NOTE: Since I’ll be sitting over my computer all night, feel free to ask any questions in the comments section and I’ll give you a prompt answer!  Want to know how I feel about something?  Anything bugging you?  Something that you are DYING to know?  Sound off!

4:12 P.M.  Might as well start my predictions!  Let’s begin with the music categories.

Best Score

• Will win: Ludovic Bource, “The Artist”
• Could win: John Williams, “War Horse”

Because Bource essentially told the story of “The Artist” … but you can never have certainty with John Williams in the mix.

Best Song

• Will win: The Living Proof, “The Help”
• Could win: Masterpiece, “W.E.”

Because “The Help” is a Best Picture nominee … but you never know if they want to bring Madonna on stage.

4:40 P.M.  And the first celebrity to grace the red carpet is … Sharon Osbourne!  This calls for more predictions.

Best Foreign Film

• Will win: “A Separation”
• Could win: “In the Land of Blood and Honey”

Because “A Separation” is unanimously acclaimed as one of the best movies of the year … but you never know if they want Angelina Jolie to take the stage.

Best Animated Film

• Will win: “Rango”
• Could win: “The Adventures of Tintin”

Because “Rango” has the momentum in the first year where Pixar hasn’t had a major contender in history … but you never know if they want Steven Spielberg to take the stage.

5:00 P.M.  Time for the REAL red carpet to begin … which means time for REAL predictions!

Best Supporting Actress

• Will win: Berenice Bejo, “The Artist”
• Could win: Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

This could be where Spencer pulls away from the pack and uses the momentum from her BFCA win to coast to the podium at the Oscars. But I don’t think it will be resolved that simply – watch out for Bejo to slip in on vote splitting.

Best Supporting Actor

• Will win: Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”
• Could win: Albert Brooks, “Drive”

It’s Plummer all the way. And well deserved, too. No one is going to stop him.

5:13 P.M.  Ryan Seacrest asks, “Why are the Golden Globes fun?”  George Clooney replies, “Because people get drunk and make funny speeches.”

5:18 P.M.  Dan says he’s looking forward to the night’s festivities because of who Ricky Gervais is going to offend.  Aren’t we all?

5:20 P.M.  I see a TV spot for “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” which makes me excited for Friday.  Do I care that it is up for zero Golden Globes?  Answer: no.

5:25 P.M.  I see Melissa McCarthy and her husband, the air marshal!  Time for the comedy acting categories … but not before a great clip from “Bridesmaids!”

Best Actress – Musical/Comedy

• Will win: Michelle Williams, “My Week with Marilyn”
• Could win: Kristin Wiig, “Bridesmaids”

Michelle Williams, in what is definitely a dramatic performance, has the clear leg up on the competition here. A Wiig surprise could conceivably happen if only because of all the “Bridesmaids” love, but if the HFPA couldn’t be bothered to nominated Melissa McCarthy, I don’t think they’ll give the movie’s unsung hero a trophy.

Best Actor – Musical/Comedy

• Will win: Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
• Could win: Owen Wilson, “Midnight in Paris”

I don’t see how this could go any other way – perhaps the HFPA will love “Midnight in Paris” more than “The Artist,” but it’s hard to argue that Owen Wilson gave a better performance than Dujardin. I’d also love to see a Gordon-Levitt surprise, but that’s not very likely.

5:36 P.M.  Rooney Mara has arrived, looking 100% Erica Albright and 0% Lisbeth Salander!

5:45 P.M.  Octavia Spencer is so great; I’ll be so happy if she wins.  Let’s continue with my predictions for Best Director and Best Screenplay.

Best Screenplay

• Will win: “The Descendants”
• Could win: “Midnight in Paris”

The adapted screenplay always seems to have the leg up in this category (all but two originals have won since 2000) at the Globes, which clumps all scripts together while the Academy divides. The HFPA loves Woody Allen, sure, but they usually take the brains here. I’m picking Payne and company for “The Descendants” because it seems to be the most mutually and unilaterally praised writing of the year.

Best Director

• Will win: Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”
• Could win: Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”

Conventional wisdom says never predict a split, but let’s not forget that the Golden Globes are celebrity butt-kissers who will do anything short of bribery – no, wait, they fell for that – to get them to the ceremony and maybe to the stage. They love Scorsese, awarding him Best Director in 2002 when his movie didn’t win Best Picture and again in 2006 when his movie did. The Globes aren’t afraid to split picture-director either; they’ve done it four times since 2000. So who knows? They have a chance to really shape the Oscar narrative here, so I’m definitely the most intrigued by the outcome of this race tonight.

