Words on Moonrise Kingdom

Ignore the fact that the last post I posted was over a year ago.  Let's talk about the cognitive dissonance in my head about the film I just saw, Moonrise Kingdom.

I really want to like this movie as much as it seems most people did but I can't help but notice that Wes Anderson, famed director of Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, and The Royal Tenenbaums has run out of tricks.

It almost seems like he's mastered his visual style too much.  He knows what he wants from every scene too much.  He knows what all of his movies are meant to look like before he even makes them.  There are no happy surprises in this movie.  There are no visually distinct revelations that make this movie any more pleasing to stare at than Rushmore, or Tenenbaums.  But then again, why should I expect more from this film than his others-- that is what I'm having trouble with.

I don't think I have a right to expect this movie to be better than his other films.  In fact, there is a big chance he'll never make a film better than Rushmore, but what does bother me is that now his work isn't as impressive.

Dear Wes,

We get it.  You love having really smart young people and really childish adults.  You sussed that out over a decade ago and then you took it one step further in The Royal Tenenbaums, a masterpiece.  You even had some fun with that idea in The Fantastic Mr. Fox.  It was cute and was a little different and since it looked so different it didn't look as much like the others.

You have our attention.  Let's take it one step further now.  Adults not ready to grow old.  Young children who want to be adults, nobody is happy, everyone knows what they want but they can't have it--at least not just yet.

Moonrise Kingdom was a beautiful experience and I enjoyed watching the film but next time, let's see something new because unlike your characters you don't have to be stuck in a rut with no way out other than regressing into your old self.  It's OK to grow up, and maybe next time, show us something new.

Love,
Biff Savage

In Defense of Waterworld

I think there is a lot to say about the 1995 Kevin Costner epic Waterworld. Most of the things that come to mind involve equating the typical viewing experience to watching a bloodhound take a shit, it's disgusting, but there's nothing more satisfying than watching it plop down and steam. I have to start off by saying that by no means is this a good film, it is however, a movie I absolutely love watching. Just think about the main aspects of this film. The hero has gills and wears ski boots. The villain inexplicably hates sails and leads a band of nicotine crazed goons called "smokers." And if you wanna get nerdy about it: the human race has managed to live through a major extinction event and long enough for not only sea life to drastically evolve but also for humans to adapt to the new Waterworld. This means that at a minimum this movie has to take place a thousand years after the polar icecaps melted and flooded the world. How can you not love the sheer ballsiness of filmmakers ready to make this movie.

Let's take a step back and look at who was involved in the making of this film. Director Kevin Reynolds has a good history with Kevin Costner, he also directed Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves which was considered by most to be a success if not critically then definitely financially. Although credited as director for Waterworld, Kevin Costner pretty much took over most of the production and had a hand in much of the direction of this film. At first glance that has to be a good thing right? Kevin Costner directed Dances with Wolves and that movie was bad ass. But there is one critical difference between both of those films and that lies in overall execution and script. While Dances with Wolves has an Oscar winning screenplay (Michael Blake, who also wrote the novel) Waterworld has a screenplay that is only really useful as scratchy, ass- bleeding toilet paper. The sad part for Kevin Costner though is that this film is the "jumping the shark" moment of his career-- literally-- there is a moment where he swims around in the water and jumps out into the air with his superhuman fish-man strength. Kevin Costner didn't jump the shark, he was the shark, if you can't find comedy and enjoyment in a movie that ridiculous then I feel bad for you.

But quality is not the actual point here. Of course, a movie should be high quality and a movie should be well made but does a lack of all these things make a film unwatchable? Waterworld's action sequences are still quite brilliant and there are many inherent sight gags re: ski boots, eating dirt, hitting women with oars. And let's not forget the wonderful Dennis Hopper who has a knack for making shit dialogue sound like pure gold. Oh and hey guess what? James Newton Howard did the music and he has eight Oscar nominations on his resume. Waterworld is probably a film that is the closest to being as bad as it is good and that is probably its major flaw. Of all the things about this movie that are great: action, music, sets, plot there are just as many things about it that are awful: writing, acting, directing, gills. This film is a true spectacle comparable to the Spiderman: Turn off the Dark Broadway show, there are big stunts crazy set pieces, loads of hype, but nothing else-- the only difference is that Spiderman will make A LOT of money.

