Many Burning Questions from the 2017 Oscars

Wouldn't issues with the show's length be helped by starting even just a half hour earlier?

Boy, they're really getting the nominated songs out of the way early this year, aren't they?

Shouldn't we just be happy they're getting performed on the show at all?

Isn't JT's Trolls song annoyingly catchy?

Remember that year the telecast had more musical performances than the Grammys?

Did you totally expect a La La Land opening?

Even though the Globes did it already?

How long did it take Kimmel to make a political joke?

Wasn't his Great Wall dig at Matt Damon pretty funny?

Forget about Trump, wasn't Streep's ridiculous nomination the real elephant in the room?

Didn't the audience actually look like they were having a good time for a change during Kimmel's monologue?

How long did it take you to remember Alicia Vikander won the Supporting Actress Oscar last year?

With that speech, didn't for Mahershala Ali prove he deserved the night's first standing ovation?

Academy-Award winning Suicide Squad?

Did those winners for costume and makeup just drain a whole lot of Oscar pools?

Don't those categories screw everyone each year?

Did you catch Bill Paxton in that Rolex ad?

Were you still holding out hope that they'd get him into the In Memoriam montage?

Was 2016 O.J.'s year or what?

Is anyone bothered that it really isn't a documentary?

It's been brought up before, but shouldn't The Rock host the Oscars?

Isn't amazing that Lin-Manuel Miranda somehow squeezed into the Oscar race also?

And that he's one victory away from the EGOT?!

Aren't the Original Song nominees fairly strong this year?

Isn't it great we actually get to hear all of them?

What happened to that plan to spend less time between awards to speed things up?

When Kimmel talked about food, were you worried Ellen Degeneres would start delivering pizzas?

Um, so what's the difference between Sound Editing and Sound Mixing again?

Over an hour in and no Oscars for La La Land?

Wasn't it nice of Mel Gibson to bring his daughter to the ceremony?

Shouldn't there really be a casting Oscar already?

Aren't the classic clips of previous winners a great idea?

Who can possibly forget Mark Rylance beating Stallone last year?

Don't you wish you could?

How about that Michelle Williams scene?

Is Jeremy The Critic thrilled she keeps repping Dawson's Creek by bringing Busy Phillips with her every year?

Was Viola winning the certified lock of the night?

Did she scare you with all that talk about cemetaries and dead people?

Speaking of death, weren't you just dying to see a short film based on a Walmart receipt?

Who knew Charlize Theron was such a big fan of The Apartment?

Shouldn't they have more segments during the show with actors discussing their favorite movies?

Isn't that better than doing it... during the nominations announcement?!

Should we be happy or disappointed it took this long to get to an overtly political speech?

Didn't you know it would come during the Foreign Film category, no matter who won?

Could Sting's song be any shorter?

After Gael Garcia Bernnal, were you thinking it's now "game on" with the political stuff?

Were you thinking we could have an interesting night on our hands if La La Land doesn't win for Production Design?

When it did, were you thinking the landslide has started?

Wasn't that whole tour bus bit simultaneously disturbing and train wreck entertaining at the same time?

Didn't Kimmel's wisecracks save it?

These tourists sure like sticking phones in celebrities' faces, don't they?

If you're Meryl Streep, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, or Denzel Washington, are you secretly or (in Jennifer Aniston's case) not so secretly petrified?

How about that guy who fist bumped Mahershala Ali?

Is my night (and entire year) made seeing Michael J. Fox come out of a DeLorean to a standing ovation at the Academy Awards?

Not a question, but you guys better freakin' stand up!

Did you catch how ecstatic Brie Larson was?

Could life get any better for Seth Rogen right now?

Best Editing award isn't the Best Picture predictor it used to be, is it?

Did you catch them openly acknowledging no one's seen any of the nominated short films?

How about that mean tweet about Felicity Jones and Eddie Redmayne having "the same face?"

Or, my personal favorite, Casey Affleck being the real life version of Billy Bob Thornton's character from Sling Blade?

Were you glad Stone and Gosling got to present together since they've been so underexposed these past couple of months?

Even listening to just snippets of those musical scores, isn't La La Land's clearly the best?

Relieved when Jennifer Aniston mentioned Bill Paxton?

If you were told a year ago Carrie Fisher, Prince and Anton Yelchin would be in the In Memoriam montage, would you believe it?

Did Sara Bareilles give the best In Memoriam performance in years, or what?

Wasn't it the perfect match of song and artist? 

Was Kimmel fondly reminiscing about We Bought a Zoo the most hilarious gag of the night? 

Is Ben Affleck really in a position to join in mocking it?

Doesn't Kenneth Lonergan kind of resemble Grumpy Cat?

Wouldn't it kind of be a travesty if Moonlight didn't win that Adapted Screenplay Oscar?

Did you know that Damien Chazelle was set to be the youngest Best Director winner ever until the show ran too long?

Think I waiting all night to see my favorite Academy Award Winner, Brie Larson, take the Oscar stage again?

Even if she looked like she'd rather see any name on that card other than Casey Affleck's?

Did you see Ben struggle to keep it together after his brother's speech?

Did you remember Leo (finally) won the Oscar last year?

Just based on the clips, doesn't something seem horribly off with Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy?

Didn't Streep appear to be embarrassed by that clip?

Can you really blame her?

Doesn't it seem harder than ever for one movie to sweep, even with 14 nominations?

Aren't there too many Best Picture nominees?

Isn't it great to see Faye Dunaway and Warren Be.....

WAIT...WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED!!!!!???

Warren Beatty read the wrong winner?!!!

How is that even possible?!!

Didn't you just know something was wrong when you saw that guy with the headset scrambling on stage?

How could they give him the wrong envelope?!

Didn't La La Land producer Jordan Horowitz handle that entire situation better than anyone could be expected to?

Could he have possibly shown any more class in that moment?

Did that make more of a point than any political statement all night could have?

Jimmy Kimmel's speech at the show's start about being kind to each other doesn't seem so silly now, does it?

Aren't you glad someone took charge of that situation before it got even more awkward?

Wouldn't Moonlight winning Best Picture be shocking enough on its own?

Didn't Kimmel handle also handle that about as well as any host could?

Did you like Kimmel's shout-out to Steve Harvey?

Even after Warren explained it, did you still not understand how that could possibly occur?

Do two Best Picture speeches mean we won't finish on time?

Does this mean we can go back to liking the now suddenly underrated La La Land again?

So, does this mean we have to hate Moonlight now?

Did La La Land just score a victory that means more than a Best Picture Oscar?

Was this actually the best possible thing that could have happened to that movie?

Doesn't that and the growing resentment toward La La Land's many nominations prove how much of an albatross winning Best Picture can be?

How does it feel to witness history?

Aren't you glad you stayed up?

Was going to bed early the Oscar equivalent of turning off Game 6 of the 1986 World Series?

So wait, this means I got Best Picture wrong AGAIN?

Would I be satisfied if I kept missing categories under circumstances this thrilling?

Is Kimmel the only Oscars host of the past decade who's truly earned a permanent invite back?

Does this mean I now have to eat my words after initially complaining he was selected?

Do PricewaterhouseCoopers wish they could take that DeLorean back to about 10 minutes before the Best Picture envelope was opened?

How could THIS possibly be the lowest-rated Oscar telecast in 9 years?

Flubs aside, wasn't this actually a really well-produced show?

