Random Factoids I - The Saga Begins

Random Factoids:

- Batman was the first movie to ever have two separate soundtracks; One orchestral soundtrack composed by Danny Elfman, and one pop soundtrack composed by Prince.

- For appearing in National Lampoon's Animal House, Donald Sutherland was offered his choice between $35,000 or 15% of the total gross. Sutherland bargained with the producers, and was paid $50,000. Had he opted for the gross, he would have earned $21,240,000.

- The character Gopher was created exclusively for The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. He never appeared in any of A.A. Milne's stories, giving a subtle double meaning to his repeated assertion, "I'm not in the book, you know."

- In Scott Pilgrim Vs The World, all songs by Sex Bob-Omb are performed by Beck. All songs by The Clash at Demonhead are performed by Metric. All songs by Crash and the Boys are performed by Broken Social Scene.

- Janet Leigh, the actress famously stabbed to death by Norman Bates in Psycho, is the mother of Jamie Lee Curtis, the actress nearly stabbed to death by Michael Meyers in Halloween. Director John Carpenter cast Curtis for this exact reason.

- The 2006 film Flushed Away was a joint production between animation mainstays Dreamworks Animation and Aardman Animations. Aardman is best known for their claymation features, such as Wallace and Gromit, but Flushed Away's story revolved heavily around water, which easily damaged set and character pieces. As such, Dreamworks retrograded their usual CGI style to emulate Aardman's plasticine figures, going so far as to animate imperfections such as fingerprint smudges.

- Cloverfield was named after the street where Bad Robot Productions are located. The title was not intended to be permanent.

- Judy Garland wore a prosthetic nose in The Wizard of Oz to appear younger.

- In 1980, The Blues Brothers set the record for most car crashes in a single movie. the record was broken in 1998 by its own sequel, Blues Brothers 2000.

- The song Dazed and Confused does not appear in the movie Dazed and Confused. Led Zeppelin rarely ever licenses their music. While shooting School of Rock, Richard Linklater (director of both films) shot special footage of Jack Black and hundreds of extras pleading the band for permission to use Immigrant Song. Led Zeppelin received the footage, and gave Linklater permission.

- Demolition Man features product placement for Taco Bell, but with a futuristic design, logo and font. After the film's release, Taco Bell changed their logo to emulate the fictional logo.

- The Nightmare Before Christmas' original ending revealed Dr. Finkelstein as a villain, working in conjunction with Oogie-Boogie. During filming, Tim Burton accidentally kicked a set piece, destroying it, and forcing a re-write.

Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it.

Can anyone verify the authenticity of this image?

The Golden Naked Man With the Big Sword

Here's my Oscars ballot. If I go 24/24, you all owe me brownies.

Live Action Short
Who Will Win: God of Love
Who I'd Vote For: God of Love
Second Choice: Wish 143

Animated Short
Who Will Win: Day & Night
Who I'd vote For: Day & Night
Second Choice: The Lost Thing

Documentary Short Subject
Who Will Win: Strangers No More
Who I'd Vote For: Poster Girl

Documentary Feature
Who Will Win: Inside Man
Who I'd Vote For: Restrepo
Second Choice: Exit Through the Gift Shop

Visual Effects
Who Will Win: Inception
Who I'd Vote For: Inception

Best Sound Mixing
Who Will Win: Inception
Who I'd Vote For: Inception
Second Place: The King's Speech

Best Sound Editing
Who Will Win: Inception
Who I'd Vote For: Tron Legacy (Yeah, yeah. Shut up.)
Second Place: True Grit

Best Make-Up
Fuck if I know. I didn't see any of these.
Let's just go with: Barney's Version

Best Costume
Who Will Win: The King's Speech
Who I'd Vote For: The King's Speech
Second Place: True Grit

Best Cinematography
Who Will Win: True Grit
Who I'd Vote For: Inception
Second Place: True Grit

Best Art Direction
Who Will Win: Inception
Who I'd Vote For: Inception
Second Place: The King's Speech

Best Film Editing
Who Will Win: The Social Network
Who I'd Vote For: 127 Hours
Second Place: Black Swan

Best Original Score
Who Should Win: Inception (If there is justice, which mean's it won't.)
Who Will Win: The Social Network

Best Original Song
Who Will Win: We Belong Together (Toy Story 3)
Who I'd Vote For: We Belong Together (Toy Story 3)
Second Place: If I See the Light (Tangled)

Best Adapted Screenplay
Who Will Win: The Social Network
Who I'd Vote For: The Social Network
Second Place: True Grit

Best Original Screenplay
Who Will Win: The King's Speech
Who I'd Vote For: The King's Speech
Second Place: Winter's Bone

Best Foreign Film
Who Will Win: Incendies
I didn't see any of these. I'm playing the odds (although Dogtooth does sound interesting).

Best Animated Film
Who Will Win: Toy Story 3
Who I'd Vote For: How to Train Your Dragon
Everybody called me crazy for picking Crash for Best Picture in 2005. Upsets happen all the time, and I say How to Train Your Dragon still has a chance. But I'm playing conservatively, so I'm selling out my beliefs. (PS, The Illusionist is also a nice film. Imagine 'The Giving Tree,' but with a magician. It just had the misfortune of coming out in the wrong year.)

Best Supporting Actor
Who Will Win: Christian Bale (The Fighter)
Who I'd Vote For: Christian Bale (The Fighter)
Second Choice: Geoffry Rush (The King's Speech)

Best Supporting Actress
Who Will Win: Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit)
Who I'd Vote For: Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech)
Second Choice: Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit)

Best Actress
Who Will Win: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)
Who I'd Vote For: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)
Second Choice: Anette Bening (The Kids Are All Right)

Best Actor
Who Will Win: Colin Firth (The King's Speech)
Who I'd Vote For: James Franco (127 Hours)
Second Choice: Colin Firth (The King's Speech)

Best Director
Who Will Win: David Fincher (The Social Network)
Who I'd Vote For: David Fincher (The Social Network)
Second Place: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)

Best Picture
Who Will Win: The Social Network
Who I'd Vote For: The Social Network

Odds for Best Picture:
The Social Network - 45%
The King's Speech - 40%
Black Swan - 8%
True Grit - 3%
The Fighter - .05%
The Kids Are All Right - .03%
Inception - .01%
Toy Story 3 - .001%
127 Hours - .001%
Winter's Bone - .00001%

The Little Story of Right Hand/Left Hand: The Story of Love and Hate

You can judge a man in two regards: By what he likes, and by what he doesn't like. Here is the post where I lose all credibility with my followers.

25 Films I Like That Everybody Else Hates
9
1941
Bubble Boy
The 'Burbs
Cellular
Daredevil
EdTV
Evolution
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Gleaming the Cube
The Island
Jersey Girl
Joe Versus the Volcano
Kung Pow: Enter the Fist
The Ladykillers
Mirrormask
My Blueberry Nights
Osmosis Jones
Out Cold
Pirate Radio/The Boat That Rocked
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Stuck on You
Toys
Vanilla Sky
The Village

25 Films I Hate That Everybody Else Likes
American Pie
Analyze This
Avatar
Babe
Bambi
The Bourne Identity
Broadcast News
The Brothers Bloom
Cars
Diner
Elf
Funny Games
I Heart Huckabees
Logan's Run
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
Miller's Crossing
The Outsiders
Shrek 2
Silver Streak
Sister Act
Sullivan's Travels
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
Tootsie
What About Bob
...And Pretty Much Every Will Smith Movie

Award Is Not Enough

From 1933 to 1944, the AMPAS honored ten films every year in the Best Picture category. Beginning in 1945, they streamlined the process limiting the nominees to a mere five. There was no official reason as to why this change was made. In 2009, the AMPAS bumped the total number of best picture nominees back up to ten films.

