Evil Dead - Review

I'll be straight up honest with you folks... I wasn't looking forward to this one. With the current state of film being obsessed with sequels, prequels, remakes, re-boots, re-whatevers, I was convinced that a remake of The Evil Dead would just be another half-assed retelling of a classic movie. The original Evil Dead was released in 1981, a low budget horror/comedy written and directed by Sam Raimi. It was an ambitious indie-horror flick that blended 70s exploitation violence, buckets of blood, cartoon slapstick, and haunted house-inspired scares. Many debate whether the film's humorous tone was intentional or if it was a result of the lack of skill/experience, but either way, the film was one of the genre's most entertaining efforts. It was followed by two sequels, 1987's Evil Dead II (a bigger budget pseudo-remake) that myself and many others consider the series' best, and 1993's Army of Darkness, an action-comedy that failed at the box-office but would later find a massive cult following on home video. Raimi himself constantly denied rumors of another sequel, but eventually announced that he would be co-producing (though not directing) a darker and less humorous remake with the trilogy's original star, Bruce Campbell, serving as his co-producer. By the way, if you don't know who Bruce Campbell is... go sit in the corner! As I said, despite Raimi and Campbell's endorsement, I wasn't exactly on board with this film... especially after Cabin in the Woods did such a brilliant job lampooning this kind of movie. That said... I come before you just a tab-bit humbled... this remake of The Evil Dead is actually... decent. Not great, not fantastic, but not terrible either... just decent.

The remake, once again, re-tells the familiar story of Raimi's 1981 film, with a few new twists. Five friends drive to an isolated cabin in the middle of the woods for a short getaway. Unique to this version is that one of the members, Mia (Jane Levy), is a drug-addict who has decided to go cold-turkey and break her habit. Upon arriving, they find a mysterious book in the cabin's basement, which unbeknownst to them, is none other than The Book of the Dead... which holds the power to summon terrible spirits. Despite warnings and ominous messages, the curious Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) reads from the book and accidentally awakens an ancient evil upon the cabin. Mia is the first one to be affected, and soon begins to have violent compulsions and tendencies. At first thinking it is just a side effect of her quitting her drug habit, the group soon realizes that something far more evil has come for them, and that their lives (and souls) are in grave danger.

I'm really torn on my feelings for this film. On one hand, what I said earlier about excessive remakes and lack of original thinking certainly resonated with me while watching this. On the other hand, I couldn't help but love the no-holds-barred style of filmmaking. This is one of the few honest-to-God true horror films of the last few years to go for broke. Subtlety has never had a place in any of the Evil Dead films, but instead of over-the-top slapstick jokes, the remake favored oceans of blood and violence that would make even Clive Barker cringe. The lack of the series' trademark humor was a bit of a disappointment, but the excessive blood that made my inner-gore hound giddy was enough to keep me engaged. Really not gonna lie on that last point here folks... this film has some of the most memorable and twisted deaths, dismemberments, and mutilations I've seen in a while. Even if you're a seasoned gore veteran like me, there are one or two scenes that might make you feel a little nauseous. I also couldn't help but appreciate the film's dedication to both practical effects and it's gritty roots. While Evil Dead does have the expected stylish and more polished updated look seen in so many horror remakes, it still nonetheless sticks to it's exploitation film roots and has a sort of retro/modern thing going for it. Those who were concerned that this remake would be a tone-downed rehash of the original, you can at least rest easy that the blood still pours freely. It's not as funny as it's predecessors but it's wild in it's own way.

The story is a bit of a mixed bag. I have to give the writers credit for at least trying to do something kind of interesting but in the long run, nothing really excels. One could actually make a reasonable argument that the movie is a metaphor or examination rehab from drugs cold turkey. It definitely has those kinds of moments, and when it dwells on that aspect, it's kind of interesting. Beyond that though, it's pretty straightforward. Aside for a couple little twists, it's pretty much a basic retelling of the original flick with few surprises. Unfortunately, none of the characters really amount to much more than their typical genre archetypes either. I haven't even mentioned that the character of Ash (originally played by Bruce Campbell) doesn't appear in the remake (well, except after the credits but that doesn't really count). This is probably for the better, as nobody other than Campbell should even touch that role, but without Ash's presence the film does lack the wit and flair of the previous three. The only character who has some level of depth is Mia, but even she doesn't do much to break the formula. This was one of my biggest concerns, once Cabin in the Woods did such a solid job spoofing this kind of repetitive writing, it just made it even harder to accept. All of the actors do pretty commendable work, which is fairly impressive considering that they really didn't have a whole lot to go off of other than looking scared. Not much more to say about the actors other than that they're fine. I don't want to bash the story too much though, as it does have a certain enjoyment factor. The setup is good, it has all of the necessary suspense beats, and it moves at a good pace. It does little to differentiate itself from the barrage of other "isolated cabin" horror films but you can't argue with what works.

There's not much more I can say about Evil Dead. Odds are, you either love or hate these kinds of movies and made up your mind a long time ago about whether you would see it or not. Because of the liberal amounts of blood and the obvious efforts made on behalf of the filmmakers, I'd say it's worth a watch. I would have much rather seen this team put their talents to use on an original idea instead of another remake, but as long as the film is good, I can live with remakes like this. If you're a horror fan or a blood hound, it's worth a matinee ticket or as a midnight movie. Check it out.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Jurassic Park - Review

Wow! Has it really been 20 years since Jurassic Park was first released in theaters? Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like it's been that long... time sure flies doesn't it? This Sci-Fi/Adventure flick was a pretty huge deal at it's time to say the least. Not only did it have the Spielberg name attached to it, but also was based on a hugely popular Michael Crichton book, featured groundbreaking special effects, and had dinosaurs... that last part alone is awesome unto itself. It was praised by critics, broke box office records, and even today is remembered as a landmark summer blockbuster and endearing audience favorite. It was well received enough to warrant a 20th anniversary theatrical re-release... with new post-converted 3D effects. There was no doubt in my mind that seeing this on the big screen again would be awesome, but the 3D conversion made me curious. I had to wonder if the third dimension would add much to the film's overall quality or if it was just a cheap marketing ploy. I mean, I can't help but think the producers before they even knew what they had, patented it, packaged it, slapped it on a plastic lunch box, and now... they're selling it, they're selling it! Okay, I'm sorry, that last reference was a corny joke... but the question remains, 3D or otherwise, has the movie held up, is it worth seeing in theaters again, and is it worth the extra bucks for 3D? As Samuel L. Jackson would say... "Hold on to your butts!"

As mentioned, Jurassic Park is based on a best-selling novel by Michael Crichton, which is basically a science-gone-wrong meets prehistoric adventure story. Advancements in science and genetic research have resulted in the ability to bring dinosaurs back to life through means of genetic cloning. When the eccentric though well-meaning businessman John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) discovers this, he assembles a team of scientists and workers to construct Jurassic Park, a theme park of sorts located on a remote island housing the cloned dinosaurs. Still a year away from opening to the public, the development appears to be going smoothly, until tragedy strikes when a worker dies at the hands of a velociraptor after a transporting accident. Faced with a major lawsuit and concerns over the park's safety, Hammond invites a number of individuals to the island for a weekend to evaluate the park, provide an endorsement, and get back on schedule. The team includes renown paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill), paleobotanist Ellie Satler (Laura Dern), mathematician Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), and the "blood sucking lawyer" Donald Gennaro (Martin Ferrero). Also visiting are Hammond's grandchildren, Lex and Tim (played by Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello respectively). What starts as a relaxing getaway turns into a nightmare when the park's security systems fail, and the dinosaurs escape their electric fenced paddocks and start preying on the visitors. With escalating danger, the group must find their way off the island before it's too late.