Wasn't this the Oscars we were all hoping we'd eventually get?

2015 Oscar Nominations (Reaction and Analysis)

For the first time in Academy history all 24 categories were announced this morning for the 2015 Oscars, with J.J. Abrams and Alfonso Cuaron handling duties for the technical awards while Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs and Chris Pine read off the "major" categories. I liked this new approach since it builds suspense for the Best Picture reveal while giving air time to deserved, but often overlooked (and almost always difficult to pronounce) names in less publicized categories. If anything, it was nice not having to go hunting online in search of who was nominated in editing or cinematography for a change. Hopefully they continue with this, even if you had to feel for them having to continuously announce Birdman's FULL title for each of its 9 nods (tying The Grand Budapest Hotel for the most). But for fans of the film, and Michael Keaton, they were just happy to get the news. It all went off without a hitch, at least until Isaacs mispronounced Mr. Turner cinematographer Dick Pope's name as "Dick Poop." But I'm guessing he'll be too elated over his surprise nomination to hold a serious grudge.

There are only maybe one or two developments that came out of this I'd consider shocking, with a couple mini surprises sprinkled about here and here. It mostly went as expected, even when it came to a couple of the snubs, if you can call them that. "Overlooked" is probably the better word to describe most of the morning's exclusions. As we approach the big show on Sunday, February 22nd, it's looking more and more like I'll have seen and possibly even reviewed all the Best Picture nominees in contention, which would be a first.
 With Boyhood, Birdman, The Theory of Everything and The Grand Budapest Hotel already in the books and a huge Whiplash review coming within the week, I'm at least halfway there. The latter two are definitely bringing up the rear with Boyhood out in front as my favorite, at least for now. Just as I have no real problems with any of these nominees, I'm suspecting very few will complain with longtime consensus choice and fan favorite Neil Patrick Harris hosting the telecast. It's likely the only objection to be raised is why he wasn't picked to do this sooner. Here's my rundown of the big newsmaking items to come out of the nominations:

-8 Best Picture nominees. That's one less than usual and the least amount since this whole "anywhere from 5 to 9" nominee system was instituted in 2011 in response to the backlash of having way too many at 10. Any reduction is fine by me since the choices have gotten increasingly ridiculous and pointless with more slots to fill and the knowledge that whichever film doesn't get in for director can't usually win (bizarre Argo situation excluded).

-American Sniper's inclusion was a surprise, although it was recently surging to the point that this could have been predicted. Same goes for The Grand Budapest Hotel, but that traveled quite a distance from the beginning of last year to make it. I like it, but think it's far from Wes Anderson's best and a questionable nominee in the category. Still, it probably needs a second viewing from me.

-Selma gets in but David Oyelowo misses out on the Best Actor nod, as does Ava Duvernay for Best Director. But this movie was losing steam from the get-go, with the LBJ controversy and what not. It's lucky it even made it in at all.

-Would have replaced either Budapest or The Theory of Everything with Foxcatcher in a heartbeat but I'm glad Bennett Miller made the cut for Director since he was in jeopardy.

-We can now type the phrase "Oscar-nominated director Wes Anderson."

-The Imitation Game director Morten Tyldum becomes the Tom Hooper of this year's Oscar race. Minus the win.

-Voters went for Steve Carell despite rumors he'd be snubbed in favor of Nightcrawler's Jake Gyllenhaal. But in hindsight it makes sense given their history. If they didn't nominate Brad Pitt for Fight Club or Christian Bale for American Psycho, they won't start honoring cool anti-hero performances now. Real-life hated figures are more up their alley, especially when played by comedians donning prosthetic noses.

-Bradley Cooper riding that American Sniper wave to his third straight (!) nomination.

-It's not much of a surprise Marion Cotillard got in for Two Days, One Night. Or much of a surprise that she would get in for anything she does.

-Jennifer Aniston was not "snubbed." If she somehow got in for Cake (a movie few have seen or heard of) I would have been shocked. While Best Actress is admittedly one of the thinner categories this year, it's not THAT thin.

-The LEGO Movie not nominated in Animated Category. Okay, now that's a shock. You even heard the justifiable gasps in the auditorium during that one. Not sure what happened here other than maybe the voters were put off by the animation style. Was the script too subversive? But even that doesn't make sense. I'm grasping at straws here.

-Not much of a showing for Gone Girl, which is a shame. No Picture, no Fincher, no Reznor and Ross for Score and no cinematography acknowledgment. Worst of all, Gillian Flynn's screenplay goes unnoticed. How?  But at least Rosamund Pike's in and NPH is hosting. So there's that.

-Supporting Actor and Actress went almost exactly as expected, with one notable exception: Laura Dern for Wild. While I'm sure most would rather that surprise slot go to Rene Russo for Nightcrawler (actress comeback of the year), Dern is universally beloved within the industry so that explains that.  

-Ruffalo nominated for Foxcatcher!

-"Lost Stars" from Begin Again makes it in for Best Original Song!

-Very good news that Paul Thomas Anderson at least nabbed a Best Adapted Screenplay nod for Inherent Vice, even if I have my doubts at to whether he'll win. It almost makes up for the Gone Girl omission. 

-Whiplash questionably included as an adapted rather than original screenplay because it was "adapted" (or more accurately expanded) by writer/director Damien Chazelle from his own short film. That doesn't make much sense, but a nomination is a nomination and it earned 5 of them, including Best Picture. I'll keep my poker face on since I'll have a whole lot to say about the film soon enough.

-Strong Original Screenplay category with both Foxcatcher and Nightcrawler thankfully making the cut alongside Birdman, Boyhood and The Grand Budapest Hotel, the latter of which you could actually make a case for being adapted.

-Worst snub: Roger Ebert: Life Itself  for Best Documentary. I guess they really don't like film critics, or at least movies about them. The Academy messed up there.

Ranking The Alternative Best Picture Oscar Posters (Worst to First)

Well, this was a surprise. In what might be the coolest, hippest thing the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have done in years (admittedly not saying much I know), they've teamed up with Gallery 1988 and commissioned some of today's most talented pop-culture artists to design limited addition screen prints for each of this year's nine Best Picture nominees. And it figures they're about ten times better than any of the official posters released for these films, not to mention far superior to much of what I singled out in my annual Best Posters list. While the artists achieve varying degrees of success with these prints, it's indisputable all them do a fine job capturing the spirit of these films as stylishly and simplistically as possible. If looking at these doesn't at least get you mildly interested in checking out this Sunday's nominees, it's likely nothing will. It's just a shame that none of them are for sale, unless you happened to show up at their L.A. gallery earlier in the month and grabbed one. Of course, this could change, and if it does, I know exactly which print I'm picking up. Remember, I'm ranking the posters, not the nominees (though you couldn't be blamed for being slightly suspicious when I get to a certain selection). So, here they are, along with my comments on each.

9.  Lincoln by Jeff Boyes
To be totally honest, there's not much you can do with Lincoln. That said, Boyes does about as good a job as could have been expected given the circumstances. Does it look nice? Yes. Would I hang it on my wall? Probably not. In fact, this might be the only case where I slightly prefer the original theatrical one-sheet (albeit slightly). The two-faced red and blue is a nice touch though, giving the image of our 16th President a complexity many still claim the film lacks.