The official reasoning behind this decision was to honor more mainstream films, thus enticing more people to watch the televised ceremony. The actual reason was to alleviate guilt; no longer were members of the academy forced to kowtow to Oscar Bait. You could, if you so desired, nominate films that you enjoyed watching.

But what if the Academy had made this decision ten years earlier? What would the nominations look like from 1999-2008 if every year had ten best film nominations?

If I may be so bold:

1999:
With the exceptions of 1928, 1935 and 1989, every film that's won Best Picture has been nominated for best director. As such, we can pretty much deduce with ten nominees that any film nominated for Best Director would also receive a nomination for Best Picture. In the case of 1999, that film would be Being John Malkovich.

At the Golden Globes, Man on the Moon won best picture (musical or comedy) and best actor in a lead role (Jim Carrey), so we can assume there was more than just mild interest in this film. It's also a biopic of somebody who dies tragically young, and the Academy loves those.

We can tell based on the nominations for The Green Mile and The Sixth Sense that 1999 favored psychological mindscrews. As such, with ten nominations, we can deduce one other film would be of the same vein. The Talented Mr Ripley can fill that niche.

I don't think Toy Story 2 would receive a nomination. Pixar was still in its infancy in 1999, and animation would probably still be getting the short end of the stick. But the groundwork has been laid; critics would already be asking why Pixar didn't get a nomination. The animation ghetto argument has just advanced by nine years.

Instead, let's give the final nominations to Magnolia because its a great film that was overlooked, and The Hurricane, because boxing movies are always nominated.

* American Beauty
o The Cider House Rules
o The Green Mile
o The Insider
o The Sixth Sense
+ Being John Malkovich
+ The Hurricane
+ Magnolia
+ Man on the Moon
+ The Talented Mr Ripley
-------------------------
2000:
Wow. Just looking at the nominees for 2000, I can already see how far we've come regarding Oscar Bait.

First, Billy Elliot gets in because of the director rule (groan).

Next, we'll give a nomination to Cast Away because everybody saw it, everybody loved it, it made its impact on popular culture, and then pretty much everybody forgot about it. Just like most Best Picture nominees.

We'll give the token comedy slot to Almost Famous because it won at the Golden Globes. And because it also managed to snatch the Best Original Screenplay Oscar away from the Best Picture winner, Gladiator. Which is a feat in and of itself.

Let's give the penultimate slot to Wonder Boys. No particular reason, here.

Finally, to prove that at least someone in Hollywood had a pulse in 2001, the final slot goes to Requiem For a Dream. It was one of the essential movies in the history of Indie films, it tackled a topical and important subject matter in a unique and interesting way, and it was thrilling, provocative and stylish. Sure, Traffic had similar themes, but if you ask a film fan which movie they like better, Requiem wins 99 times out of 100. Excuse the pun, but nominating Requiem For a Dream for Best Picture would have been a big shot in the arm to the indie circuit.

* Gladiator
o Chocolat
o Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
o Erin Brockovich
o Traffic
+ Almost Famous
+ Billy Elliot
+ Cast Away
+ Requiem For a Dream
+ Wonder Boys
---------------------
2001:
First of all, congratulations to both Ridley Scott and David Lynch for their Best Director nominations. Both are master craftsmen in the medium of film, and both deserved accolades for their efforts this year, even with such tough competition. Even with such illustrious filmographies, Black Hawk Down and Mulholland Dr. are two of their strongest films. Both movies earn the first two vacant spots for Best Picture.

However, with both films touching on dark subject matter, we'll need to balance out the nominations with some significantly lighter fare; The Royal Tenenbaums snatches up spot number three. It takes the token comedy slot, it's a great script, a great ensemble cast, and I doubt there would be any objections. This will also be the only time anybody ever referred to The Royal Tenenbaums as "lighter fare."

I never understood why Amelie wasn't nominated for Best Picture. Everybody loved it. I went to college with a metalhead who only owned five DVDs, and Amelie was one of them. It's romance, it's comedy, it's enchanting, it's whimsical, and it was nominated for five other Academy Awards, but not Best Picture. Interesting trivia: only two French films have ever been nominated for Best Picture, which is odd considering France's filmography is filled with illustrious classic. But even still, with Life is Beautiful being nominated in 1998 and Crouching Tiger being nominated in 2000, maybe Academy members were just fed up with foreign films. Well, suck it up jerks. Amelie takes spot number four.

Interestingly enough, I wouldn't predict either Shrek or Monsters Inc to earn a nomination slot. If only one came out this year, certainly they would, but tragically, the vote is split between the two. Neither get the final prize.

Instead, Ali takes spot number five because boxing movies are always nominated.

* A Beautiful Mind
o Gosford Park
o In the Bedroom
o The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
o Moulin Rouge
+ Ali
+ Amelie
+ Black Hawk Down
+ Mulholland Dr.
+ The Royal Tenenbaums
----------------------
2002:
Talk to Her earns the first nomination because of the director rule, making this the fourth foreign film in five years to earn a best picture nomination. And with great competition; Spirited Away, Hero, and Y Tu Mama Tambien were all gunning for the honor as well.

In a year where the Best Picture winner is a musical about women in an all-woman's prison who love cabaret, I hesitate to say we need a token chick flick, but we need a token chick flick. A film about a forbidden romance that society says is wrong, but which the lovers pursue anyway. And this year, there was one of the best: Far From Heaven.

Adaptation takes the third spot, being the sole quirky, unconventional film out of all the nominees (if you can consider orcs and ents conventional).

For the sake of argument, let's not consider The Hours or Adaptation a full-fledged biopic. Instead, let's give that honor to Catch Me If You Can. It's also a comedy, which works in its favor. Somehow.

Finally, the last nomination goes to About Schmidt because I get the feeling lots of people liked it, but were guilted into voting for something else. It deserves a better destiny than being the butt of jokes concerning Kathy Bates and a hot tub.

* Chicago
o Gangs of New York
o The Hours
o The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
o The Pianist
+ About Schmidt
+ Adaptation
+ Catch Me If You Can
+ Far From Heaven
+ Talk to Her
---------------------
2003:
City of God takes the first spot because of the director rule. It deserves the nomination, anyway.

In the wake of 9/11, there were a lot of films about prejudice this year, such as House of Sand and Fog, In America, Dirty Pretty Things, and probably some others I'm forgetting. But if I may be so bold, I'd like to combine this category with the token comedy slot and give the nomination to Bend It Like Beckham. And no, Lost in Translation does not already fill the token comedy slot.

After years of almosts, Pixar finally gets its first nomination here with Finding Nemo. Congratulations, fishies.

Finally, let's give the last two slots to Cold Mountain and 21 Grams. Both were critically acclaimed dramas, both had a number of other nominations, and frankly, it doesn't matter what the last two nominations were, because Lord of the Rings destroyed everything in its path.

