to see them go on, and I am highly satisfied with the way the characters were resolved (or unresolved) in this episode. Life is not neat and tidy, and the uncertainty of a Dunder Mifflin without Michael is something I don't care to experience.

So I consider Goodbye, Michael the final episode of the whole show. The Office is running on fumes as it is, and I hate American TV because they have to squeeze every last ounce of life out of it before it will end. I wish they had taken the opportunity of Steve Carrell's departure to end the show once and for all, but instead it will go on. And don't get me wrong, the entire supporting cast is wonderful. But without Carrell at the helm, it will never feel the same, and I am satisfied leaving these people and this universe exactly as it is.

83rd Annual Academy Awards

Well, I did one worse then last year. If only I had changed one prediction to be right, I would have tied my record. Still, 16/24 is respectable enough I suppose. Here is the last of what I got wrong (because I don't feel like retyping everything).

Supporting Actress

Prediction: Hailee Steinfeld for "True Grit"

Winner: Melissa Leo for "The Fighter"

Art Direction

Prediction: Inception

Winner: Alice in Wonderland

Lesson Learned: Never bet against Tim Burton for Art Direction. Sweeney Todd upset three years ago.

Cinematography

Prediction: True Grit

Winner: Inception

Thoughts: It did look pretty sweet on IMAX.

Directing

Prediction: The Social Network

Winner: The King's Speech

Lesson Learned: Go with DGA

Documentary Feature

Prediction: Exit Through the Gift Shop

Winner: Inside Job

Original Score

Prediction: The King's Speech

Winner: The Social Network

Animated Short Film

Prediction: The Gruffalo

Winner: The Lost Thing

Live Action Short Film

Prediction: Na Wewe

Winner: God of Love

83rd Annual Academy Awards: My Predictions

So here we are, once again, another Academy Awards ceremony. Every year we go and make our picks for who is going to win what. This year is a particularly exciting race because we have The Social Network, the critics darling (and my favorite film of the year) against the more audience-pleasing The King's Speech. Its fun to not have a sure thing for the Best Picture (last year's Hurt Locker v. Avatar was a fun duel), but King's Speech is pretty much guaranteed to win. That said, there are only 10 categories that I'm certain of, and 14 I'm hesitant of. After last year's Up in the Air upset for Adapted Screenplay (Precious being the winner), I am now sizing up all the sure things (Toy Story 3 for animated, Christian Bale for Supporting Actor) and debating which one won't happen. It's a lot of speculation, so here it goes, my picks for the winners at this year's 83rd Annual Academy Awards:

Leading Actor

This one is a sure thing. If there is any category you should not bet against, it is this one. Colin Firth has locked this prize since, well, whenever the King's Speech debuted (I think it was at Toronto). Javier Bardem is the surprise nom for Alejandro Gonzales-Inarritu's Biutiful, and Jeff Bridges, Jesse Eisenberg, and James Franco all did terrific work. But its the one J-name that will win this award, and though he should have won last year for A Single Man, Colin Firth still deserves the prize.

My Prediction: Colin Firth for "The King's Speech"

Supporting Actor

The last couple of years this category has been dominated by sadistic serial killers, from Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh through Heath Ledger's Joker and Christoph Waltz's Hans Landa. Jeremy Renner is the closest thing we get to a bad guy this year, and he's not all that bad anyways. Christian Bale was the emotional center of The Fighter, and provided the film with its best moments. He has cleaned house at every awards show, and rightly deserves to charge on to the Oscar. But many people have speculated Geoffrey Rush could upset in this category for his terrific turn as King George VI's speech therapist, Lionel Logue. It is difficult to imagine the film without Rush. That being said, I think the Academy will go with Bale, who gives the showier performance.