8. Les Miserables by Phantom City Creative
Another tough one. The possibilities aren't exactly endless when you're handed the task of designing a poster for Les Mis. Or maybe they' are since there's so much going on and so many characters it's a chore deciding what exactly to represent. Taking the path of extreme minimalism was the right choice. The blood, eyes and flag is a cool design for sure. It grows on me the more I look at it.

7.  Amour by Matt Owen
I have a feeling that when I eventually see Amour my appreciation for this will probably grow considerably. Hardly knowing much about the film, I still kind of really like what Owen did here. It looks like a cross between a Wes Anderson DVD cover and a painting you'd find hanging in someone's study. There's something that's just beautifully simplistic about it. And don't underestimate the difficulty of having to design a poster for an over 2-hour foreign film centering around an elderly woman's death. 

6. Argo by Anthony Petrie
If nothing else, this addresses all those pesky complaints about Argo downplaying Canada's involvement in the rescue mission. Between the three flags, the shredded paper and the really neat shadowy silhouettes of the escapees running through Iran (on a film strip no less!), it's definitely an eye catcher. While I still have a nagging feeling something bigger could have been done (perhaps working in the sci-fi angle), I'm perfectly fine with this classy, relatively simple image representing the year's likely Best Picture winner.

5. Django Unchained by Mark Englert
Yeah, I know. This doesn't exactly capture the "spirit" or bloodshed of Quentin Tarantino, but don't we have enough of those kinds of posters anyway? I'm actually glad they didn't take the grindhouse exploitation route and instead picked an artist whose very style is the antithesis of what Tarantino's work represents. That contrast makes for an unforgettable print. This could be an alternate poster for a classic western like The Searchers or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and while it's kind of a misrepresentation of the movie, you can't tell me it isn't an incredible piece of landscape art that would look good on any wall.

4. Life of Pi by Tom Whalen
Upon first laying eyes on this I really didn't care for it at all, but upon closer inspection it starts to become clear what Whalen was going for. And once you're on board (no pun intended) with that, then it's hard to stop staring at it. Here's another one where my appreciation for the details in the print would probably increase dramatically once I've actually seen the film. But I can say with absolute certainty it would look great hanging up with its interesting color scheme and the stain-glass style design. 

3. Zero Dark Thirty by Godmachine
Boy is this unusual. It almost looks like two entirely different prints combined as one. Zero Dark Thirty was always going to be a difficult movie to visually conceptualize in poster form so a lot of credit should go to the designers who found a way out by creating something that doesn't even slightly resemble a movie poster in any way, shape or form. It looks more like a splashy desktop background or wallpaper that's cut right down the middle. We even get a cloaked Maya and Bin Laden in nightglow green on the right and a re-creation of the movie's most memorable sequence on the left. I'm still not sure how it would look on a wall, but as a representation of Kathryn Bigelow's film, it's incredible.

2. Beasts of the Southern Wild by Rich Kelly
Here's another print that while not necessarily the most accurate depiction of the actual film from an marketing perspective (kind of making the movie look like a Gothic horror tale about the dangers of alcoholism), it's just too impressive a piece of abstract art to deny. So in that way it kind of does capture the film's spirit, which in a way defies description itself. I love the cluttered representation of the "Bathtub" in the middle, the barely visible Auroch behind Wink and of course that awesome reflection in the lake of he and Hushpuppy in the water. Wouldn't mind seeing this released in a variety of different colors just of curiosity, even though the green works really well.

1. Silver Linings Playbook by Joshua Budich
I've decided when and if Silver Linings Playbook loses Best Picture, I'm blaming its awful official theatrical poster, which was one of the many missteps made in unfairly marketing the best movie of the year as rom-com fluff. Luckily, those misconceptions have since been squashed as audiences are just recently discovering how powerful it really is, with its chances of a shocking upset on Sunday at least better than decent. Mental illness, running, romance, football, gambling, ballroom dancing. It's woven into an unforgettable tapestry in writer/director David O. Russell's comic masterpiece. And it's all captured in Joshua Budich's magnificent print which, as far as I'm concerned, stands as the film's true OFFICIAL poster.

Aside from the absolutely astounding comic-style artwork, just look at the details! The expressions on Robert DeNiro and Jacki Weaver's faces. The Eagle wings. The book thrown out the window. And Budich deserves major kudos for knowing just the right line to scribble at the bottom, quoting DeNiro's chill-inducing speech at the end of the film. Who ever thought we'd be this happy to see Chris Tucker?  I'll cop to some bias since it's my favorite film of the year designed by my favorite poster artist, but the work here really does speak for itself. If I could envision the quintessential SLP print, it would still fall short of this, as the most inventive Best Picture nominee is now deservedly rewarded with a poster worthy of it.

The Blind Side

Director: John Lee Hancock
Starring: Sandra Bullock, Quinton Aaron, Tim McGraw, Kathy Bates, Lily Collins, Jae Head, Ray McKinnon
Running Time: 128 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

When the 82nd annual Academy Award nominations were announced on February 2nd, there was an obvious eruption of giggles, gasps, and applause when the feel-good, audience pleasing sports drama The Blind Side was read among the expanded list of ten Best Picture contenders. And you'd really have to go way back in the Oscar history books to find a nomination in this category as shocking. It's been heralded as a major comeback vehicle for its star, Sandra Bullock, who's poised to take home the statue for Best Actress after making a string of career decisions so awful they'd make Kate Hudson jealous. In fact, they've been so bad that not too long ago I included her on my list of Actors/Actresses Who Need a New Agent (Badly!). In a way, I regret the negative connotation that article's title carried because in truth I really like all those talented performers, which could help explain why I'm so reasonably disappointed in them.

When I first saw that commercial for The Blind Side, with Bullock strutting across the football field in skin tight Erin Brockovich-style clothing and a blond wig, slapping the coach's butt (you can't say "ass" in this movie) and declaring in a laughable southern accent, "You can thank me later," I no longer thought she needed a new agent. I thought her career was over. But when the film was released something very weird happened: A project that at first glance looked to represent the absolute worst of Bullock's cinematic offerings somehow resonated deeply with moviegoers. With a marketing campaign aimed squarely at church going, red state Americans and extremely strong word-of-mouth (despite middling reviews) the film went on to gross over $200 million dollars to become the highest grossing sports drama of all-time. It's a statistic sure to irk fans of Rocky, Rudy and Hoosiers since this actually has very little to do with sports, or more specifically football, in any real sense. Consider it "Friday Night Lite."

The Academy's desire to reach out to the mainstream and increase viewership for the big show has brought this picture to where it is now. I've made many jokes at the film's expense over the past few months but they were all in good fun and never mean-spirited even as online attacks from others against it were growing increasingly venomous, I really do think it's fantastic that a personal human drama with a positive message is succeeding. And while you could argue it's continuing a recent trend in diminishing audience standards (true to an extent) and that they're just filling the Best Picture slot with a moneymaker (again true) I'd much rather it be this than junk like the latest Twilight or Transformers sequel. I can at least comprehend what the appeal is here.

The last time ten films were nominated for Best Picture was 1943, which is important to note since the most under-reported and bizarre detail about The Blind Side is how it wouldn't seem at all out of place as a nominee in that year. It's a throwback to a classic era when films were much simpler and the characters in them far kinder. It may be wimpy in its syrupy Hollywoodization of a social issue but it's gutsy in how sincerely honest and good-hearted it is about those intentions. To call it manipulative would be inaccurate because it's completely upfront and unapologetic about what it's trying to do and never takes itself too seriously. Labeling it a Lifetime or Hallmark movie of the week would also be inaccurate since even those usually contain some kind of dramatic conflict...or so I've heard. This doesn't.