* The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
o Lost In Translation
o Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
o Mystic River
o Seabiscuit
+ 21 Grams
+ Bend it Like Beckham
+ City of God
+ Cold Mountain
+ Finding Nemo
----------------------
2004:
I'm going to go against my self-imposed director rule for one reason: It's not practical here. The film in question is Vera Drake. I know nothing about Vera Drake. I don't think anybody saw Vera Drake. And if someone did, I doubt they remember anything about it. So I'm not going to honor it. There's too many other films to nominate, anyways.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was released in March 2004. Compare this to 90% of all Oscar-nominated films which come out in December. Most people forgot about it come nomination time. I theorize if Finding Neverland and Eternal Sunshine swapped release dates, Eternal Sunshine would have earned the nomination instead. But now with ten nominees, they both get the honor.

Collateral earns a nomination as the token thriller, a genre absent from the five original nominees. AMPAS, genre films will not bite you.

Pixar shines again with a nomination for The Incredibles, an obvious choice if you ask me. But nobody ever does, which is why I've resigned myself to blogging.

After a very fortuitous year at the Emmys for Angels in America, director Mike Nichols has carryover success at the Oscars with his film Closer. It's a romance that gets the majority of the chick flick votes, especially after the disappointments that were The Phantom of the Opera, Alfie and De-Lovely.

So what film gets the fifth and final slot? Well, after Michael Moore's 2002 Best Documentary win for Bowling for Columbine, his big win at Cannes in 2004, and a general animosity by everyone throughout Hollywood towards the Bush administration, I think there's a fairly strong likelihood Fahrenheit 9/11 would snatch up a nomination for best picture. It would be the first documentary to ever be nominated outside the Best Documentary category (as far as my research reveals), and for Best Picture, no less. Hollywood does not hide its liberal bias well.

* Million Dollar Baby
o The Aviator
o Finding Neverland
o Ray
o Sideways
+ Collateral
+ Closer
+ Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
+ Fahrenheit 9/11
+ The Incredibles
-------------------
2005:
In an odd turn of events, 2005 was one of four years where the Best Picture nominees matched up exactly with the Best Director nominees. So the director rule is out.

A History of Violence was lauded as one of the best films of the year, so we'll give it the token thriller slot.

In fact, let's just honor all the token stereotypes. Let's give a nomination to The Squid and the Whale for comedy (Baumbach/Raimi dichotomy be damned).

The Constant Gardner gets a nomination for being politically topical and provocative.

Walk the Line gets a nomination for being a combination musical and biopic (and because it's basically Ray, but with country singers).

And finally, Cinderella Man gets a nom because boxing movies are always nominated.

* Crash
o Brokeback Mountain
o Capote
o Good Night, and Good Luck
o Munich
+ Cinderella Man
+ The Constant Gardener
+ A History of Violence
+ The Squid and the Whale
+ Walk the Line
-------------------
2006:
United 93 gets the first nomination. It was nominated for Best Director, and because 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11.

I'm hesitant to name any others nominees, because the nominations for 2006 seem to hit all the marks: Action, social drama, indie comedy, a biopic and a foreign language film (even though Letters From Iwo Jima was produced in America). But all hesitations aside, I've got a blog post to finish. Let's just double up on everything.

Half-Nelson is another social drama exploring societal and class relations across differing ethnic backgrounds only to reach the conclusion that we're not all that different (just like Babel.)

Pan's Labyrinth is the story of a young protagonist searching for escape and salvation from hostile authority figures, war, and an assured death. And its presented in a foreign language (just like Letters From Iwo Jima.)

The Devil Wears Prada is a comedy about a female protagonist trying to advance in an industry ruled by superficial standards of beauty, only to discover the best way to live is by embracing your flaws (just like Little Miss Sunshine.)

And finally, Dreamgirls is the story of a female protagonist finding the courage to face her eagerly awaiting public, even while being pressured by authority figures to remain in the background (just like The Queen.)

* The Departed
o Babel
o Letters from Iwo Jima
o Little Miss Sunshine
o The Queen
+ The Devil Wears Prada
+ Dreamgirls
+ Half Nelson
+ Pan's Labyrinth
+ United 93
------------------
2007:
2007 was one of the greatest years for movies in recent history. Go look at the Wikipedia page for 2007 In Film and try to disagree with me. Not now, do it on your own time.

First off, let's give The Diving Bell and the Butterfly a nomination for not only getting the Best Director nom, but for also being a foreign language film and a biopic. Way to hog the spotlight.

Zodiac was a critical darling, and everybody was surprised when it not only missed out on a Best Picture nom, but was completely ignored by the Academy altogether. The March release date didn't help. Well, it's a good thing I can reshape history in my image.

In addition to being a great year for cinema in general, 2007 successfully revived the Western genre with two top-notch films; 3:10 to Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Crawford. One of these two films deserves recognition. And since I'm the only one authorized to break ties, I'm declaring 3:10 to Yuma the slightly better film.

Let's give the fourth slot to Sweeney Todd. Partially because it was a musical, partially because it had mass appeal, but mostly because Tim Burton deserves an Oscar nomination by this point in his career.

Finally, Ratatouille gets a nomination because it's the token Pixar flick. And because, with films about hitmen, rape, teenage pregnancy, corruption, exploitation, frontier gunslinging, psychological torment from near-total paralysis, cannibalism and serial killers, 2007 needs an upper. As Jon Stewart said at the Oscars, "Does this town need a hug?"

* No Country for Old Men
o Atonement
o Juno
o Michael Clayton
o There Will Be Blood
+ 3:10 to Yuma
+ The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
+ Ratatouille
+ Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
+ Zodiac
---------------
2008:
I don't even have to talk about 2008. I can name the other five nominations for 2008 right here, right now. The Dark Knight, Doubt, Revolutionary Road, Wall-E, and The Wrestler.

How can I be certain? Because everybody already knows these were the other five nominations. There's no denying it. Everybody asked the same question in 2008: "Why weren't these five films nominated?"

And the Academy responded, "Because those five films were nominated."

And then everybody asked, "But why were those five films nominated, and not these five films."

And the Academy responded, "Because we can only nominate five films."

2008 was the reason the nominations were bumped up to ten. Hollywood was just producing too much quality work, and too many good films were falling through the cracks. There had to be a change. And change there was.

* Slumdog Millionaire
o The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
o Frost/Nixon
o Milk
o The Reader
+ The Dark Knight
+ Doubt
+ Revolutionary Road
+ Wall-E
+ The Wrestler

Well, thanks for joining me on this trip through an alternate universe that rejected the studio machine Oscar Bait a decade early. You're probably wondering if I'll go back further and show the alternate nominees from even earlier years, but I took a look at some of the other nominees from 1997 and 1998... Eesh. Let's leave history for the history books.

83rd Academy Award Nominations

Best Picture:
As I said before, 2010 wasn't a great year for movies. If you asked me a month ago which ten films were getting the nominations for best picture, I could have picked them. I'm not Nostradamus, it was just painfully obvious. I think everybody would have come to the same conclusion. Last year there were surprises like A Serious Man and District 9. We don't have anything like that this year. There were only two or three dark horses sitting in the wings, but if they somehow achieved the impossible and garnered a coveted nomination, I can't tell which of the ten final nominees would be bumped in their favor. This is a seriously conclusive final list, and while predictable, I can't really object to it.

