Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Growing up, the other kids always seemed to hold the Star Wars trilogy up as the greatest series film had produced. For whatever reason, I never really jumped on that bandwagon - I was always more of an Indy and Back to the Future kid. And while the idea of another BttF film makes my blood run cold, the prospect of a new Indiana Jones adventure always seemed like a reasonable idea, in theory. It's a series that almost certainly should be left in the 80's, but it could probably survive in the modern climate under the correct supervision. The series had already hit a major speed bump with Temple of Doom, so it seemed unlikely that a new film could tarnish the series in the way Phantom Menace did to Star Wars. While Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has a fair share of flaws, it is by no means a franchise killer, and quite often it is a lot of fun. And really, that's what you want from an Indiana Jones movie.

I think the biggest problem this film has is that it lacks that iconic feeling that the previous three had (yes, even ToD). The other films are ripe with moments, music, and characters that are all cornerstones of film history at this point. None of that exists here. The action scenes are all a little "been there, done that," the characters are a mix of familiar faces and uninspired new ones, and the music is completely forgettable. But when your biggest fault is a failure to feel iconic, you have little to worry about. Like I said, this is FUN. Perhaps it's because I was never able to see the original trilogy on the big screen, but seeing an Indy film in the theater for the first time gave me a big, giddy smile for most of the film. Even if Indy was dealing with fairly generic action set pieces, it was still exciting to see how he was going to deal with them.

Harrison Ford hasn't lost any of his old charm here, nor does he seem too afraid to be physical. Sure, he runs a little slower and he has to rely on other people to help him out occasionally, but overall this is still the same Indy we remember, just a little older and a little wiser. As you may have heard, Karen Allen returns here as Marion Ravenwood, and it is the scenes between the two of them that really rise above the rest of the film. When the two meet for the first time in years, the reaction Harrison portrays is wonderful. These two characters were made for each other, and it's nice to know that Spielberg and company agree. Allen may no longer look like a typical Hollywood beauty, but she has more feist and personality in her than someone like Jessica Alba or Megan Fox ever will. If anything, it would have been nice to see more of her here.

The new players are where the film starts to fall flat. Ray Winstone plays a dodgy partner to Indy, and if you've seen The Mummy, it becomes clear that he is a complete carbon copy of the character Beni in that film, even down to his final scene being identical. Cate Blanchett is surprisingly bland as the villainess, perhaps because she keeps disappearing for large chunks of the film. Her motives are never completely clear, nor is she ever really defined. The biggest question mark has always been Shia LaBeouf. It's been stated that George Lucas wants to hand this franchise over to Shia, but truthfully he doesn't seem like he'd be up for it. It's not that he does a bad job, just that the character isn't very interesting. The 50's teen rebel seems a little cliched and dull, and it just doesn't fit well within the Indiana Jones universe.

Spilling the story details is kind of unnecessary. Indy goes looking for some sort of artifact, with the villains in pursuit. You either know what to expect from these films, or you haven't been paying attention. The devil, however, is in the details. I liked the way they referenced the fact that Indy hasn't just been dormant for twenty years. In the 40's he went to fight in WWII (now there's an interesting - if atypical - film to imagine, Indy at War), some of his friends and family have passed away, and he's been involved in government projects from time to time. To say this is a contemplative film wouldn't be entirely accurate, but it is certainly aware that Indiana has aged and seen the world, and that his adventures over the years have affected him. It could have been just another entry in the franchise with no thought towards growth for the character, but it wasn't. The first film worked so well because it was a fresh idea. Temple of Doom fell flat because it didn't try to do much of anything beyond recapturing the spirit of the first one. Last Crusade was a high point because it added the father-son element into it, making it more than just a copy of Raiders. This one again tries to infuse something into the action: a sense of nostalgia within Indy, as well as a son figure for him in Shia's character.

While at times pretty silly (the refrigerator scene, for example), it is still well above any other adventure film out there right now. Will it be something I return to again and again over the years as I have with the others? I'm not sure, but I suspect I won't. I enjoyed it right now, and that's really all you can expect from any movie. It's a shame it feels necessary to hold it up to the three previous films, but that's just the way it goes when you follow something so iconic. However time looks back upon this fourth Indiana Jones film, it was great to have such a wonderful character back on the screens for two hours.