What director John Lee Hancock accomplishes is actually an impressive feat because for over 2 hours he manages to sustain an entertaining movie that not only lacks conflict, but one where every character is happy and there are no problems in life. Laughable in theory, but difficult to execute on screen. Filming a story featuring only nice people doing the right thing and still have it be exciting isn't easy. He should be known as Norman Rockwell instead of John Hancock and entering the alternate trouble-free universe he creates requires the acceptance of a few basic principles. Everyone goes to church. No one curses. There is no crime. 9/11 never happened. People are either rich or poor. Black or white. Democrat or Republican. They either live in fancy homes or in the "bad side" of town. Life is simple. It's as if the events that occurred in the fictional 1950's sitcom setting of the film Pleasantville were played straight in an earnest drama without so much as a hint of irony. And the 'PG-13' rating this carries from the MPAA feels like a mistake since aside from a few isolated instances of very mild violence and language, this is essentially a 'G' rated picture. That's not surprising since Hancock's previous inspirational sports drama, the Disney produced The Rookie, was actually rated that.

Based on the true story of Baltimore Ravens offensive lineman, Michael Oher, the film was adapted from Michael Lewis' 2006 book, "The Blind Side: The Evolution of the Game," and that sub-title is excised for a reason. Anyone approaching this movie expecting to get any kind of insight into the technical aspects of the game of football should refer to the aforementioned scene of Bullock strutting across the field and listen to the strategic advice she gives if you want a good laugh. That, an opening that will enrage Redskins fans and the appearance of several former and current NCAA coaches, is the full extent of the football's presence in the film. What this story is really about is the bond between this mother and her adopted son, and on that level it succeeds, albeit in a traditionally simplistic way we're not used to.

Newcomer Quinton Aaron plays Oher (AKA "Big Mike"), who arrives off the street at the Wingate Christian School in Tennessee illiterate and a borderline mute. It isn't until he's taken in by feisty decorator Leigh Anne Tuohy (Bullock) and her husband Sean (Tim McGraw who's actually very good in this) that Mike begins to discover a love for football and family and turn his life around, transforming Leigh Ann's and her family's in the process. Yep, that's all there is to it. And there's hardly an obstacle in the way of him doing it besides him. It's very strange. These are the nicest, most tolerant people on Earth. I'd say they're the kind of people you could only see in a movie but that would be wrong because we don't even see them in movies anymore.

Without hesitance Leigh Anne takes this total stranger into her home. Her husband seems completely fine with the idea. Her precocious son, S.J. (Jae Head) flat-out loves it. But most bizarrely, her 18-year-old daughter, Collins (Lily Collins) isn't some rebellious teenager getting ready to use Mike's arrival as an excuse to lash out, but an understanding girl who befriends him. Those criticizing the film for this approach may want to decide whether they want this or the manufactured bush league screenwriting conflicts and contrivances we usually have to suffer through. The husband as an abusive alcoholic? The teenage daughter doing drugs and sleeping around? A shootout in the projects? The neighbors spray painting "the 'N' word" on the side of their car? How about "the big game?" This may also mark the first time conservative Republicans in a movie have been portrayed as anything other than gun-toting racists or corrupt government officials. They're just good, hard-working people and it may come as a surprise that even in movies it is possible for people like this to exist regardless of their political affiliation. It's funny the film has come under attack for making the opposite choices every picture in this genre is routinely blasted for.

More controversial is Hancock's idea of what constitutes conflict in this story because even the moments where he comes close to depicting it are undercut by the Utopian, danger-free atmosphere the characters inhabit. Even Leigh Anne's encounter with a gang member is just one huge set-up for a punch line that emphasizes the character's sassiness. Of course, we know if a woman dressed like that that really were to enter a neighborhood that dangerous the situation would have a far less desirable outcome, possibly threatening the film's G-rated PG-13. But why would we want to see that anyway? It's just not that kind of movie and going in that direction would have been completely inappropriate for the material.

When meeting Mike's crack addicted biological mother, the one confrontation you'd figure would be sure to set off fireworks, Hancock plays it surprisingly low-key and with little tension. Even she thinks what Leigh Ann's doing is admirable. Against all odds, the scene works anyway and somehow feels authentic in no small part due to Bullock. The only mild dissenters in the story are Leigh Ann's rich, white girlfriends who ironically question if she's harboring the same "white guilt" the film has been accused of pedaling. But entering this expecting any kind of serious examination of race relations is missing the point. This isn't trying to be Precious, a far different type of dramatic picture that beats you into submission with its harsh reality and emotionally raw performances.

This movie isn't pretending to be anymore than a feel-good fairy tale, but that doesn't make it racist or imply that black people need the help of whites to survive in society or something silly like that. To say that this has any serious agenda concerning race is giving it more credit than it deserves. The biggest stab at conflict comes late in the form of an NCAA scandal of sorts that brings the focus back to Mike calls into question the saintly family's motives as well as our own doubts that the film could possibly be as sweetly sincere as it is. Then enter Kathy Bates in a small role as Miss Sue, a tutor who shows up to help get Mike's grades up to graduation level.

As big a joke as it seems to many that this is an Oscar contender, there are three areas where you could reasonably argue it's deserving, two of which are the editing and musical score. The movie is nearly 130 minutes long and the time just flies by with everything going down as easy as children's cough medicine. That this is all just mainstream fluff is a factor in that but the film still has to be cut well and it's especially difficult to do that when there's so little happening dramatic fireworks. It's so effortless to sit through I'd actually watch it again, which is more than I can say for many depressing releases this year that were superior in quality. Carter Burwell's score perfectly matches the homey, down-to-Earth small town southern feel Hancock creates. It's the small touches like Leigh Anne calling the coach (Ray McKinnon) on her cell from the stands to scream at him during a game or Mike bench-pressing S.J. that help make the movie feel authentic without ever crossing that thin line separating it from maudlin sap.

It seems everyone's is happy for Sandra Bullock AS A PERSON, despite not being much of a fan of her work AS AN ACTRESS, and that goodwill should carry her to the Oscar whether or not the performance itself is deserving. I'll confess my appreciation of her talents peaked sometime in the mid '90's and have been in a steady decline since. The past decade or so she's really had it rough career-wise and that she'll likely be collecting a Razzie Award for Worst Actress (for All About Steve) the same year she could take home the Oscar indicates just how bad it's really been. But only over the past couple of months has it become painfully obvious just how much audiences like her and how badly they've wanted her to come back, grasping at every last straw to make that happen, even as her critics continue slamming her every step. She's someone viewers like spending two hours with even if they don't always agree with her choices.

What's most interesting about this role for her is just how much it resembles all the terrible parts she's played over the years and how it should have tanked like the rest of them. But this was the one questionable choice that somehow hit, and as shocking as it is to admit, that's largely because she does some of her best work. She's still dealing with problematic material but this is the first time she rises above it and shows up onscreen with more motivation and energy than we've seen in years. This isn't a deep or complex role, and the character she's playing is essentially a saint with just a tiny bit of an edge, but it cleverly plays to all of her strengths as a performer. Had the script been more dramatic I'm not too sure she'd be capable enough to go darker so it comes as a relief that she doesn't need to. There's just enough wiggle room that there's some of her own star personality mixed in there with this real-life woman and the combination proves to be really enjoyable, carrying the movie.

