OSCAR 2011 PREDICTIONS: Lead Actor

Moving on to much bigger strokes, the main races always seem to be the most easily predicted, because they've had the most attention in terms of precursors. I suppose it's just knowing to pay attention to the right precursors. I wouldn't consider the Golden Globes as such, which is one advisement in why I expect George Clooney won't win. Sure, he has the favor of plenty precursors, but I believe it will most surely go to SAG winner Jean Dujardin. That's likely the most important precursor to have under your belt, and he should slide into it like a clean glove.

Now, if Gary Oldman ended up pulling out a surprise win, which I and everyone else is hoping for, that would be great. Not going to happen, but it would undeniably be a move in the right direction. The other two contenders are pretty much there to make the category look a little bit prettier. Demian Bichir, in my opinion, has little right in really being there, and it doesn't really throw in the right spice of difference. If they wanted that, they'd have gone with their senses and voted up Michael Fassbender for "Shame". I am happy to see Brad Pitt here, to a degree. Why not? He's another strong piece of "Moneyball", and though I thought his better work was in "The Tree of Life", I suppose it's nice to have him here.

THEN & NOW: Lead Actor & Actress

Continuing to seek our teeth into the flaws that exist in this low-point for the Academy Awards, I was starting to wonder if there was even a point of doing this. I mean, sure the nominees this year aren't great, but are they really a massive departure from previous years? Actually, yes. This isn't an overreaction. Previous years have rendered much greater and more deserving performances and films in the categories given. Maybe last year went a bit wild with the winners, but it did the nominees pretty well. I think that the Best Actor race was the worst last year, as it didn't really seem to have its heart in it. Colin Firth was the frontrunner the year after he should have won.

I am still of the belief that Jeff Bridges should have came to a win last year, rather than the year before, but he isn't the most deserving performance here either. James Franco was always a bit on the mild side, and I can't quite believe that he really needed to be there. I'm very glad that Javier Bardem made it in for a performance that was admittedly quite strong, and that was worth it simply for the rage it ensued amongst ignorant YouTube reviewers. But I think that Jesse Eisenberg was the real gem of the group last year, with a skillfully internalized performance in a very internalized film, but it was still a case of a relative newcomer sweeping in to steal the glory from somebody who was overdue.

Film Review: "The Ides of March"

"I'm not going away."

It took far too long for me to finally get to seeing George Clooney's fourth directorial effort. It's difficult to believe that he's already had that many films under his belt as a director. And the fact of the matter is that he still has no real identity as a director. Between this, "Good Night and Good Luck", "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", and the odd move of "Leatherheads", we can't really say what his style is. Even two films in, Ben Affleck has a known stylistic mind about him, as well as an integrity that keeps getting stronger. We've yet to see that from Clooney, but he seems to be getting there. It's a testimony to how much he knows the industry he's in that "The Ides of March" doesn't fall apart.

The film opens unassumingly, with Ryan Gosling heading up to a microphone and speaking things that would seemingly condemn him in a debate. It's not just that there's no context to it, but there's no real passion in it, because these words don't belong to him. They may have been written by him, but they belong to his employer, democratic presidential candidate Mike Morris, played with a practice sense of entitlement by Clooney. Gosling's Stephen Meyers is working on Morris' campaign under senior manager Paul Zara, played very much like Phillip Seymour Hoffman by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. This isn't so much about political goings-on as it is about tentative politics. Everything's up in the air, and anybody is expendable without a second thought.

AWARDS 2011: National Board of Review throws "Hugo" into the race

If we were shrugging in a somewhat disgruntled manner when the New York Film Critics Circle announced their winners on Tuesday, the National Board of Review managed to inject a bit of personality into this race. How so? Well I don't think people were quite on board with "Hugo"s Best Picture chances until just now. With Scorsese and his film taking the top prizes from NBR, which was highly expected to go to "The Artist" and Michel Hazanavicius, it feels like there's new blood in there. What gets me even further buzzed is that Tilda Swinton took the Best Actress prize for her amazing performance in "We Need to Talk About Kevin". Fingers crossed that at least this one sticks.