Speed Racer

We may only be two weeks into summer, but it's hard to imagine a more insipid or repelling movie than Speed Racer being released. Even The Love Guru can't be as terrible as this. It's not just that it's bad. I can handle bad. What makes this an unnaturally painful movie going experience is that it's quite clear that those involved gave this thing their all, but with the completely wrong direction in mind. Everything from the visuals to the editing to the acting is done well, but in a "I can't stand to watch this" kind of way. Only the most skilled artist can make something so completely unwatchable.

Take, for example, the visuals. This film is almost wall to wall special effects. Aside from the actors, I'm not sure there is anything on screen that isn't CGI. The Wachowskis could have advanced the use of green screen with this film, they clearly have that ability, but instead they made everything as cartoony and superficial as possible. Everything looks retro, but intentionally so. Instead of trying to adapt the Speed Racer property for the film medium, they adapted the film medium to fit Speed Racer. And it doesn't work at all. Instead it is headache inducing, and it becomes impossible to tell what exactly is going on.

I suppose part of why I can't enjoy the film is that it is so clearly aimed at young children. It wasn't made for me, so maybe I shouldn't be attacking it. That's an argument that I don't subscribe to. There are plenty of good family films that I enjoy completely. Any Pixar film, for example, work as a children's film and as a simply good film in general. And to be honest, I can't see a lot of kids really enjoying this. At over two hours in length, it grow tiresome even for an adult, and the plot spends far too much time dealing with evil corporate sponsors and the business of stock trade. I'm an adult and I wasn't entirely sure I could follow the villain's evil plans. I understood that he needed to take down Speed Racer, but the why of it went largely over my head. It's a hard film to follow, and aside for the trippy visuals and a monkey, I can't see what a kid would take away from this film that he wouldn't get from Iron Man.

I have no prior knowledge of the Speed Racer franchise. Perhaps that compounded my frustration, but it seems like they could have explained some things more for non-fans. Such as: who is that Australian man-child living with the Racer family? Why did Racer X abandon his family and fake his death, essentially destroying his family for years? Why does Speed's girlfriend live with Speed's family? Why on Earth do they have a monkey and why does no one ever comment on that fact the entire movie? Is it just normal in the future for families to have monkeys? Was the youngest Racer, Spritle, so affected by ADD that the family had to buy a monkey to befriend him because the school children wouldn't? These are the sorts of things that can take a non-fan out of the film. And they are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to non-sequitors within the film.

What we have here, honestly, is not a film, but the makings of a future midnight movie cult classic. It's hard to imagine what was going through peoples' heads when they made this, because clearly nothing on screen was a good idea at all. Warner Bros could not have been happy when they saw that the film the Wachowskis turned in was not a technology pushing adrenaline rush, but instead one big LSD trip for two hours and fifteen minutes. Heads fly across the screen to signal cuts. People drive around in literally hand drawn vehicles at one point. There's an entire subplot about Spritle and the monkey stealing candy from a jet that goes nowhere at all. I could go on and on about how insane this film is, how its mere existence defies all logic, but instead I'll simply say that you've never seen a movie like this - and you probably never should.

Iron Man

After a brief spring hiatus it's time for me to get back into the swing of things with the summer movie season, and what better way to kick things off than with Iron Man?

1997's Batman & Robin was a movie so singularly bad it ended a franchise, a number of careers, and nearly destroyed the comic book movie as a genre. It also took a toll on me, at the time just a young boy who loved movies and superheroes. It was a movie going experience that has stayed with me forever, a scar that won't quite go away. I bear that scar every time I go to see a superhero movie, making it very hard to unabashedly love them. At the first sign of whimsy or cuteness I run for the hills. I hate every Spider-Man movie, can't stand the Fantastic 4 series, and barely tolerate the first and third X-Men. Indeed, the only superhero movie I have loved with all my heart since 1997 is Batman Begins, perhaps because it was made specifically to be the antithesis of Schumacher's abomination. It is with that baggage that I approached Iron Man, a movie I couldn't quite get behind, but saw signs of great things to come within.