I propose that after all these years we end the hatred of this film. Look at it for what it is: a spectacle and a landmark in the history of film where producers were starting to think that if a movie was big and epic then nothing else mattered. Which if you look at many of the summer films of the last few years is STILL something Hollywood is banking on see: Transformers, Clash of the Titans, and almost anything else that came out in fake "3-D." Waterworld may have lost more money than our government is losing every year paying for wars-- approx 343 bajillion dollars --but that does not mean it's not super fun, super ridiculous and totally worth watching if not just to see cyclops Dennis Hopper yelling at his "smokers" aka aquatic band of Mad Max rejects. If you're still not convinced at least respect Costner for the fact that after all these years he's still battling the smokers-- while filming Waterworld he began investing into research on a device that cleans up oil spills. Sounds like there was something good beyond the horizons of Waterworld.

Adventures in Awful Cinema: Season of the Witch

I saw a huge pile of shit this weekend. It was steaming, gooey, and I don't remember a lot about the consistency of the turd but that doesn't mean it won't make a great story. If you'd like to see this pile of shit it's still playing in a few theaters and comes under guise of a film called "Season of the Witch", starring the never to fail at failing Nicholas Cage and sadly the hopefully soon to stop taking such roles Ron Pearlman (Sons of Anarchy, Hellboy).

How does a decision to see a film with a preview like this come about? Pretty easily, when you and your friends are bored and you wanna get drunk see a shitty movie and make fun of it always look for whatever Nic Cage movie is playing and go to the latest showing. And if you think it's wrong of me to assume it would be bad the consider this: the film's director Dominic Sena is also responsible for Swordfish among many many other terrible things.

Cage, Pearlman, and some priest guy
So, suitably stocked with spirits, myself and three compadres Connor, Russell, and Emily sat down right in the middle of the theater and waited for the awfulness to start. We likely would have sat further away from people but the theater was pretty full for a Sunday night. Before I go any further I really hope you are not looking for anything substantial in terms of a review of this film. But if you are someone who thought this movie was going to be good then you probably can't read this anyway and should go get a GED or something.

Speaking of idiots, there were about 15 people in this theater. 15 people. 15 people thought this movie was worth going to at 11pm on a Sunday and trying to enjoy as cinema. My friends and I had a great time; from the beginning we knew it would not disappoint. The film starts with four witches hanging and then getting drowned. But avast! the anonymous Medieval types didn't read some gibberish from some book so that the witches couldn't come back, turn into a bat and consume them all with fire--which I am told is what happened at the end of the movie--lucky for us fortunate viewers right?

The Evil Black Witch
Next, some stuff happens and then... Nicholas Cage's hair is unveiled and the moment is as epic as anything in Ben- Hur. With blond nappy locks flowing and his face appropriately stupid looking he runs through the land killing people with his buddies. There is swordplay and some magic and there is also a bit of talking. They talk in British accents. You heard me right. Someone actually invested in a film where they knew NICHOLAS CAGE would be speaking in a Medieval English accent. At this point the intricate plot unfolds and some crazy awesome leper dude gives Nic Cage a quest which he must complete or super bad things will probably happen. I think it had something to do with transporting some super hot slutty/evil witch lady to some place to kill/impregnate/neuter it/her/whothefuckcares. Then at the end is the bat thing which I mentioned before.


The Leper in Braveheart was way cooler

Needless to say within the first ten minutes of this film--powered by copious amounts of bourbon-- Russell, Connor and I had plenty of fuel for heckling and shouting at the screen. There were many laugh out loud moments and as many times as we for serious totally ROFL and LOL'ing nobody else in the theater was laughing and only one person yelled at us. I think the cocksucker was Dutch? maybe Swedish? ....I dunno something Nordic blue-eyed and Euro man-purse wearing, let's call him Sven. I think he asked me to shut-up which I was obliged to do even if he asked me rudely. I offered Sven some whiskey to get him in the spirit of things and he said something like "No no, I have warm cup of semen and will not drink your whiskey. I, Sven, am here to experience the fine stage acting of Nicholas Cagé and you Americans are spoiling movie film for us all."

I then commenced to ignore this man and continue in stride with my friends to enjoy this crap-fest of a film as we do, with more whiskey. Then Russell decided to go have a conversation with Sven the Euro-purse man after he shouted something at us again. The conversation went something like this:

(dramatization)
Russell: "Hey man, what did you expect from this movie anyway? Do you even like it? How can you like this movie?"
Euro-purse Sven: "Fuck you, I can't hear movie get away stop talk."
Russell: "I just want to talk to you."
Euro-purse Sven: "No, although I normally prefer bears I don't like you go away."

