My Top 10 Films of 2008

*Note: The following is part of the continuing "10 FOR 10" series in celebration of ten years of Jeremy The Critic, in which my choices for the top 10 films of each year from 2006-2015 are revealed. Don't forget to check out my previous posts for 2006 and 2007. This installment will be focusing on 2008. Just a reminder that movies must have a U.S. release date of that particular year in order to qualify.

                                                                       2008

It's time to put 2008 to bed. If forced to rank, I'd probably name this the second weakest year covered in this series behind 2006. Like '07, I did compile a belated Top 10 list for this year, but very much unlike 07, a disappointed resignation accompanied my choices as I bemoaned their many flaws. Eight years later, few will be shocked at the films that made it, but may be taken aback somewhat at the order, which has changed considerably with time.

The Dark Knight, already an iffy choice for the top spot, loses that position here, dropping to a still respectable number 3. Let's face it: It has issues and the overabundance of superhero movies since has either hurt or helped its cause depending on whether you'd classify it as one. If nothing else, it'll always be remembered for Heath Ledger's posthumous Oscar-winning performance, which far surpasses the film it's in, which is still groundbreaking in many ways, arguably representing the high-water mark for director Christopher Nolan. But count me among the very few who prefer its sequel, The Dark Knight Rises.

Time has been kinder than expected to Best Picture winner Slumdog Millionaire, in hindsight one of the wiser Academy choices compared to what we've gotten since. Every time it comes on, it's tough to look away. Gran Torino holds steady as possibly the best late-era Eastwood entry while WALL-E becomes the first animated feature to make one of my lists, with few Pixar films measuring up to it since. Its existence as a weird political timepiece/character study and the great work from Josh Brolin and the entire cast surprisingly allows secures Oliver Stone's W. to sneak in.

David Fincher pops up again with Benjamin Button, but even with its incredible final hour I'd still have problems defending it as one of his stronger career efforts, much less worthy of the top spot. Revolutionary Road and Frost/Nixon are both so ridiculously underrated that I actually contemplated sliding them into the top two slots just to make a point. I resisted because neither really get over that hump that takes it to the next level. Still, I'd contend both are near-flawless, representing the best the decade has to offer (especially the latter, which grows more exciting on each rewatch). Roger Ebert's favorite film of the decade, Synecdoche, New York, is certainly challenging and ambitious enough to take top honors, but could I sit down and easily watch it right now? Probably not, as I'd have to be in the right frame of mind, but its standing here may as well be a vote of supreme respect for what director Charlie Kaufman and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman (in maybe his greatest role) accomplish.

But almost by process of elimination, it's The Wrestler for the win, a movie that's proven to hold the highest rewatch value for me despite its depressing subject matter and the fact that I initially thought Aronofsky's film arrived too late to open enough eyes to what actually goes on within the pro wrestling world. History has proven that theory wrong and as much as Mickey Rourke's tried (and largely succeeded) at squandering the goodwill of his comeback, there's no taking this performance away. It probably wouldn't my top ten or fifteen films of the decade, but doesn't need to. It just needed to be the best of 2008. Some runners-up that didn't make the list include In Bruges and Pineapple Express (both of which made my previous one) Wendy and Lucy, Son of Rambow, Rachel Gettting Married and The Visitor. Next up is 2009, where my crutch of referencing a previous list to inform these rankings falls by the wayside. From here on, the results get a bit crazier and more unpredictable.        


10. W.

"Stone paints (Bush) as an underachiever, full of self-doubt and burdened by expectations. In doing that, he sets the stage for the film’s most frightening realization: He’s just like us. And whether we want to admit it or not, there’s no guarantee we could have done a better job in the White House under similar circumstances. But more importantly, in being the first biopic to centered around a current sitting President’s legacy, we’re robbed of time, distance and historical context in examining the film, making for a fascinating character study." - 10/24/08


9. Gran Torino

"A lot of viewers had major problems with Eastwood treating racism and xenophobia as punch lines, which is completely missing the point. There are old, bitter bigots like Walt who toss around ethnic jabs for fun every day. And they think they're a riot. What Eastwood taps into with his performance (which if you look closer is a whole lot more than just growls and sneers) is that people like this are funny, just not in the way they believe themselves to be." - 5/22/09


8. WALL-E

"It helps that WALL-E, part Charlie Chaplin, part R2D2, is the most adorable onscreen creation since E.T. All the details of his personality and how they’re conveyed onscreen are amazing, like when he shakes uncontrollably and collapses himself into a box to hide when he’s frightened. We recognize his quirks, relate and empathize with him as if he were real, and the story becomes that much more involving because of it." - 7/10/08


7. Slumdog Millionaire

"The flashbacks span years with three different actors playing the characters at various points, tragic circumstances eventually separating them, until all paths lead to the moment Jamal appears on the show. As we’re given each question we’re also given the accompanying story behind it. They range from “Who invented the revolver?” to “Which historical figure is on the $100 bill?” The film constantly astonishes in how the answers show up in his life. One early query involving a Bollywood star, has a payoff that’s both touching, disgusting and hysterical all at the same time. We know the ending but it doesn’t matter. What matters is how Jamal gets to it, and that’s what kept my mouth open in amazement the entire time." - 12/19/08


6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

"An accident befalls a character and Fincher flashes back, showing us all the little, seemingly meaningless events that had to fall perfectly into place for that event to occur. Had one of those tiny circumstances not happened, there's no accident and the paths of those involved would have been considerably altered. Life is a series of windows, opening and closing at very specific times, which can be a source of both joy and unbearable sadness. We have control over it…and we don’t. That’s life, and this film is rich with every little detail of it." - 2/20/09


5. Frost/Nixon

"After a while we realize that Nixon’s obsession with “beating” Frost has more to do with him actually wanting to be him. Beyond simply being jealous of his youth and success, in Frost he sees the man he could have been if only he had the people skills. His fixation on every detail of the interviewer's life, from his shoes to his girlfriend, suggest what in Nixon’s personality really caused the Watergate break-in and why he so sloppily covered it up. For Nixon, he and Frost are really two sides of the same coin. Both have accomplished much in their given fields, with neither being taken seriously or respected in the slightest." - 2/12/09


4. Revolutionary Road

"Fans of Titanic who waited over a decade to see the re-teaming of Kate and Leo will probably want to hang themselves by the time the final credits roll. This is not an epic romance, or even a romance at all. Despite the fact it was misleadingly marketed as Titanic 2, there isn't a single romantic element in it. It's closer to a horror movie. Think Pleasantville meets Rosemary's Baby with a side helping of Mad Men thrown in for good measure." - 6/7/09