Best Animated Feature:
This, however, was a surprise. Not a single person doubted Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon cinching up two of three nomination slots here. The mystery laid with who was lucky contender number 3. The poor, poor sap who would have to take home the 'Participant' trophy in the most heated competition since Shrek went up against Monsters Inc. (And yes, I still claim How to Train Your Dragon has a chance of winning.)

Everybody thought it was going to be Despicable Me, and I was readying aspirin for such a conclusion. Despicable Me is such an obnoxious movie. Everything from the character design, to the hackneyed story, to the clumsy animation, to those stupid little minion things which are being slapped on products left and right as if we're still going to remotely care about them in five years. It's just awful.

Then Tangled came out. It was a typical by-the-books Disney story, but the animation was so graceful, so expressive, so immersive, it was a shot of adrenaline in the flatlining CGI animation genre. It was a serious contender.

But I always forget: Animators nominate the animated movies. And there's nothing animators like better than seeing their craft treated like royalty. Stuff like Persepolis and the Secret of Kells always have a way of muscling in over "Animals Go on an Adventure 3 in 3D." As such, I really should have guessed The Illusionist was getting the third nomination.

Doesn't matter, though. It's still not winning.

Art Direction:
I wasn't expecting Scott Pilgrim to get a nomination for anything, but it would have been nice to see him here. But no sour grapes; I can't complain about any of the five nominations. They're all expressive, all unique, all immersive. Even Alice in Wonderland. Despite it being horrifically overrated and even moreso unnecessary, it's dripping with Tim Burton's stylistic, gothic charm. It's actually the only good thing about the film. But... I'm bitter and spiteful, and I'm rooting for any of the other four films nominated.

Best Documentary (Feature Length):
What the hell?! I've... I've heard of these films. All five of them. I haven't seen them, but I've heard of them. That's... that's not supposed to happen! They're supposed to have one single documentary everybody's heard of and four films that were screened once in a private gallery 20 miles below Tribeca. What is going on with the world!?

Makeup:
Wolfman? Really?

Sound Mixing:
Salt? Really?

Visual Effects:
Hereafter? Really?

Directing:
Christopher Nolan was robbed for a nomination, but that's par for the course, innit? It's always the film nominated, and never the director. It's as if Auteur Theory runs perpendicular to the AMPAS. Kubrick never won. Hitchcock never won. Godard never won. Bergman, Lynch, Tarantino, and Altman never won. But Kevin Costner and Mel Gibson both won.

In conclusion, there are the basic flaws with the Oscar nominations, but nothing too grievous. Just the same problems we have every year. It's a very middle-of-the-road year. I can't get ecstatic, but I'm not foaming at the mouth.

I only have one thing to say, and I am dead serious about this: The last two years, the four acting categories have been preceded by five actors, each giving lengthy, bland speeches about the five nominees in each category. That's twenty speeches per broadcast, each delivered with the same enthusiasm that a fifth grade gives at a Thanksgiving pageant.

Given the choice between hearing the nominated scores and original songs being performed and hearing these speeches, I would rather hear the songs/scores twice. I would rather watch more commercials than see these speeches. We have to stop this pointless endeavour. It's long, it's boring, it's unnecessary padding, it kills the momentum, it forces out time for recognition in the other categories, and it's masturbatory.

Stop. Doing. This!

Cat Scratch Fever

Christopher Nolan announced several casting decisions earlier today concerning his next project, "The Dark Knight Returns." The heavily-awaited sequel to The Dark Knight has been the focus of much speculation by the fans.

Clayface was an early contender for the next featured villain; his character's backstory and subsequent struggles with identity and humanity seem right up Nolan's alley. However, Nolan was quick to dismiss these rumors. Nolan's Batman universe is cemented in realism. Fantastical elements (such as a walking, talking, shapeshifting pile of goo) will never be part of the franchise.

The Riddler was also an early speculated fan-favorite. Mere weeks after The Dark Knight came out, photoshopped images and posters flooded the net. Such images proffered casting possibilities ranging from Neil Patrick Harris to Johnny Depp to Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It's the same sort of badgering and mouth-foaming fandom that was responsible for Venom being shoehorned into Spider-Man 3, so I thank Christopher Nolan from the bottom of my heart for not succumbing to fanbase peer pressure.

Instead, Nolan has decided on Tom Hardy to play the super-strong, steroid-allegory Bane. The web is now full of film fans pretending they know Tom Hardy from any role other than Eames in Inception. Bane was previously featured in the 1997 movie Batman and Robin, and I don't need to say anything else about that.

Also announced: Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, the professional cat burglar, sometimes adversary, sometimes ally, sometimes love-interest of both Bruce Wayne and Batman. I have not heard more nerds whining about such a trivial issue since Roger Ebert claimed video games weren't art.

Here are five reasons why the Anne Hathaway rage is unfounded:

1) You nerds will never be fucking happy.

In Batman Begins, nerds were complaining about Katie Holmes' portrayal of Rachel Dawes. They claimed her acting was wooden, stilted, and the worst part of the movie.

In The Dark Knight, nerds were complaining that Maggie Gyllenhaal's portrayal was lackluster and whiny, and she wasn't attractive to play Rachel. (Can someone please explain to me how and why nerds on the IMDB Message Boards have such ridiculously high standards?)

Now, before Anne Hathaway has even received a copy of the script, everyone is claiming she is all wrong for the role of Selina Kyle. I claim there is not a single actress in Hollywood that will ever satiate the whining masses. So it's a moot point at best.

In all fairness, past Catwomen have set the bar unreasonably high.

2) Anne Hathaway is not a terrible actress.

Granted, Anne's filmography is nothing to write home about. There's a bunch of formulaic romances, and a couple of quick paychecks, but it's still a damn fine resume. And let's be honest with ourselves; this isn't some prestigious, artistic, era defining piece of cinematic mastery. This is Batman. A man in a leather suit beating people up for two hours. It's the man's equivalent of the chick flick. Anne Hathaway not moving backwards or forwards with her career, she's moving laterally. Anne Hathaway is not someone randomly pulled off the streets; she is an acceptable choice for the role.

Besides, even though she's made some questionable decisions, she's also made some very good movies. She has an Oscar nomination for God's sake! Watch Rachel Getting Married, watch Brokeback Mountain, watch The Other Side of Heaven. Stop posting images of The Princess Diaries, and give credit where credit's due.

I'll double check, but I don't think Eartha Kitt's available...

3) Catwoman is not a sacred icon.

Halle Berry completely fucked up Catwoman. So did everyone else involved with that movie, but I don't care enough to look up their names, so Berry's getting all the blame from me. Anne Hathaway cannot possibly do anything worse to the character than what Halle Berry did.

Despite that cinematic embarrassment, Catwoman is not a particularly respected or feared member of Batman's rogue gallery. Her greatest asset is being the rare female adversary, but her popularity is nowhere near Harley Quinn's and Poison Ivy's. There is nowhere for Catwoman to go but up.

Egyptians worshiped cats. Maybe they were on to something...

4) Christopher Nolan knows what the fuck he's doing.

After Joel Schumacher razed, burned, and salted the Earth, nobody thought Batman could be saved. Or at least, he'd never be taken seriously again. But Christopher Nolan made Batman Begins and proved everyone wrong.