The comparison to Julia Roberts' Oscar-winning turn in Erin Brockovich a decade ago is right on the money in that both roles push the actress' looks and personalities to the forefront as part of the character rather than obscuring them like we're so used to seeing in these types of roles. Ironically, Roberts passed on the part before Bullock snatched it up and I'm not sure she could have done as well with it. In a stronger year you may have been be able to argue this performance isn't worthy of consideration, but still not having seen all the nominees, her inclusion, and even potential win, is far from the travesty it's been made out to be. To Sandra's credit, she at least comes off as someone who enjoys this and wants to do good work, but unfortunately hit a series of speed bumps along the way. I'd rather have someone like this be rewarded than, say, Eddie Murphy, who just enjoys cashing checks. While it's a great performance, she lucked out here and likely knows it. I hope moving forward she uses this success as a springboard to make more creatively fulfilling choices.

For a change, this film's nomination is actually important, not necessarily because it could represent the public's lowering standards over the past year (true to an extent), but because it really opens the floodgates in terms of what pictures and performances could potentially qualify as "Oscar worthy." You have to wonder if this policy of ten nominees were instituted a few years earlier whether similarly themed sports dramas like Remember the Titans or Miracle would have slipped in for Best Picture. Would Matthew McConaughey be preparing his acceptance speech for We Are Marshall? Unlikely (I hope), but you get the point. It's official: Now ANYONE or ANYTHING can win an Oscar. Let that scary thought sink in.

There's a lesson in what's happened with The Blind Side that might be more interesting than anything in the actual movie. Many critics (myself included) can get so caught up in analyzing the ins and outs of film that they sometimes lose touch with reality. That reality being that with the state the country's in right now audiences just aren't interested in seeing the same wrist-slitting movies that they are. Most just want to be entertained. They may not want to see obese, HIV positive teenagers physically and emotionally abused by their mothers, people getting fired, jumping off bridges, being dumped by their girlfriends or anything having to do with the Iraq war. And can you really blame them? When even a Pixar film features a traumatic death in the opening minutes and the most upbeat cinematic experience of the year is a Holocaust movie, it's no wonder audiences are burnt out and need to come up for air.

I can't exactly shower praise on the film with a straight face because it's just so goofy, but at least the intentions are sincere and it doesn't have the same inflated sense of self-importance as other award comntending films this year. Is it an atrocity that this was nominated in a strong year when clearly more deserving titles were passed over ? Of course, but at least it's a fun atrocity. A film with characters named "Miss Sue" and "Coach Cotton" doesn't exactly beg to be taken seriously as social commentary so it shouldn't be. Full of down home charm, The Blind Side is mindless, feel-good entertainment released at a time of year when sending viewers home happy is considered a criminal offense.

The Best Picture Field Expands to 10 Nominees: Pros and Cons

Well, I definitely didn't expect to be talking about next year's Oscars this early that's for sure. In what has to be considered fairly shocking news, last week outgoing Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis announced that the 82nd Academy Awards will feature 10 Best Picture nominees instead of 5, ending a six decade long tradition. The goal is to get the Oscars to return to its old Hollywood roots, harkening back to 1939 when Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Stagecoach all competed for Best Picture or in 1943 when Casablanca beat out nine other nominees to win the big prize. Why do I have the feeling 2009 won't be that kind of year? Just a guess. In other words, it's a rare admission of guilt from the Academy that the the voting body don't have a clue what they're doing and are completely out of touch with the mainstream moviegoing public.

We knew the 2008 Oscar contenders were bad, but apparently they were so bad that even the Academy President felt the need to apologize for it. I thought 3 of the 5 Best Picture contenders last year were worthy, but in a field so weak, that's not much of an accomplishment. It's also unforgivable to nominate safe highbrow fare no one went to see when better options were available. Now that viewers have fled the Oscar presentation in droves (despite a much livelier telecast this year) and studios have lost money, they're finally taking some action. But does expanding the number of nominees for Best Picture solve that problem? I guess it depends who you ask. Like any proposed solution, there are good and bad aspects to consider.

Pros
- At least they did SOMETHING and finally acknowledged there's a serious problem here in how the public views the Oscars. A change was desperately needed and long overdue. It's a first step.

-With 10 nominees the focus now shifts from what will be nominated to WHAT WILL WIN. It's a more open race now. The eventual winner is now legitimately in doubt for once.

- With more films nominated the studios stand to make more money. Good for them I guess.

- Score another one for The Dark Knight. It's snub was so awful that the Academy is not only apologizing for it, but are revamping their Best Picture nomination policy. Even Ganis admitted in the press conference that we wouldn't be having this discussion if Nolan's film had made it in ("I would not be telling you the truth if I said the words 'Dark Knight' did not come up"). The irony here is that in not getting nominated the film has earned an honor higher than that. Its legacy is sealed.

- A chance for mainstream, more crowd pleasing fare to sneak in. You know, movies PEOPLE ACTUALLY GO TO SEE. The idea of Star Trek or The Hangover getting a Best Picture nod isn't so far fetched anymore. Could a Judd Apatow comedy be nominated? It's actually a real possibility.

- Animated and foreign films that have been unfairly pushed off to the sidelines in their own categories now stand a much better chance of picking up a nomination. Pixar fans can rejoice.

-Smaller, independent films that are dark horses or considered "on the bubble" (like last year's Rachel Getting Married and The Wrestler) now can potentially get some much needed attention and recognition.

- More people may watch the broadcast now that they have a vested interest in seeing if their favorite movie wins. That also translates into more box office dollars.

-Since anything can happen now, THIS MOVIE is officially in play as a contender (sorry, just couldn't resist).

-With more nominees the chances of the Academy choosing one of their usual stuffy selections like Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, or Crash as the winner is minimized.

-The Academy may finally be forced to look further back than October in selecting the nominees for a change.

-It shakes things up. Just think how much more interesting the nominations could be.

Cons
- Here's an idea: Instead of increasing the number of nominees, how about actually PICKING THE RIGHT 5 FILMS for a change. The problem has nothing to do with the number of slots, but the people voting. This doesn't address the issue.

-There were barely 5 great films in '08 and now they're going to try and find 10. Good luck. And if they couldn't even get those 5 right just imagine the damage they could do now. Don't be shocked when you see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Paul Blart: Mall Cop among the nominees next year. This could turn the Oscars into The People's Choice or MTV Movie Awards.

-It's just a shallow attempt to drive up ratings and rake in cash.

- The Best Picture Oscar is devalued having this many films competing for it. A win now means nothing.

- For Zodiac, Into the Wild, The Dark Knight and tons of other films unfairly snubbed from the past six decades, it's too late.

- Just imagine how long the show will be NOW.

- There are still only 5 Best Director nominees which means the other 5 nominees for Best Picture could just be window dressing.

- Why 10? Isn't doubling the nominees a bit of an overreaction? 6 or 7 seems like it would have been perfect.

- The number has changed but the voters' tastes probably haven't. They could use the extra five slots to reward more films like The Reader.

- Instead of voters reaching back in the year to consider more titles, studios could try to cram more releases into the October-December window in hopes of getting a nomination. If you thought last season was bad this one could turn into a living hell.

-The Best Animated and Foreign Film categories still exist so voters can still shut those out, regardless of how many more slots there are to fill. This means the debate as to whether Up will be nominated is set to get even more heated (shoot me now please).