You know what's the biggest problem with most summer blockbusters? It's not that they're all bad (though there are plenty), it's that most just exist in a bubble. Even though there are plenty of good ones, only a few have made any real lasting appeal. Why this is has no definitive answer, but typically it comes down to the substance over style debate. Most effects-driven summer blockbusters are often well-made and perfectly serviceable action flicks, but whether it's because of a lackluster concept, uninspired writing, or simply for being a cookie-cutter money-maker, they rarely leave much of an impression. In my opinion, the few summer blockbusters that are still fondly remembered, even decades later, like Star Wars, Jaws, Ghostbusters, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Terminator 1 & 2, and Jurassic Park, hold up mainly due to one thing... heart! I know that sounds schmaltzy, but it's true. Every time I watch Jurassic Park, and the other films I just mentioned, I can see the passion and effort that went into their productions. All had brilliant concepts, innovative filmmaking techniques, and the filmmakers with the ambition and skill to make their visions possible. Jurassic Park, for example, has a brilliant idea but not a particularly dynamic script. It could have easily become a forgettable effects-laden action piece with no real edge or bite (as example by the sequels, but that's another story), but because of Spielberg's (and others) dedication to the idea, the movie still resonates 20 years later.

As I mentioned already, Jurassic Park has a wicked premise... it's a concept so good, it makes me wish I had come up with it. There have been other man vs dinosaur movies before, but normally they involved time travel, alternate realities, distant worlds... etc. The idea to bring dinosaurs to the present day via genetic cloning may not be the most scientifically accurate, but the film sells the concept well enough to make you suspend your disbelief. This also gives the writers the opportunity to tell an interesting variation on the whole Frankenstein-like "Why man shouldn't play God" concept. It's more or less what you would expect, the character development is standard, and ends on a fairly predictable note, but there was never a point where I was bored or uninterested. The pacing is flawless, with just the right balance of plot and action, and it always manages to throw something engaging or exciting your way. The characters aren't the most unique or multi-dimensional, but they work. You've got your reliable every man, the tomboyish female/love interest (who for once was NOT a damsel in distress...nicely done), the likable but naive park owner , the slimy lawyer, the goofy comic relief, and the two kids-in-distress. They may not be deep, but they're all very likable (minus Gennaro the lawyer) characters whom you root for and want to see survive. The script doesn't break much from the typical formula, but dammit it just plain works! Can't ask for much more than that.

I think what's made these characters so endearing is less about their scripted qualities and more for the actors who play them. Sam Neil makes a convincing Alan Grant, selling the rugged and outdoorsy adventurous type with an extreme passion for dinosaurs. Laura Dern pulls off the tough-but-caring paleobotanist/love interest to Grant who gets in on the action many times and sells her role commendably. Richard Attenborough, in what was his first acting role in over a decade, is one of the stand-outs as John Hammond. When you first meet the guy, you get a strong sense of his passion and excitement for what he's created, and really feel for him when he comes to grip with his guilt and depression when all Hell breaks loose. Jeff Goldblum is at his "Jeff Goldblum-est" as the comic relief chaos enthusiast Ian Malcolm. Say what you will about Goldblum, but I usually enjoy the guy and get a kick out of his goofy mannerisms. The rest of the cast is across the board solid, including the two kid actors (can't remember their names) in roles that sometimes can ruin these kinds of movies (gotta appreciate that). I also have to give a special shout-out to Samuel L. Jackson for every film he's in... because he's Samuel L. Jackson and he's awesome. You know it's true.

Even though I had seen this movie many times, it had been a few years since I last saw it, and I was genuinely curious to see how well the effects held up on the big screen. In short... I'm amazed how great these once-novel effects still look after 20 years. The dinosaurs designs were realized through a combination of cgi and practical animatronics, both of which are damn good. The practical dinosaurs are especially incredible, with scale or life sized models of various species, each shot at the perfect angle to sell their effect. The cgi has a few dodgy spots, but the attention to detail is stunning, and even today, you typically forget that you're looking at a computer generated image instead of the real thing. In today's cg-bloated blockbusters, it makes me wish that movies would embrace this kind of style more often, blending cgi and practical effects (they just look so much better). In addition to the still-impressive effects is the equally stunning sound design, which is definitely some of the best I've ever heard. The sound effects are some of cinema's greatest, from the whale-like songs of the brachiosaurus, the ear-piercing screeches of the raptors, and the booming roar of the T-Rex (that roar is freaking awesome). These all work together to bring some of film's most thrilling and enjoyable action sequences. The first T-Rex attack in particular is one of my all time favorite action scenes. Also got to mention the finale with the main cast being chased by two vicious raptors, that's another favorite of mine. As for the 3D effects... I could take or leave them. They never hurt or ruined the experience in any way, but I can't think of that many shots that really looked better in 3D. If you're a fan of the technology, it might be fun to see a classic with the added dimension, but it's not essential. Still, 3D or otherwise, Jurassic Park is one hell of a ride that rarely lets up!

So yeah, that's Jurassic Park, and even 20 years later, it rules! If you're a fan of the series, if you've never seen it, or have never seen it on the big screen... it's more than worth the price of admission. Some theaters are just playing it in 3D while other's give you the option to choose, either way you can't go wrong. See it!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Roger Ebert (1942 - 2013)

Well... today was a very sad day. Roger Ebert, the legendary film critic, has died at the age of 70 after an 11 year battle with cancer. This sucks... plain and simple. That may not be the most innovative, creative, or even appropriate to say in a situation like this, but honestly, it's what been running through my head all day. I've been a long time fan of Ebert's works, from his reviews for the Chicago Sun Times, his blog, and of course his long running show with fellow film critic, the equally legendary Gene Siskel. After all, this is the man most directly responsible for making film criticism what it is today, namely how it's become a form of entertainment or even an art unto itself. The pairing of Siskel and Ebert was a stroke of genius, putting together very intelligent yet very different individuals who share an incredible passion for movies and letting them simply discuss the movies they watched. It was a simple concept, no doubt, but very effective letting the two guys reflect, debate, and insult each other over the films of the week. When Siskel died, film critic Richard Roeper took his place. While the chemistry between Ebert and his former partner could never be replaced, Roeper was a worthy successor, mainly thanks to a passion for film and a great respect for both Siskel and Ebert. I think most film critics, either established or just starting, were in some way inspired by Ebert to pursue their passion/hobby... I know I was. 

