The Week Before the Oscars Predictions

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants
Best Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen has seemed like a surefire lock for Midnight in Paris, while Alexander Payne and his team seemed to be fighting off Moneyball and Hugo. But it looks like, after the Writer's Awards, we have our two Screenplay winners.
Best Foreign Language Film: A Separation
It got nominated for a high profile category (Screenplay) and won the Golden Globe. With The Skin I Live In not nominated, this seems to be the heavy favorite in this category.
Best Documentary Feature: Pina
There were certainly better documentaries this year, but given the death of subject Pina Bausch mid-filming, it seems only appropriate to dedicate this win for her legacy.
Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, The Help
She's been sweeping up through the major award ceremonies. It would take a miracle to beat her.
Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, The Help
See above.
Best Actress: Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
I will be wavering about this one for the next week or so. Streep somehow pulled off the BAFTA win, even though Viola Davis had a lot of momentum from her win at the SAGs. But if the British Academy can award Streep's controversial portrayal of former P.M. Margaret Thatcher, maybe the Academy can as well. The BAFTAs are also a better predictor for the Oscars given the overlap between voters in the British Academy and the Academy.
Best Actor: Jean Dujardin, The Artist
This is long from a foregone conclusion. But it seemed that George Clooney had this award all wrapped up. But after winning the SAG and the BAFTA, Dujardin is the clear favorite. Coupled with the tremendous momentum of The Artist along with the steady decline of The Descendants and Clooney's previous win for Syriana, it appears that Dujardin will be awarded the Oscar.
Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
He won the Directors Guild Award. He won the BAFTA. The Artist is the most-awarded and talked about movie right now. Chalk up another win for The Artist.
Best Picture: The Artist
After taking home the BAFTA and gaining awards for its youthful director and charming lead actor along the way, The Artist looks like the silent movie that could. The Help, Hugo, and The Descendants still can upset The Artist, but it looks like silence is, well, golden.

Oscar Predictions Updated

With the announcement of the SAGs, the Oscars face some new competition. The Help has elevated its chances with a Best Cast win, and one of its stars, Viola Davis, took the SAG award for Best Actress along with Octavia Spencer, winning a SAG for Best Supporting Actress. The biggest surprise was Jean Dujardin, getting noticed for his work in The Artist. Here are the updated predictions.

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants
Best Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris
Bridesmaids and The Artist deserve to get some serious cred, but I think that these two are locked in for now. Moneyball, and Aaron Sorkin, could spoil the Adapted Screenplay race.
Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, The Help
With the SAG award, Spencer is the one to beat. She will hear her name come Oscar night.
Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, Beginners
As is the usual, Best Supporting Actor and Actress are determined well before the Oscar ceremony. Plummer gets a deserving win for a long and illustrious career.
Best Actress: Viola Davis, The Help
Despite losing the Golden Globe, Davis bounced back with a SAG win. Meryl Streep always deserves to be recognized, but it's Davis' time right now.
Best Actor: Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Clooney seems to be unstoppable, but I learned that you should never go against the guild. The SAGs will go 4 for 4 at the Oscar ceremony.
Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Remember how David Fincher should have won last year? He lost to DGA winner Tom Hooper. Expect Hazanavicius to follow suit.
Best Picture: The Artist
They may have lost the SAG, but the SAG has never been the best decider of the Best Picture. With wins for Dujardin and Hazanavicius, The Artist caps a winning night with the top prize.

Oscar Predictions 2012

There were many surprises and snubs in this year's Oscar nominees. Michael Fassbender snubbed for Shame, but his snub led to a surprise (first-time) nomination for Gary Oldman. Albert Brooks, who was Drive's most likely nomination, was snubbed as well. But it is not a matter of snubs and surprises, though those were the three that most shocked me. Here are my predictions for the Oscars.

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants
Best Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris
The Descendants strengthens its Oscars push by taking the Adapted Screenplay, and Woody Allen makes a triumphant return to the Oscars with his highest grossing film yet.
Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, The Help
While co-star Jessica Chastain could take this award as the "It"-girl of the year, Spencer will ride all of the momentum from the Globes, SAG, and BAFTA wins to an Academy Award.
Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, Beginners
With Albert Brooks out of the race (though he was becoming more of an afterthought), the award certainly goes to Plummer. Anything else would be shocking to say the least.
Best Actress: Viola Davis, The Help
Meryl Streep may be a revelation as Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady, but she will be weighed down by a under-performing movie on the whole. Davis rides The Help's relative success in awards season to here first Academy Award, making Streep 2-16 at the Oscars.
Best Actor: Brad Pitt, Moneyball
George Clooney and Pitt are neck and neck right now. Clooney has his award, and with Pitt "retiring" in 3 years, I highly doubt the very political Oscars will shun Pitt any further. He takes his first Academy Award.
Best Director: Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Despite making his best movies 25-40 years ago, Scorsese takes his second Best Director win for his cleanest film to date.
Best Picture: The Artist
Despite missing out on most of the big-time categories, The Artist, despite losing the SAG to The Help and facing a strong push from The Descendants, ride a BAFTA win to Oscar glory. Cue the dog.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol Review