-With more films competing for a nomination studios will have to spend more money on promotion and campaigning. Given we're in a recession, I'm sure they're thrilled about that, especially if they don't see a return on their investment.

- What does it say about the Academy and their decision making skills through the years that such drastic changes were necessary?

Verdict:
The final tally is 13 to 12 with the cons coming out on top. A close call. As of now, I think it's a boneheaded move that minimizes the award. Based on their history, I don't trust the voters to pick the most deserving films and this doesn't change that, no matter how many they nominate. But what we really should do is reserve judgment until around October and November when we have a clearer picture of the Oscar landscape. All I know right now is that it's going to be a very intriguing (if not horrifying) morning when they announce the Best Picture nominees--ALL 10 OF THEM.

Which 5 Films Will Be Nominated For Best Picture?

Doesn’t it seem like just yesterday that we were making jokes about milkshakes and pregnant teenagers? Here we go again. You may have noticed those pesky “FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION” banner ads popping up all over the place. As tough as it is to believe the announcements of this year’s Academy Award nominations are just over 2 months away (January 22nd to be exact), which means we’re just now entering the prime time for some HUGE releases vying for the top prize. This will continue non-stop until that date so it’s best to get used to the titles you see below because you're sure to be hearing a lot about them everywhere.

Last year’s Oscar telecast was one of the lowest rated in the Academy’s history and while the show was stacked with critical favorites, the films failed to resonate with the casual moviegoing public. The result: a painfully boring show. Thankfully, this year’s show looks more promising with big stars like Pitt, Jolie, DiCaprio and Eastwood (Clooney’s sitting this one out) and big movies that people may actually go out and see. The quality may or may not be there like it was in 2007 but anyone who expected families to gather around the TV last year to see the Academy honor dark art house films featuring priests being bludgeoned to death with bowling pins and high-pressure air gun murders were out of their minds. Fantastic films, but I understand why many didn’t tune in. That doesn’t look like it will be an issue this year and if a certain suspected win occurs in the Supporting Actor category we’re guaranteed at least one of the more emotional moments in recent Oscar memory.

Even better news for fans of The Dark Knight is that many of the potential contenders released in the fall (like Blindness, Burn After Reading, Changeling and Miracle At St. Anna) fell by the wayside and lost any buzz they may have had. Additionally, a few films with “Oscar” written all over them (like The Soloist and The Road) were surprisingly pushed to early next year. That clears the path a little but as you can see below it’s still going to be very, very tough for that film to hold on and make it to January. And that’s not even taking into account the Academy’s prejudices against the genre, the fact it’s a sequel, the film’s flaws and its summer release date. That’s a lot to overcome. But if just a few of the top contenders fail to register Christopher Nolan may be able to pick out a tux. Actually, he will anyway since the movie is pretty much guaranteed a bunch of technical nominations.

In breaking news, one sure thing The Dark Knight isn't being nominated for is Best Original Score. According to this article in Variety it's been disqualified. I can't comment as to whether the score is actually deserving since everyone in the theater was talking and I couldn't hear it, but I can state the reason for its exclusion (much like that of Jonny Greenwood's There Will Be Blood score last year) is completely insane.

All of this is a little silly to speculate on since most of these films haven’t been released yet. Below I list the top contenders and their chances based on the Academy’s preferences and other factors. This isn’t a discussion about which films are “the best five” since I haven’t seen most of them yet but an educated prediction on which way the Best Picture race will go based on the info we have and the Academy members’ voting history. And if you don’t see a film down there (hello, Twilight) it’s because I don’t think it has a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated. Interestingly, in all the years I’ve picked my personal choice for best film of the year it wasn’t a Best Picture nominee, which either speaks poorly for my taste or theirs. My prediction for the five nominees is at the end.

WALL-E (opened June 27)-It’s encouraging news that the folks at Disney recently announced that they plan on pushing it for Best Picture, despite the existence of a separate Best Animated Film category. But sadly, this has no chance, despite the film containing the timeless themes voters love. It will hurt voters’ brains enough reaching back into the summer to consider The Dark Knight so this figuring into the Best Picture hunt is unlikely, especially since there's already another category honoring its contribution.

Wall-E's fate was sealed in 2001 when the Academy created the animated award, not to honor the genre, but blacklist those films from intruding in the "real" races. They’ll see its inevitable win in that joke of a category (which only features 2 other nominees) as good enough. What a shame. This deserves to compete for the big one.

The Dark Knight (opened July 18)- While I didn’t think it was the greatest film ever anointed on the human race like everyone else seemed to there’s no way I can name five movies better than it…at least so far. In fact, naming one would probably be a stretch. And it would be tough for me to tell anyone with a straight face that I thought it was worse than Juno or Michael Clayton (especially Juno). One of the more ridiculous complaints I’ve heard against nominating it is that it’s a “comic book movie.” Sorry, but this is in no way, shape or form a comic book movie. More reasonable is making a case that the film is too flawed. Strangely though, no one seems to be doing that.

Warner Brothers is pushing it hard and have set up a "For Your Consideration" site. I couldn’t help but laugh at some of it though. Pushing Maggie Gyllenhaal as Best Supporting Actress is funny but suggesting Christian Bale be nominated for Best Actor is flat-out hysterical. Sorry, but that was NOT an Oscar-worthy performance. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say the movie succeeded in spite of him, it was Ledger’s show all the way. Plus, do you really want Bale giving an acceptance speech in his deep, gravely “Batman voice?” What isn’t a joke is pushing Eckhart and Oldman in the supporting race. They were amazing and deserve serious consideration.

In about a month's time we’ll have a better idea where this stands but that it’s still being discussed is probably encouraging. The tragic circumstances involving Ledger and its box office take should keep it in the forefront of voters’ minds and it does contain the hefty themes they tend to like. In any event, I’d love to see how the Academy could justify not nominating what’s not just the second highest grossing film of all-time, but the best reviewed movie of the year. Desperate for ratings for the telecast they’ll likely cave in. Maybe not the best reason, but you can't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Milk (Nov. 26)- No, this isn’t a film exploring corruption in the dairy industry, but rather the story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), San Francisco’s first openly gay city supervisor assassinated in 1977. The Academy loves Penn, or at least I thought so until his Into the Wild was criminally snubbed in nearly every major category last year. But voters always preferred his acting to his directing and he’s a lock for a Best Actor nod here. How much further the film can go is questionable since they tend to overlook biopics for Best Picture unless it’s an exceptionally weak year (remember Ray), and it sure looks like it could be.

Working against the film could be that it lacks the warm, mainstream audience-friendly vibe of director Gus Vant’s only previous Best Picture nominee, Good Will Hunting and there's always the possibility its November release could cause it to peak early and fizzle, even if Penn’s performance doesn’t. Still, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a timely film about a politician overcoming the odds slides in. It has a great chance. But there’s a better chance Josh Brolin will finally be recognized with a supporting actor nod after 2 straight years of tireless hard work in a wide variety of films. He might be our best un-nominated actor right now.

Australia (Nov. 26)- Since this is a Baz Luhrmann film people will either love it or hate it. There’s no in between. And since it stars Nicole Kidman critics and the media will try to cut its legs off before it even gets close to the Best Picture race. It could be terrible, but if it isn't would anyone have the guts to admit it? While the Academy loves big, sweeping epics l see this turning into more of a Romeo + Juliet than a Moulin Rouge! in that it has an enthusiastic cultish following, but doesn’t make a huge dent in the major award categories. Look for it to clean up in costume and production design.