5:51 P.M.  Kristen Wiig … brunette?  I see it all the time on “Saturday Night Live,” but that doesn’t make it any less strange on the red carpet.

6:00 P.M.  One hour until the show!  Here are my predictions for the dramatic acting categories:

Best Actress – Drama

• Will win: Viola Davis, “The Help”
• Could win: Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”

The brain says Streep, but the heart says Davis. Streep has won two Golden Globes in the last five years, but those were both in the comedy category where she ran virtually uncontested. I say that the Globes give something to “The Help” by copying the BFCA and rewarding Davis.

Best Actor – Drama

• Will win: George Clooney, “The Descendants”
• Could win: Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”

It’s another drama duel; I say advantage Clooney here because the HFPA fawned all over him this year, giving four nominations to his ailing “The Ides of March” when very few others did.  But they’ve thrown a curveball here before.

6:05 P.M.  Bérénice Bejo is so charming; it’s fun to watch her experiencing the awards circuit for the first time.

6:20 P.M.  Getting close to the show … here’s my take on Best Picture, Musical/Comedy.

Best Picture – Musical/Comedy

• Will win: “The Artist”
• Could win: “Midnight in Paris”

Maybe this is where “Midnight in Paris” begins to eat away at the lead of “The Artist.”  But I think that’s something that the guilds will have to do because the critics have drunk the Kool-Aid and are almost wholeheartedly behind this movie.

6:30 P.M.  30 minutes left, still in love with Mila Kunis … I guess I might as well do my final prediction!

Best Picture – Drama

• Will win: “The Descendants”
• Could win: “The Help”

What has a leading actor nomination, a directing nomination, and a screenplay nomination in this category? “The Ides of March” … and “The Descendants.” I take the latter, obviously. The Globes have really vacillated from year to year on what they reward in this category. Sometimes it’s the consensus critical favorite, like “The Social Network” or “Slumdog Millionaire.” Sometimes it’s bait, like “Atonement” or “The Aviator.” Sometimes it’s the movie that’s the biggest story, like “Avatar.” Each of these make the case for “The Help” or “Hugo” to break through here, but I still take Payne and “The Descendants.”

6:58 P.M.  Now it’s time to switch over to NBC!

7:01 P.M.  “So, where was I?” – Ricky Gervais.

7:02 P.M.  “Between Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy, they played all the parts in ‘The Help!’”

7:07 P.M.  “Are you ready, Johnny … have you seen ‘The Tourist‘ yet?”  Thank God he hasn’t let up.

7:10 P.M.  Hooray for Christopher Plummer!

7:14 P.M.  Gotta love how Tina Fey was totally photobombing while they were talking about Amy Poehler.

7:20 P.M.  Gotta love improv when the teleprompter breaks … “When was the last time you did a cold reading in front of Steven Spielberg?” – Rob Lowe

7:26 P.M.  Kate Winslet wins another Golden Globe, this time on the television side.  That’s three career trophies, for those keeping score at home.

7:28 P.M.  “Hugo” and “Midnight in Paris” are the first Best Picture nominees to be presented … winners?

7:33 P.M.  Jeremy Irons is seriously creepy with his hand rubbing the president of the HFPA’s shoulder.

7:35 P.M.  “You don’t need to thank your family who have done nothing for this; just thank two, your agent and God.” – Ricky Gervais

7:35 P.M.  “She defacated in a sink – which is probably much less demeaning than what most of you have done to get in show business.” – Ricky Gervais on Melissa McCarthy

7:45 P.M.  Jimmy Fallon has a whole lot of energy…

7:46 P.M.  That’s one for “The Artist!”  A well deserved win for Best Score!

7:50 P.M.  Called it, should have predicted it … they definitely just wanted Madonna up on stage.  Best Song winners at the Golden Globes have a pretty dismal track record at the Oscars though.  Since 2004, only ONE winner has even been nominated at the Academy Awards!

8:00 P.M.  “Hello, I’m Seth Rogen and I’m currently trying to conceal a massive erection [while standing next to Kate Beckinsale].”

8:02 P.M.  A well-deserved win for Michelle Williams, but I’m glad Seth Rogen called out the movie for being “a side-splitting comedy.”  Loved the shout-out to her daughter in the speech.

8:04 P.M.  Shout out to Steven Flores who aired his disgust with Madonna winning.  Here’s my question: where were the Muppets?