I had hoped that Roger Ebert would make an appearance in either Seattle or Vancouver so that I could get the chance to meet him, sadly that opportunity never presented itself (or if it did, I blew it). I won't say that I agreed with all of Roger's reviews (that said, you're eventually bound to disagree with a critic at least once) or his stances on certain topics. Namely, I was eluded by his constant dismissal of David Lynch's films, plus his positive review of Speed 2 (one of the worst movies I've seen), and his stance that video games being unlikely to grow as a legitimate art form seemed a bit short sighted. Still, I often agreed with opinions, and even when I didn't, I could always appreciate that his stances came from intelligent and well-defended arguments stemming from his extreme passion for film and the arts. This was a guy who pretty much lived, ate, and breathed movies... they weren't just a passion to him, movies were his life. He was an outspoken opponent of censorship, praised audacious and risky films, and was full force in support of the New Hollywood era (which take place in the late 1960s to the early 1980s), resulting in some of cinema's greatest achievements. Even after that, he never stopped defending the pop culture and was always on the lookout for the next great creative achievements. You would think a man who spent every day of his adult life relentlessly pursuing his passion would eventually slow down as he got older... but not Ebert! Not only he did refuse to let his age slow him down, but nothing could... not even life-threatening diseases. He was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002, which eventually worsened lead to the removal of his jaw in 2006. Even without a voice, Ebert refused to slow down, taking advantage of social media and his blog to continue his work. Even just two days ago, Ebert posted on his website plans to continue his creative work through new means and websites despite a recurrence of his cancer. Tragically, those efforts were cut short, but just the fact that he never let up until the day he died is nothing short of incredible. 

As a long time fan of Ebert's written reviews, there are tons of great quotes attributed to him that I could list here, but since space is factor, here's a small selection... 

"This is a film without a shred of artistic distinction. It lacks even simple craftsmanship. There is no possible motive for exhibiting it, other than the totally cynical hope that it might make money."
- Review of "I Spit on Your Grave" (1977)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800716/REVIEWS/7160301/1023
Ebert often called this the worst movie he had ever seen. Can't say I totally agree with this review, but the quote is still of my favorites. 

"If you, under any circumstances, see Little Indian, Big City, I will never let you read one of my reviews again."
- Review of "Little Indian, Big City" (1994)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19960322/REVIEWS/603220306/1023
I didn't want to be banned from Roger's reviews, so I never saw this movie ;)

"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."
- Review of "Freddy Got Fingered" (2000)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010420/REVIEWS/104200304/1023
Some have said his review of this movie was too harsh... I'd say he was being too nice. 

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it."
- Review of "North" (1994)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19940722/REVIEWS/407220302/1023
Somehow, I get the feeling he hated this movie. Can't say I disagree. Honestly though, for a critic known for his sharp wit and piercing though sensibly written criticism, this is pretty hilarious. 

"No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough."
Don't know where this one came from, but it makes perfect sense to me. 

"So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies."
- "A Leave of Presence" by Roger Ebert
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/04/a_leave_of_presense.html
This was the last thing Ebert wrote for his blog and the Chicago Sun Times. If there's ever been a perfect quote on which to leave, that's it right there!

I don't intend to do these tributes or insights too often, but given the influence Roger made on film criticism and the industry in general, I felt like it was something I needed to do. A world without Ebert's movie reviews just doesn't seem right... but we'll move on. 

RIP Roger Ebert. 

But because I don't like ending things on a sad note, here's some great clips and videos from Siskel and Ebert plus some other stuff. 

Oz: The Great and Powerful - Review

For about five or six years, I had been hearing rumors of a new film based on L. Frank Baum's legendary Oz series. The best known incarnation of the books is undoubtedly The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, best remembered more for the classic 1939 MGM film adaptation, The Wizard of Oz, starring Judy Garland. An endearing classic for the ages, the film's legendary status among film-goers and the fantasy genre remains unparalleled. So when the rumors came about that Oz would once again return to the big screen, many wondered exactly in what form. Some said it was a remake of the 1939 movie (to which many, myself included, knew would be a terrible idea), others said it was a spin-off, while some were sure it would be a film adaptation of the Broadway musical, Wicked. A Wicked adaptation seemed the most likely, as the play had a long and successful run thanks in part to an enthusiastic fan-base  It was eventually announced that the project would be a prequel distributed by Disney and directed by... Sam Raimi??? While it's true that Sam Raimi proved himself as a reliable director for big budget blockbusters after his work on the Spider-Man trilogy, he's still probably best known, among his main fan-base anyways (myself included), for his horror films like the Evil Dead trilogy. With all that said, is this return to Oz (hey, that's another Oz movie) worth the trip to the theater or will it leave you saying, "There's no place like home"?

The film opens with a travelling circus in 1905 Kansas where we are introduced to the small-time stage magician, Oscar "Oz" Diggs (James Franco). Oz is hardly an ideal citizen... in fact he's a selfish, swindling, and womanizing con artist who could care less about anyone other than himself. His life suddenly takes a dramatic turn, when aboard a hot air balloon, he is whisked away by a tornado to the magical land of Oz. Soon after arriving, he meets Theodora the Good Witch (Mila Kunis), who tells him of an alleged prophecy that told of a man who would fall from the sky and rescue the citizens of Oz from the Wicked Witch... an evil being bent on controlling the land. Soon afterwords, he is introduced to another two witches, Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and Glinda (Michelle Williams) all whom relay the prophecy. When Oz discovers that killing the Wicked Witch would entail a mountain of gold plus the kingdom's throne, he immediately accepts the offer. Soon after beginning his mission, Oz comes to realize that not all is as seen, and that some of the witches may be scheming against them. With the kingdom's fate in his hands, Oz must learn to be a better man in order to save the land and become the great and powerful Wizard of Oz.

As I mentioned before, Sam Raimi seemed like an odd choice to direct a big budget family flick. The director of The Evil Dead... not exactly the usual choice for a whimsical fantasy flick (by Disney nonetheless). The more I thought about it though, the more I realized just how he might actually work. First off, what makes Raimi such an enjoyable filmmaker, is his child-like enthusiasm for the medium. On top of having a strong ability to direct action scenes as well as a good eye for visuals, he approaches every movie with passion and gusto (with the exception of Spider-Man 3, though that was mainly due to executive meddling), resulting in some very memorable works. Most of his trademarks are present here in Oz, from ghastly looking monsters, his crazy POV camera shots, and even a Bruce Campbell cameo (because movies today need more Bruce Campbell). Unfortunately, given the setting of the film, Raimi's Oldsmobile does not make an appearance. Even with the limits of a family flick, the film is so quintessentially Raimi, that the plot is basically Army of Darkness set in the land of Oz. Not joking, it features a man who falls from the sky out of his own world into an unfamiliar locale, is presumed to be a prophetic savior of sorts, accidentally creates/awakens a great evil, and ultimately ends up leading an the good citizens of Oz in a battle against the evil forces. The overall plot might ring a little TOO similar to Army of Darkness at times, but it didn't bother me too much because AoD is an awesome movie and this film features enough little twists and unique touches to keep it interesting. There are some memorable scenes, a few nice little shout outs to the classic 1939 movie, and like I said... a Bruce Campbell cameo. Honestly though, Bruce Campbell automatically makes any movie like 10 times more awesome. There aren't any huge surprises or shocks but overall the story works.

The acting is a bit of a mixed bag, but I can honestly say there were no truly awful performances. James Franco reunites with Raimi for the first time since Spidey 3 as the "Great and Powerful Oz." Franco is a good enough actor, though at times his age (or at least his youthful appearance) is a bit distracting. His acting is decent enough I suppose, but certainly nothing special. I remember hearing that Hugh Jackman and Christoph Waltz were both considered for the part, and they probably would been better cast. Rachel Weisz does a suitable job as Evanora the Witch, though I think her character was supposed to have a big surprise reveal that I saw coming as soon as she appeared. Mila Kunis is probably the most disappointing as she often comes off as a little too awkward and stale to make much of an impression. In her first couple of scenes, she just looks too uncomfortable and confused to convey her character adequately, and while she improves a bit later on in the flick, I won't deny that I expected more. Michelle Williams also appears as Glinda the Good Witch, and while this isn't one of the Oscar nominee's better roles, I have no real issues with her. Zach Braff has his moments voicing a "good" flying monkey named Finley while the young actress Joey King makes a strong impression voicing a girl made out of China glass (appropriately named China Girl). While this isn't exactly a mind-blowing cast, I doubt many will have any major problems with these actors.