Slumdog Millionaire (Nov. 27)-Truthfully, despite the strong buzz, I thought this was going to shape up to be just another little critical favorite that didn’t stand a chance until I read this synopsis on imdb:

“The story of Jamal Malik (Patel), an 18 year-old orphan from the slums of Mumbai, who is about to experience the biggest day of his life. With the whole nation watching, he is just one question away from winning a staggering 20 million rupees on India's "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" But when the show breaks for the night, police arrest him on suspicion of cheating; how could a street kid know so much? Desperate to prove his innocence, Jamal tells the story of his life in the slum where he and his brother grew up, of their adventures together on the road, of vicious encounters with local gangs, and of Latika (Pinto), the girl he loved and lost. Each chapter of his story reveals the key to the answer to one of the game show's questions.”

And they say there are no original ideas left in Hollywood. If it ends up being even half as good as that synopsis implies then watch out. Combine that with a director (Trainspotting’s Danny Boyle) long overdue to the Oscar party and we have a very serious contender. Voters always seem to find room for an indie, or even films just pretending to be one. And if that’s not enough it’s being distributed by Fox Searchlight (Little Miss Sunshine, Juno). This checks every box. In limited release now, but when it opens wider expect it to pick up massive momentum heading into December and January.

Frost/Nixon (Dec. 5)- In an election year the Academy will feel they have to nominate a political film and since Oliver Stone’s W. is too polarizing and controversial for them this fictionalized account of David Frost’s (Michael Sheen) TV interviews with Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) may be the perfect antidote. Still fuming after being passed over for his supporting turn as Skeletor in The Masters of the Universe, Langella aims to become the first actor to win an Oscar and a Tony for the same role.

I saw the trailer for this before W. and thought Langella’s take on the disgraced President looked goofy and cringe-inducing but I’m not about to judge a film based on a 2-minute clip. Or an unintentionally hilarious poster that misrepresents it as a campy 80's horror outing. Voters love Ron Howard and usually eat pseudo-historical stuff like this up, just as long as it’s directed by someone other than Stone.

The Reader (Dec. 10)- This is that OTHER Kate Winslet movie. Kate’s looking to pull a Cate from last year and pick up two nominations in two different acting categories with her supporting turn here as a Nazi war criminal hiding a scandalous secret. Given the dearth of contenders in that category every year it’s certainly possible, but Revolutionary Road is the Winslet movie to watch, not this one. All it does is clear the path for the more prestigious release because there won’t be enough room for both. If this film is even mildly successful all it will do is boost the prospects for her more anticipated project and put that in a better position come January. Winslet benefits, The Reader does not.

Doubt (Dec. 12)-Let’s just call this what it is: a vehicle for Meryl Streep to land her 500th Oscar nomination and nothing more. If she can be nominated for playing essentially a cartoon in The Devil Wears Prada voters will drool all of themselves with her turn as a nun. Oh, and Philip Seymour Hoffman will be losing to Heath…I mean nominated for Best Supporting Actor as well. But that’s it. This is an actor’s film, not a Best Picture nominee.

Gran Torino (Dec. 17)- Spike Lee may hate the 78-year-old Clint Eastwood but the Academy LOVES him. He could direct an episode of Sesame Street and they’d find a place for him on their ballots. Here he plays, an old, cranky Korean War vet who very reluctantly bonds with the Asian immigrant who tries to steal his ’72 Gran Torino.

If there’s one thing the Academy loves more than a film directed by or starring Eastwood, it’s a film directed by AND starring him. I predict he’ll win Best Actor for this because the Academy realizes the window is closing to honor him for his acting. He may get a director nod as well, but I just don’t get the impression it will be competing on the biggest stage. On paper it just doesn’t seem like it has that “big event feel” voters go for. So Eastwood will just have to settle, as if that’s settling. But it wins for most bad-ass poster. I love it. This is almost guaranteed to be nominated for SOMETHING.

The Wrestler (Dec. 17)-Oh, this is interesting. A low budget film without a distributor as recently as a couple of months ago has suddenly shot to the top of everyone’s Oscar prediction list. Hollywood still hates Mickey Rourke but they love a comeback story more. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the inside track is on him being nominated but I just can’t see the stuffy Academy rewarding any film having to do with professional wrestling with a Best Picture nod, no matter how good it is. Then again, I suppose the same could be said about boxing…and that won. If any filmmaker can overcome the seemingly insurmountable odds it’s Darren Aronofsky so I’m curious how this turns out.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Dec. 25)- YES! Could it be? Could a David Fincher’s film FINALLY be nominated for Best Picture? Could he finally get that long overdue Best Director nod? Based on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story of a man who ages backwards and starring likely lead actor nominee Brad Pitt, this is by far his best shot yet. Of all the movies on this list, this is the one I must want to see and it’s also the closest thing on here we have to a lock. It finds itself in the same comfy position as There Will Be Blood and Juno in that it’s being released in late December and hits wide in January. The studio didn’t just carelessly dump this in an Oscar dead zone like they did Fincher’s Zodiac last year. The Academy owes him a statue for that, The Game and Fight Club so it may be time to pay up. My expectations are through the roof for this.

Valkyrie (Dec. 26)-Don’t underestimate this Cruise guy. If anyone can make a story about a one-eyed Nazi plotting to assassinate Hitler work it’s him. This was actually pushed to early ’09 due to rumored production difficulties but was moved up again to capitalize on the goodwill surrounding Cruise’s performance in Tropic Thunder. Matt Lauer may have forgiven him for his loony antics but the Academy hasn’t… yet. This will do better than people think it will but no way will it be nominated for the top prize, or anything else for that matter. That it's directed by Bryan "Superman Returns" Singer doesn't help.

Revolutionary Road (Dec. 26)- Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet, the two stars of one of the most inexplicably reviled Best Picture winners in history are together again, this time as an unhappily married 1950’s couple who….um, honestly, I have no idea. I’ve read the synopsis of the film and I still couldn’t tell you what it’s actually ABOUT. It sounds like nothing happens at all. But that does that even matter to voters? They’ll see those two names and that of an Academy-Award winning director (Sam Mendes) not even bother watching the screener (it’s probably too long for them anyway) and vote for it. It’s about as safe a pick as there is and they can go to their cocktail parties telling everyone what a masterpiece it was. You have to give Kate and Leo though. They could have quickly sold out and reunited onscreen years ago but they waited over 10 years for the right project to come along. That makes me think it’s very good. And it could be the movie that finally nabs Winslet the gold.

Defiance (Dec. 31)-Here’s a case where having Daniel Craig in your movie really hurts and you pay the price during Oscar season. Coming a month after Quantum of Solace everyone will have Bond hangovers. And even though it covers dark, historical territory the Academy often rewards (anti-semitism), the field is just too crowded for this to make any kind of splash. It’s also directed by Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond) who has a gift for somehow turning deadly serious topics into mainstream, popcorn fare. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it never plays well with voters. The Zwick we have today is not the same one who directed Glory.
Don’t expect much.