8:09 P.M.  Miles Finch!

8:11 P.M.  I googled Martin Henderson for you.

8:12 P.M.  Gotta love George Clooney being so playful with Brad Pitt.  ”I have to return the cane otherwise he can’t make it to the bar.”

8:14 P.M.  Hooray for “Tintin!”  Glad I was wrong!

8:15 P.M.  Who would have thought Spielberg would be giving a speech for “The Adventures of Tintin” as opposed to “War Horse” a few months ago?  Gotta love how conventional wisdom turns out so wrong sometimes.

8:23 P.M.  WOW!  YES!  WOODY ALLEN FOR “MIDNIGHT IN PARIS!!!!!!!!!”  ON WE GO TO THE OSCARS!

8:27 P.M.  ^ Could not be happier to be wrong!  I guess with this and the BFCA win, we can sew up this category for Woody!

8:33 P.M.  And Best Foreign Film goes to “A Separation.”  We have our Oscar front-runner, and it’s looking pretty unstoppable.

8:35 P.M.  I’d like to point out that Claire Danes has now also won three Golden Globes.  Yes, that’s as many as Kate Winslet.

8:47 P.M.  It’s Octavia Spencer!  Looks like she’s headed full steam ahead for an Oscar!!

8:49 P.M.  Classy speech, clutch quote of MLK.  Would have liked to have heard more substance and fewer names to help her make the case for an Oscar.

8:56 P.M.  A fitting standing ovation for a living legend, Sidney Poitier.

9:03 P.M.  Good heavens, Morgan Freeman has been in so many incredible movies.  And has been incredible in nearly all of them.  Just wow.

9:10 P.M.  Ricky Gervais has been much too tame, and absent.

9:13 P.M.  What’s with Best Director being presented before acting awards now?  I don’t like it.

9:14 P.M.  Called Scorsese.  I know have to wonder if “The Artist” is at risk now; Hazanavicius is for sure.  The DGA is going to make a huge difference now in the Best Picture race.  Maybe it’s a split year?  Who knows?!

9:16 P.M.  Looks like someone just pulled a Melissa Leo…

9:25 P.M.  Jean Dujardin, very nice.

9:27 P.M.  A very nice speech considering that he doesn’t speak English!  I loved the Douglas Fairbanks bit at the end!  And I could get used to hearing this theme all awards season.

9:34 P.M.  “What you don’t know about [Colin Firth] is that he’s extremely racist.” – Ricky Gervais

9:35 P.M.  Meryl Streep!  Wow, this is going to make for a very interesting year in Best Actress!

9:39 P.M.  “When Ricky Gervais’ deal fell through and they came to me to play Margaret Thatcher…” followed by a bleeped-out curse … followed by her listing off every single female performance of the year except Michelle Williams … followed by George Clooney passing up her glasses … followed by her referring to Harvey Weinstein as “God” and “The Punisher” … followed by music … followed by a shout out to Viola Davis.  If this wasn’t Meryl Streep, this would bode ill for her Oscar chances.

9:41 P.M.  Best Picture for “The Artist.”  Onto the Oscars, maybe … not if unenthused Piper Perabo has anything to say about it.

9:43 P.M.  OH MY GOD UGGIE!!!!!!!!!  Ok, I’m sold.  This can win Best Picture if the dog gets to come on stage.

9:48 P.M.  And I’m still in love with Natalie Portman…

9:48 P.M.  George Clooney!  If it couldn’t be Fassbender, then definitely him!

9:50 P.M.  A very nice but short speech, very poised.  With this and BFCA, I think we can seal this race for him.

9:56 P.M.  And the main challenger for “The Artist” is … “The Descendants!”

9:57 P.M.  Now THIS makes for an interesting race!  Especially if “The Help” takes the SAG ensemble like most expect it to, we could be looking at a 2006 scenario where three movies have a legitimate claim to be called the favorite.  WOOHOO OSCAR SEASON!

9:59 P.M.  Well, folks, that ends my coverage.  ”The Artist” ruled the night with three wins; “The Descendants” and “The Help” were close behind with two victories each.  ”Hugo” took Best Director and “Midnight in Paris” took screenplay, making a number of categories nail-biters up until the envelope is opened at the Kodak Theater!