Nobody thought a superhero movie could be considered great cinema. That even the best superhero film would be just another popcorn flick. But Christopher Nolan made The Dark Knight and proved everyone wrong.

Christopher Nolan has made six of the best films of all time, and he has only made six films. Give the man the benefit of the doubt.

To Christopher, Thanks For Everything! - Julie Newmar

5) There is no possible way you are not seeing this film.

Really? Are you really claiming Anne Hathaway's casting bothers you? As if there was any possible reason you would not see this film on opening day?

It's the sequel to The Dark Knight. It could be five minutes long and made entirely with finger puppets; you would still see it. We know you better than you know yourselves.

Stop your bitching and go eat a Hot Pocket. The Batman franchise is fine.

You're getting awfully worked up for someone whose whole gimmick is cat puns.

Top Ten of Twenty Ten

Let's be honest with ourselves; 2010 was not a great year for movies. There was a lot of crap, a lot of disappointments, and a lot of forgettable meh. There were a few choice nuggets, though. There are every year. You just have to keep looking, keep watching, and keep sacrificing farm animals to the Gods of Cinema.

Before we begin, let me give out an honorary award I hope to make a regular tradition: The "It Wasn't THAT Bad" award. This is a special endowment I bestow upon a film that I feel was unfairly and unfortunately maligned by both critics and audiences. A special prize for one film that may not receive recognition in my top ten, but deserves more recognition than it got. The guilty pleasure, if you will. This year, that film is MacGruber.

Honorary Award: MacGruber
"If ripping throats gets that warhead back, I'll suck as many dicks as I've go— I'll rip as many throats as I have to!"

It Wasn't THAT Bad

MacGruber is a feature-length adaptation of the popular Saturday Night Live sketch, which explains a good portion of why people ignored it. MacGruber is a pastiche and parody of MacGyver and other action shows from the 80's. I laughed my ass off at this movie, honestly believing it to be the next big, raunchy comedy. The type unfunny people would quote out of context until I stab them in the throat with a Bic pen.

But no. No one saw MacGruber. Granted, it's not a masterpiece of filmmaking, but with certain comedies like this, you let storytelling fall by the wayside in exchange for laugh riots. A bad movie that's funny is not a bad movie.

I read several reviews for the movie, and they all seem to reach the same basic consensus: MacGruber was low-grade humor coupled with a nostalgia for a desirably forgotten era. Normally, I'd let that go. Who cares what critics say anymore? There was just one minor detail; Macgruber was not the only raunchy, lowest-common-denominator comedy brimming with 80's nostalgia. There was a second: Hot Tub Time Machine.

MacGruber barely made a blip on the radar. Hot Tub Time Machine opened to generally favorable reviews and a number-one weekend. I saw both films. MacGruber was funny. Hot Tub Time Machine was stupid and painful. There was a Michael Jackson joke. A joke they deemed so funny, they decided to use it in the trailer. Hackneyed comedy writers of America, hear me: Michael Jackson is dead. It's time to move on. Anybody who says MacGruber was bad and Hot Tub Time Machine was good has no business making assertions on any subject.

I guarantee Comedy Central will pick up the broadcast rights for MacGruber fairly soon, but a TV edit will not do the film justice. They went for a hard R, and it was well-earned. Like I said, MacGruber is not a great film. It's not in my top ten, and was never even the running, but the general wackiness is on par with Hot Shots and Austin Powers. And for a comedy, that's all you need.

Now on with the countdown:

"The rumors of my promiscuity have been greatly exaggerated. "
10) Easy A


When seeing movies outside of my demographic, I get paranoid. Walking into the theater, I always imagine one person is staring at me wondering if whether I'm in the wrong theater or if I'm some sort of pervert. Easy A was one of those experiences. I wasn't looking for a sleeper hit; I was completely bored and I needed a laugh. I probably would have skipped over it altogether since The Scarlet Letter was never a favorite book of mine, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt because I'm a sucker for postmodern interpretations.

The whole film examines the hypocrisy of sexuality in the modern world, especially at the teenage level. Supposedly, everything about sex is all right except for the actuality of women having sex. We've inadvertently created a society where a woman's ultimate goal is to be a sixteen year-old cocktease. Our hero, Olive doesn't ask to be thrust into the position of America's sexual liberator, but some people just have leadership thrust upon them. At times she treats it as a genuine crusade, other times a satirical expose, and sometimes, she just throws her hands up and declares, 'if you're going to villanize me, I'm going to be a fucking villain!'

My main grievance with the movie is the very puffy Amanda Bynes. Her appearance is an automatic point deduction. Also, there's a subplot involving Lisa Kudrow and Thomas Hayden Church that doesn't really percolate and just distracts from the story at hand. In the end though, I liked the movie. It was funny, it was genuine, and it was smart. Hell, it was even genius in some places. An overall enjoyable experience, even if it did mean attracting a roomful of gazes from wary teenagers.


"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical, naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix."
9) Howl


I'm no phony, so I will admit my intellectual shortcomings instead of masking them in a mound of BS. I've never read a word of Allen Ginsburg in my life. You see that quote up there? They Might Be Giants used the first half of that quote in their song "I Should Be Allowed to Think," and I thought they were geniuses for that. Even months after seeing Howl, I haven't read a word. I'm terrible like that, but at least I'm honest. Also, no one looks good wearing a Tyrolean, and Pabst Blue Ribbon is terrible.

Howl is the historical narrative of beatnik poet and 60's countercultural icon Allen Ginsburg. Specifically, the film details the impact the titular epic poem, both its intended audience and the easily offendable. The film jumps across time showing Allen Ginsburg (played expertly by James Franco) narrating his life to a biographer, living life as a beatnik, writing Howl, debuting his poem in San Francisco, and defending it in an obscenity hearing.

The crowning achievement, however, is the animation. Roughly 40% of Howl is an animated recitation of the poem, breathing life and vivid imagery into the work that normally only manifests in the subconscious mind of the literati. To see the twisted, vivacious images of a man's imagination manifested into visual form is nothing short of amazing. It does to poetry what Fantasia did to music.

James Franco has proved himself to be one of the finest actors of our generation. He feels no shame appearing in Apatow productions, and can bring it in prestige pictures. Wherever Franco is heading, keep an eye on him. He's huge now, and he's just going to keep getting bigger.


"Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man?"
8) Shutter Island


An equal mix of Alfred Hitchcock thriller and David Fincher mystery, Shutter Island was the first great film of 2010, and was the only great film for several months after.

Based on a book nobody's ever heard of, Shutter Island is the story of US Marshall Teddy Daniels investigating the disappearance of a patient at the Ashecliffe Hospital for the criminally insane. Which is on an island. With a shutter, apparently. The further Teddy investigates, the more he discovers about about the staff, the patients, and the nature of experiments performed. Soon, he fears for his own safety and sanity as the mystery begins to engulf him.

I can't do the story justice in written word, especially the climax. The revelation and withholding of information makes the film what it is. Many chide director Martin Scorsese for making a film so much in contrast with his previous works; to them, I say shut up. Martin Scorsese can make whatever film he Goddamn wants to make. This was an excellent film, and is right up there among his "more prestigious" works. Let the man have some fun once in a while. He'll get back to gritty crime dramas accenting the dual nature of New York City soon enough. The film also features memorable roles by Jackie Earle Haley and Max Von Sydow, two of my favorite actors. Shutter Island isn't a horror story in the traditional sense, but every time these two are onscreen, you get chills up your spine.