Iron Man is not exactly one of the top tier superheroes. That holy trinity seems to be Batman, Spider-Man, and Superman - three icons that everyone know. I went into this film knowing very little about the Iron Man character, his mythos, or rogues gallery. In a way that seems to work to the film's benefit. Usually you know exactly what you're getting from a film about the Holy Trinity because they've carved out such specific places in our culture that they can't really deviate. Iron Man has no such place in our society, so the film is free to do things we've not yet seen in a superhero movie, playing with the ideas of keeping your identity a secret, who a superhero should protect, and how it should be done.

Robert Downey Jr is a great choice to play a wisecracking, womanizing, alcoholic billionaire weapons manufacturer. While he seems a bit reigned in compared to some of his greatest performances, his charm and charisma is the single best aspect of the film. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get a similar popularity boost to the one Johnny Depp did after Pirates. To take a character who is so self-centered and egotistical and make you truly believe that he would want to save the world by film's end is no easy feat, but Downey sold me. The rest of the cast is well chosen, if given little to do. Terrence Howard is largely wasted as the best friend who clearly is there to set up his role in the sequel. Gwyneth Paltrow is wonderfully understated for most of the film, but she becomes a bit whiny towards the end of the film. And the great Jeff Bridges is an inspired choice for the villain - pity he is almost nonexistent for most of the run time. If Downey sold me on his character arc, Bridges was the exact opposite. He becomes the villain almost out of the film's necessity, not out of a clear path for his character. It felt like something that should have been developed throughout the film and then payed off in a sequel. The cast all work well together, though, and any problems they run into is a result of the script and not their acting.

Indeed, the script is the film's only true weakness, lacking any real direction. The first third of the film is great, as it sets up how Tony Stark is captured by terrorists using the very weapons he has been manufacturing. He sees what he has been doing to the world and decides to escape and set right what he'd done wrong. After that, though, it goes nowhere. He spends a great deal of time just working in his lab creating the suit we've all become familiar with. The final twenty minutes finally pick back up as a villain rises to challenge him. Those who were bored by the lack of Batman in the first hour of Batman Begins will be truly asleep here, as Iron Man is probably on screen for less than a fourth of the 2 hour run time.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this film is that Iron Man is not a hero out to save a city, like Batman or Spider-Man (or even Superman oftentimes). Instead, he has made it his mission to save the world. If given this incredible suit, would you go around town stopping thieves and muggers, or would you fly around the globe stopping terrorism? It makes for a more dynamic character, and raises interesting moral questions (should some American in a suit of armor be allowed to police the world?). It's not developed too deeply in this film, but it's clear that this is the direction the sequels will be going in.

Iron Man feels like a movie that was made simply to build up to the inevitably better sequel. It puts all the pieces in place and then says (figuratively) "To be continued." It's a film of individual great elements, but elements which are not allowed to all gel together. Perhaps I will never really be able to love a movie like this again, but I can see a lot to appreciate, and I think that Iron Man as a franchise has a great future, even if the inaugural installment wasn't perfect.

Another Year, Another Oscar

Wow - in the five years I've been predicting the winners I've never done this poorly, getting only 12 correct. I guess that's the price one must pay to get an unpredictable Oscar ceremony. So two years in a row a movie wins Best Picture that sounds nothing like a Best Picture. Hopefully this is the sign of a changing Academy, perhaps trying to make up for the almost unanimously awful choices made in the 90's. While No Country for Old Men may not be my favorite film of the bunch, it is the only one that feels right in my mind as BP, so it was ultimately satisfying to see it win, especially over such films as Juno and Michael Clayton. And the Coens winning is a wonderful thing.

• Once winning Best Song was the highlight. They gave a great performance, and to see Jon Stewart bring Marketa back on stage to finish her speech was truly classy. The crowd clearly loved Once (or at least, Laura Linney did), as evidenced by the cheering every time the film was mentioned.
  
• Speaking of Stewart, he did as good of a job hosting as he did last time. To some that is a good thing, to others a bad thing. Personally I think he is the best host the Academy has come across in years, and while some jokes fell flat early on, he hit a stride and really entertained.
• The Transformers shutout and Bourne Ultimatum sweep were both pretty surprising. Especially when The Golden Compass won Visual Effects. Huh? I think it's clear voters are ready to embrace Paul Greengrass in a big way, all he has to do is make another Oscar friendly film.
• Had No Country not won so many precursors, it would have been impossible to gauge momentum leading up to the final two categories. No films felt like they were really gaining momentum, and No Country won its first awards early on, so it felt like the film had been forgotten two hors later.
  