3. The Dark Knight

"While played by Ledger as a sick hybrid of Clockwork Orange's Alex and Sid Vicious of The Sex Pistols, the Joker still bares no resemblance to any villain previously committed to film. It's truly the definitive portrayal of this iconic character, with the actor making Cesar Romero and even Jack Nicholson look like clowns hired for a children's birthday party. Every moment he's on screen is pure terror and Nolan is smart enough to know the right dose of screen time to give him." - 7/20/08


2. Synecdoche, New York

"Watching, you might be reminded of more films exploring similar themes of mortality, human existence, forgiveness, love, and regret in very unconventional ways. But none like this. My mind immediately turned, in either method or execution, to pictures like Vanilla Sky, Magnolia, Adaptation, Stranger Than Fiction and I Heart Huckabees.  It shares its dark humor with Huckabees, as well a similarly whimsical John Brion score, but  Like Nicolas Cage's Kaufman doppelganger in Adaptation, Caden seems to represent the filmmakers' perception of himself and his failures.  This introduces an intriguing question. Can you criticize Kaufman for self-indulgence when the film is actually ABOUT a director's self-indulgence and how it destroys him?" - 3/11/09


1. The Wrestler

" This isn’t a feel-good movie about redemption, overcoming the odds or even winning the big match. If pushed for comparisons, it comes closest in tone to the gritty Raging Bull, digging so deep and pulling so few punches that the professional wrestling industry as a whole had no choice but to disown it. The accolades and superlatives for that accomplishment belong to Aronofsky, and especially Mickey Rourke, drawing on a well-documented lifetime of pain and suffering to give a performance for the ages." - 1/25/09

Top 10 Films of 2008
1. The Wrestler (dir. Darren Aronofsky)
2. Synecdoche, New York (dir. Charlie Kaufman)
3. The Dark Knight (dir. Christopher Nolan)
4. Revolutionary Road (dir. Sam Mendes)
5. Frost/Nixon (dir. Ron Howard)
6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (dir. David Fincher)
7. Slumdog Millionaire (dir. Dannny Boyle)
8. WALL-E (dir. Andrew Stanton)
9. Gran Torino (dir. Clint Eastwood)
10. W. (dir. Oliver Stone)

The Ten Best Films of 2008

First off, my apologies to 2007. I had previously stated that year wasn't a great one for films. How wrong I was. What do Into The Wild, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, I'm Not There and Michael Clayton all have common? Well, they're all better than every single film on the list you're about to read. And in retrospect any year that finds No Country For Old Men, Grindhouse, The Lookout and The Mist all MISSING my top ten has to be considered pretty impressive. Even throwaway guilty pleasures like Alpha Dog and Smokin' Aces left a more indelible print than could have reasonably been expected. 2008, on the other hand, truly was a bad year and it's unlikely my opinion on that will change anytime soon. Compiling a list of the finest cinematic endeavors in a year this unfulfilling was a challenge.

It was also a year where I massively overpraised so many undeserving films that if there were such a thing as a critic's license, mine should have been revoked. I've since learned my lesson. In my defense though a critic is almost forced to give an impulsive response to a picture upon a single viewing without taking into account how the film will age in your mind after that viewing or hold up on repeated ones. So, AT THE TIME the analysis was right on the money. Now...not so much. Obviously, problems arise when you revisit certain films and realize they were far less than they first appeared.

Waiting until June to compile the list had a devastating effect for many of the movies that made the cut and made this process substantially more interesting. Is it really too much to ask that a movie holds up on a second or third viewing months later? Apparently so. Picking the top film was much easier than expected. All I had to do is watch many of these movies again and see them drop like flies. Only one survived. After years of doing this I think I've finally figured out the secret formula to determining the year's best film. I ask myself the following questions:

1. Is it a feat that can be duplicated? (if it is, chances are it isn't the year's best)
2. Can I watch it over and over again, discovering something new on each viewing?
3. Do I want to watch it RIGHT NOW? (regardless of the mood I'm in)
4. How difficult was it to execute?
5. Does it say something, meaningful, lasting and important?

Obviously, there's some wiggle room with those questions but they succeed in being objective, while still taking personal preference into account. Just reading them gives a major hint what that movie is this year. The truth is 2008 is likely to be remembered more for great performances than films. Sean Penn in the otherwise sour Milk. Micky Rourke's career resurrection in The Wrestler. Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. And of course, you know who...in you know what. Those performances will stay with us. The films probably won't. I kept waiting for something brilliant to come out of left field and reaffirm my love for movies. I waited. And waited. But nothing.

It was a year where even the #1 film on my list was a disappointment of sorts and fell short of reaching its full potential. I'm not at all surprised what that film is, so much as the tumultuous road it took to get there. It's a tainted victory, but a victory nonetheless. Taking all this into account I've gone with a slightly different approach this year in adding a "WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?" section for each selection to reflect the creatively uneven output of the past year. These films will justifiably be praised, but not without measured criticism that reflect the discoveries I made on subsequent viewings (most of which were negative).

It's time to right some wrongs. And now the next time someone asks me why I own so few DVD's I can just show them a list of last year's theatrical releases because this just proves how difficult it is for a movie to hold up on a second viewing, much less a third or fourth, and to do it years (or in this case even months) down the line. If you dislike brutal honesty I suggest you stop reading now. These are the best films of the year...and I'm using the term "BEST" very loosely.

10. Definitely, Maybe (Director-Adam Brooks)

Crafting a smart and entertaining mainstream American romantic comedy is becoming a lost art. Depending on which day you get me on I'm either really proud or profoundly embarrassed to say I'm a fan of the "chick flick." This is a reminder that in the rare cases it's done really well there's no shame at all in enjoying one (even if you're a guy). A rom-com mystery that kind of plays like a feature length film version of How I Met Your Mother, there's genuine doubt as to the film's central question of maternity. And who would have guessed Ryan Reynolds could be this likable as a lead?

You actually care about the lives and personalities of all three of the women (played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher) and anyone watching is bound to have a rooting interest in who he ends up with. Interestingly, I found my allegiance on that issue has shifted since the first viewing. There's no obvious "wrong choice," which is why Adam Brooks' underrated script works so well. The early to mid-90's setting (often under-represented in movies) only helps its cause. It's the kind of movie where you can just shut off your brain and have a great time.

What's Wrong With It?
Chalk it up to extremely low expectations but, surprisingly, not much other than it's too lightweight to be considered anything meaningful. It touches on some life issues, none of which you'll be contemplating long after the film ends. But this isn't that kind of movie, nor does it need to be. It's one of the best romantic comedies to come around recently, but in just about any other year it wouldn't be cracking the top 10.