My Prediction: Christian Bale for "The Fighter"

Leading Actress

There are no sure things. But it would be foolish to bet against Natalie Portman's performance in Black Swan. It may not be the best of the year, but its the role that has the most acting in it, and thats all you need for the Academy. Michelle Williams, Jennifer Lawrence, and Annette Bening all give terrific performances in their respective roles, and some are even calling for a Bening upset (Nicole Kidman's performance remains unseen by me). But I don't see anyone else winning besides Portman.

My Prediction: Natalie Portman for "Black Swan"

Supporting Actress

Now HERE is where I am predicting an upset. Melissa Leo has been sweeping all the awards up, from guild to globe, and is the frontrunner and favorite to win the award. However, there is another nominee, one Hailee Steinfeld, who gives the best performance in True Grit (in fact, she is a lead character), and yet finds herself relegated to this category because she is young and doesn't stand a chance against the titans of the lead actresses (for my money I'd love to see her nominated in the leading category just because she would give Portman a run for her money). If the Academy goes for a King's Speech sweep, then Helena Bonham Carter could take this one, but I highly doubt it. I'm going with Steinfeld, a newcomer to be sure, but one who is nominated in the wrong category and deserves to be recognized for it.

My Prediction: Hailee Steinfeld for "True Grit"

Animated Feature

Now this category is a sure thing right? Right? How to Train Your Dragon beat Toy Story 3 at the Annie Awards (awards for animation), but Kung Fu Panda topped Wall•E two years ago and failed to win. Plus, TS3 is nominated for Best Picture, so it is pretty much designated the favorite. You never know, though. Still, I'm going for the sure thing.

My Prediction: Toy Story 3

Art Direction

A lot of prognosticators are predicting the King's Speech for this one, which I don't understand. Inception and Alice in Wonderland are two very visual movies that required a lot more imagination then the King's Speech, which hardly excels in any technical categories. While I like the Alice in Wonderland design, I felt it was too muddy and dark. Inception creates dream spaces, houses that exist on water, crumbling buildings, rotating hallways, and much more. It's a perfect marriage of visual and practical effects, and creates a fantastic city scape. The King's Speech, alternatively, was shot on a location previously used by a Gay Porn Film, so you decide.

My Prediction: Inception

Cinematography

Roger Deakins has been nominated 9 times now, for The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, Kundun, O Brother, The Man Who Wasn't There, No Country for Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James, The Reader, and now True Grit. He's never won. It's time.

My Prediction: True Grit

Costume Design

So I have learned to never bet against the costume drama. The Young Victoria, Elizabeth, and The Duchess have all won. The King's Speech in the common sense choice, but are the costumes really that impressive? Especially when you have a nomination like Alice in Wonderland, which excelled at the costumes designed for the Mad Hatter, the Red Queen, and various other characters. The King's Speech is far and above the favorite, but I'm going to have to go against conventional wisdom. Alice in Wonderland is a close second, plus I don't feel the King's Speech to be a Costume Drama.

My Prediction: Alice in Wonderland

Directing

Now this is a big category. Tom Hooper is the obvious favorite to win, especially since he won the DGA award and The King's Speech seems to have everyone else's vote. But a lot of people are predicting a David Fincher upset here. The Coens have won before, and everyone else is new to this race. The only reason I can predicate a Fincher win is because he won at the BAFTAs, the British Oscars. Back in 2002, Rob Marshall won the DGA and yet somehow Polanski upset him for Director. Polanski had previously won the BAFTA for best directing. It's a long shot, and of course logically Fincher's win should indicate a Social Network win...but Fincher is a fantastic, interesting director, a complex man who knows exactly what he wants and knows how to get it. I truly think this is his award.

My Prediction: The Social Network

Documentary Feature

I'm probably going out on more limbs this year then others, but the voters DO have to see all the nominees in this category (and foreign language and all the shorts) if they want to cast a ballot. The clear favorite is Inside Job, a well made look at the financial collapse of 2008, what caused it, what was the result, and what greedy fat bastards people who run banks are. But there's another, much better documentary called Exit Through the Gift Shop, which details the street art movement and the man who documented it. Co-directed by the elusive Banksy (who is nominated), this is my favorite and one that clearly should win. I'm predicting with my heart instead of my head, so we'll see if it pays off.