Shutter Island is one of those films that is better upon repeat viewings. Upon the first watch, you accept everything at face value, waiting for each turn. On each subsequent viewing, you acknowledge the turns, but try to interpret why they're happening, who is responsible for them, and what it all means on the grand scale. With every scene and every image, you have to decide whether this is part of the grand experiment, part of Teddy's distorted psyche, part of the day-to-day madness of the asylum, or just a freak coincidence. With these open interpretations, you could watch the film a hundred times, and never see the same film twice. Infinite re-playability is normally something I look for in a video game, but if a movie offers it as well, I'll accept it.

Also, this is a totally over-the-top, but "Who Is Sixty-Seven" is an anagram for "Its Noises Vex, Why?"


"You ever noticed how you let a Mexican into your house just because he's got gardening tools? No questions asked, you just let him right in. He could have a chainsaw."
7) Machete


And now I talk about a big man with a big knife.

Machete, if you don't remember, was one of four faux-trailers which ran alongside 2007's Grindhouse double feature. It was a joke. Just like the rest of Grindhouse, it was completely over-the-top and ridiculous. But shortly sometime after its commencement, Robert Rodriguez looked at it and decided 'you know, I really want to make this movie.'

Danny Trejo is a badass motherfucker. That's all that needs to be said. There's no comparing him to other badass actors, no listing reasons he's awesome, no hyperbolic jokes about his feats of strength. You just take one look at the man, and you quake in fear. And he never sold Bowflex.

Let me ask one thing... Lindsay Lohan? I mean, really? What the hell? I don't like Jessica Alba either, but at least her character is essential to the story. Lindsay Lohan's entire role in the movie consists of sassing people who probably want to punch her in the face, getting hopped up on a load of drugs, making voyeuristic lesbian porn, waking up naked in the middle of nowhere, and putting on a silly costume. Come to think of it, did she even realize the cameras were rolling? That sounds like a normal day for Lohan. The icing on the cake, however, is her participating in the final showdown despite not being involved with any of the preceding events or characters leading up to this climax. She's firing an automatic weapon at a group of people she's never even seen before. How did she even choose sides? She doesn't ruin the film, but I'd love to see a special edition Lohanless version.

Machete is awesome in two regards: First, it's a continuation of Rodriguez's trademark no-holds-barred action style. Blood, violence, more blood, guns, knives, and lots more blood. In the first fifteen minutes, Machete rappels with some guy's intestines.

Second (and here's the political part), the film is a shot in the arm for the long forgotten exploitation genre. While normal films try to bank on celebrities, stories, or other normal subject matter, exploitation films try to entice audiences with the promise of seeing something taboo, lurid or controversial. Blaxploitation films were big in the 70's featuring urban African Americans overcoming Whitey with violence and cunning. Machete is in the same vein, but with Mexicans and Mexican Americans.

The sheer exaggeration of the anti-immigration themes is both hilarious and thought-provoking. Neither side is right in this scenario; we can't just allow everybody to cross our borders, but we can't turn the border into a demilitarized zone. But everyone has an opinion on why the other guy is wrong. By making the Mexicans a lethal, bloodthirsty alliance and the rich white Texans completely demonic, we get to step back from out prejudices and predilections. We are no longer parts of the immigration debate, but outside observers. We're no longer burdened by previous affiliations.

That's good satire.


"Fuck this shit, I'm getting the bazooka!"
6) Kick Ass


I loves me a good superhero movie. To my dismay, I didn't get it with Iron Man 2. And I sure as shit didn't get it with Jonah Hex. But luckily the good men and women of the indie circuit know how to get things done. I have no idea how they get it done, but I'm happy they get it done.

Kick Ass is the story of Dave Lizewski, typical geek, comic book aficionado and haircut procrastinator. Wondering why superheroes are delegated to the realm of fiction, Dave buys a neon green wetsuit, a pair of nightsticks, and introduces the world to "Kick Ass." Then Dave gets his ass kicked and immediately learns why superheroes are delegated to the realm of fiction.

Kick Ass masterfully balances comedy, black comedy, and action. There are pure wacky bits, bloody fights, scenes of torture, and people just plain having fun with weapons. Christopher Mintz-Plasse proved there is life after McLovin, Nicholas Cage is the good version of Nicholas Cage, and Chloe Moretz plays the best damn character of 2010. She will have a long and awesome career.

A lot of people dislike the abundant amount of brutal violence Kick Ass has to offer, completely missing the point. The point is: being a super hero is really stupid. You can do a million push ups every day of your life, but if two guys come at you with a knife, you're boned. Of course you're going to wind up tied to a chair with some guido bashing your kneecaps with a baseball bat. He's a professional muscleman. You're a kid who reads comic books.

No matter how much Christopher Nolan made Batman seem realistic, Kick Ass is as realistic as a superhero movie gets (minus the whole jet pack/minigun thing). Until scientists invent magic, you cannot be a superhero. It's impractical, infeasible, and traditional criminals will end you with conventional means. Your only hopes will be the element of surprise, and pure, unadulterated luck. But hey, it's just a movie. Nobody's dumb enough to try something in real life they've seen in a movie or on TV, right?


" You just headbutted my boyfriend so hard he burst!"
5) Scott Pilgrim Vs The World


This year, I received a lot of great gifts for Christmas, but Santa was outdone by my sister. She gifted me the entire Scott Pilgrim collection. In a fury of literacy not demonstrated since I discovered the library's Mad Magazine back catalog, I powered through all six volumes. I'll release a side-by-side comparison some day, but for now, let's stick solely to why the movie is awesome.

There are movies made for the digital generation, and there are movies for the digital generation. The difference being the former is an actual representation of the target audience, and the latter is some guy in a suit saying, "look, there are sexy teens doing what regular teens do. Buy a ticket dammit." Scott pilgrim is the former.

Right when the film began and Scott announced the name of one of his songs was 'Launchpad McQuack,' I knew this was as authentic as movies would get. We are a generation reared on computers, video games, MTV and caffeine, and we won't sit still for fluff and pandering. Anime has always been a thing, and homosexuality has always been an accepted lifestyle, and the movie behaves as such.

This movie is just over-the-top in mis-en-scene and ridiculous verisimilitude (I have a BA in film, remember?) This movie is so far gone from reality, it circles back around and passes it up again. It moves like a cartoon, looks like a video game, feels like an anime, and ultimately creates a unique environment never before experienced by anyone. I loved every moment of it. It was polished to a gleam, and really showed the tenacity and dedication of the filmmakers. It's appearing on a lot of top ten lists, and while it's not a top contender for the Oscars, I would thoroughly enjoy a dark horse nomination for art direction. No other film will ever look or feel like this one, and we should appreciate that.

There are a few problems I have with it. Mostly Ramona-related. I never really believed her infatuation with Scott. She always seemed wooden, distant and cold. As if she never really loved Scott, but just dated him out of frustration/pity because she was tired of his relentless fawning. I've heard it described as Twilight for boys, and in this sense, that's accurate.