9. Gran Torino (Director-Clint Eastwood)

While other dramas this year strained to find social relevance or force fed a preachy message down our throats, star and director Eastwood actually bothered to intelligently explore some real issues that speak about the world we live in now. And he did it in a way that didn't condescend to the audience or over-sympathize of the situation, which would have been an easy route to take given the difficult material.

As the tough-minded, racist, Korean War Vet Walt Kowalski who begrudgingly takes a shy Hmong teen (Bee Vang) under his wing , Clint never tries to get us to like him. Instead he plays Walt as a man so stubbornly set in his ways that we have no choice but to accept him as he is, at the same time acknowledging what a damn fool he is by acting the way he does. We're just waiting for him to catch on and when he does the film enters unexpected suburban Dirty Harry territory. I have to be careful in calling this a "drama" because the film has more laugh-out loud moments and situations than the past few Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell comedies combined. Clint does a lot more than just grunt and grimace through this, although there's still plenty of that if you're interested. He even sings over the closing credits.

Nick Schenck's script walks a really fine line with the comic relief and it's destined to offend some, but Eastwood pulls it off. Christopher Carley is fantastic as the young priest who won't give up on Walt, when all signs say he should. I'd congratulate Eastwood for directing and producing two major films (this and Changeling) in the past year at almost 80 years old but he's one guy I don't want to get angry. So let's just say it's an impressive feat for someone any age.

What's Wrong With It?
Is it a comedy? A drama? A biting social satire? It's about a million things at once and while it's Eastwood's most interesting directorial effort since 1993's A Perfect World, it's all over the map in terms of what it's trying to be. Not to mention it's just plain strange and uncomfortable at times. We know what Eastwood is going for, but when the xenophobic slurs are THAT FUNNY and delivered with such impeccable comic timing by Eastwood doesn't the message get muddled...just a little bit?


8. WALL-E (Director-Andrew Stanton)

The first time I saw Andrew Stanton's WALL-E, I was blown away. The second time, much less so. But I'll always have that initial viewing for when just a few hours after leaving the theater I thought I had witnessed the kind of magical movie (reminiscent of early Spielberg) that just can't ever be topped. Then reality set in about a week later. You could argue Pixar bit off more than it could chew with some really deep material for a family film but that's preferable to condescending to your audience. While I don't know of any small child who could sit through it without getting restless, for fans of animation and Sci-Fi this was pretty much a cinematic dream come true.

What's Wrong With It?
I was SHOCKED how poorly this held up on a repeated viewing. So poorly that this went from being one of my favorites of the year to just barely making the list. Taking into account the film runs only 97 minutes, the story seemed to drag a little in the third act, making me wonder if those who claimed that Stanton couldn't deliver on the promise of its nearly silent opening 4o minutes may have been right. As "perfect" as all these recent Pixar movies seem to be and how everyone says they're breaking new ground, I have to ask why so many of them have a shelf life of a single viewing? And why do they FEEL so long despite barely clocking in at an hour and a half? While technically brilliant and emotionally satisfying, I'm starting to think they represent a "one and done" experience.

Is it possible that Pixar is just replicating the same movie over and over again with different characters but a similar recipe? It sure seems like it, although that's not such an insult when you consider how good they are at it. Their latest, Up, opened to predictably glowing reviews and massive box office, but I'm surprised just how little interest I have in seeing it. I'm Pixared out. Don't get me wrong though. Wall-E is easily one of the year's best and a tremendous film, just not nearly as tremendous as I originally thought.


7. Pineapple Express (Director-David Gordon Green)

Finally, the question is answered as to what would happen if a really gifted filmmaker "lowered" himself and decided to direct a stoner comedy. That filmmaker is David Gordon Green and in a year where nearly nothing met expectations the results are even better than we could have hoped. It's a buddy film. It's an 80's action movie. It's flat-out hilarious. Seth Rogen gives his most likable performance yet as slacking process server while James Franco's should-have-been-nominated supporting turn as the stoned out (but surprisingly good-hearted) Saul shows us all how funny he was capable of being if just given the opportunity. Its final act accomplishes what 2007's Hot Fuzz did, but much better.

What's Wrong With It?
No matter how well executed it is, it's still just a really hilarious (if extremely well-made) stoner comedy. That's it.


6. In Bruges (Director-Martin McDonagh)

The most underrated film of the year. Actually, the ONLY underrated film of the year. I saw this the same week I saw The Dark Knight and just never got around to reviewing it, something I've regretted since. That's ironic because Irish playwright Martin McDonagh's debut feature about two hitmen (Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell) looking for redemption in the small, boring Belgium town of Bruges as they await their next job, stayed with me longer than so many other 2008 releases. I had literally no interest in seeing it but did so on the basis of universally glowing recommendations. They were right.

The Oscar-nominated original script (HOW DID THIS LOSE TO MILK?) is an example of great screenwriting at its very essence. I cared about every character. The dwarf. The girlfriend. Ralph Fiennes' brilliantly rendered hitman who hates his wife. Even the town of Bruges feels like a living, breathing character. But more than that, I felt sympathy for their situation. Earned sympathy. There's a code of morals and ethics...even among contracted killers. McDonagh and his actors somehow find the humanity in this. And that bell tower scene...wow.

The Oscars may have gotten it all wrong but the Hollywood Foreign Press got it right recognizing this as one of the year's best and rewarding Farrell, who gives the performance of his life here. Anyone doubting this guy's chops as an actor needs to see this movie right now. And anyone still questioning the power of voice over narration as a storytelling device will be blown away by the powerful monologue that closes the film, as its the best piece of screenwriting this year.

What's Wrong With It?
There actually isn't much wrong with this picture. While this isn't so much a knock on the film per se, the crime/gangster genre has been revisited ad nauseam ever since Pulp Fiction was released in 1994. Did we really need another one of these? The film, as good as it is, is more an achievement in screenwriting than anything else and unfortunately just not big enough in scope or importance to rank anywhere near the top of this list.


5. Frost/Nixon (Director-Ron Howard)

Far from the stuffy Oscar bait it was promoted as, this was one of the most surprisingly taut and exciting pictures of 2008 and an intriguing look into the psyche of one of our most misunderstood historical figures. It's not that we were ever wrong about who Richard Nixon was or what he did, but I don't think we were ever quite sure exactly why he did it. The answer to the question is deeper and more complicated than it first appears and it's all contained in the Oscar nominated performance of Frank Langella as the disgraced former President and the equally impressive Michael Sheen as David Frost, the reporter who pushed him to the breaking point in a series of television interviews in the late '70's.