My Prediction: Exit Through the Gift Shop

Documentary Short

I have no idea. Honestly. The most predicted is Strangers No More. I'll go with that.

My Prediction: Strangers No More

Film Editing

Now here is a category that I'm sure of. The Social Network has pitch-perfect editing, seamlessly moving us between two depositions explaining the current story, and the current story itself. Built out of thousands of hours of footage (Fincher likes to overshoot), they have constructed a perfect example of great editing. How can I tell? The best editing happens when you don't even notice there is editing. Its invisible. And the editing hear works seamlessly to build the performances, the music, and the plot. The only reason King's Speech will win is if it is going to sweep tonight.

My Prediction: The Social Network

Foreign Language Film

I have only seen Dogtooth, which is a highly disturbing film about homeschooled kids who never leave their property. I highly doubt the Academy will make this film the winner, and it probably doesn't deserve it anyways. The favorite is a Danish film called In a Better World, which I have not seen. I'll go with that.

My Prediction: In a Better World

Makeup

An uninspired round-up of nominees this year. The Wolfman is probably the most likely to win, since it has creature makeup and whatnot. Though I guess Barney's Version could win, since Paul Giamatti is aged significantly in it.

My Prediction: The Wolfman

Original Score

As much as I want Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross to win, this is one category that I know King's Speech will take. Alexandre Desplat is a terrific composer (his Fantastic Mr. Fox score was a nice touch to the film), and I see him winning this one. Reznor and Ross have composed a score unlike anything we've heard before, and the Academy usually shies away from that stuff. A shame.

My Prediction: The King's Speech

Original Song

Nothing memorable here. I don't even know the songs. Randy Newman and A.R. Rahman are both veterans of the award. How about Newman? I don't know. I'll go with him. I hope Country Strong doesn't win, because it is essentially Crazy Heart with Gwyenth Paltrow.

My Prediction: "We Belong Together" from Toy Story 3

Animated Short Film

I deeply regret having not seen any of the short films this year. I've seen Day & Night, which preceded Toy Story 3 in theaters. But I hear The Gruffalo is a favorite. This one's a crapshoot.

My Prediction: The Gruffalo

Live Action Short Film

Another crapshoot.

My Prediction: Na Wewe

Sound Editing & Mixing

Last year I was completely wrong here. Oops. The Hurt Locker when I predicted Avatar (I thought it would win one of the awards). Well, Inception seems like a sure thing here. It's technically a strong film, and its sound work helped to create an amazing dreamscape.

My Predictions: Inception

Visual Effects

Usually the easiest-to-call category. Inception will for sure win this one, if nothing else.

My Prediction: Inception

Adapted Screenplay

Out of all the awards of the night, this is the one The Social Network is guaranteed to win. Aaron Sorkin's terrific screenplay is the center of the film, as it is mostly about dialogue. All the characters talk at a rapid fire pace, and the opening scene is one of the finest examples of dialogue in a long time.

My Prediction: The Social Network

Original Screenplay

Here The King's Speech will win. Another Year is the best screenplay of the bunch, but The King's Speech will definitely win. No contest.

Best Picture

Here it is, the big kahuna. We have a distressed ballerina, a has-been boxer, a team that infiltrates dreams, lesbian moms dealing with normal people issues, a king who has trouble speaking, a man who gets stuck between a rock and a hard place, the invention of a social networking site, toys dealing with abandonment issues, a young girl hunting her father's killer, and a young girl looking for her father. The King's Speech seems to have been a lock for this award since the word go, and even though the Social Network posed a small threat, it has since receded into the background. The King's Speech will win this award, for sure. I know it is not a good idea to pick this for best pic when I have picked the Social Network for so many other categories, but that's the way I see it. This is how it will play out.