The wins for "The Descendants" and "Beginners", on the other hand, were pretty predictable and within the grain of what we expected. The wins for "50/50" and "Margin Call", on the other hand, are just plain silly. Their top ten are considerably more interesting than I had originally diagnosed this season, but I don't imagine this bunch will all make it to the film list, least of which "Drive", "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", and for entirely different reasons, "J. Edgar" and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2".

BEST FILM: "Hugo"

BEST DIRECTOR: Martin Scorsese ("Hugo")

BEST ACTOR: George Clooney ("The Descendants")

BEST ACTRESS: Tilda Swinton ("We Need to Talk About Kevin")

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Christopher Plummer ("Beginners")

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Shailene Woodley ("The Descendants")

Oscar Park: "The Descendants"

I've fallen a great deal behind on Oscar Park, mostly because after "The Ides of March" came and went without me having the chance to see it, I didn't know much the point in predicting without seeing. But then again, I can guess pretty straightly accurate when it comes to "The Descendants" without even seeing it. The normative academy mindset is playing right into Alexander Payne's hands with this one, and I'm not about to launch an all out knock against the film, but it's a pretty simple joy to be sure. I know where this is going without even seeing it, which makes the predicting game short work.

In the Academy eye, "The Descendants" is a lock most categories out there. Best Picture and Adapted Screenplay fall right in line with expectations, but Director may be somewhat off. I don't think anyone's going to call this a director's show in the slightest, and I'm just waiting to accost it on nominations day when Payne inevitably gets a nod anyway. George Clooney is all the buzz for this film, and he's really seeming like the frontrunner at this moment, but that's what we all said two years ago about "Up in the Air". Things can change ever so quickly in this game, and Clooney might end up falling into his own trap again. Below the line, there's absolutely nothing to be had. I'd count that as solid an indication as any of this film's true merits. It's no more or less than five nods, and that's not up for debate.

For Your Anticipation: All the ____ Happening

I know that I'm probably the only one who's going to be down on "The Descendants" these days, but what the hell is Alexandre Payne doing? The moment this trailer hit, I thought to myself "This looks boring." Family in pain with humor being used as antidote rather than augmentation of tragedy. This looks too damn cheerful. I don't care if somebody ends up dying. I doubt I'll feel anything. There just doesn't look to be enough going on here.

Carpet-Bagging: Lost Boys of the Backdrop

I don't think the lack of unanimous structure in the lead acting races is confined between the two of them. There's as much of an absence from the supporting races as well, which is only noticed by further examination. Personally, I thought that it would be a no-brainer, but then I remembered that the world is a cruel and horrible place, and nothing ever goes my way. The supporting actor race in particular is kind of a crap shoot right now. We've still got a ways to go before the year's end, and what comes along in that time may make this race more definitive, but right now it's hard to place a bet on anyone with confidence.

Although, I think many are agreed that Christopher Plummer is the only real lock thus far. After all, people were so pleased with "Beginners", most especially Plummer's performance. Myself, I'm not sipping the koolaid as much as others are. Sure, his performance is strong, but only as strong as the film will allow him to be. Now, I'd be much more willing to throw Albert Brooks out there as frontrunner for "Drive", but one wonders if the Academy may be a bit adverse to it. I'm pretty confident he'll get a nomination, but not the Waltz-Ledger-Bardem win he so deserves after busting out such a surprising performance.

For Your Anticipation: Make it Mandatory

I don't mean to wage war against anything and everything that others are likely to clamor for, but I've had doubts against "The Ides of March" from the beginning. However, those doubts are that it's anything that goes above and beyond towards Oscar recognition. With positive, though not ecstatic, reviews, I think we can rule out its chances at getting that 5% passion plea from the Academy. Not going to happen. All the same, if this seems so overtly self-evident, I still have expectations that it'll fly well with audiences, and with me as well. I'm not out for Clooney's destruction. I'm just trying to keep things in a generally level-headed area.