Adapting historical events to film is hard. Adapting them from a stage play might even be harder. The film's success is less dependent on Ron Howard's direction (which is fine but nothing special) than a complete embodiment of these men by the two actors. It's almost eerie how as the story wears on Langella seems to transform himself physically and emotionally into the President to the point where in the finals scene we feel like as if we're watching Nixon. Peter Morgan's script leaves us with the the feeling that these two almost needed each other in a way, wanting to take the other down to cleanse themselves of their own failures.

What's Wrong With It?
It's a history lesson. The more movies I see based on historical events the more I start to think that there won't ever be one that could top a year-end list (and I'd even go so far as to include Schindler's List in that club). Howard avoids the usual pitfalls of the genre and crafts an exciting piece of cinematic non-fiction but that we already know the outcome (and how little it yielded) hangs over the film like a dark cloud. We go to movies to escape from the real world, not immerse ourselves in a dramatic recreation of it. "Based on true events" is a tough label to shake.


4. The Wrestler (Director-Darren Aronofsky)

Welcome back Mickey Rourke. If years down the line no one remembers much from the last year in film (which is sadly a real possibility) they'll at least never forget Rourke's eerily personal and emotionally scarred portrayal of washed-up '80's wrestling superstar Randy "The Ram" Robinson. Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood shine, but Rourke is this movie. The thought that Nicolas Cage could have actually been cast in the title role instead is a scary possibility not even worth contemplating. We know who was born to play Ram. Aronofsky (in his most emotionally effective film to date) pulls back the curtain to show us how the wrestling business can chew up and spit out its performers and how for one of them leaving it is more painful than staying in, even if it could cost him his life.

The infamous "deli scene" is either my favorite or least favorite movie moment of the year, depending on whether you enjoy watching people struggling to survive in the most uncomfortable social situations imaginable. The saddest part of that scene isn't how it ends, but that Ram was actually really good at that job and almost seemed to enjoy it up until that point. How he translated his skills as a performer to the deli counter. It makes you wonder what else he could have been good at. If scenes like that don't win you Oscars, what does? Sorry Sean but that statue belongs to Mickey.

What's Wrong With It?
It's so depressing you'll want to hang yourself after the credits roll. Rourke's performance curbs a lot of that but if a movie is going to be this dark it better be full of huge ideas and big issues to think about when it's over. There really aren't any here. It's pretty cut and dry and doesn't lend itself to any kind of deep analysis. The film is primarily a showcase for Rourke, even though he does an incredible job in making it feel like it isn't. Looking back, Tomei's performance isn't the slightest bit Oscar-worthy. Also, while the film is technically superb, Aronofsky doesn't break new ground as the low budget indie faux-documentary style has been beaten into submission (cheap pun I know) by other films

Maybe it's just the wrestling fan in me talking but I can't help but think this movie was released about a decade too late, which could explain why it didn't quite strike the mainstream chord it should have. And while it brought some much needed attention to what wrestlers really do and sacrifice, it did so at the cost of reinforcing the worst stereotypes people have about professional wrestling.


3. Slumdog Millionaire (Director-Danny Boyle)

Last year's Best Picture Oscar winner about a peasant from the slums of Mumbai who goes on to win the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and find his lost love is a tale of two movies. The one Danny Boyle actually made and the one the media and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences want to believe that he made because it fits so nicely into their perfectly shaped box of what crowd-pleasing, inoffensive entertainment is supposed to be. It's both the year's most overrated and underrated film at the same time. Simon Beaufoy's script (adapted from Vikas Swarup's novel, "Q&A") is ingenious in how it seamlessly shifts back and forth through flashbacks to reveal how 18-year-old Jamal (Dev Patel) knew the answers to all those questions and dissenters of the screenplay's supposedly "manipulative" structure forget that all the queries on a show like that are dependent on someone just simply paying attention to everything that's around them.

Though it didn't garner a single acting nomination, the performances are universally strong across the board with Anil Kapoor's work as the arrogant host going criminally overlooked by nearly everyone. Frieda Pinto does a good enough job looking pretty and seeming just unattainable enough. The best edited and scored film on this list by a landslide. That train sequence (set to M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes") is one for the vault. And regardless of what's been said everywhere it's not the fluffy "feel-good movie of the year." There's a lot more substance to it than that...I think.

What's Wrong With It?
When I watched this a second time I found myself staring at my watch waiting for key events to happen and when they did, the emotional reaction I had the first time was absent. I'd be curious to know if anyone else tried that and had the exact same "been there, done that" response I did. This tells me the script is primarily dependent on surprises, revelations and plot turns rather than real emotional truth. The movie seemed more mechanical and choreographed to me the second time, making me wonder if there is some truth in those plot manipulation claims.

And don't even get me started on the film being referred to as the "Obama of the Best Picture nominees," or worse yet, that we should all just embrace it because we're in a recession. Sure, it won the Best Picture Oscar...but FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS. It's been just a few months and it already hasn't aged well. Unfortunately, the only thing people are talking about now in regards to the film are what prices the child stars are going for and how they can further be exploited.


2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Director-David Fincher)

Just for the record, as a self-professed Fincher fanatic, here's where I stand: Better than Alien 3, Se7en and Panic Room. Worse than The Game, Fight Club and Zodiac. So no, despite my initail glowing overreaction this isn't going to be remembered as our greatest living director's masterwork. But I love it and it's a hell of a lot better than it's been given credit for. Haters of the film could only keep coming back to one argument: It reminded them of Forrest Gump. That's pretty weak. As if being reminded of that great film is a capital offense. It's an obvious shot at screenwriter Eric Roth, who penned both, and I can kind of see where they're coming from....to a point. Luckily the Academy got wise for once and ignored all of them, showering the film with 13 nominations. Their motivations behind that may be suspect as usual, but when it comes to rewarding the long overdue Fincher, I'll take it.

By taking what COULD HAVE BEEN another Forrest Gump in the hands of anyone else and making it darker and sadder, Fincher turns a movie about life into one about death. A protagonist aging backwards should be a showy gimmick and the film could have easily collapsed under the weight of its groundbreaking digital effects but because of Fincher's vision (and the nuanced performances of Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) it becomes something much more. For proof of just how much more, read F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story from which its based and marvel at how he and Roth took a somewhat meager and unformed conceit and turned it into an epic journey.

What's Wrong With It?
Not nearly as much as you've heard, but Roth's script is clearly the weak link here. The film is so technically well made that at times it's painfully obvious that Fincher's skills are far above some of the trivial circumstances presented in the screenplay (i.e. the sea boat captain stuff). While this had one of the better second viewings on the list I couldn't help but think I was completing a homework assignment while watching it just from the sheer density of it all. Movies today are just too long and we can probably add this to the long list of films that would be greatly improved by cutting just 15 or 20 minutes.