• Yet again, the Best Picture doesn't win more than 4 awards, a trend now 4 years old. I like to see the wealth spread out a bit, but surely we can get a film worthy of 6 or 7 wins in 2008, right?

After last year's surprise filled ceremony with some truly wonderful wins, this year felt a little down - probably because my favorite film didn't win this year, unlike the last two years (yes, I'm the guy who liked Crash more than Brokeback). And I suppose I can take solace in the fact that this was probably the last time I'm going to see Diablo Cody on a stage getting an award. Goodbye 2007, here's to the films of 2008!

Oscars: Final Predictions

What started off as a highly unpredictable Oscar season has now become a bit ho-hum; at least in the big categories. The tech categories, however, are proving to be some of the most difficult to predict in recent memory - in part because the choices are all so good. I don't think I've seen a cinematography lineup as amazing as the one we have this year, for example. In making predictions it's important to remember one thing: the obvious choice is usually the right one. The more you think about a category, the harder it is to pick a winner. After the victors are announced it's generally pretty easy to look back and see how clear the majority of the winners were. So with that said, here we go with the final Oscar predictions for 2008.

Picture

• Atonement
• Juno
• Michael Clayton
• No Country for Old Men
• There Will Be Blood

The clear winner is No Country. However, this is where that second guessing can screw you up. Juno seems to have a lot going for it: it's the only blockbuster in the bunch, it's the easiest to enjoy, it's not as dark as the others. But the reality of it is is that Juno would only be winning one other award and it seems very unlikely that Best Picture only gets one other award. No Country has swept the guild awards the way no film since Return of the King has, so it seems unlikely it will suddenly be shunned. It doesn't scream Best Picture, but then, what Best Picture really has these last four or five years?

Winner: No Country for Old Men
Surprise: Juno

Actor

• George Cloooney - Michael Clayton
  
• Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
  
• Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd
  
• Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah
  
• Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
  

This one is wrapped up. Day-Lewis has given one of the great performances of film in There Will Be Blood, and he simply cannot be denied a second Oscar. His greatest threat will certainly be Clooney, who plays the most likable guy of the bunch. But the fact that Day-Lewis plays a monster of a man shouldn't really matter: last year Forest Whitaker won for playing a monster. So long as the actor does an amazing job, it doesn't matter how unlikable of a character they are playing. And Depp: you'll win someday.

Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis
Surprise: George Clooney

Actress

• Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
  
• Julie Christie - Away From Her
  
• Marion Cotillard - La Vie En Rose
  
• Laura Linney - The Savages
  
• Ellen Page - Juno
  

This is the first category with some potential for surprises. It seems to be a three-way race between Christie, Cotillard, and Page. Page has the benefit of being in the most widely seen movie, but I suspect the nature of the film and her age will cause voters to look for an alternative. Cotillard is the unlucky nominee to be in a foreign language film, meaning people will find it harder to bring themselves to vote for her due to the language barrier. I suspect that Christie will win here for her sympathetic portrayal of a woman with Alzheimer's. However, if Juno turns out to have more loyalty than I expected, Page could be the threat.

Winner: Julie Christie
Surprise: Ellen Page

Supporting Actor

• Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
  
• Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
  
• Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
  
• Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
  
• Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
  

Were Into the Wild a more widely loved movie by the academy I would be choosing Holbrook to go against the grain. Time and again this category has gone to the elder actor who commands a great deal of respect but no previous Oscars (Alan Arkin, Morgan Freeman, etc). But the near complete shunning of the film tells me that Holbrook stands little chance to pull it off. Which means that everyone's favorite psychopath will win. Javier Bardem has gotten all the attention this season and it looks like his performance will go down as the new Hannibal Lecter. It doesn't hurt that Bardem is seen as a widely respected foreign actor with a great future ahead of him.