Then I heard a noise and Russell comes tumbling over our seats from the row behind us. Seems like Sven actually pushed Russell and Russell did one of the best falls I've seen since Chevy Chase on SNL, it was seriously brilliant and graceful. Sven seemed angry-- but for some reason he chose to complain and express his anger with 20 minutes left in the film--in fact nobody in the theater said anything until the movie was almost over and we were being assholes the entire time, literally.

Now here is when it gets interesting. When we left the theater there was an angry mob waiting for us in the lobby to complain and yell at us and curse us for ruining what was already going to be a movie they hated. There were theater employees ready to give people refunds because we ruined the movie, refunds they were sure to wish they could have anyway even if we weren't there. These people got a free movie voucher out of it and they're mad at us? Don't worry friends we were sure to point out the irony in this situation. They were the ones who came to see "Season of the Witch" at 11pm and WE are the jerks? Well...we were the jerks but not the idiots! And if you think we hated it because we were drunk I'll have you know that Emily was our control in this "experiment" and she remained sober and subsequently fell asleep an hour into the film hating each waking moment she had to watch the film.

So we stayed in the hallway soaking up all the hatred of the movie goers and laughing pretty heartily about it all as we threw away some empty bottles. There was even a fat kid with a bowl cut yelling at us so angrily that I think he was sweating. His hot lady friend who was obviously pitying him with her friendship had to hold him back and before I could hit on her and get her number the theater employees kicked us out.


Super Awful Wig

As we strolled to the subway in the brisk January air we were able to contemplate what had just happened. We reminisced about the sheer awfulness of the movie and the undeniable joy one gets in making fun of such movies while intoxicated. In the end, despite my heckling and smearing of such noteworthy cinema I truly hope Mr. Cage never stops making movies; I hope that he never turns down a script; and I hope he always finds awful wigs.


I think the one lesson to take away from all this is that sometimes shitty art can actually imitate real life fun. For example, has anyone else ever gone to see a movie about witches and angry villagers only to leave said movie with a gaggle of villagers ready to yell and curse them? Probably not. I just wish that when I got stoned and went to see Avatar there was a super awesome tribe of blue people waiting outside the theater to befriend me and let me bang their hottest warrior chick.

Robert Zemeckis: Please Stop Making Freaky Animated Faces

Sometimes I sit back and think through the career of a particular director that I like. I think about the movies that started off their career and then the movies that solidified their certain niche in Hollywood. It is always interesting to note the types of movies that directors can make work for them. Every director has a certain brand they are usually categorized with. Michael Bay is obviously the big blockbuster action blow shit up guy. Wes Anderson makes quirky, off-beat dramedies and so on. But some other directors, either by their own choice or by the sheer fact that they are so bad they can't brand themselves well with at least one form of film tend to skip around a lot. There are a few out there but right now I'd like to focus on Mr. Robert Zemeckis, director of such films as the Back to the Future trilogy, Forrest Gump, and Cast Away--all films that I LOVE. He's also directed piles of crap like Polar Express, Beowulf (trailer), and the soon to be crap-pile A Christmas Carol.

I know it's in bad form to assume this movie will be bad without seeing it but here is my proposal: if this film is in fact bad then Mr. Zemeckis must cease and desist all future forays into CGI animation films aka real actors animated into CGI. He must agree to stick to what has made him successful in the past: films that rely on their actors and stories as opposed to how realistic he can make an animated actor look. Even writing that statement makes me angry. I don't get these films folks. What in holy hell is the point of making a film with fully animated people, if you are just going to make the characters look as real as possible. I know I'm going out on a limb here but why not just use the real actors faces instead of animating over top of them and making them look creepy and dumb and stupid. I mean just take a look at how idiotic cartoon Tom Hanks looks in this movie. Stupid.


People like animated films because the characters are drawn as hyperbole-- they are caricatures of all the features and personality traits that go into that particular character. For example, take a look at the characters in Up! They are human characters i.e. not talking penguins. But their features and they way they are drawn is totally unrealistic. The focus is on their shape, or their features, such as glasses or thick eyebrows. Look at Mr. Incredible's legs in proportion to his upper body. All of these features are funny and necessary for the look and style of these films. But with Mr. Zemeckis' CGI films the animation serves no purpose for the story at all. He is merely using it as a crutch to supplement for an overused storyline that people have heard millions of times. Remember also that each of these films are remakes of old stories: Polar Express was a popular childrens book; Beowulf is taken from an old faery story, and A Christmas Carol is of course a Dickens classic which in my opinion has never been told better than the Bill Murray classic Scrooged.