Carpet-Bagging: Men of Lowered Confidence

If I'm going to be perfectly audience, I think this is one of the weakest years in recent memory for the Best Actor race. That might be because my standards just recently were raised, but I'm having trouble finding any of the supposed frontrunners in this race really that fascinating. There's a similar problem in the Supp. Actor race, but that's more to do with the fact that it's really anyone's game. In the lead category, I'm just having trouble putting much faith behind even one candidate. Of course, there is plenty of room for debate here, and we'll get a better idea of the race when the critics awards start hitting, but for now it's hard to figure this one out.

The nominees seem like the most easily assembled bunch, and yet when you look a little deeper below the surface, there's going to be a tussle for the nominations this year. Brad Pitt has had a ton of buzz recently for "Moneyball", but I'm having strong doubts that will last through till year's end. It's a charming performance, but I don't think that will be enough to eek out a nod. One thing that's important to remember is how elite these races are supposed to be, and Pitt just might be the odd person out in this race. I think it's more likely for him to get passion for "The Tree of Life" than for this, as well he should.

TELLURIDE: "The Descendants" Reactions

I think this year is facing an overgrown case of likability. Quite often I find myself using the word "inarguable" in my reviews this year. That applied to "The Help", and then the same for "Beginners", and it certainly applies for "The Descendants". I've actually been kind of dreading this film for some time, because from the very first trailer I've had the feeling that it looks too nice. It looks kind, not unintelligent, but altogether safe. Mind you, that's not a bad thing. It can work nicely at times, but having spent seven years away from the big screen, you could've asked for more from Alexander Payne.

Again, not to cast judgment without seeing the film, and I'll have to wait a while to see it as it's not on the list for Telluride by the Sea. The reviews, meanwhile, are pretty much exactly along those agreeable lines. Todd McCarthy is absolutely emphatic, much like he was in his review for "A Dangerous Method". Kris Tapley is quite reserved in thinking it's Payne-lite, and I'm very glad to see someone with that kind of restraint to see a film's flaws. Gregory Ellwood is also sipping the kool-aid, but it serves the purpose of reminding that this is a prominent awards player. No abrasive frills for the Academy. No problem.

Todd McCarthy (Hollywood Reporter): "A major key to the film’s success are the nuances, fluctuating attitudes, loaded looks and tonal inflections among the main characters; the ensemble work is terrific. Despite her father’s admonitions, Alex continues to fling around dirty words, something then picked up by Scottie. Sid starts off seeming like a total dufus, always saying exactly the wrong thing, but even he gets a significant scene later on that completely changes the way he can be regarded."

VENICE: "The Ides of March" Reactions

I knew waking up this morning that I'd have to squeeze in a few reactions on "The Ides of March" before heading off to another class. I only got to a few, but the immediate feeling was that my gut-response to the trailer was right. Solid, but unabsorbing, political thriller that doesn't quite know what cynicism is. Then I sat down to my theater class, went for some breakfast, and two hours later I came back to the net to find the rest of the reviews. I had expected the brief bout of disappointment to drift away in later reviews, with the optimistic masses rising in acclaim of the film. Not the case.

I don't want to get too far ahead of myself, because most of these reviews are positive enough. There's a lot of *** and B's being passed out, but not insane adoration. It's funny, because I expected that it wouldn't live up to the hype, but I thought it would still be a Best Picture play. Has that ship already sailed? Not necessarily. It's always a good idea to wait to for the full release, but word from the premiere will be a hard enemy to overcome. Here are a few of the reviews fresh from Venice. If nothing else, the festival is finally underway!

David Gritten (The Telegraph; **** out of 5): "...Despite Clooney’s multi-tasking presence, Gosling takes the on-screen honours. There is a stillness and certainty about his acting, a commanding ability to convey complex emotions in the flicker of an eye. No surprise, then, that he is currently Hollywood’s most sought after young lead. If there’s one problem with 'The Ides of March', it’s that its ending feels too neat, ingenious and labyrinthine for the essentially realistic story that precedes it. Still, the film has laid down an early marker for this festival, and will do nothing to dent the two-way love affair between George Clooney and Venice."