Winner: Javier Bardem
Surprise: Hal Holbrook

Supporting Actress

• Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
  
• Ruby Dee - American Gangster
  
• Saoirse Ronan - Atonement
• Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
  
• Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
  

This one is wide open, don't believe the Blanchett hype. Yes she's the most famous of the group and the Weinstein's are pushing hard for the win, but the fact is that Blanchett has won very few precursors. Amy Ryan took a vast majority of the precursors, shocking everyone who thought Blanchett was the lock. Ryan seemed to be the frontrunner until the nominations came out, and suddenly everyone reverted back to their mindset before the precursors, claiming it is Blanchett's to lose. Add on top of this the surprise SAG win for Ruby Dee and the BAFTA win for Swinton and you have a thoroughly confusing category. Ronan is the also ran, and I suspect Swinton won't pick up enough steam. The only reason I even consider Blanchett a threat is her stardom. I honestly think it will come down to Dee and Ryan. Dee has the much smaller and less significant part, but she is a veteran many feel should have been nominated before. But Ryan gave the best performance of the five and I predict that the voters will recognize that.

Winner: Amy Ryan
Surprise: Ruby Dee

Director

• Paul Thomas Anderson - There Will Be Blood
  
• Joel and Ethan Coen - No Country for Old Men
  
• Tony Gilroy - Michael Clayton
  
• Jason Reitman - Juno
  
• Julian Schnabel - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
  

The Coens will be the first director duo to win the Oscar since West Side Story in the 60's. They have the right combination of industry respect, a great film, and lack of major competition. The only one who seems to be a threat is Schnabel, whose film has garnered a number of directing wins. But how many times has a director won without his film being nominated for Picture? And while I suspect that Diving Bell was the runner up for the Best Picture lineup, I don't think he will be able to quite pull it off. Anderson also did an amazing job, but I think that voters are going to make him really work to get his first directing win.

Winner: The Coens
Surprise: Julian Schnabel

Original Screenplay

• Juno
• Lars and the Real Girl
  
• Michael Clayton
  
• Ratatouille
• The Savages

At this point in the race I don't like to harp on the nominees too much anymore: they are what they are. That said, I still think this is the worst lineup for any category this year. There were plenty of great original screenplays this year and we ended up with three mediocre ones, a truly awful one, and only one great one. Of course the great one stands no chance (Ratatouille) and the worst one will win (Juno). It's all about flavor of the moment. Michael Clayton was a bit overrated but could pull off the win. Not really, though. It's Juno's one award on Oscar night. Enjoy it, Diablo Cody.

Winner: Juno
Surprise: Michael Clayton

Adapted Screenplay

• Atonement
• Away From Her
• The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
• No Country for Old Men
• There Will Be Blood

If PT Anderson is going to win an award it will be here. He is seen as a writer first and foremost (silly considering how well directed There Will Be Blood was). However I think this is yet another place for the Coens to claim victory. I have a hard time imagining The Diving Bell going home empty handed, however, so this is one of two places I suspect it could surprise. Because really, can the Coens honestly win four awards in one night? Apiece? I don't see the Academy doling out that many awards to two people, so if the Coens are going to slip, this is one of the two places (though not as likely as the other one I'm going to predict).

Winner: No Country for Old Men
Surprise: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Cinematography

• The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
• Atonement
• The Dinving Bell and the Butterfly
• No Country for old Men
• There Will Be Blood

In my opinion this is the hardest category to predict. Last year the winner seemed so obvious yet the loss to Pan's Labyrinth opened my eyes to how voting really works. The people who work in each category nominate the five films, but everyone votes on the eventual winner. That means that in tech categories it goes to the favorite film, not the most deserving in the category. So Jesse James has already lost. As has Atonement in all likelihood. The other three could all win. I'm going to go ahead and call it for No Country due to the fact that people will be in favor of it the most of the five. I have a very strong suspicion, though, that this is where Diving Bell will win. I haven't seen it but I've heard great things about the cinematography. But can a foreign film really win this category two years in a row? I'm saying no, but this is the one category I have the biggest suspicion of being wrong in.