“The funny thing about winning an Academy Award is that this will always be synonymous with my name from here on in.  It will be Oscar-winner George Clooney, Sexiest Man Alive 1997, Batman died in a freak accident…”

- George Clooney accepting the Academy Award for “Syriana,” 2006

“I grew up in a place called Alcobendas where this was not a very realistic dream.  And always on the night of the Academy Awards, I stayed up to watch the show.  And I always felt that this ceremony was a moment of unity for the world because art – in any form – is, has been, and will always be our universal language.”

- Penélope Cruz accepting the Academy Award for “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” 2009

“Did I really earn this, or did I just wear y’all down?”

- Sandra Bullock accepting the Academy Award for “The Blind Side,” 2010

Why the Oscars?  Why the attention?

I had planned a whole, in-depth analysis here … but then I got sick today.  I want to get something up, so let me lead off with this: the Oscars are about setting the tone for an industry.  It’s about making and rewarding careers.  It’s about celebrating the best of an industry.  It’s about capturing a moment in time, reminding future generations of what the year meant to those who lived through it.

Revised Predictions

Best Picture

1. The Artist
2. The Descendants
3. The Help
4. War Horse
5. Midnight in Paris
6. Hugo
7. Moneyball
8. The Tree of Life
9. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
10. Bridesmaids

As far as I’m concerned, the top six aren’t going to change.  ”Moneyball” may or may not make it in, given the passion for the movie that may or may not exist.  And “The Tree of Life” could sneak in as the top choice of many voters, but I don’t feel comfortable predicting that, nor do I think the late surge of “Dragon Tattoo” love will translate into a Best Picture nomination.

Now, onto the state of the race. It looks like 2008 all over again in the Oscar race.  The little movie that could then was “Slumdog Millionaire.”  It was a consensus critical favorite and won the BFCA (Critic’s Choice), then trumped the more conventional Globes play “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” in the drama category, and capped off its all-around sweep by taking the SAG ensemble prize without having any big stars to boast … and then pretty much every guild too just for fun.  You could say “Button” or “Milk” posed a serious threat – and “The Dark Knight” might have been a formidable foe had it not been snubbed – but everyone knew it was “Slumdog” all the way.

Similarly, in 2011, the oh-so-typical Oscar movie yet anything BUT typical “The Artist” looks about ready to lap the competition.  It’s been the critical darling of the year but doen’t have the unanimity that “The Social Network” had last year.  Thus, it has become their gentle suggestion of the best movie of the year, not like the mandate that backfired last year.  It has been scoring everywhere it needs to score – a field-leading 11 nominations at the Critics Choice Awards including Best Picture (which it will most likely win), a field-leading 6 nominations at the Golden Globes including Best Picture, and 3 nominations at the SAG Awards including Best Ensemble.  Now all it needs to do is start winning things to make it undeniable.

Running closely behind is Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants,” which looks to be the “Milk” of 2011 as it seems to be the favorite for both the Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay trophies.  It could win Best Picture; indeed, it seems likely to win Best Picture in the drama category at the Golden Globes.  But in a year where nostalgia and an old-fashioned yearning for movies to take us out of our misery – not face it – could hurt this movie which is already burdened by comparisons to Payne’s last film, “Sideways.”

Then again, having a virtual monopoly on the brain vote may help “The Descendants” because the heart vote is being tugged in a number of directions.  ”The Help” makes a big case as it’s a period piece (Oscars love the past), it’s a feel-good movie (“The King’s Speech” won last year), it has real audience support ($169 million), and it has the actors behind it.  Davis and Spencer are both serious threats to win their categories, and I would definitely consider “The Help” to be the favorite for the coveted SAG ensemble prize.  Given how well-acted the movie is down to its core, this may be the movie that rallies the biggest branch of the Academy.  But if “The Artist” wins that award, I would consider the race to be pretty much over.

There’s also the case to be made for “Hugo,” which harkens back to the pioneering days of moviemaking, and “War Horse,” which reminds all who see it of the weepy sentimentality and soaring scopes of a John Ford picture.  But with neither making blockbuster cash and neither getting a single nomination from the SAG, it’s really hard to see either mounting a serious threat.  It’s particularly problematic for “War Horse” as it missed a Best Director nomination for Spielberg at the Globes and a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination with the WGA.  Spielberg’s legendary status will likely get him into the Best Director field at the Oscars, but not having a screenplay nomination will be problematic.  Not since “Titanic” in 1997 has a movie won Best Picture without having a nominated screenplay, and only once in the last 10 years did the Best Picture winner not also win a Best Screenplay Oscar.