A lot of the flick's hype was based on the re-appearance of the infamous Wicked Witch of the West, one of cinema's all time greatest villains. Margaret Hamilton's performance in the 1939 film is so iconic that there was no chance in hell anyone was going to top it... or even equal it really. Because of this, it's not really fair to compare the two films. To reveal the actress who does eventually become the Wicked Witch would be a spoiler, but I will say that she does... okay. Maybe it was the raised expectations or the inevitable comparisons to the 1939 movie but while I won't say I was bummed about her role here, I will say I was hoping for a bit more. I guess in the long run, Sam Raimi seemed like the ideal director to resurrect this character. I mean, the guy has been responsible for some kick-ass witch characters in the past. Many of his previous villains have even taken inspiration from the Wicked Witch (the possessed girlfriend in Evil Dead II, the witch in Army of Darkness, the Gypsy in Drag Me to Hell, even the Green Goblin in the first Spider-Man). Maybe I just went in expecting too much... though I can say that it was cool to see the Wicked Witch return in all her cackling glory, and while she isn't as memorable as before, she still makes a suitable villain.

The final thing to mention is the film's visual aesthetic... and this is where the film truly succeeds. This version of Oz takes many cues and inspiration from the 1939 movie, but it's very much it's own creation as well. As expected, there's a lot of cgi, not all of which admittedly looks perfect, but it's nonetheless creative and often well-rendered. The cgi used to create the China Girl in particular is some of the better animation I've seen in recent memory. None of the effects come off as overbearing and most generally seemed to compliment the story as needed. The 3D effects are some of the best seen in some time. It's not Avatar but they do their job much better than many films. One nice touch was how, in a tribute to the original movie, the Kansas scenes are shown in black and white and in a 4:3 aspect ration... that was clever. The finale in particular is one of the most memorable segments. This is the point where Raimi goes gung-ho with his "Raimi-isms" and manages to show off some of his best talents and memorable images. There are also some solid make up effects and the well-made costumes you would expect to find in high concept fantasy movies like this. It's a little too early in the year to say for sure, but I would not be surprised to see this movie included on the Oscar ballot for best visual effects. We shall find that out next year. Overall, it's a very nice looking movie. If visuals are your thing, I can assume that you will leave happy.

I was worried that this movie would end up becoming like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland... i.e. a nice looking but otherwise awful movie (btw, I REALLY hate that movie). Fortunately, that's not the case here. Oz is an imperfect but creatively realized and very entertaining family film and a worthy entry to the Oz films. It's nothing remarkable, but if you're looking for an enjoyable movie that both adults and kids will like, this is a good option. Check it out!

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Silver Linings Playbook - Review

Every so often, a decent or otherwise good film makes it's way into theaters, and for some reason, seems to take the world by storm. Silver Linings Playbook is one of those movies, a hit of the film festivals, showered with awards, praised by the critics, and embraced by audiences as a new classic... yeah, I'm wondering if I watched the same movie as everyone else. Wait wait wait! Don't freak out, let me make one thing clear... I liked Silver Linings Playbook, I just didn't quite love it. The film is good and has some really strong qualities, I'm not denying that, but the numerous flaws are what's keeping me from understanding just why it's being touted as some kind of new masterpiece. Is it because of the subject matter, or maybe that it features Bradley Cooper broadening his acting ability, or is it because Jennifer Lawrence is kind of a big deal right now? It's hard to say exactly where the hype lies, but either way Silver Linings Playbook has received quite the response. What works and what doesn't? Let's take a look...

Silver Linings Playbook opens with Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper), being released from a mental institution after an 8 month stint. Pat was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder after witnessing his wife having an affair, an event which triggered a mental episode where he nearly beat his wife's lover to death. He is released into the care of his parents, Pat Sr (Robert De Niro) and Delores (Jacki Weaver), where he begins a long journey of piecing his life back together and hopefully reconciling with his wife (who, after the assault, placed a restraining order against Pat). Soon after arriving home, Pat is introduced to Tiffany Maxwell (Jennifer Lawrence), a recently widowed woman with issues of her own. Despite some initial hostility between the two, both Pat and Tiffany form a love/hate friendship as they help each other work through their issues, accomplish each other's respective goals, and find the silver lining in their unfortunate circumstances.

David O'Russell (the film's director) is a very talented filmmaker, let's get the out there right now. I've also heard he's kind of a maniac, but I'm not going to worry about that right now. Though he hasn't made a movie that I've quite fallen in love with yet, his work in films like Three Kings (quite good), I Heart Huckabees (took some time to appreciate this one, but I do admire it), and The Fighter (also quite good) has been impressive. Silver Linings Playbook actually reminded me a bit of The Fighter. Both films were family-based dramas that dealt with themes of bonding over sports (be it football or boxing) and health-related issues (drug addiction in the case of The Fighter and mental illness in the case of Silver Linings Playbook). It was through Russell's slick direction and the subtleties of the script that elevated The Fighter from being just another inner city boxer turned champion fighter flick (like all of the Rocky imitators). Silver Linings Playbook tries to recapture the success of that technique... albeit with mixed though still overall positive results. The cast is game, there are some truly compelling scenes, and the subject matter is worthy. That said, by the time the third act roles around, it looses a bit of it's edge and falls victim to one too many predictable and formulaic beats.

Let's start where most of the film's shining attributes abide... the cast! Bradley Cooper has been mainly regarded, up until this point, as a comedic actor with well-received roles in films like The Hangover and Wedding Crashers. His non-comedic movies have been at best average (I'm being nice), though often not the fault of Cooper. His role as Pat finally gives him a chance to showcase his true skill, both through comedic and dramatic means. He gets a few hearty laughs over the course of the film and sells every one of his heavier scenes... that's talent right there. The most talked about performance, however, is probably Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany. With her Oscar victory for this role, she has officially crossed the line of promising up-and-comer, to full blown superstar. Make no mistake, she is damn good in this role, taking what could have been a fairly one note character and making it into something very impressive. Most of the film's best moments come from Lawrence, and it's clear that she is one hell of an actress who deserves the success that has come to her. Both Cooper and Lawrence have a great chemistry, and ultimately contribute to most of the film's success.

The supporting cast has received some attention as well. Robert De Niro is always a welcome presence to any movie, whether it be a drama, comedy, action, or horror flick... he's just one of those actors who can play anything. While his part of Pat Sr isn't one of his most memorable roles (though that's hardly a criticism when your filmography consists of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Cape Fear, The Godfather Part II, etc.), De Niro does a good job playing the"bad ass with a heart of gold" kind of parts. He's funny, he's intense, he's dramatic, he's likable, he's De Niro... what more can I say? Australian actress Jacki Weaver is great as Pat's mom Delores, in a more understated but still impressive performance. She's quite convincing as the torn but loving mother caught in the middle of this madness and who wants nothing more than to see both her husband and son both be happy with their issues resolved. Her role in this isn't quite as impressive as her previously Oscar nominated performance in the underrated 2009 flick, Animal Kingdom, but it works. I also have to give a shout out to Chris Tucker, who up until now, has always been one of the most annoying comedic actors to walk the Earth, actually give a more grounded and surprisingly heartfelt performance as Danny, Pat's buddy from the mental hospital. Overall, this was a very well assembled cast, and without them, the movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective.