Now, I dont want people thinking I hate Robert Zemeckis movies. In fact i love them with all my heart. I love his REAL movies. The films that got him to where he is, the ones we all grew up on and learned to love. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is a spectacular film-- a satire of both noir and Disney it is both funny and uses animation with live action. But note that these are animated characters, not people. When you look back at all of his past films you realize that Mr. Zemeckis indeed has a knack for telling a compelling story. The Back to the Future films he and Bob Gale wrote in the 80s were probably the most fun and unique films to come out of that entire decade. Those films have an effect that is extremely difficult to mimic in films. The simultaneous effect of both action adventure and comedy, done intelligently. You watch those films and you know that he and Mr. Gale spent time on writing the stories, the characters, and the scenes--as opposed to spending time only on how best to animate Jim Carrey's nose hairs.


So in short, I propose this: If A Christmas Carol is bad, which it will be, then Robert Zemeckis must swear to never again animate a film EVER again, and he and Bob Gale must write an original screenplay that doesn't just focus on special effects and fancy animation. I still cry over the day where we had great story driven films to watch from these two gentlemen. But maybe it is more of a personal choice. I know Mr. Zemeckis has always had an interest in special effects from reading interviews. So maybe now that the form has finally caught up to his vision maybe this is his inherent style, maybe this is how he's always wanted to tell a story. I sure hope that isnt the case because if it is, My Zemeckis' vision or his ars poetica if you will is crap. I only hope that he can look back on his own filmography and remember movies like Forrest Gump and Cast Away and realize how great a filmmaker he can really be when he leaves all the lame tricks and special effects at the door. And if these films don't have you or he convinced then Romancing the Stone or Used Cars surely will. However, I think we can all agree that Contact is a movie that even he wants to forget.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

What the fuckity fuck happened to this movie? Did Brett Ratner secretly take over the mind of Gavin Hood and force him to use slow motion in EVERY action scene? Did he force him to use cartoon animation instead of CGI on Wolverine's claws? No, I know what it is...he made him make Professor X into a cartoon again--instead of just putting on a little make up to make him look younger.

If you havn't guessed yet I didn't really like this movie all that much. The weird thing is that as I left I realized that it really was everything that I expected, but for some reason nothing in the movie was all that compelling. I just didn't really care that Wolvie's lady got killed or that Pippin went lights out. I think the only thing that was hard to watch was when the old couple bought the farm when Agent Zero shot them. And who is this Agent Zero anyway? What, he can shoot really well and jump high? Big fucking deal. I happen to know that John Mclane can also do these things and he doesn't even have a gene mutation.

I did like some things about the movie though. Let me tell you about that stuff before I go on to list more things that I hated about this movie. Liev Schreiber--great actor, easily the best in the film. I think the directors decision to use him a lot was probably the best thing he did. This brings me to the most anticipated thing about this film (at least for me) --Gambit. When I sat through the other three X-Men films with no mention of Gambit I thought there was some sort of mistake. Someone as important to the X-Men comic should NEVER have been left out of any X-Men film. And now the final payoff is Taylor Kitsch doing a pretty good job as the ace throwing hero, but in the end I'm just bitter we didn't get more of him in the first three films.

The first three films. This brings me to my biggest issue with this film. X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Think about that. Why for the love of god would need an origin film for Wolverine--the character who was the main focus of ALL the last three X-Men films. Now I know how cool Wolvie is and I am not saying I don't enjoy seeing him slice shit up and smoke cigars and Huge Ackman is the shit. But couldn't we have gotten maybe a Cyclops film first? Just as a buffer between the three other wolverine films? Or how about an actual X-Men origins film first? Start with Professor X then move onto Magneto. All of them are dense enough as characters to have their own film. I mean look at Wolverine he has FOUR.