Winner: No Country for Old Men
Surprise: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Editing

• The Bourne Ultimatum
• The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
• Into the Wild
• No Country for Old Men
• There Will Be Blood

The one place I think the Coens are vulnerable. They are nominated for Picture, Directing, Writing, and Editing (under a pseudonym). I know they won't win all four but I don't know which one they will lose. Since they seem a lock for the big two, I think it will be either writing or editing that they lose in. That said, I still am going to predict them for the win here to cover my bases. The big threat, surprisingly, seems to be The Bourne Ultimatum for its flashy, in your face editing. Voters may feel reluctant to award a fictional person an award, which may be the final undoing of the Coens here. On a side note, voters seem really willing to embrace Paul Greengrass's films, and I suspect he has an Oscar or two in the future waiting for him.

Winner: No Country for Old Men
Surprise: The Bourne Ultimatum

Art Direction

• American Gangster
• Atonement
• The Golden Compass
• Sweeney Todd
• There Will Be Blood

The one place Tim Burton films always shine is in Art Direction. That said, I think that There Will Be Blood will win at least one more award besides acting, so this seems the likely place. The oil derrick alone is an amazing feat and likely worthy of a win. The other nominees don't really even stand a chance.

Winner: There Will Be Blood
Surprise: Sweeney Todd

Costumes

• Across the Universe
• Atonement
• Elizabeth: The Golden Age
  
• La Vie En Rose
• Sweeney Todd

This one is almost as hard as Cinematography, but for different reasons. I know little about costuming, and the winner here is often very weird. My heart says Sweeney Todd, but I think Atonement could pose a threat simply for that green dress. Elizabeth, however, is that kind of weird nominee that always seems to win. I'll go with my heart here, but I think Elizabeth could prove to be that one winner of the night that causes everyone says "huh?"

Winner: Sweeney Todd
Surprise: Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Sound Mixing

• The Bourne Ultimatum
• No Country for Old Men
• Ratatouille
• 3:10 to Yuma
• Transformers

Perhaps the hardest two categories to understand are the sound ones. What's the difference, one might ask. The fact that four nominees cross over between the two further confuses things. I suspect the winner here will be Transformers, not because voters necessarily think it's the best, but because it means that Kevin O'Connell will finally win after 20 nominations with no win. That said, No Country has a complex and unique sound design that warrants an award and if the film ends up sweeping things, it could cause O'Connell to go 0 for 20.

Winner: Transformers
Surprise: No Country for Old Men

Sound Editing

• The Bourne Ultimatum
• No Country for Old Men
• Ratatouille
• There Will Be Blood
• Transformers

I feel a bit more confident in calling it for Transformers here. This one is more about sound effects than the design, and being that giant robots provide a great deal of potential for sound effects, it seems likely to win. I could see Ratatouille sneaking in here as well. The film has a lot of love (5 nominations, the second most for an animated film ever). Still I think the sound branch will fail to justify the need for two categories by giving both awards to the same film.

Winner: Transformers
Surprise: Ratatouille

Visual Effects

• The Golden Compass
• Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
• Transformers

Yes, I am going to predict a clean sweep for Transformers, going 3 for 3. This is the one category, however, in which it has no competition. It simply is the best of the three, unqualified. The Pirates franchise have their win already and Golden Compass was DOA. Perhaps the easiest pick of the evening.

Winner: Transformers
Surprise: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Makeup

• La Vie En Rose
• Norbit
• Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

What an unusual lineup. The Pirates movies have been shunned here in the past, so I can't see them suddenly winning. And really, Norbit? Yes they did a great job of making fat suits, but who in good conscience could vote to make that film an Oscar winner? So I say La Vie En Rose by default.

Winner: La Vie En Rose
Surprise: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Song

• "Falling Slowly" - Once
  
• "Happy Working Song" - Enchanted
  
• "Raise It Up" - August Rush
  
• "So Close" - Enchanted
  
• "That's How You Know" - Enchanted
  

The one category I have a real investment in. The best song is "Falling Slowly." It may be perhaps the best song nominated in this category in many, many years. The music branch has, lately, seemed to go for the right song - the one that has something to do with the film, and not just a good or fun song. The three Enchanted songs are all simply fun songs that don't really help tell the story. Plus they will almost certainly split votes from each other. And who saw August Rush? I doubt it gets many votes, even if its song is very different from the other four. If Once fails here I will be heartbroken. It's the most deserving win in any category in the ceremony.