Now we come to the story... and this is where I'm most divided. The individual parts are all solid, and the seeds planted could have amounted into a new classic. The idea is good, the characters are mostly well developed, and family drama is genuine. The first two-thirds of the film are quite good, with little to no flaws. There are some very funny scenes that managed to get a few decent laughs out of me, and when it came to the heavier scenes, yeah I got legitimately invested in those too. The two tones were well-balanced, it was both funny and dramatic in equal parts with neither feeling forced. Once the final third rolled around... eesh, this is where I'm torn. I can't really discuss it without spoiling parts of the ending, so I'm going to put a spoiler warning up.

SPOILER WARNING!!! I AM REVEALING PARTS OF THE FILM'S ENDING!!! SKIP TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON'T WANT ANYTHING REVEALED!!!

Okay, so film ends with some of the most cliched and predictable story elements I have ever seen.
Up until the third act, most of the movie avoided a lot of the typical romcom formula. Even though I had a hunch it might end copping out, I held out hope that it would not... I was wrong. It ends with Pat's consensual break up with his wife so that he and Tiffany could be together. After Pat Sr gives his son the obligatory "go get her" speech, Pat chases down Tiffany, they reveal their love for each other, the kiss, blah blah blah, happily ever after. It's not just the ending either, by the time the third act rolled around, it was completely obvious that the movie was going to resort to the typical Hollywood formula. This wouldn't bother me too much, except for the fact that the movie had so much going for it. Once again though, we get the typical Hollywood message that the cure for mental illness is to hook up with an equally messed up, though still conventionally attractive, partner. Kind of a letdown, not gonna lie.

SPOILERS END HERE!!!

And there is Silver Linings Playbook. Despite my gripes and complaints, I will say that the movie is worth seeing. Up until the end, most of it works quite well, and while I do think the movie, as a whole, is a bit overrated, it's definitely not bad. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

My Thoughts on the 2013 Oscars

I really need to post these blog entries when they're still relevant. Even though it's been only a week since the 85th Academy Awards, that seems like forever in the world of newsworthy gossip and current events. So despite the fact that every surprise, moment, and controversy from last week's Oscars is pretty much yesterday's news, there's still plenty on my mind about the ceremony and I feel compelled to share it. So... here are my thoughts on this year's Academy Awards.

The Host :)
Seth Macfarlane, I must admit, was a very surprising choice to host the ceremony. I'll admit that while I'm not a "fan" of his per se, I do think that the guy has some natural comedic ability. That said, I consider him to be one of the most hit-and-miss comedians (or comedic performers, whatever he is) working today. His stuff is either laugh out loud hilarious or painstakingly unfunny. Family Guy (used to love it, now I hate it), American Dad (used to hate it, now I kind of like it), and his feature film Ted (has some really funny scenes but was overall average) have shown that despite some real talent, the quality of his material is inconsistent. His hosting duties this year for the Oscars too have received very mixed results, some loving him some hating him. Personally... I'm in the pro-Seth camp. Considering how lackluster the Oscar hosts have been the last few years, the fact that Seth's schtick actually got a few solid laughs has to count for something. Did all of his jokes work? No, there were more than a few that fell flat... but there were also plenty that worked. His material was a little more edgy that Oscar usually presented, but I have a feeling that's what they were going for. I never thought he crossed a line or went unnecessarily offensive. Was he an excellent host? No, I wouldn't say that, but he was a good one that made for an entertaining night. For that, I give him a pass.

A Few Good Surprises :)
One of my major gripes about the last few awards ceremonies is that there was a real lack of suspense or surprises when it came to the award choices. Typically, there was only one or two films that had any real prestige with Academy vying for most of the major awards, with the other nominations basically hiding in their shadows. Last year it was The Artist (good but fairly overrated) and the year before it was The King's Speech (better and slightly less overrated than The Artist). This year, there was a good variety of films and nominations, and while not every pick was particularly surprising (Argo was expected to take Best Picture, Daniel Day Lewis got his expected third award, and Life of Pi swept a good chunk of the tech categories), there were some legitimately surprising calls that I did not see coming. The two biggest surprise, for me at least, were Ang Lee winning Best Director and Christoph Waltz winning Supporting Actor for Life of Pi and Django Unchained respectively. With Ben Affleck failing to receive a director nod, it seemed like Spielberg was up for a third Oscar of his own, but instead Ang Lee received his second statue the flawed but still impressive Life of Pi. As for the Best Supporting Actor category... while that category was arguably the hardest to predict, it still seemed like a two-way race between Robert De Niro and Tommy Lee Jones. In fact, Waltz seemed like the least likely candidate since he was the most recent nominee to claim the award (in 2010 for Inglorious Basterds... another Tarantino film). Can't say I have a problem with Waltz pulling a surprise victory... dude's a great actor and Django was an awesome movie.

Variety of Films Received Awards :)
The only thing more boring than a ceremony with no surprises is one where only one film sweeps all the major awards and leaves it's competition in the dust. It's one thing if the film in question is truly as good as claimed, though that's pretty rare. 2012 saw a lot of good movies, but no real huge masterpieces (maybe time will tell, who knows?) and as a result, most of those said good movies received some sort of honors. Argo took Best Picture, Life of Pi got Best Director, Lincoln for Best Actor, Silver Linings Playbook for Best Actress, Django Unchained for Supporting Actor, and Anne Hathaway for Les Misérables... been a while since it's worked out like that. It was also nice to see Django pick up a screenplay win, Skyfall for best song and a tie for sound editing (another surprise I forgot to mention), and Amour for the Foreign Language category. Would have liked to see Zero Dark Thirty take a few more but overall I have no major complaints.

The Best Picture Nominees

Here's the point where I give a rundown of all the Best Picture nominees and briefly share my thoughts on each of them. So... let's get too it.

Amour
Director Michael Haneke's French-language drama, Amour, kind of snuck up on audiences when it appeared on the ballot. The movie itself is good... really good actually. Haneke's subtle hand as a director benefits this drama immensely, elevating what could have been an uninspired melodrama into a beautifully tragic character-drama reminiscent of the works of filmmaking legend, Ingmar Bergman. It may drag a bit at times, but the perfect performances of it's two leads, the always interesting story, and sheer artistic vision make this a worthy entry of the Best Picture lineup. It was nice to see it receive Best Foreign Film too.

Argo
The winning movie! I'll talk more about this one below.

Beasts of the Southern Wild
This was the year's true outcast nominee, not only sneaking onto Best Picture's lineup but also scoring a Best Director nomination for Benh Zeitlin. Most of the film's hype and discussion has centered less on the film itself and more around it's young star, Quvenzhané Wallis, becoming the youngest Best Lead Actress nominee at age 9. I liked Seth Macfarlane's little quip in his introduction, "So you got nominated for an Oscar... something a 9-year-old could do." The movie itself is... quite good overall. The premise is interesting, Wallis is a natural talent, and the movie has some legitimately intriguing moments. It comes off as a tab bit pretentious at times, but fortunately not too often. If you haven't seen this one yet... I say check it out.