Every other cast member brings their A-game. I'd never associate Micahel Cera with a story like this, but lo and behold, the miracle of acting! Kieran Culkin steals every scene he's in. Mark Webber and Allison Pill nail their characters. Every one of the evil exes is different and memorable. Even Johnny Simmons stands out despite playing a character specifically designed to blend into the background.

It's a six-volume story crammed into two hours. Everything compliments either the preceding or succeeding scenes, the callbacks are well-timed, and while a lot was cut from the books, everything that stays is stronger. The ending is also much more satisfying. That being said, maybe it's for the better this film bombed. I'd much rather have it as a cult favorite rather than an international hit. Yeah. That's how I'm rationalizing it.


"And now the spinning. Thank you for nothing, you useless reptile."
4) How to Train Your Dragon


Dreamworks. The whipping boy of all internet movie commentators. Let me guess, another film about animals voiced by celebrities going on decidedly non-animal adventures while making puns? It was a big year for Dreamworks. A fourth Shrek movie, a totally-not-at-all-Incredibles-ripoff-just-another-movie-about-superheroes-with-existential-crises, and How to Train Your Dragon.

I was quick to give HTTYD the brush-off. I mean, come on, it's Dreamworks. I ignored the trailers. I ignored the hype. I even ignored the glowing critical reviews. But then a weird thing started happening: I didn't hear anybody say a bad thing about it. Everybody loved it. Still, I was apprehensive. I waited for the film to migrate from the multiplex to the dollar show, and I saw it there. It was a crowded half-theater that smelled like stale nacho cheese (just as I remembered it), but holy hell. How to Train Your Dragon is the finest thing Dreamworks Animation has ever done.

Even without 3D, the film was a visual spectacle. It was the type of immersive environment filmmakers have forgotten how to create. It's not enough to show us things in 3D, you have to make us feel as if we're part of that world. 3D is just a gimmick; it's the effect you're after. To achieve that without the big plastic glasses is a true signal of animation excellence.

Plus, you know, vikings. That's always an extra point from me.

You know, I just realized how many similarities HTTYD has to Kick Ass. Both films star a young, nebbish hero trying to prove his might. Both films feature a young blonde girl who kicks everyone's ass. Both feature a large, mustached, muscular father-figure who indoctrinates their child with the importance of fighting, and both films star Christopher Mintz-Plasse.

Maybe Dreamworks has turned a corner. Maybe after making lowest-common-denominator films for a decade, they've proven heir stability. They're no longer standing in Pixar's shadow, but their worthy competitor. Maybe the days of epic animation are among us, retiring the cocked-eyebrow, half-smile plague that has... Ah, who am I kidding. Dreamworks got lucky. Cocked-eyebrow, half-smiling animals making puns is all they got.
++++++++++++++++++++++

Before I get to my top three, I have another honorary award to give: The "I'm an Idiot" award. This award goes to the film I most wanted to see this year, but due to limited releases, missed opportunities, and (mostly) my own sheer incompetence, I never managed to see. This year, I award the honor to Buried.

Honorary Award: Buried
"Oh no, I've been Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuried!" (this quote may not actually appear in the film)

I'm An Idiot

Buried is (apparently) the story of Paul Conroy, an American contractor working in Iraq, who is ambushed, kidnapped, and wakes up in a coffin, buried alive. At his disposal is a cell phone with abnormally grand reception, a lighter, and his own wits.

I really wanted to see this. Ryan Reynolds is awesome when he's not in some formulaic romcom, and his ability to carry a scene coupled with the intense plot made for an interesting premise. I saw the poster at my local megaplex, and I checked the theater listings weekly to see if it was playing. A few weeks passed, then a few more weeks passed, then months passed, and I learned something: My local megeplex fucking lies about what movies they're getting.

Whether or not Buried was ever released in St. Louis, I may never know. Despite it's American cast and English dialogue, it was a Spanish film released on the indie circuit. And out in the midwest, getting anything from the indie circuit is a craps shoot. Still, it wouldn't have hurt me to check one other theater.

Congratulations, Buried. I am an idiot.


"...Oops"
3) 127 Hours


Aron Ralston is a badass. I mean this to the fullest extent. He's the stuff of legend. In my eyes, he's right up there with Pecos Bill and John Henry. As such, his biopic would also have to be the stuff of legends.

Unfortunately, his story consists of a man being trapped under a rock for five days. Which normally does not make for good cinema.

But just as Danny Boyle made "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" into a Bollywood picture, he does the impossible again. He made a film from the unfilmable. James Franco again proves his awesomeness with an A-Plus portrayal. I not only expect Franco to be nominated at the Oscars for this role, I expect him to win. His portrayal hits all the great acting apexes. Doubt, paranoia, fear, psychosis, insecurity, emotional pain, physical pain, longing, and lust. It redeems whatever the hell he was doing in the Spider-Man movies.

I was nervous going in that the climax was going to be a high-class version of Hostel. And, in a way, it was. The scene in question is very graphic and very disturbing. However, the masterful filmmaking by everyone involved makes it absolutely worthwhile. Throughout the movie, it's hinted that Aron's arm is going to have to come off. It's inevitable. By the time the scene in question rolls around, you NEED to that arm come off. If not, you will be grossly dissatisfied. Or dissatisfied by the grossness. One of the two.

The film is a masterpiece of 21st century editing. It knows when to go fast, and it knows when to linger. Parts seem like a music video, parts seem like a Vlog, and parts seem like the nightmare of a man who fell asleep watching TV commercials. Despite 85% of the film taking place in a narrow crevice, it never gets old, never gets boring, never gets dull. One word of warning: before watching, get yourself a very large beverage. Dehydration is a major theme, and they milk it for all its worth.


"We lived in farms, then we lived in cities, and now we're going to live on the internet."
2) The Social Network


This is not the Facebook movie. This is a movie about the man who created Facebook. Saying this is a movie about Facebook is like calling Citizen Kane a movie about newspapers. And in a way, The Social Network is a modern day version of Citizen Kane. A man rises from nothingness, has an idea to change the world, employs it successfully, gets filthy stinking rich, gets corrupted by power, alienates everyone around him, and ultimately is haunted by the memory of a simple desire from their former lives.

How ironic, the man who created one of the great innovations in communication, socializing, and communication could be such a recluse. For years, I just assumed Zuckerberg was a typical computer programmer compiling acronyms and abbreviations amongst random brackets and parentheses in some dimly lit basement somewhere. But no, he's a fucking genius, creatively and technically. That's what this movie does best: give us the real skinny on Zuckerberg... To a degree. Read any sort of review or examination, and you discover The Social Network is historically accurate as anything Hollywood does. While I'll always welcome an Aaron Sorkin script, his banter and dialogue greatly affects the our hero's character.

Case in point: what is the one thing that solidifies a geek, nerd, or loser? Not their interests, their physical image, their manner of dress or their intelligence. No, the societal rejects of the world are first and foremost cast aside due to their poor social skills. Their inability to communicate, to enunciate, to be confident, to befriend those around them and act civil. Have you ever read an article about moot? Yeah, he acts like the guy would moderate 4Chan. Zuckerberg in the movie is throwing quips left and right, turning phrases at a moment's notice, and always being one step ahead of everybody. Zuckerberg in real life probably acts like me.