Winner: "Falling Slowly"
Surprise: "That's How You Know"

Score

• Atonement
• The Kite Runner
• Michael Clayton
• Ratatouille
• 3:10 to Yuma

Because Johnny Greenwood was arbitrarily disqualified at the last second, there is now no challenger to Atonement. It is this year's Babel: a bunch of nominations, but only one win: music. And it is definitely deserving. The music is an integral part of the story. I'm glad to see Michael Giacchino get his first nomination for Ratatouille, but it probably is a little too offbeat for the tastes of voters.

Winner: Atonement
Surprise: Ratatouille

Documentary

• No End In Sight
• Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience
• Sicko
• Taxi to the Dark Side
• War/Dance

I'm not very familiar with most of these. I suspect that the winner will be No End in Sight because it is the most scholarly (read: unbiased) of the five, providing an in depth and thoughtful analysis on the Iraq War. If anyone could take it from that film, it's probably Sicko. I think that voters are a little tired of Moore, however, and will want to look elsewhere. That said, it's the most different of the bunch and far more easy to enjoy.

Winner: No End in Sight
Surprise: Sicko

Foreign

• Beaufort
• The Counterfeiters
• Katyn
• Mongol
• 12

Again, I know little about these films. That said, I knew a whole lot more about the numerous foreign films not nominated. There was a lot of talk this year about how ridiculous this category became with the constant disqualification of numerous frontrunners. Not to hold anything against these five, as I am unfamiliar with most. That said, I have heard the most buzz about The Counterfeiters, which has to do with the Holocaust. 12 is a remake of sorts of 12 Angry Men, so it could get some nostalgia votes.

Winner: The Counterfeiters
Surprise: 12

Animated

• Persepolis
• Ratatouille
• Surf's Up

It seems clear that voters liked Ratatouille. A lot. In any other year I think that Persepolis could have really challenged the Pixar film, but there seems to be too much steam behind the rat for it to not win any of its five nominations.



So No Country for Old Men looks to be making a near sweep with 6 wins, a healthy amount and more than any recent Best Pictures. While I didn't love the film, it is the one that sits best with me of the five as the eternal Best Picture representative for 2007. And it's cool to see the Coens suddenly getting the love they've deserved for so many years. Just as long as Juno doesn't win. That would be a disaster.

RIP Heath Ledger

It's being reported that today we lost a gifted actor. Heath Ledger, who was only 28, has reportedly been found dead in New York. I am simply stunned by this. He was clearly on track to have a long and memorable career.

The first time I ever saw Ledger on screen was in 10 Things I Hate About You, still one of the best teen comedies of the 90's. Amidst a cast of familiar teen faces at the time, he stood out. He moved on to star in such hits as The Patriot with Mel Gibson, A Knight's Tale, and Monster's Ball. But it was clearly 2005 and Brokeback Mountain that proved to be his big break. His Oscar nomination for that film was well deserved, and it seemed inevitable that he was destined for more nominations.

Truth be told, I have only ever seen Ledger in 3 films: 10 Things, Brokeback, and last year's I'm Not There. It was his upcoming film that had me truly excited about the potential he had as an actor. This summer Ledger's final film role will be that of The Joker in The Dark Knight, which I recently picked as my most anticipated film of 2008, in large part thanks to Ledger's performance in the trailer alone. It's truly tragic to see anyone die at such an early age, but it looks like we lost a true rising star today.

And the Nominees Are...

It's that time again: Oscar nominations! A few thoughts:

• Honestly surprised by the complete lack of love for Into the Wild. Only 2 noms. I truly expected it to be a major player this year.
• On the plus side, because Eddie Vedder wasn't nominated for any of his songs, Once now has no real competition for the Best Song win. Enchanted screwed itself over by submitting so many songs, as with 3 nominations it will be splitting its own votes in a big way.
• I was holding out hope for a surprise nomination for Tim Burton, but alas he was shut out.
• Surf's Up over The Simpsons Movie?
• The frontrunners for Best Picture appear to be No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood, each with 8 nominations.