Django Unchained
Hell Yeah! I already wrote a full review for Tarantino's epic tribute to spaghetti westerns/ condemnation of racism, so I won't dwell too much on it here. I will say, however, that Django Unchained is another outstanding flick courtesy of a man who seems like he can do no wrong in the realm of filmmaking. An ambitious concept, incredible script, spot-on cast, over-the-top violence, and buckets of blood make this my favorite movie of the year. I knew it wasn't going to win Best Picture (though that would had been awesome), but the nomination still makes me happy.

Les Misérables
Also reviewed this one in more detail already, so this will be just another brief summary. The long awaited film adaptation of one of broadway's longest running musicals (which itself is based on a book by Victor Hugo) is ambitious, grand, and... quite awkward. It benefits from some enjoyable songs plus strong performances from Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway but is held back by some questionable direction from Tom Hooper. The sets look decent enough but the odd camerawork and editing left me a bit puzzled, not to mention that the abstract and theatrical style of the play doesn't translate as well on screen as opposed to the stage. Oh and as for Russell Crowe... dude's a great actor, but he's no singer.

Life of Pi
I'd like to point out that I actually adapted Life of Pi to film before Ang Lee. When I was a college freshman back in 2006, myself and a few of my classmates made a short film based on Yann Martel's novel for our English Class. Granted our 5-minute film, complete with cheap costumes, flat acting, and cheesy green screen effects didn't have the same flair or stylistic edge as Ang Lee's, but since we made ours first, I think the studio should be paying us a royalty for this movie. Okay, joking aside, both the book and the movie for Life of Pi are quite interesting. Like Lord of the Rings and Watchmen, Life of Pi was once considered an un-filmmable novel (I don't believe in such a thing personally) brought to life in great looking form from the accomplished Ang Lee. His ambitious direction, the great cinematography, stellar production design, and neat looking effects (that tiger looked pretty rad) amount to a good, at times even great, movie held back somewhat by an overly quirky and slightly pretentious narrative. The general idea of Pi being stranded on a lifeboat with a tiger for company is interesting, but the thought of it being used as a religious allegory doesn't work as well as it thinks it does. The underlying message is ultimately, believe in religion because it's more fun and interesting that way. That's a worthy effort, but it isn't a very provocative or compelling sentiment really isn't it? Still, that shouldn't dissuade anyone from seeing Life of Pi. If nothing else, the film is one hell of a visual experience and a frequent feast for the eyes. For that alone, it's worth checking out.

Lincoln
This one originally seemed like the most likely film to take home the Best Picture statue, but after the Best Director controversy, Argo became the favorite (and of course winner). Lincoln was one of my favorite films this year, partially for the usual reasons (great actors, great director, good historical subject matter, etc.) but also because of the underlying themes and messages in it's screenplay. Less of a awards bait historical biopic, Lincoln is more of a political thriller with compelling subtext regarding the good and dark side of the political system... ultimately saying that sometimes the only way to get your point across is to play dirty. Lincoln's efforts to abolish slavery, utilizing everything from double dealing and bribing, certainly raise some interesting questions of ethics. Ultimately, it portrays Abraham Lincoln as a hero, who knew that the only way to end the heinous institution of slavery was to break some of the rules. For all of those reasons, Lincoln is a damn good movie.

Silver Linings Playbook
Here's one that sure struck a chord with critics and audiences. I'll write a full review for it soon, but in short, I think this dramedy is good but not great. It takes some worthy subject matter in the context of mental illness and makes a strong effort to provide an accurate and emotional depiction of the subject... it partially succeeds. The film strongly benefits from the excellent cast, four of whom came away with mostly well-deserved awards nominations (and one win for Jennifer Lawrence). Unfortunately the story, for all of it's good intentions fell victim to overdone cliches and a formulaic ending that I saw coming from a mile away. While it means well, it's neither a particularly enlightened or engaging study on either family values or mental illness... mainly just telling familiar stories that have been done before, and often better. Still, it's not a bad movie at all. Like I said, the cast is great, the movie has some really emotional (and funny) scenes, and it tries hard, but it's just too uninspired and passé to be anything truly memorable.

Zero Dark Thirty
Now we come to my second favorite film of 2012. I was on the fence about this one throughout the film's production, but upon seeing it, I can happily say that Zero Dark Thirty is one of the most compelling, suspenseful, and dynamic movies to come around in years. The dramatized retelling of America's decade-long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden features a dramatic and often depressing story fully realized by Mark Boal's great screenplay, Kathryn Bigelow's subtle hand as a director, and Jessica Chastain's intense performance. It's not always a particularly easy movie to watch, but the sheer power of it's storytelling (and controversy for that matter) makes it a dynamic and risky film that's worthy of all it's nominations.

The Best Picture Winner: Argo :)

In the last couple of years, the films that ended up being named Best Picture were mostly good but fairly uninspired choices. Honestly, how many are honestly still watching The Artist or The King's Speech? Neither of those movies were bad, just kind of safe, predictable, or uninspired. Argo isn't exactly a groundbreaking film but it's definitely one of the better choices in recent years. I've taken a bit of flack for not including Argo in my Top 10 of 2012 list, and I'll admit that this was the one I felt the worst about leaving off... so consider it my 11th favorite movie of 2012. The premise is great, the real life implications are interesting, the finale is suspenseful as all gets out, Alan Arkin and John Goodman are as entertaining as always, and Ben Affleck's steady hand as a director holds the film together. Ultimately, though, I wasn't quite blown away by it like many were. While none of the acting was bad, some of the cast lacked a bit of energy and at times the dragged because of it, though Arkin and Goodman were the exceptions, every time they were on screen the movie was great. Also, while the real life premise was a great idea on which to base a movie, it fudged one too many historical facts for the sake of drama while immensely downplaying the role the Canadians played in the mission. Still, the movie is well made and overall consistently entertaining. I don't quite see this one becoming a classic down the road but I can honestly say it's a more worthy addition to the Best Picture lineup in recent years. I would have preferred to see Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty, or Lincoln take the prize, but I have no real complaints.

Overall
This year's Oscars, I have to say, were a notable improvement from the last few ceremonies. Overall, I'm happy with them. Seth Macfarlane wasn't perfect, but I enjoyed his stint as host, the awards given out were varied and mostly well earned, and the event had some memorable moments and surprises. Always love the Oscars, can't wait until next year.

Oscars 2013 - My Picks and Predictions

Tomorrow is February 24, and that means it's the night of the annual Academy Awards. It's the night where all of film-making's most celebrated and prestigious individuals come together to honor Hollywood's greatest achievements of the year. Well... at least on paper, that's what the event entails. In reality, it's a night fake smiles, politics, and backstabbing full of audiences and members bitching and moaning about who should have won, who shouldn't have, who was snubbed from the nominees, and the general ugly side of the industry. But you know what, none of that really matters. In this industry, there is no award or honor more prestigious, lovely, and celebrated than the good old Oscar, and whether you agree with the picks or not, you have to admit that it's always an exciting evening. The mystery, the anticipation, as well as the often event itself (as long as James Franco never hosts again) is at the very least, an enjoyable experience. So will this year's show live up to the name of Oscar??? We'll find out tomorrow, for now, here are my picks and predictions of the Oscar nominees.

While I haven't seen all of the nominated films this year, 2012 is easily the most I've seen from any respective year. I'm not going in any particular order here, and I won't give detailed responses to all of the categories (but I will give a rundown at the end). That said, I'll save Best Picture for last. Without further ado, here are my thoughts and predictions of this year's nominees.