I dunno what else to say about this movie...Oh yes I do:

Dear Hugh,

I love you. I think you are a great actor and I love how you play Wolverine. But seriously do you really need to scream at the sky EVERY TIME you get angry? There must be better ways to show us you're pissed. I personally like it when you stab shit. Like in X:2 when you killed EVERYONE. Maybe in future films if you are sad you can scream at the ground? Or like in the last film you when you were in the woods why scream at the sky? you should have started clawing at the ground and ripping your clothes off like an ANIMAL. Don't just scream at the clouds. Unless there is rain. If there is rain you are free to scream at the sky all you want. It looks much cooler than screaming at a partly cloudy sunny day. That is all.

Sincerely,
B.Savage

p.s. THIS looks like it could be awesome: Deadpool
Don't let me down Ryan...

Jesus Christ Fallon

Who the fuck is in charge of this new "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" fiasco?

I know that when you read that opening line you might think that I seriously hate Conan O'Brien's successor at Late Night--Jimmy Fallon. You would be right in that assumption but my hatred as always is a mixed bag of nuts. Actually, more like a bag of peanut M&M's because my hatred is colorful as opposed to differently shaped. Anyway, this show is seriously worrying me. I want Jimmy to succeed. As much as I think he is unfunny and not a good fit at all it would be nice if I could sit and watch the show without cringing. Have you ever wondered what it would be like if Michael Scott from "The Office" had his own talk show? Well "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" is that show. And in case you don't believe me just watch his first interview with ROBERT DeNIRO and see what happens. I mean his fucking announcer guy, Higgins, even kinda looks like Dwight Schrute. Here is the whole show, watch at your own will.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's not that I think Jimmy can't be funny or that he won't be funny, but for the past two episodes he has not been funny. Is it the writing of the show? Yes. Is it the bad, recycled sketches? Yes. Is it the fact that the Roots are his house band and somehow this show has managed to make the ROOTS as boring as a house band? Yes. Now all of these things can easily be amended and even made to work in time. I mean it's not like every bit and joke Conan did on his show was hilarious or even the most original thing ever. But do you know what made up for all of that stuff in the past? A funny host.

Jimmy obviously knows that he has somehow been blessed by the hands of God and is getting an enormous opportunity. Probably even bigger than Lorne gave Conan back in 94' because Conan was never really interested in hosting so if it ruined his career so what? He was still an Emmy winning writer well before he got Letterman's chair. If Jimmy continues to look like a dead fish out there and be blaringly uninteresting then he is fucked for life. Luckily, the saving grace last night was Tina Fey who can be funnier than Jimmy on her worst day--let's hope the show's bookers can keep doing an awesome job.

I hope that in the coming days Jimmy starts drinking heavily. I hope that maybe he gets addicted to some kind of awesome drug, maybe cocaine or huffing gasoline. He needs all the help he can get if he is going to have to be interesting five nights a week. If he is going to actually loosen up on stage and not deliver every line as if he is reading very slowly from a big white card then he really needs to get his act together. And in my honest opinion I think the best way to funny your dumbass up Jimmy, would be to slip some bourbon in that empty coffee mug on your desk. I'm sure it would serve more of a purpose than that pointless MacBook you've got on there. What the fuck is that for anyway? Are you updating your facebook between commercials so you don't have to keep talking to Bon Jovi about hair conditioner? Actually, thats probably the smartest thing you've done, because at the moment all you are is our shitty economies answer to a good late night host re: someone GE can pay less than they pay the NBC Pages.

I Predict Everything

Every year I read the Oscar picks' of various critics, most of whom write for pretty noteworthy publications regardless of the fact that they are idiots. Most of the time I totally agree with their assessments of who should win what Oscar. Below are my picks for both who should be nominated for an Oscar and who should win said Oscar. However, in an effort to continue to be more interesting than most people I will show you who I think will actually win and then I will tell you who actually should win. These are my predictions:

Best Picture:
Slumdog Millionaire
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Revolutionary Road
Gran Torino
Milk

Their Pick: Slumdog Millionaire
My Pick: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I love almost everything about Slumdog Millionaire. Just like everyone else my heart was warmed and my eyes were almost barely wet with tears of joy. The acting was great and the directing was even better. But in the end it was just all too perfect to make me feel like I wasn't watching a fairy tale. Is it intended to be seen as a fairy tale and disbelief suspended? Maybe, but that doesn't make it the best story I've seen this year or frankly even the most engaging. In my heart the film that really did that was The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Now if we are talking about improbability this movie about a wrinkly little baby takes the pie. But you know that going in don't you? As much as it was New Orleans of the 1920s David Fincher created a world that was vivid and elaborate. When you see these two movies think about this: Which movie had you waiting to see what came next? And which movie had you thinking about what came next? In the end I will always pick the film that keeps me thinking.