Best Picture

Nominees:

• Atonement
• Juno
• Michael Clayton
• No Country for Old Men
• There Will be Blood

Which ones I've seen: For the first time ever I've seen all five nominees before nominations were announced.
Who should win: There Will be Blood.
Who will win: No Country for Old Men.
Possible upsets? Juno. I have grown to loathe this movie, and I think we will look back at it in a few years and wonder what on Earth we were thinking giving it a Best Picture nomination. Unfortunately it's the kind of movie that inspires brief passion, only to be forgotten by its supporters for the next flashy thing. If it wins that'd be a serious black mark on the Academy's record.



Best Director

Nominees:

• Paul Thomas Anderson - There Will be Blood
  
• Joel and Ethan Coen - No Country for Old Men
  
• Tony Gilroy - Michael Clayton
• Jason Reitman - Juno
  
• Julian Schnabel - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
  

Which ones I've seen: All but Schnabel.
Who should win: I'd be fine with either Anderson or the Coens. The Coens have had such an amazing body of work that even if I was less than impressed with their latest film, they still deserve recognition as two of the finest working filmmakers.
Who will win: Right now I can't imagine anyone beating the Coens.
Possible upsets? If Schnabel weren't the lone director I'd say he has a chance, but without the picture nomination it seems unlikely.



Best Actor

Nominees:

• George Clooney - Michael Clayton
  
• Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will be Blood
  
• Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd
  
• Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah
  
• Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
  

Which ones I've seen: All but Tommy Lee Jones.
Who should win: Daniel Day-Lewis.
Who will win: Day-Lewis. The man can't be denied here, he's just too amazing.
Possible upsets? The fact is, Day-Lewis plays one awful sonofabitch, and voters may be turned off by that. If so they'd likely turn to Clooney.



Best Actress

Nominees:

• Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
  
• Julie Christie - Away From Her
  
• Marion Cotillard - La Vie En Rose
  
• Laura Linney - The Savages
  
• Ellen Page - Juno
  

Which ones I've seen: Christie, Linney, and Page. I usually fare poorly with the actress categories.
Who should win: I'm not a big fan of the 3 performances I've seen. Of the three, Christie was the weakest in my opinion. She pretty much just plays off our sympathies for a woman going through Alzheimer's. There's just no real range shown. Page did well but had to deal with atrocious dialog. Linney was fine and she's been solid for years, so I'm going to go with her.
Who will win: Christie. Sigh.
Possible upsets? This could prove to be a fairly wide open category. Cotillard apparently gave an astonishing performance, but because it's in a foreign language it may have to fight to win. Also, if Juno has as much love as I fear, Page could sneak in, although I'm not betting on that yet.



Best Supporting Actor

Nominees:

• Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
  
• Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
  
• Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
  
• Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
  
• Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
  

Which ones I've seen: All of the above.
Who should win: I actually liked every performance here, a sharp change from last year. I'd probably have to go with Affleck, however. It's really more of a lead role, but it was pretty amazing.
Who will win: Bardem. The Academy loves their psychopaths.
Possible upsets? I would have said Holbrook, but the disdain for Into the Wild shown by voters makes me doubt it. However, this is the category most likely to go to a veteran, so if anyone can beat Bardem it's old Hal.



Best Supporting Actress

Nominees:

• Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
  
• Ruby Dee - American Gangster
  
• Saoirse Ronan - Atonement
  
• Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
  
• Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
  

Which ones I've seen: Everyone.
Who should win: Amy Ryan easily.
Who will win: Probably Ryan. This category is friendly to newcomers.
Possible upsets? Blanchett has to be considered a major threat. She's mimicking a famous person (and a man, no less!), and that seems to trump actual acting more often than it should. Plus she's Blanchett.

Overall nominations weren't too surprising considering how wide open the race seemed. This has to be one of the weakest best picture slates in memory, though. The last two years had great lineups, but this year is marred by the pedestrian Clayton and misguided love for Juno. Anyway, here is the final tally of nominations:

• No Country for Old Men - 8
• There Will be Blood - 8
• Atonement - 7
• Michael Clayton - 7
• Ratatouille - 5 (I believe this is the most nominations for an animated film since Beauty and the Beast)
• The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - 4
• Juno - 4
• The Bourne Ultimatum - 3
• Enchanted - 3 (all songs)
• Sweeney Todd - 3
• Transformers - 3
• La Vie En Rose - 3