Best Actor in a Leader Role

Bradley Cooper for "Silver Linings Playbook"
Daniel Day-Lewis for "Lincoln"
Hugh Jackman for "Les Misérables"
Joaquin Phoenix for "The Master"
Denzel Washington for "Flight"

Pretty good and diverse list, I have to say. There were tons of great actors this year and way too many to choose from, and that said, I have no real issues with this list. There's a bi-polar trying to get his life back together, a portrayal of America's 16th president, a musical turn for performer best known to US audiences as an action star, a career best for Phoenix as a mentally unstable war vet, and a troubled pilot fighting the demons of alcohol abuse. Prior to the nominees announcement, I was sure that Joaquin Phoenix was going to get snubbed (because of the dude's questionable career moves, it seemed like a for sure thing), but to the Academy's credit they knew it was a great performance, and they honored it. Personally, my ideal line-up would have included John Hawkes for The Sessions instead of Bradley Cooper (though to Cooper's credit, he was quite good in Silver Linings Playbook), but I have no real objections. Still, my personal favorite is Joaquin Phoenix's unhinged portrayal of Freddie Quell, an disturbed WWII vet who gets mixed up with a self-help movement slowly morphing into a cult (ie Scientology metaphor). As far as predictions go, there's really not a whole lot of mystery to this category. Daniel Day-Lewis looks like he's inline for his third Oscar victory for his role as president Abraham Lincoln. No real objections to that choice, it was a damn good performance and the guy is a damn good actor.

Who Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis
My Pick: Joaquin Phoenix

Best Actress in a Leader Role

Jessica Chastain for "Zero Dark Thirty"
Jennifer Lawrence for "Silver Linings Playbook"
Emmanuelle Riva for "Amour"
Quvenzhané Wallis for "Beasts of the Southern Wild"
Naomi Watts for "The Impossible"

Pretty good choices here too, no real objections. I don't think it's a coincidence that this year just so happened to have the category's youngest nominee of all time (Quvenzhané Wallis) competing with category's oldest (Emmanuelle Riva). While both great actresses, I wouldn't bet on seeing Watts or Wallis take home the award, because this looks mostly like a two-way race between Chastain or Lawrence with Riva as an outsider contending for a possible upset. While these are all strong roles and great actresses, my personal pick is still Jessica Chastain as the CIA recruit bent on finding Osama bin Laden. Emmanuelle Riva is very close second though as the elderly French woman struggling to recover from a recent stroke. It's tight race, but I'm going to say Jessica Chastain will probably be taking home the award. That said, if Lawrence got picked, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. If she did win, I could live with that.

Who Will Win: Jessica Chastain (maybe)
My Pick: Jessica Chastain (with Emmanuelle Riva a very close second)

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

Alan Arkin for "Argo"
Robert De Niro for "Silver Linings Playbook"
Phillip Seymour Hoffman for "The Master"
Tommy Lee Jones for "Lincoln"
Christoph Waltz for "Django Unchained"

This was one of the more controversial categories of the year, second only to the choices for Best Director (I'll get to that soon). It's also the hardest to predict. Five nominees, all of whom have won Oscar gold in the past, and all who seem to have a strong chance of winning. Three of these picks have fairly recently (Waltz, Hoffman, and Arkin) so they probably won't get called, but you never know. The two most likely contenders seem to be Robert De Niro and Tommy Lee Jones, both whom are great. While I am actually a HUGE De Niro fan, I'm not exactly on board with him winning this year. His performance in Silver Linings Playbook was great, don't get me wrong, I don't think it was strong as the others choices, or even actors that got snubbed, namely Samuel L. Jackson for Django Unchained, Dwight Henry for Beasts of the Southern Wild, and especially Leonardo Di Caprio for Django Unchained, who for me personally, is the biggest acting snub of the night. Among what we have though, my personal favorite is Phillip Seymour Hoffman in The Master, though I'm anticipating Tommy Lee Jones will win. De Niro might come through, but my money's still on Jones.

Who Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones
My Pick: Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

Amy Adams for "The Master"
Sally Field for "Lincoln"
Anne Hathaway for "Les Misérables"
Helen Hunt for "The Sessions"
Jacki Weaver for "Silver Linings Playbook"

This category has been unofficially dubbed "The Anne Hathaway Award" this year, since there's little doubt that anyone other than Hathaway is going to win. I have no major issues with that, since Hathaway was legitimately great in the role, but it was really too small of a part to compare with some of the other nominees. If there is going to be an upset, it's probably going to go to Sally Field, whose cute story of how campaigned for the role of Mary Todd Lincoln is usually the kind of sap story the Academy eats up. Still, I would be very surprised anyone other than Hathaway won. Personally, my choice would either come down to Sally Field or Helen Hunt, both of whom I thought were excellent.

Who Will Win: Anne Hathaway
My Pick: Sally Field

Best Director

Michael Haneke for "Amour"
Ang Lee for "Life of Pi"
David O. Russell for "Silver Linings Playbook"
Steven Spielberg for "Lincoln"
Benh Zeitlin for "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Oh boy, the controversy surrounding this category is still an issue. The baffling snubs of Ben Affleck (who for a while seemed like a high contender for the win, let alone a nomination), Kathryn Bigelow, and Quentin Tarantino are ridiculous. I have no problems with Spielberg, Haneke, and Lee making the list, but I'm not exactly on board with Russell and Zeitlin making the nominees. Zeitlin less so, since I really did like Beasts of the Southern Wild and admired it's creativity. David O Russell on the other hand, while a very talented filmmaker, doesn't belong on this list. Granted, Silver Linings Playbook had some really strong performances, due in no small part to the director, but aside from that, it was a very straightforward, by-the-numbers, directorial effort. He was by no means as creative as Tarantino, as precise as Bigelow, or as ambitious as Affleck. Oh well, what are you going to do? With Affleck out of the way, this award looks like Spielberg's to loose. Among these guys, he would be my choice too.

Who Will Win: Steven Spielberg
My Pick: Steven Spielberg

Best Original Screenplay

Michael Haneke for "Amour"
Quentin Tarantino for "Django Unchained"
John Gatins for "Flight"
Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola for "Moonrise Kingdom"
Mark Boal for "Zero Dark Thirty"

I like these choices. It was nice to see Moonrise Kingdom get at least one nomination. It was also a pleasant surprise to see Flight get recognized for it's script in addition to Washington's performance. As far as predictions go, it seems like this is the only category where Django Unchained seems like it has a good shot at winning. The controversial nature of the script might turn off some members, in which case it would probably go to Moonrise Kingdom, but I'm thinking Django has it.

Who Will Win: Django Unchained
My Pick: Django Unchained

Best Adapted Screenplay

Chris Terrio for "Argo"
Benh Zeitlin and Lucy Alibar for "Beasts of the Southern Wild"
David Magee for "Life of Pi"
Tony Kushner for "Lincoln"
David O. Russell for "Silver Linings Playbook"

Not too bad either, but I'm not quite as on board with these choices as the Original Screenplay category. Argo seems like the likely victor for this category, both for it's suspenseful and intruiging concept, as well as the "America! Fuck Yeah!" vibes plus a touch of Hollywood's role as the hero and a good opportunity to pat themselves on the back. I'll admit that Argo had a really clever script, but the major thing that has been holding me back from calling the film a bona-fide masterpiece is it's retooling of facts and historical events for the sake of Hollywood drama. Granted it didn't ruin the movie, but it's there. Life Of Pi, both the book and script, were creative, if not a bit pretentious. Silver Linings Playbook was at best, a made-for-TV sitcom style movie with a cliched ending and really doesn't belong among the others. Beasts of the Southern Wild was quite good, but personally I'm rooting for Lincoln this time around. While Lincoln's script may have fudged the facts a bit too, it nonetheless took a fairly routine Oscar-bait concept and turned it into a clever, thrilling, and sometimes funny, analysis of the political system. For that reason, it gets my vote.