But just as we don't expect Citizen Kane to be the William Randolph Hearst story, we let this deification of our central character slide under the radar. It's all for the better, anyway. This is the heavy favorite to win Best Picture at the Oscars. And I can see that. It's paced well, the dialogue is fun, the score is modern and energetic, the actors were top-notch, and it's topical, yet timeless. It's a near perfect film, but there's still one film from 2010 I like slightly better.


"Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange."
1) Inception


BWOOOOOOOOM!

Okay, that's outta my system.

Inception is indeed my favorite film of the year. When I first saw the trailer, I had no idea what the film was about. I was floored by the spectacular visuals and the trippy scenery. When trying to hype up my sister, I couldn't form words. I just showed her the exact same trailer, and she was hooked.

Inception does what any good Sci-Fi film should; it creates an entire universe that seems grander and more complex than just a single film. Going in, you know nothing about inceptions, extractions, or dream sharing, but coming out, you know everything as if it were common knowledge. On top of that, it's also a psychological thriller, a mystery, and has one of the most debatable ambiguous endings since Blade Runner.

Half of the complaints I heard were viewers didn't understand what was going on; that the science and techniques were under-explained or glossed over. By contrast, the other half of the complainers claimed the movie spent too much time explaining things; that exposition and pandering comprised a majority of the dialogue, and the screenwriter didn't respect the audience's intelligence. Well which is it? Did they explain too much or not enough? Either way, I understood what was going on and never felt confused, bored or insulted, so I must be among the smartest people who saw the film. Go me!

The cast was good despite no outstanding single performance. Marion Cotillard is getting a lot of buzz, but really, I didn't think she was anything special. If anything, I liked her least. It was an ensemble cast, and that's what I remember; the ensemble. The single greatest aspect of the film was the score. I have never seen a score work so well with its accompanying visuals. There is some serious Godel-Escher-Bach science going on here. I've read articles and watched videos detailing the fine details involved, and I'm certain no one without an advanced degree in mathematics could understand everything going on. Hans Zimmer not only deserves the Oscar for best composition, but also a Grammy, an AMA, the Fields Medal and the Stanley Cup.

The special effects were breathtaking. In today's SFX-laden world, I get frequently misanthropic. Everything has to be done with a computer, and everything winds up looking like it was done with a computer. Either no one knows what reality looks like anymore, or we've collectively written a new version of The Emperor's New Clothes. Christopher Nolan is going to save cinema from itself. Greenscreens and Chromakey are the cancer that is killing film. We've become so reliant on computer graphics and animation, nobody knows how to make a film without them anymore (J'accuse, CGI gopher!) Christopher Nolan employs classic analog effects, trick camerawork, clever editing, set design, models, and traditional stuntwork to create the necessary effects, and only uses computers for the truly impossible, IE a city block folding over on itself. And when he does visit the well, he is able to hide the fakiness by not thrusting it into the foreground. It looks *shocker* real!

The Baumbach/Raimi Dichotomy

Every film fan at one point or another has attempted to compile a list of favorite comedies. And every single time, nobody amasses more than forty films without getting disgusted at themselves. At a certain point, everybody begins to doubt their own tastes and preferences, or begins to second-guess their instincts. They begin making observations like, "Why do I have Arsenic and Old Lace two points behind Jackass 2?" or, "I haven't even seen What About Bob? in fifteen years, and I don't remember any of it."

It's not a coincidence; this happens to everybody. It's the direct result of the Baumbach/Raimi Dichotomy. The film rule that comedies cannot be objectively compared to each other.

Let me explain:
Sam Raimi makes films that are funny, which are not comedies.
Noah Baumbach makes comedies, but they are not funny.

Raimi employs heavy black humor, over-the-top acting and ridiculous situations, but ultimately stay in the horror/thriller genre.
Baumbach makes slice-of-life dramadies more akin to the ancient Greek definition of comedy, providing uplifting lighthearted tales rather than belly-laughs. There are humorous instances, but none that provoke belly-laughs or actual guffaws.

Comedy is not a fair or accurate word. The spectrum is too broad, too grand, too all-encompassing to accurately define a film. It could mean any number of things, and does mean any number of things. The word can be used to describe both Noah Baumbach and Sam Raimi's works, but the two filmmaker's catalogues could not be any more different.

The real irony is, neither are truly representative of the modern definition of comedy.

Smile and wave, try to behave, be happy that they've made you a celebrity

There is a pre-requisite for reading this post. I'd like you to watch two separate viral videos:

We Are The World 25.75 from Kurt Russell

Okay. On we go.

What does it mean to be a celebrity? A celebrity is anybody whose deeds, actions, or career has made that person known to individuals without having personally met them. There are different grades of celebrity. Most well-known are A-listers, the superstars known by many, even if their fame is not particularly justified. A-list stars are money machines, the result of marketing and exploitation. They're not in the entertainment industry for noble reasons, they want awards and money and fans and more money. When you get a bunch of A-listers together, it usually turns into something like this:


GAH!

KILL IT!

KILL IT WITH SOMETHING STRONGER THAN FIRE!

You could firebomb the whole building, and the only loss would be Jeff Bridges and a recording studio. Why the hell is Vince Vaughn even there? Jeff Bridges won an Oscar for playing a musician in Crazy Heart, so he can justify showing up, even if his reasoning is half-assed. But Vince Vaughn looks like he got lost somewhere and needs to call a taxi. And another thing, when did Vince Vaughn start sucking? He was the coolest guy in the world in 2005, then he and Owen Wilson spontaneously decided they would rather suck. Did the awesomeness of Wedding Crashers result in their collective talent collapsing inward and destroying itself like a neutron star?

Sometimes celebrities just fall out of the limelight. The first video is full of this type of celebrity. Celebrities who once had clout and could once grace magazine covers, but either through bad decisions or personal reasons, have receded to the shadows.

Sometimes celebrities and audiences refuse to admit this. Look at Cameron Diaz and Nicole Kidman. Both of them haven't been in a decent film since 2002 (Gangs of New York and The Others, respectively). Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy used to be comedy legends, now they couldn't tell a knock-knock joke without crapping all over it. Hell, Tom Cruise used to be the biggest draw in Hollywood with six consecutive films grossing over $100 million, but he couldn't keep his personal life separate from his career and completely screwed himself over.

And yet, despite Vince, Owen, Cameron, Nicole, Mike, Eddie and Tom not having a leg to stand on, they're still considered A-listers and still receive upwards of $25 million per film.

The other type of B-list actor is featured in the second video. The kind who work, and work, and work, but never reach A-list status. They put forth twice the effort, and earn a fraction of the fame. When these types take on a job, it's not for a paycheck, it's an actual honest-to-god career move. They work on the projects they want, they work with the people they want, and they produce quality. Even if this means very few people will ever see their projects.

They usually get a leg-up from the few honest-to-goodness quality actors who manage to crossover to A-list status. While I've never considered myself a Will Ferrell fan, Funny or Die has been a driving forces for aspiring comedians, and has done wonders for the field.

With these two factions clearly defined, we ask ourselves the question: which group of B-list celebrities is the truer representation of the B-list status? If advertisers were clamoring for celebrity spokesmen, who would make a bigger impact: a celebrity very few would recognize, but would greatly appreciate or a celebrity many would recognize, but few would appreciate?

Just some food for thought.