When Benjamin and Daisy end up "meeting in the middle" and we head into the brilliant final hour the film soars to heights so high that the earlier portions can't help but be damaged in comparison. Because we expect nothing less than perfection from Fincher each time out he'll always be in competition with himself, forcing us to compare this to his previous output. Such a comparison does this movie no favors. Despite these issues I desperately wanted to put this in the #1 spot, but doing so would be an endorsement of my favorite director's resume rather the actual film.


1. The Dark Knight (Director-Christopher Nolan)

It's overlong. Some of the action scenes are sloppily edited. The plot's too convoluted. Bale's performance is just adequate. It didn't meet the massive expectations. And, sorry, it's no masterpiece. So what is it about Nolan's film that sets it a league apart from every other movie released this year? It has just as many flaws as any other film on this list, but with one key difference: It's flaws MAKE IT A MORE INTERESTING FILM and add to the overall experience. They're the result of a filmmaker's reach exceeding his grasp in a brave attempt to give us something we've never seen before. For the most part he succeeded. Nolan should take a bow because he crafted the only film this year that gains in power with each viewing and the first movie in over ten years to top my list that didn't earn four stars from me when I saw it initially. Go figure. It was just that kind of year. Truthfully, after re-watching all the films on this list, I'm still not sure if any of them are deserving of four stars (as silly as that whole rating system is anyway).

In an unfortunate circumstance, when I saw The Dark Knight last summer it ended up being the single worst theater going experience of my life. I doubted the film could ever recover. But recover it did...and then some. The flaws I saw the first time haven't gone away exactly. They just mean less in the overall scheme of things. I've accepted that I'll never love this film as much as everyone else, but there's no question it was the most ambitious and important achievement of the year and a landscape changer. For a moment in July, 2008 that barrier separating the critical from the commercial briefly disappeared for the first time since the release of Titanic in 1997. Everyone was a part of something, regardless of race, age or gender. When I think back on all the most memorable film moments from 2008, all of them can be found in Nolan's film (including the one above).

For a while, even while my appreciation for the somewhat messy, overly ambitious film increased, I was still unsure whether it was really "robbed" of a Best Picture nomination. Watching the actual telecast I made up my mind. It was. Flaws and all, this was still a better movie than the other nominees. But one Oscar it should have never been up for is Best Editing because this movie is a great example of how lost time in the editing booth can stop a great film from being a masterpiece. Questionable choices in this area still prevent me from being on board like I want to be and I still say the movie doesn't really get going until the corpse of that crook dangles outside the Gotham Mayor's window (which still caused me to jump even on a fourth viewing).

Most feel the third act involving D.A. Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face is what should have been left on the cutting room floor or saved for another film, but I don't completely agree. There's too much over-explanatory mob focus in the first hour that could have easily been given the ax instead. Besides, it's hard to argue less screen time for Aaron Eckhart who leaves painful memories of Tommy Lee Jones in the dust.

What amazed me most were the surprises. The fate of the Joker. Of Rachel. Of Harvey. Of Jim Gordon. Writers Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer subverted all expectations of how we thought things would go down. And who could have guessed Gary Oldman would have given us that much in what was just expected to be a minor, throwaway role? His delivery of that speech at the end? Chills. Gyllenhaal for Holmes? A fair trade, but a much narrower victory for Maggie than anyone predicted.

You can't discount the role Heath Ledger's death played in the prism through which we view the film. To do that would be flat-out denial. So would be denying that his Oscar winning portrayal was worthy of all the hype accompanying it, regardless of the tragic circumstances. This is not one of the decade's best films. Not even close. But few performances this decade, supporting or otherwise, were as powerful and demonic as Ledger's. It was the one aspect that turned out better than anticipated, if that's possible.

Usually I'm not a huge fan of superhero movies, which is a good thing since this isn't one. Nolan directed a crime drama played completely straight and stripped of all the usual conventions associated with the genre. Hopefully we do get a sequel because I think he's capable of crafting something even better than this. Yet at the same time I'll admit to being kind of curious as to the direction another filmmaker could take the franchise. Now almost a full year removed from its release The Dark Knight plays as well as ever. It isn't perfect but it is groundbreaking, reaching higher and accomplishing more than any other film in a weak year.

81st Annual Academy Awards Predictions

Last year's Oscar telecast drew its lowest rating in thirty years. This year's could draw even lower than that. Chalk it up to the quality of films released this year, poor marketing or a bad economy but for whatever reason I'm sensing a real lack of interest in this year's Oscars and how that will or won't translate to the big show is anyone's guess. The Academy did ABC and viewers no favors with the films they nominated (or in some cases didn't) but that's not their job. Their job is to recognize the year's best and in that respect they could have done much worse. And at least the acting races are strong, specifically one.

With the exception of the Best Supporting Actor coronation casual viewers will likely tune out, but for diehard film fans this is the Superbowl. After last year's disaster changes have been made. We have a new host (Hugh Jackman) and supposedly an overhaul of sorts. Just as an actor can be either be deserving or undeserving of an Academy Award, the same applies to presenting one and there have been some disturbing rumors as to who may be doing those honors this year.

It's funny how the closer I've followed films in the past couple of years the worse my predictions have gotten. Before I started reviewing movies and just followed the Oscars casually I did much better. Last year I embarrassingly managed to miss nearly everything. Below are my picks as to who I think will win in the major categories along with an analysis where I chime in with an opinion. I played it pretty straight here but if there are going to be any huge upsets or surprises, a seemingly bland and predictable year like this is when it's most likely to happen.

Best Picture:
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
"Frost/Nixon"
"Milk"
"The Reader"
"Slumdog Millionaire"

Analysis:
I can't stand it when I'm forced to almost root against a movie I love because the media has shoved it down our throats. That's what we have with the hype surrounding Slumdog Millionaire, a film its distributor insists on selling as a warm and fuzzy, lightweight "feel good" Bollywood romance. It isn't. It's far better than that. The movie Boyle ACTUALLY MADE deserves to win, not that one. Unfortunately, it's getting tougher to separate the two. As much as I hate inevitable outcomes and the media deciding the race for us I still can't disparage it because it is a great film and will be one of the stronger Best Picture choices they've made in years. Too bad it's winning for all the wrong reasons. Although you'd never know it, there are four other films competing.

Milk, the weakest nominee of the bunch has the best chance to spoil Slumdog's parade and if it does I'm throwing a brick at the television. It would be one of the Academy's dumbest, most overtly politically driven decisions of the decade. The Reader's deficiencies are exaggerated but it's still slightly undeserving of its nod and has little to no chance. I bet no one even knows Frost/Nixon is nominated, which is a shame. That leaves Benjamin Button, the most nominated and commercially successful film in contention. You can't completely discount anything with 13 nods but it'll fare better in the technical categories.