Who Will Win: Argo
My Pick: Lincoln

Best Animated Feature

Brave
Frankenweenie
ParaNorman
The Pirates! Bands of Misfits
Wreck-It Ralph

I only saw three out of the five movies from this category. Unfortunately, every time I went to a Redbox to find Pirates or Frankenweenie, they were already checked out. So I can't personally speak for either of those. I will say though that the three I did see were quite good, though like last year Pixar isn't the obvious choice for the winner, as they usually are. That said, it seems like it's going to come down to either Brave or Wreck-It Ralph. While my choice would be ParaNorman with Wreck-It Ralph as my second pick, most of the predictions and analysts I've been reading have been leaning toward Brave. ParaNorman and Frankenweenie are too strongly associated with the horror genre and Wreck-It Ralph's video game themed subject matter probably doesn't jive with the mostly senior-aged Academy members. So... while it's not a for sure thing, Brave is my prediction.

Who Will Win: Brave
My Pick: ParaNorman

Best Foreign Film

Amour
Rebelle
No
A Royal Affair
Kon-Tiki

The only film I saw in this category is Amour, so I can't really choose a personal favorite. That said, it seems like that's the likely winners anyways.

Who Will Win: Amour
My Pick: Amour by default

Best Cinematography

Anna Karenina
Django Unchained
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Skyfall

Hey look! Skyfall made the list! While some were predicting that a James Bond actually stood a chance at getting picked for some of the major categories, it looks like the film is going to have to settle for the technical categories. Overall, these are good choices. My personal pick would probably either come down to Life Of Pi or Skyfall, though Django Unchained had some great camerawork too. Still, I think Life of Pi will ultimately emerge as the winner here.

Who Will Win: Life of Pi
My Pick: Skyfall

Best Editing

Argo
Life Of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

Once again, Silver Linings Playbook snuck it's way into an undeserved nomination. It's all more insulting when you consider that a far more deserving film like Cloud Atlas (who got snubbed all the way) or Skyfall could have taken it's place. Oh well. Out of these choices, I think Argo is going to take the trophy. That would be my pick too... or maybe Zero Dark Thirty. Both are well edited films that deserve to be recognized.

Who Will Win: Argo
My Pick: Argo

Best Production Design

Anna Karenina
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Misérables
Life Of Pi
Lincoln

Nice to see The Hobbit make the ballot in some way. Anna Karenina made quite an impression some of the technical categories too, not that I have any major issues with that. This one is tough to predict. Life Of Pi mostly takes place at sea, created mostly through cgi, though the scenes that do take place on land look pretty spectacular. My personal choice would either be Life of Pi or Lincoln. Though the winner will be... either of Life of Pi or Les Misérables. I guess I need to chose one, let's say Life Of Pi.

Who Will Win: Life of Pi
My Choice: Lincoln

Best Costume Design

Anna Karenina
Les Misérables
Lincoln
Mirror Mirror
Snow White and the Huntsman

Oh great... Mirror Mirror got an Oscar nod... PFFT!!! Well, to the film's credit, the costumes were quite good... BUT THE REST OF THE MOVIE SUCKED!!! Anywho... I think Anna Karenina is going to take home this Oscar, which is fine by me.

Who Will Win: Anna Karenina
My Choice: Anna Karenina

Best Original Song

Before My Time from "Chasing Ice"
Suddenly from "Les Misérables"
Pi's Lullaby from "Life of Pi"
Skyfall from "Skyfall"
Everybody Needs a Friend from "Ted"

It would be kind of funny if the song from Ted won, since Seth Macfarlane, the song's lyricist, happens to be hosting the event. That won't happen though, since this Oscar has Skyfall's name written all over it. Skyfall will win, Skyfall should win, case closed.

Who Will Win: Skyfall
My Choice: Skyfall

Best Visual Effects

The Avengers
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Life of Pi
Prometheus
Snow White and the Huntsman

Here's the category that typically is the only area where blockbusters and crowd-pleasers stand a chance at getting recognized. I would have preferred to see Cloud Atlas here instead of Snow White, but these aren't bad choices at all. It would be nice to see The Avengers or Prometheus take home this award, but I have a feeling it's being reserved for Life of Pi. That's cool.

Who Will Win: Life of Pi
My Choice: The Avengers

Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Hitchcock
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Misérables

Seriously... you nominated Les Miz, and to a lesser extent Hitchcock, for this award while snubbing Cloud Atlas??? Yeah, I call bullshit on that! The Hobbit had some great makeup effects while Hitchcock's were good but nothing amazing all while Les Miz's were very very very passable. Unlike Cloud Atlas, which had some of the most ambitious and incredible makeup I've ever seen! Oh well, I have a feeling that film is going to be a Blade Runner-like cult classic down the line, so we'll wait for it's recognition then. For now, let's Hope The Hobbit gets this award instead of Les Misérables... which will probably win unfortunately.

Who Will Win: Les Misérables
My Choice: Cloud Atlas... but it wasn't nominated, so The Hobbit

Best Picture

Amour
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Misérables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

Alright, I know I skipped a few categories, but I'll include my predictions in the rundown below. Now we come to the category for the best film of the year. This one has been a tough one to predict. When the nominations were announced, it seemed like Lincoln was the likely choice. The logic that because Bigelow and Affleck were snubbed for a director nod, that their chances of winning Best Picture were slim. There have been three films in the history of the Oscars to win Best Picture and not receive a director nod, the last of which was 1989's Driving Miss Daisy. Over the last couple weeks though, Argo has emerged as the film's most likely victor, possibly because the Academy realized they screwed up by neglecting to nominate Affleck, who has been winning award after award for his work on the film... which itself has been winning countless awards including the Golden Globe for Best Drama. So yeah... Argo looks like this year's Best Picture. If you're betting on an upset though... Lincoln is probably second in line, but I wouldn't count on it. Me personally, I would choose Django Unchained. Not only is it Quentin Tarantino's most ambitious film in years, it's also one of the most challenging and well-made movies the many years. That said, it's too damn controversial to actually receive the accolade for Best Picture. I'm kind of surprised it got as many nominations as it did to be honest. But there you go, Best Picture, it's going to be Argo.


Who Will Win: Argo
My Pick: Django Unchained


I'll list my predictions for the films I've mentioned plus the categories I didn't get around to. Keep in mind, below are my predictions, not necessarily my personal choices. Who will win? We'll find out tomorrow!

Best Picture: Argo
Lead Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis
Lead Actress: Jessica Chastain
Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones
Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway
Director: Steven Spielberg
Original Screenplay: Django Unchained
Adapted Screenplay: Lincoln
Animated Feature: Brave
Foreign Film: Amour
Visual Effects: Life of Pi
Editing: Argo
Cinematography: Life of Pi
Production Design: Les Misérables
Costume Design: Anna Karenina
Makeup: Les Misérables
Sound Editing: Zero Dark Thirty
Sound Mixing: Les Misérables
Original Score: Life of Pi
Original Song: Skyfall
Animated Short: Paperman
Live Action Short: Curfew
Documentary: Searching For Sugar Man
Documentary Short: Open Heart