My Prediction:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Milk
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire

No Country For Old Men

Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, Kelly MacDonald, Garrett Dillahunt, Tess Harper, Stephen Root, Beth Grant
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: R
***1/2 (out of ****)

SPOILER WARNING!!! I GIVE AWAY THE ENDING

Here’s something you may not have heard about 2007’s Academy Award winner for Best Picture No Country For Old Men: It’s absolutely terrifying. It’s also darkly humorous and gripping in the best way possible. But it’s not a masterpiece. It may not even be the Coen brothers’ best film, as I’d argue Fargo still holds that title. Like Fargo, this also deals with a stolen suitcase full of cash, but the setting and circumstances are far different. Joel and Ethan Coen have long been known for their quirky, risk-taking style as filmmakers, and while they stretch out of their comfort zone quite a bit here, this proves to be no exception. Their dedication to finding the humor in the most dire circumstances has been their calling card but has also proven to be their biggest hindrance in gaining mainstream acceptance. But here there’s no winking and it’s their most serious, dramatic effort to date, and it’s technically close to flawless. I may not think it’s as great as everyone else (or The Academy) does, but at worst, it still ranks among the year’s best efforts.

Controversy has swirled around the ending and looking at the star rating above you could probably guess where I stand on it. I understand why the Coens made the decisions they did in the final act and give them credit for making them, even if I don’t fully agree. If you’re one of the few who haven’t seen this movie yet, it’s time to be honest and admit the big reason to: Javier Bardem. I don’t think this film will be one of those Best Picture winners that have a lasting cultural impact or will even necessarily play as well on repeated viewings, as I’ve discovered already. It’ll be remembered for Bardem, who creates a character who deserves to join Darth Vader and Hannibal Lector in the pantheon of our greatest screen villains. His performance powers the film, and at times, even overpowers it.

When retired welder and Vietnam vet Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) happens to stumble upon a drug deal gone bad while hunting in the Texas desert. He discovers some dead bodies and a suitcase containing $2 million in cash, which he impulsively decides to take off with, despite the danger this poses to he and his wife, Carla Jean (Kelly MacDonald). Hot on his trail is a cold, heartless killer named Anton Chigurh (Bardem) and at times you wonder whether he’s even all that concerned about the money itself, or just the thrill of physically and psychologically intimidating anyone in his way to getting it. With his Beatles era bowl haircut and inventive cattle air gun murder weapon, he needs just a single coin flip to determine the fate of anyone he encounters. Every moment he’s onscreen and every single word Bardem emotionlessly delivers is pure terror.

He has a talk with a store clerk and you almost hope the old man doesn’t live through it so he isn’t burdened with the memory of actually having a conversation (if you can call it that) with this twisted psychopath. It’s arguably the most tension-filled scene in the entire film. Nearing retirement, seasoned Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) has uncovered this sicko’s trail of terror and is determined to reach Llewelyn and the cash before Chigurh does. So is bounty hunter Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) who’s hired to track down the money by a businessman who had invested interest in the botched drug deal. Wells is the only man with prior knowledge of just how dangerous Chigurh is, even though he uses his witty sarcasm to downplay it. There’s edge of your seat suspense as this monster closes in on Llewelyn and although its never explicitly stated in the film you get the impression this war vet is giving Chigurh the only real fight he’s ever had.

As we head at a breakneck pace toward the big showdown the Coen brothers pull the rug out and make a brave (some would say stupid) decision to deprive us of it. Llewelyn is discarded literally and figuratively as we head toward the film’s polarizing final 20 minutes. There’s a shift to the less interesting character of Tommy Lee Jones’ Sheriff Bell. The film, set in 1980, finds a way to remain very much of that time period while still telling a story that’s just as relevant now. The Vietnam wounds are still fresh in these characters’ minds and there’s a new kind of evil emerging. It’s an evil Sheriff Bell and even his father’s generation before him couldn’t have possibly prepared for. It’s encapsulated in Anton Chigurh and Bell wants no part of it. With time passing him by and retirement on the horizon, he’s just going through the motions and would likely prefer not to come face-to-face with this monster. If he does, he’s done.

Llewelyn is also a victim, but of greed and temptation. His character is also a casualty of the changing guard and comes to represent concepts Sheriff Bell can’t really get a handle on. Everything now seems determined by fate and forces he can’t control. It’s just a matter of timing and chance that Chirgurh never does catch up with Llewelyn and even more so that Sheriff Bell narrowly avoids an encounter with Chirgurh himself that most certainly would have ended in his death. That this madman is never apprehended and walks away at the end of the film is supremely important. This psychopathic monster will live to see another day and for that the future looks bleaker than ever. The final scene of the film with Bell sitting at the table with his wife (Tess Harper) and explaining the dream he had about his father seem meant to echo the themes of fate and change that permeate through the entire film. And it ends very abruptly with the screen fading to black in almost mid-sentence.

The decision to take the story in that unconventional, anti-crowd pleasing direction makes sense given both the title of the film and the hints given by Jones’ narration at the beginning, but it can’t help but feel a little anti-climactic since we had so much invested in the two major characters and their potential face-off. I haven’t read Cormac McCarthy’s novel from which this film is based but supposedly it stays slavishly faithful to it straight up to and including the ending. If so, this may be the first case of filmmakers actually being criticized for staying too true to the source material.

While I understand the reasoning behind it and commend the Coens for refusing to give us an easy, comfortable ending, I couldn’t ignore the sinking feeling that the wind was taken out of the sails of the film a little. The rest of the movie crackles with so much suspense and intensity the shift toward the end left me a little cold. Not necessarily disappointed, but more unfulfilled. I realize that was the intention behind it but in a year full of powerful finales in motion pictures, often the last thing on a viewer’s mind after they’ve seen a film is those final minutes. And even the film’s diehard supporters couldn’t argue that the last 20 minutes leave a lasting, impactful impression. It isn’t a major problem, but it is something that prevented the film from reaching the highest plateau possible for me. Everything else is perfect, especially Roger Deakins’ typically brilliant cinematography and near absence of a musical score. We’re left with only the sounds, which, in the context of this story, create a menacing horror and suspense.

Josh Brolin, capping off an incredible year, delivers a subdued performance in the classic mold of rugged screen legends like McQueen and Eastwood. His work is so quiet and pitch-perfect that amidst all the hype surrounding the movie and Bardem he kind of got lost in the shuffle, which was unfair. He makes you feel for a man who admittedly made a very selfish, stupid decision. Jones is also strong in a smaller role that grows in importance as the film wears on. He’s kind of the eyes and ears for the viewers and the moral centerpiece of the story. Scottish actress Kelly MacDonald disappears into the role of Llewelyn’s confused and naïve wife with a dead-on Southern accent while Woody Harrelson reminds us just how much more effective he is when given the right role, no matter what its size.

But the movie really belongs to Bardem, who gives a performance that has to be considered one of the strongest Academy Award winning supporting turns in years. Part of me wonders if the movie has garnered the praise it has primarily for Bardem’s performance and the big scenes that accompany it. Everyone loves an entertaining bad guy and it’s been a while since one as entertaining and as scary as Chirgurh has hit the screen. Just the opening scene alone, in which he strangles an officer to death with his handcuffs, is enough to give you nightmares for weeks. That’s not to say the film offers nothing else, but I do think everything else it offers would mean nothing if Bardem weren’t a part of it.

With No Country For Old Men The Coen brothers have finally gained well-deserved mainstream acceptance, but while doing so still managed to make a film that’s as inaccessible and challenging as anything else they’ve ever done. Continuously finding new ways to frustrate us and confound our expectations just may stand as their biggest accomplishment.