Prediction: It is Written.

Best Director:
Danny Boyle, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Stephen Daldry, "The Reader"
David Fincher, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Ron Howard, "Frost/Nixon"
Gus Van Sant, "Milk"

Analysis:
If you're putting odds on a huge upset you could do worse then putting them in this category. In weak years like this the Picture and Director winners have a tendency to not match (see '98 and '05). Since Slumdog is a virtual lock for the big prize Boyle isn't quite as safe as you've been lead to believe. I will say he's the only choice here who pulled something out of himself as a filmmaker that we never knew he had. It really is a huge accomplishment deserving of the win. Daldrey shouldn't be there. The Howard nod is a show of respect and nothing more. Milk isn't a "director's film." Nothing would make me happpier than waking up on Monday morning and uttering the statement: "David Fincher, the Academy Award winning director of The Game, Fight Club, Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." Not happening though.

Prediction: Danny Boyle

Best Actor:
Frank Langella, "Frost/Nixon"
Sean Penn, "Milk"
Brad Pitt, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Mickey Rourke, "The Wrestler"
Richard Jenkins, "The Visitor"

Analysis:
The one race EVERYONE seems to care about and justifiably so. What a strong category. No matter what the outcome the real winners here are moviegoers. Some think Penn and Rourke will split their votes and Langella could sneak in. Not a chance. Same goes for Jenkins and Pitt. All were amazing though. This is a two man race and and if Rourke wins we're guaranteed the speech of a lifetime and the second most emotional moment of the night. Despite my misgivings about the film in which he stars it would be far from an injustice if Penn takes it. Rourke is gaining buzz by the second and catching up. You've heard the expression, "too close to call" in the past except this time it's actually true. It'll be a painfully long pause when they open that envelope.

Prediction: I'm convinced whoever I pick will be wrong which is why I'm picking Sean Penn, hoping that I am. When it's this close the Academy usually makes the safer, more predictable choice.

Best Actress:
Anne Hathaway, "Rachel Getting Married"
Angelina Jolie, "Changeling"
Melissa Leo, "Frozen River"
Meryl Streep, "Doubt"
Kate Winslet, "The Reader"

Analysis:
It's safe to say nearly everyone (with the possible exception of Raffaello Follieri and Kate Hudson) are rooting for Hathaway. Even I want her to win and I haven't even seen the film yet. In any other year Streep would have this locked up but she's at a disadvantage by not being Kate Winslet. Who's Melissa Leo? What's Frozen River? They finally decided which movie to nominate Winslet for and in which category so that's that. Expect lots of tears. Not just from her but from viewers who hate The Reader.

Prediction: Angelina Joli...kidding. Kate Winslet.

Best Supporting Posthumous Heath Ledger Award:
Josh Brolin, "Milk"
Robert Downey Jr., "Tropic Thunder"
Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Doubt"
Heath Ledger, "The Dark Knight"
Michael Shannon, "Revolutionary Road"

Analysis: Seriously?

Prediction: Give me a break.

Best Supporting Actress:
Amy Adams, "Doubt"
Penelope Cruz, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"
Viola Davis, "Doubt"
Taraji P. Henson, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Marisa Tomei, "The Wrestler"

Analysis:
The only category where literally ANY of the five nominees can win, except maybe Henson. The Supporting Actress award has a long history of upsets and unpredictability but this year it's really wide open. You may as well just close your eyes and just point to a name. Cruz gave the is the safest bet statistically but her film's lack of nominations elsewhere is a little worrisome. Adams is coming on strong and co-star Davis isn't lagging far behind. If the Academy gave Tomei an Oscar for My Cousin Vinny they couldn't possibly overlook the best performance of her career in The Wrestler, could they? Yes they can.

Prediction: Penelope Cruz

Would Most Like To See: I'd jump up and down screaming like a little girl if Fincher won Best Director.

Would Least Like To See: Milk win Best Picture. "Least like to see" is a huge understatement.


And The Rest:
Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black, "Milk" (Can someone please explain to me how this qualifies as an "ORIGINAL" screenplay?)
Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Animated Film: "Wall-E"
Foreign-Language Film: "Waltz With Bashir"
Documentary: "Man On Wire"
Editing: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Cinematography: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Art Direction: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Costume Design: "The Duchess"
Makeup: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Original Score: "Slumdog Millionaire"
The "Bruce Springsteen should have not only been nominated but won" Award (or Original Song): “Jai Ho,” Slumdog Millionaire
Visual Effects: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Sound: "The Dark Knight"
Sound Mixing: "The Dark Knight"
Live-Action Short: "Spielzugland (Toyland)"
Animated Short: "Presto"
Documentary Short: "The Conscience of Nhem En"

The Wrestler

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, Ernest Miller Running Time: 115 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)

Boxing has Rocky and Raging Bull. Basketball has Hoosiers. Football has Rudy. Now wrestling has The Wrestler. Only it comes at the highest price and is the darkest of victories. Now everyone knows. The curtain is pulled all the way back and at times it’s really difficult to watch. I kept trying to convince myself that director Darren Aronofsky was exaggerating for effect. It's a movie. It’s not really that bad. But let’s not fool ourselves. It is. We know because we’ve seen the long list of wrestlers who passed away too soon. The numbers don’t lie and neither does this film, an unflinching, brutalizing look at the life of a past his prime wrestler that’s about as uplifting as a funeral. The film starts dark and then it gets darker until finally it goes so dark it practically plunges itself into the depths of emotional hell.

Supposedly, Aronofsky took a trip up to Stanford, Connecticut to show the film to WWE chairman Vince McMahon. Why he even bothered I have no idea. Those who watch wrestling would seek the movie out anyway, with or without McMahon’s endorsement (more likely without it). Of course he despised the film and now after finally viewing it I find it hard to believe he didn’t hurl himself off the roof of Titan Towers. I’m sure he thinks this “exposes the business.” Damn right it does. The truth hurts.

His denouncement was the first positive sign for me that Aronofsky had probably made a great film. But as someone who's been watching wrestling far longer than I have movies, I couldn’t help but be overcome with wildly mixed feelings. Thrilled as both a fan and filmgoer that the profession of “wrestler” and what they do has finally been treated with the respect and dignity it deserves on screen, but also at the same time thoroughly devastated with the cold reality that unfolds.
Mentioning this film alongside the best sports movies could seem blasphemous to many since wrestling is so often belittled as “fake” by those who don't understand the work involved. But its brilliance is in how it explores the toll that unfair label has taken on those who earn their living doing it, or in the case of this protagonist, struggle to. This isn’t a feel-good movie about redemption, overcoming the odds or even winning the big match. If pushed for comparisons, it comes closest in tone to the gritty Raging Bull, digging so deep and pulling so few punches that the professional wrestling industry as a whole had no choice but to disown it. The accolades and superlatives for that accomplishment belong to Aronofsky, and especially Mickey Rourke, drawing on a well-documented lifetime of pain and suffering to give a performance for the ages.