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol certainly ran the risk of extending a series that was running on fume since its last go-around. Tom Cruise was not the movie star he used to be. Jeremy Renner, while a tremendous actor, was not an absolute sell as an action star. Paula Patton's biggest role to date was in Jumping the Groom. Simon Pegg was not an action star, but the plucky comic relief. But with Brad Bird (The Incredibles) at the helm and energetic turns by all of the actors, MI4 did the seemingly impossible. It made Ghost Protocol arguably the best Mission Impossible yet.

This was not a perfect movie by any means. Between Dubai and Mumbai, there was an odd and prolonged layover that, while completely pertinent, was also completely boring. Many times, the MI series tries too hard to entangle the viewer in this confusing web of story lines, especially with the abuse of the perfect facial masks that have been used multiple times throughout this series. While (thankfully) the protagonists left this to a minimum, there was still some camouflaging in this film. But outside of this, the films was solid and fast-paced.

The actors were outstanding, though not perfect. Patton seemed to edge on the hammy side when she was forced to be emotional. Cruise seemed to waver between all-too-serious secret agent and bantering spy colleague. Pegg ran the risk of turning into a one-joke guy with his quippy-ness. Renner played his role of action star well, but had some trouble in the more emotional parts of the movie. But on the whole, this team was actually a team. The chemistry can be felt among the four actors as they effortlessly flowed through the movie, turning into a tight-knit team of spies.

Bird took his first stab at live-action film and brought a cartoon-y aspect to it. The opening credits were a testament to the limitlessness that Bird has dealt with in animation. It jumped from scene to scene following a dynamite wick on its way to an explosion. His best idea was not anything to do with the editing or the cuts. It was the scenery. Bird brilliantly captured the beauty of both Mumbai and Dubai in his far shots. The majesty and magnificence of Dubai served as the backdrop to the most thrilling scene in the film. Bird is also willing to turn all of the buildings into his playground. One of the best parts about confined spaces in this film is that Bird turns these closed areas with limited movement into this vast expanse of area. At times, it felt too slapsticky, too cartoony. Some of the stunts would work better in an animated setting. But overall, Bird kept the suspense high and the thrills on.

Overall, the movie was great. It had one of the easier plots to follow of the MI series, and the entire film was an unending thrill ride. The actors were having fun, the director was having fun, and even the composer, Michael Giacchino (the genius behind the score of Up) seemed to have fun with the riffs off the hold MI theme music. And that is what made MI4 so great. The film was so much fun that the audience could not help but stand in awe with the artistry that a seeming popcorn flick could have.

A Dangerous Method Review

I recently watched A Dangerous Method, a film about Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, and Sabina Spielrein. Going into this movie, I was very excited about watching it. I was sold on the sole fact that it was the third straight collaboration between Viggo Mortensen and David Cronenberg, including Mortensen's Oscar-nominated turn in Eastern Promises. Then, there was the fact that it was a film about Jung and Freud, two brilliant thinkers. Just to see the embodiment of these minds would have been an experience in and of itself, but with the pedigree of the actors (Mortensen, Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley), it seemed like this would be one of the best movies of the year. This film is essentially Oscar bait anyway. 

I will admit that parts of me wanted to see this film at the Oscars. The dialogue between all of the characters was interesting and packed with intricacy. While the subject matter may be too advanced for some moviegoers, it was always fun to listen to the technicalities and methodology that resounded in each sentence. The acting was similarly impressive. Mortensen truly disappeared into his role as the father of psychoanalysis, and Fassbender played Jung with a subdued intensity that could have been misconstrued as boredom or blandness if acted by an inferior actor. Vincent Cassel, as Otto Gross, added a breath of life into a very serious film. And while Knightley's performance was at times too extreme, it did what was necessary and turned many scenes with her into this uncomfortable and, in a way, humiliating experience, something that the film likely aimed to do.

But, I was woefully disappointed at the stagnancy of the film. Admittedly, my sights may have been set too high after the very active A History of Violence and Eastern Promises, but it was not just the scenery that need to be kinetic. The story moved at a glacial pace, which is never good if it is a shorter movie (about an hour and a half). Part of the problem was the artistic decisions by the director. Because this film dealt with psychoanalysis, I should not have expected movement in every single scene. But more often than not, the scene was limited to one area, and the film moved forward through jumps, never making a truly smooth transition between one point to another. While there were interesting parts of the movie (particularly the string of letters between Spielrein, Freud, and Jung near the end), characters were very motionless. Even while they were moving around, it felt that they were going nowhere. This could be a clever ploy by Cronenberg to assimilate the audience into the film by creating a sense of idleness through the closed-off settings and stalled plot. But that seemed to be too intelligent for most directors this side of David Lynch. Cronenberg fails to send the plot in any direction, preferring to keep everything in a little contained box. He, in a way, is much like Freud, not willing to take any risks. Both seemed to be content strengthening the basis of the movie, rather than reaching out and grabbing something potentially better. Could these risks have led to more negative results as Freud would assume? Yes, it could have. But as the director of a film with so much potential in the first place, he should not fear these uncertainties. 