"The Ides of March" Trailer

I've got a slightly bad feeling about George Clooney's latest directorial feat, but not an overpoweringly bad one. I guess opening up the Venice Film Festival does leave very much to be desired, especially considering what premiered last year. It's a factor of crowd appeal and reliability, and at first sight The Ides of March looks like that. I'll admit to not entirely having an idea what the change of title was about, but this trailer makes that pretty clear. It's uncertain if this will be Gosling's major awards play, but it is certain that he's in leading actor territory once again. I'm interested, but cautious, which is usually not a good thing.

"The Descendants" Trailer

Alexander Payne is one of the gods of filmmaking who has been sitting out the greater part of the past decade, right along with Alfonso Cuaron and Lynne Ramsay. So, The Descendants, his triumphant return to filmmaking isn't one to be ignored. George Clooney takes on the lead role in this interesting little suburban dramedy, and the trailer is enough to pique my interest, as well as incur the skeptic inside me. Any great film should do that.

Saturday-Sunday: From Dusk Till Dawn

By 1996, Quentin Tarantino had already astonished audiences and critics with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, while Robert Rodriguez was occupying the same road of gratuitous violence that he's been on ever since then. Somewhere along the road they decided to make a film together, and I'm guessing they had a bit of a disagreement on what type of film to make. Tarantino wanted to make an intense crime thriller about two brothers taking a family hostage in order to escape to Mexico. Then Robert Rodriguez said in response, "Really? Because I want to make a vampire movie."

And so, through a few compromises by both parties, we have From Dusk Till Dawn, which follows the Tarantino storyline for the first fifty minutes of its runtime, right up until a third act twist of vampires. Personally, I think that if they had advertised this film as a crime thriller first and foremost, it would've made the vampire aspect a lot more interesting. As it is, it's still one hell of ride from start to finish. The film is directed by Rodriguez, so you can expect those quick and fun visuals you saw in Desperado. However, Tarantino was the man writing the script, so it has a bit more flair in its dialogue and characters.

The acting in this film, for the most part, is phenomenal. George Clooney plays Seth Gekko, who was broken out of prison by his brother Richie, played by Tarantino himself. While Seth is the sort of calm and smooth criminal who plays everything cool, and draws such a great line of friendly intimidation. You know that he'd rather nobody get hurt, but if he has to, he will not hesitate to cut you down like any other schmuck. A friend of mine once told me that Clooney can't really act, but that he's naturally that awesome in his day to day life. I feel somewhat inclined to believe him, but at the same time, he did choose to be in The American. So I believe that he can act, and he's on top of his game in this film.

As for Seth's brother Richie, he's pretty much a sociopath. Seth constantly has to watch over him like a babysitter, and deep down, he kind of wishes he'd never been broken out of prison. Tarantino usually isn't a great actor, but maybe the reason he plays such a good sociopath is because he is one. How else could he have come up with some of the insane ideas he has in the past? Harvey Keitel plays the former-priest father of the family the Gekkos kidnap, and he does it pretty well despite the cliched character. The action for the third act of this film is unbelievably gory, and I really enjoyed it a lot. The vampires genuinely look like monsters, which is something that the tween vampire Twilight cult seems to have forgotten. Overall, if you're expecting something as textured as Inglourious Basterds, you'll be disappointed. However, if you're expecting gritty B-movie style horror film, it will exceed your expectations.

B+

Three Years Ago Today: Michael Clayton

When I first saw Michael Clayton nearly three years ago, I didn't really understand it at all. I have to be honest in saying that I couldn't successfully put it all together. It's a very complex film, and I wasn't able to fully comprehend it until the night after I first saw The Dark Knight. It was a "point of clarity" for me, when the threshold that had been keeping me back from truly understanding what the Academy saw in the films they nominated was torn down. The greatest films require attention and devotion, not just from the cast and crew behind it, but from the audience in the theaters.

I always appreciated Tilda Swinton, Tom Wilkinson, and George Clooney's performances, but only because of the reputations they carry around with them. It's amazing how different the film feels, now that I can look deeper into their characters. Tony Gilroy puts multiple devices at work here to advance the quality of his film. Is it as good as the frontrunners from that year? Of course not, but it holds up perfectly in repeat viewings, unlike a great deal of films that grow less seasoned with time.

A