Rourke is faded 80’s wrestling superstar Randy “The Ram” Robinson, who at the height of his popularity was one of the most recognizable and successful professional wrestlers in the world. Now, twenty years later, his hearing is almost gone, he’s nursing a laundry list of wrestling-related injuries and instead of filling up arenas he lives in a trailer park where he can’t even make the month’s rent. He spends his weekdays working at the supermarket and the weekends wrestling local independent shows in New Jersey. The energy of the crowd (however small it may be) keeps him going but the closest he gets to his glory days is playing himself on an old 8-Bit Nintendo game with the neighborhood kids.

Following a brutal, hardcore match with crazed opponent Necro Butcher (Dylan Summers) Ram collapses in the locker room, suffering a heart attack. He’s told he can never wrestle again but how he’s given the news by the doctor is particularly cold and condescending, as if he views his profession as just a crazy side hobby he can drop at any time rather than what he does for a living. He can’t just "stop." It’s not that simple.

For Ram there is no life outside of wrestling. His only friend is a stripper named Cassidy (Marisa Tomei) but she has an invisible line she doesn’t want to cross with customers that prevents their relationship from going any further. His estranged daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood) hates his guts and at the beginning we’re confused as to exactly why. By the end we’re not. Ram may be a force between the ropes but outside of them he’s essentially a wounded dog, discarded by the business (and it is very much a business) he literally gave his heart to. But he’s still got one match left to go, against his old arc-nemesis The Ayatollah (Ernest Miller”), if he can make it.
Afonofsky, bringing to life the vivid details of Robert Siegel’s script, shows us EVERYTHING. The blading. The steroids. The locker room. The promoters. The planned finishes. Nothing is left out and there are no inconsistencies to be found (and believe me I was looking). I was surprised not only how much wrestling action was in the film, but how good and seamless it looked. And now maybe after seeing close-ups of staples, thumbtacks and barbed wire removed from someone’s flesh, cynics may actually think twice before throwing that ridiculous “fake” label around. Aronofsky has finally done what I've always wanted to my entire life: Shut those people up for good. Pre-determined? Yes. Fake? Try taking a chair shot to the head. Doesn't hurt. I promise.

It’s often said a director or writer did their research before making a film but in the case of Aronofsky and screenwriter Robert Siegel it must have been exhaustive and the results are visible in every frame. There so many little, specific details that are thrown in that can’t be given away at risk of ruining the first-time experience. Besides being thrown right into the ring we’re given unlimited access to the locker room and the camaraderie that exists between the wrestlers. One of my favorite moments is Ram discussing the plans for his match with Butcher, who when you first see him in the locker room reminds you more of a tenured English professor than a hardcore wrestler. Then we see the match and can’t believe it’s even the same guy. After over 20 years watching I thought I had seen everything in pro wrestling but there were some moments here that were really eye opening and educational in shocking ways, like a sleazy promoter paying Randy chump change for a show in a high school gym. The saddest of all is a legends autograph signing where wrestlers are either in wheelchairs, hooked up to I.V’s, or asleep. Only a couple of fans show up.

Here's where I’m obligated to talk about the incredible comeback of Mickey Rourke. Since I'm criminally unfamiliar with much of his early work there’s no baseline for which I can judge his performance here against those, not as if there should be any need to. But I am fully aware of what happened to him and how far he had to climb to get back. And I can tell you, in this film, measured against any criteria, for 115 minutes MICKEY ROURKE IS A PRO WRESTLER. But don’t believe anyone who tells you he’s “playing himself.” If that's true how would you explain how he’s somehow more believable in the role than most of the wrestlers you’d see on television every week? This guy could headline Wrestlemania right now. But it's as Randy where he should earn his Oscar.
Discussing the merits of the film outside of Rourke’s performance is difficult but not because he overshadows it. In fact, just the opposite. He’s in every scene and must carry every moment but what sets his performance apart from Oscar rival Sean Penn’s in Milk is that Rourke makes everything and everyone around him better. While Penn’s work was technically staggering it wasn’t giving like this is. There’s something deeper going on and an emotionally draining ordeal that that could have easily turned into the cinematic equivalent of slitting your wrists is grounded in the warmth and sensitivity Rourke brings to the role. Inside the ring Ram is a maniac but outside of it he’s a gentle soul. He never plays Randy as pitiful cause, instead as a man soldiers on and rolls with the punches despite the obvious emotional pain he feels.

Watching him I got the impression I was witnessing the kind of performance that people will look back on 30 years from now as a standard-bearer in film acting, a Brando-level achievement. Him not winning the Oscar would be a flat-out horror and that’s taking into account that Penn gave arguably the performance of his career. Rourke is that great. The role had originally belonged to Nicolas Cage, who dropped out. To his credit, he knew this was Mickey’s part, or maybe he just wet his pants at the sight of a staple gun. Either way, Cage finally makes a career move we can all support.

As much as it may appear Rourke does it alone, he doesn’t. Evan Rachel Wood has maybe only two or three big scenes but they’re absolutely huge and it’s a powerhouse turn, much more restrained than you might imagine. The dichotomy between Ram and Marisa Tomei’s stripper Cassidy cuts to the very heart of the film. Both dress up (or in her case down) and put on a show. Neither is taken seriously when the show ends, nor do they know who they’re supposed to be when that curtain closes. Two lost souls kicked to the curb in the professions they love when they've reached their expiration date.

Gone are the stylistic and visual flourishes that have become hallmarks of Aronofsky’s films like Requiem For A Dream and The Fountain. The latter was perceived by many to be a failure. Not by me, but if you think he needed a "comeback" film after it this was exactly the kind of one he should have made and an even bigger challenge. Practically stripped bare of everything but Siegel’s script and the actors we find out what’s he really got.
Aided by documentary cinematographer Maryse Alberti the movie has a docu-style feel that's uncomfortable and at times even scary in its immediacy, but never drawing unnecessary attention to its method. We're taking this trip with him as it succeeds even beyond taking us with cruel intimacy into the ring and depicts an even more desolate, depressing world outside of it. A deli scene where Ram finally reaches his breaking point is so frightening I'm swearing off cold cuts for life. The ‘80’s soundtrack could easily double as Guitar Hero’s Greatest Hits, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And if you don’t get chills when Ram comes through the curtain to Guns n’ Roses’ “Sweet Child O’ Mine” it’s time to check for a pulse. Had Axl not given them the song for free it would have been worth every penny the studio paid for it.