My Prediction: The King's Speech

The Awards start tonight, 8:30/5:30 ET/PT. I'll post my list of how well I did either during or after the show.

Ebert Presents...

The nightmare of the two Bens is a thing of the past. A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips had their brief moment in the sun. But inevitably, without Roger Ebert attached to the program, Buena Vista had no reason to continue the At the Movies show, with its decreasing popularity. Maybe if they had gone for Scott and Phillips first instead of the flash of the young Ben Lyons, but alas, no.

It has been common knowledge for those of us who care that Roger Ebert, who owns the thumbs trademark, has been shopping around the different networks to find a home for his version of the At the Movies show. Now he has finally found a home, at the old studio where he and Siskel, more then 30 years ago, began their At the Movies show.

The balcony is back, ladies and gentlemen. But of course our handicapped Ebert cannot himself be a co-host as he lacks speaking capabilities and thus could not enter into banter with his co-host. Instead, we get Christy Lemire of the Associated Press and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of Mubi.com. Lemire is a seasoned critic who guest-hosted with Richard Roeper back when the show was cycling reviewers during Ebert's illness. Vishnevetsky is a more curious figure. Born in the Soviet Union, he moved to America when he was 8 and then eventually to Chicago because he could find more movies here. He manages the Odd Obsessions video store and was offered this position when Ebert heard him speaking at the Lake Street Screening Room and was rather impressed by his eloquence and charisma.

So how do the hosts hold up? Lemire is good, and if you saw her episodes with Roeper, then she pretty much performs as expected. Vishnevetsky is everything ABC wishes Ben Lyons would have been: he's young, charismatic, but what is especially important is that he comes to the table with a deep knowledge of film. He's a smart guy who knows how to say something meaningful about a film, good or bad, whereas Lyons would always spit out really (un)witty taglines for the ads.

But the show still lacks the key element that made Siskel and Ebert so good: the way they would argue. The co-hosts are very cordial, which is to be expected as these two people, I assume, didn't know each other before Vishnevetsky was hired for the show. They are still getting to know each other just as we the audience are getting to know them. But what really drove the old show wasn't just seeing Siskel and Ebert declare their love for a film (my favorite examples of this are Hoop Dreams, Pulp Fiction, and Fargo), it was also seeing them go at each others throat. Of course, I don't want Lemire and Vishnevetsky doing this for the sake of our amusement, and I know they won't. I trust that as they get more comfortable with each other, they will build a rapport that will keep us coming back each week.

The show's other nice touch is additional segments from outside contributors, including bloggers, other critics, and political analysts. Since this program is being broadcast on public television, there are no bigwig producers weighing down on the show to keep it flashy. Instead, there are some terrific segments that you wouldn't expect from any show today. A mock-Citizen Kane trailer introduces the principal players in the show, as well as Ebert's wife Chaz. Its a hilarious and fun segment. Kim Morgan also provides a look back to The Third Man (1949) and shoots her review as if she was apart of the film. And just this past week, political analyst Jeff Greenfield provided a look at why the president, in political movies, always gives a speech at the end that causes the entire crowd to go wild. This is something, Greenfield assures us, that never happens in real life.

And of course, there's Roger's Office, a brief segment where Ebert himself reviews a current film. Of course since he can't speak for himself we get guest voices to convey his words to us. Werner Herzog supplies Ebert's voice for his review of My Dog Tulip, and in the past two episodes Bill Curtis has been taken over the role. We only glimpse Ebert briefly, at the beginning as he types and then at the end when we get his final opinion. These brief snapshots of Ebert are a nice reminder of the old days.

It's a satisfying, if safe, new show that will allow us to get our weekly reviews again, something I have been missing since Scott and Phillips signed off back in August. Recently I was watching TV and a review for the Mechanic came on. The ad was displaying reviews, and mentioned the film received "Two Thumbs Up." I smiled and laughed, because it feels good having those thumbs back after a long four year hiatus.