Best Director:
David Fincher: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Darren Arronofsky: The Wrestler
Sam Mendes: Revolutionary Road
Danny Boyle: Slumdog Millionaire
Gus Van Sant: Milk

Their Pick: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
My Pick: Darren Arronofsky, The Wrestler


The two directing styles here are completely opposite. Boyle took on a far more active role in Slumdog Millionaire. He showed you exactly what he wanted you to see when he wanted you to see it. Arronofsky on the other hand literally follows Randy the Ram Robinson around letting you, the viewer, live the life he lives. So in Slumdog how does all that flash and bang, and quick editing really represent the slums of Mumbai? Maybe it doesn't have to, because in the end he still tells an amazing story. Yet, in The Wrestler Randy "The Ram" is represented in not just Mickey Rourke's acting style but also in the down and dirty way the film was shot. From the under-lit exterior shots to the beading blood and sweat the direction was part of one whole idea.

Best Actor:
Mickey Rourke: The Wrestler
Clint Eastwood: Gran Torino
Sean Penn: Milk
Leonardo DiCaprio: Revolutionary Road
Frank Langella: Frost/Nixon

Their Pick: Clint Eastwood
My Pick: Sean Penn

I love Clint Eastwood as much as the next guy. But if you ask me there is a reason he's never won a Best Actor trophy. Clint Eastwood is a cowboy. This man will shoot you in the face then ride off into the sunset. Sean Penn, is probably the furthest thing from Harvey Milk you can get and not for one second did I see Sean Penn the actor in that film. It was more like Harvey Milk brought back from the dead and making out with James Franco the whole time.

Best Actress:
Kate Winslet: Revolutionary Road
Marisa Tomei: The Wrestler
Meryl Streep: Doubt
Anne Hathaway: Rachel Getting Married
Kate Winslet: The Reader

Their Pick: Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road
My Pick: Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road


This Oscar is much deserved and long overdue. Its obvious why the Academy will give it to her--because they've passed her up for Heavenly Creatures and some say Titanic so its about time. But aside from all that-- she deserves to win, if not just for the awesome shouting matches with Leo but she made it look like they've been married since they stepped of the set of Titanic.

Supporting Actor, Male
Michael Shannon: Revolutionary Road
Heath Ledger: The Dark Knight
Anil Kapoor: Slumdog Millionaire
Jared Harris: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Richard Dreyfuss: W.

Their Pick: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
My Pick: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight


Heath Ledger will win that Oscar for Best Supporting actor. And not just because its the sentimental choice but because I challenge you to show me a better performance from this year (aside from maybe Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road). This is always an interesting category because it generally allows the category to highlight some of the more obscure roles from the year so they all deserve recognition. But Heath Ledger as the Joker was something people had never seen before and will never see again. His Joker was not just showing us a world of chaos but he imbibed destruction with no other motivation than destruction itself. The Joker is an illustration of destruction bent on creating something more--and in his final role Heath's last moment of destruction was his most remarkable.

Supporting Actor, Female
Rosemarie DeWitt: Rachel Getting Married
Taraji P. Henson: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Thandie Newton: W.
Amy Adams: Doubt
Penelope Cruz: Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Their Pick: Amy Adams
My Pick: Rosemarie DeWitt

Rachel Getting Married was probably one of the most emotionally draining films of the year. The tension that is built up by the potential of so many awkward moments one after the other is very frightening. Yet time and gain in this film either Anne Hathaway or Rosemarie DeWitt have to break that tension with some of the most insane "family" arguments you'll ever hear. Without the dialogue she would have been over acting. Instead she was perfect at making the trivial moments of their arguments real and authentic as if her skin was going to melt off from just having to confront these issues on camera.


So these are my picks. I suppose you could say that in a vacuum-- if the "Academy" didn't set criteria year to year but instead just picked awesome movies-- then I might have to amend this list even more. But then again what would be the point of making a list of all the awards The Dark Knight wins? But alas we do not live in a vacuum. Our world does not suck-- it just blows, and in the words of modern era scholar, me:

"Complain about everything and then tell everything how it can do things better. But never criticize unless you can improve because if you can't improve then you suck. Also try to be eloquent also and well spoken is another thing to be."

If you disagree with my choices then you are a fool. However, I appreciate all feedback foolish or scholarly so please let me know what you think.