Because it’s an Aronofsky film we know he won’t supply any easy answers or let us go with a pat ending. One of the few movies I've seen in recent years that ended perfectly. The beauty of the final minutes is how it can be interpreted as either tragic or uplifting. It stays with you. Why should you feel sorry for someone who chose to do this for a living? You shouldn’t, and like the protagonist the film never asks for your sympathy or sentimentalizes the situation. It just asks you to think about it....hard.

Maybe years down the line if wrestlers are ever respected as athletes and entertainers rather than demeaned as “independent contractors” we can look back on Aronofsky’s accomplishment as taking the first steps toward getting there. Wrestling now finally has its film and there’s nothing anyone can do to take it away. Not even McMahon. But what might be the saddest thing about The Wrestler, sadder even than the struggle of the title character, is that the wrestling business is unable to share in the victory.

Academy Award Nomination Predictions

Whether it's Dreamgirls being shockingly snubbed for Best Picture two years ago or Tommy Lee Jones being announced as a Best Actor nominee for In The Valley of Elah last year the Academy Award nominations always seem to bring a few surprises. Some that no one can see coming. Just imagine the gasps in that auditorium if we hear the words, "DUSTIN HOFFMAN FOR LAST CHANCE HARVEY." Crazier things have happened. Or there could be no surprises at all. That's been known to happen too.

My choices for the five Best Picture nominees don't differ all that much from the prediction I made a couple of months ago, save for one. While I was dead-on in calling the meteoric rise of Slumdog Millionaire, I miscalculated with Revolutionary Road, which turned into a bigger awards disappointment than anyone could have predicted. Something like this is always tricky and almost requires a balance between playing it straight and taking some well-chosen risks. We'll see how I do.

Best Picture:
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
“The Dark Knight”
“Frost/Nixon”
“Milk”
“Slumdog Millionaire”

Analysis: I have my fingers crossed that I'm wrong and the preposterously overrated Milk fails to earn a Best Picture nod, which isn't so far-fetched considering it's been losing a lot of steam lately. That's my one wish for the morning, as negative as it sounds. This category still isn't set in stone as The Reader, The Wrestler or even Gran Torino could easily sneak in. Doubt is also still a possibility. Button is the second most vulnerable. I haven't seen those four but I'm still confident any of them would almost have to be a better choice than Milk. I'm just not completely sold that voters will agree. And no, WALL-E isn't out of this yet.

Best Director:
Darren Aronofsky, “The Wrestler”
Danny Boyle, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Clint Eastwood, “Gran Torino”
David Fincher, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
Christopher Nolan, “The Dark Knight”

Analysis: The picture and director nominations NEVER MATCH (as little sense as that makes). This means someone's getting snubbed. It'll be Gus Van Sant who has the least "directorly" film of the nominees. Sean Penn's getting all the credit anyway so voters will probably just assume he directed himself. This opens the door for Aronofsky. The Wrestler probably peaked too late to get the Best Pic nod so they'll want to reward it for something other than the acting and song categories. Besides, with names like Boyle, Fincher and Nolan there doesn't it seem weird NOT to have Aronofsky joining them? Ron Howard was overloooked before for Apollo 13 and now it'll happen again with Frost/Nixon. Acknowledging Eastwood in the twilight of his career is just too great an oppportunity for the Academy to pass up.

Best Actor:
Clint Eastwood, “Gran Torino”
Richard Jenkins, “The Visitor”
Frank Langella, “Frost/Nixon”
Sean Penn, “Milk”
Mickey Rourke, “The Wrestler”

Analysis: This is pretty cut and dry with the exception of one surprise. Actors make up a large voting block so I'm predicting they'll find it impossible not to nominate Richard Jenkins' understated but brilliant work in The Visitor. It was just too good. They'll see Brad Pitt's performance in Benjamin Button as an achievement in visual effects more than anything else. That film is already on shaky ground as it is so it'll get hit here. In a repeat of 1997 when he had to stand by and watch Winslet grab all the glory, DiCaprio will be shut out for Revolutionary Road.

Best Actress
Anne Hathaway, "Rachel Getting Married"
Sally Hawkins, “Happy-Go-Lucky”
Meryl Streep, “Doubt”
Kristin Scott Thomas, "I've Loved You So Long"
Kate Winslet, “Revolutionary Road”

Analysis: Mark my words: Angelina Jolie's getting snubbed for Changeling. If she didn't get a nomination for A Might Heart (a better received performance) she sure won't be getting one for this. Every year it seems they like to honor a boring accomplished actress no one cares about in a performance nobody saw. So it's essentially a coin toss between Frozen River's Melissa Leo and I've Loved You So Long's Kristin Scott Thomas. While it's bad timing for Hathaway that Bride Wars hit theaters just as ballots were being mailed out, she's sitting pretty after the Globe co-win and is actually considered a front-runner along with Streep.

Best Supporting Actor
Josh Brolin, “Milk”
Robert Downey Jr., “Tropic Thunder”
Philip Seymour Hoffman, “Doubt”
Heath Ledger, “The Dark Knight”
Dev Patel, “Slumdog Millionaire”

Analysis: A.K.A. the four actors who will be losing to Heath Ledger. Here's one case where it is actually just an honor to be nominated. If nothing else, Dev Patel will at least have a wild story to tell his friends. The only other outside possibility is Revolutionary Road's Michael Shannon but his buzz has completely died out.

Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
Viola Davis, “Doubt”
Taraji P. Henson, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
Marisa Tomei, “The Wrestler”
Kate Winslet, “The Reader”

Analysis: No surprises here either. It's possible Doubt's Amy Adams or Rachel Getting Married's Rosemarie DeWitt could sneak in, but not very likely. A really thin category this year.

Best Original Screenplay
Mike Leigh, “Happy-Go-Lucky”
Dustin Lance Black, “Milk”
Woody Allen, “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon, “WALL-E”
Robert D. Siegel, “The Wrestler”

Analysis: I'm not exactly sure how Dustin Lance Black's script for Milk is considered an "original" screenplay but it is, so therefore it'll be nominated (despite it being undeserving). Even scarier, it has a good chance of winning. I'll take it just so long as the film gets shut out of the Best Picture race.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Eric Roth, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
John Patrick Shanley, “Doubt”
Peter Morgan, “Frost/Nixon”
David Hare, "The Reader"
Simon Beaufoy, "Slumdog Millionaire"

Analysis: Voters won't be able to think outside the box enough to be able to acknowledge The Dark Knight in this category. It'll get a the Best Pic nod and a handful of tecnical accolades but miss out here to more "literary" endevours like The Reader and Doubt.