This was a great movie, but it is too artsy for its own good. It never plays out like a movie in the typical sense. It is more like a play. It jumps from scene to scene without much understanding as to what is going on between each of them. The setting rarely changes in a scene, preferring multiple changes rather than one fluid motion throughout the film. Nevertheless, it is well-acted and well-written. But Cronenberg unfortunately errs on the side of caution. He creates a serious movie that takes no risks. His movie could be interpreted at the field of psychoanalysis that he presents. It is a solid field with substance, but it is so rooted in one thing that it never branches out. Cronenberg takes too few risks and creates what will likely be an award-winning movie, which is sad because it could have been more than that. If he only had Jung's ambition and creativity, it could have been a modern classic.

The Last Airbender Series: The Spirit World and the Trope of Outnumbering

One of the most common tropes in film and television is that the good guys are always outnumbered. It is not a necessity to be a good guy, but people just tend to root for the outnumbered party. Think of some recent movies that use this cliche. Zombie movies are one of the essential movies with an outnumbered group, a small, ragtag gang of survivors against the monstrous mob of zombies.  300 is blatant about the outnumbered Spartans, going so far as to tell us how many there are. But Iroh makes a very good point. While you may be outnumbered, that does not necessarily mean that you are outmatched.

The scene is set with Uncle Iroh and Prince Zuko ready to face off against 5 Earth Nation soldiers. These soldiers remind the two firebenders that they are outnumbered. Iroh accepts this fact, but rebuts saying that they are outmatched. This is the essential definition of this trope. The good guy has to be outnumbered or visibly outmatched in order to be the good guy. No one wants to cheer for the person who does not have to go through any conflict. Winning is supposed to be an uphill climb, even if it is a story about a winner. Many sports movies about winning teams have them overcoming another obstacle outside of the game. People do not want to see movies about a person that never faces any difficulty. You have to be outnumbered (or visibly outmatched) in order to win in movies. Or at least in order to be considered the good guy.

What does this quote imply about the rest of the series? Up until now, we are supposed to root against Zuko and Iroh. But Zuko is the ultimate antihero. He is always clearly outmatched. When compared to Zhao, he lacks the resources and manpower (and the respect). Against these Earthbenders, he lacks the numbers. But he finds a way to overcome these obstacles. While outnumbered, he is never outmatched. This solidifies him as a hero (or at least anti-hero) in this story. He has to be a good guy because he is never given any victories. Everything he has is hard-earned, and the only way to regain his honor is to overcome all obstacles that get between him and the Avatar, despite the hardships that will certainly face him.

The Last Airbender Series: Imprisoned and the "Help Me, Sue You" Effect

This is a sad, yet sometimes true, scenario. You see someone in dire need of help, be it CPR or otherwise. As a Good Samaritan, you go and help this person, but by saving their life, you also accidentally cause harm to them. Rather than thanking that person for what they did, they do the unthinkable. You expect someone to show gratitude for saving their life or doing good for them. But more and more, you hear stories about Good Samaritans not being thanked, but being sued for what they did. This blindsided move is demonstrated in this episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Our Aang gang found themselves in a Earth Kingdom village taken over by the Fire Nation, and the Fire Nation has banned all earthbending. Haru, an earthbender, sees an old man trapped by a rockslide, and Katara and Haru decide to help the old man, despite the illegality of earthbending. Since Haru saved that man's life, you'd expect him to thank Haru for his generosity. Instead, the old man informed the Fire Nation that Haru was earth bending. This does differ from the real world examples in that saving a person's life is typically not illegal. But this does not seem like the ideal situation or the right thing to do in this scenario. If you are saved by someone, do you thank them or try to exploit them? You thank them, you treat them as a hero. You don't throw them under the bus, but this still happens. And that is unfortunate.

So what is the message the Avatar is showing now? On one hand, they could be enforcing a cynical opinion. When you see someone who needs your help, don't help them unless they explicitly ask. Essentially, you're not supposed to go out of your own way to help someone. That's a pretty gritty message for a kid's show, but that's only one way to construe this event. The other is a commentary on people who take advantage of good, kind-hearted people. Does the audience ever think that Haru did the wrong thing? No, they don't for the most part. But it's a general consensus that the old man did the wrong thing. The message here is gratitude. Whether or not you know the person, if he helps you, you owe them. They don't owe you anything. And unfortunately, this is a message that needed to be delivered, rather than a moral that should be naturally assumed.