The acting thing is also an issue as it’s pretty rare for a movie to win Best Picture without an acting nomination.  The last time two times it happened was with “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” – both of which had the actors’ support as shown by their wins in the SAG ensemble category yet were consensus favorites anyways.  The nomination may be the prize for these movies.

As a final word on the category, don’t count out “Midnight in Paris.”  It’s been flying under the radar, but it could win Best Picture in the comedy category at the Golden Globes.  Woody Allen has won the category twice before, and this is his tenth film nominated for Best Picture overall.  It’s also his fifth Best Director nomination and sixth Best Screenplay nomination.  All this talk about career rewards for Spielberg and Scorsese need to be equally focused on Woody Allen.  The movie has scored with the SAG, PGA, and WGA – so there’s no reason to take this movie lightly.

Best Director

1. Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”
2. Alexander Payne, “The Descendants”
3. Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”
4. Steven Spielberg, “War Horse”
5. Woody Allen, “Midnight in Paris”

It’s never wise to predict a split Picture-Director ticket … even when the director is as widely regarded as David Fincher, who may come into play as a dark horse for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.”  But in my mind, the top four is set with Hazanavicius, Payne, Scorsese, and Spielberg, who were all BFCA nominees (and all but Spielberg were HFPA nominees).  Woody Allen, to me, seems like the logical fifth nominee.  The director’s branch has nominated him six times, four of which were not a complement to a Best Picture nomination.  They like him, even when they don’t like his movie.  While Terrence Malick may have crafted a more ambitious, director-driven movie, I still don’t see them opting for him over Allen.

Best Actor

1. George Clooney, “The Descendants”
2. Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”
3. Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
4. Michael Fassbender, “Shame”
5. Leonardo DiCaprio, “J. Edgar”

The top three are locked in after getting nominations from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA.  Fassbender can’t be put in the same category since he missed with the SAG, the group with the most overlap with Academy voters, but he seems pretty safe given that the nomination would be a reward for his ubiquity just as much as his performance.  In addition, physical commitment to a role always plays well with the actors branch; see nominations for James Franco in “127 Hours” and Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler” as proof.  ”Last Tango in Paris,” another controversial NC-17 film, received a nomination for its leading actor back in 1973.   However, his name was Marlon Brando.

Leonardo DiCaprio, after garnering notices from all three of the major groups, would normally be considered a lock.  But here’s my hangup on predicting him: this is a category that almost always requires a quality movie behind a quality performance.  You have to look back to ten years ago when you saw a movie with a Rotten Tomatoes score below 70% – “Ali” at 67% and “I Am Sam” at a staggeringly (and unfairly) low 34%.  ”J. Edgar” currently stands at 42% on the review aggregator. Not since 2005 has anyone with nominations for BFCA, SAG, and HFPA missed an Oscar nomination in this category, and that was previous winner Russell Crowe who was up this time for “Cinderella Man.”  It also happened to Paul Giamatti for “Sideways” in 2004, the victim of Clint Eastwood coming out of nowhere and scoring a nomination thanks to the rising tide of “Million Dollar Baby.”

But if DiCaprio misses, who gets in?  Ryan Gosling is having a great year but his two performances could cancel each other out, and neither “Drive” nor “The Ides of March” seem to have much momentum.  There isn’t consensus either on which is the more deserving performance; BFCA nominated him for “Drive” while HFPA nominated him for “The Ides of March.” I feel like this is prime territory for a dark horse candidate to rise … but who will it be?  Michael Shannon for “Take Shelter?”  Joseph Gordon-Levitt for “50/50?”  Woody Harrelson for “Rampart?”  Or will SAG nominee, but still underdog, Demian Bichir capitalize on the actor’s love for his work in “A Better Life?”  Unfortunately, there’s not much opportunity for any of these candidates to gain traction in the race, so you either go smart and pick Leo here or go with a hunch.

Best Actress

1. Viola Davis, “The Help”
2. Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”
3. Michelle Williams, “My Week with Marilyn”
4. Tilda Swinton, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
5. Rooney Mara, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

For the past 15 years, the SAG field has provided a clue to at least 4 of the 5 eventual nominees for Best Actress at the Oscars.  The top four in the field – Davis, Streep, Williams, and Swinton – have all scored nominations from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA.  Then, the plot thickens. The way I see it, there are three actresses competing for that final slot.  History says go with the SAG nominee, which is Glenn Close in “Albert Nobbs.”  But Charlize Theron is also a threat for “Young Adult” after cracking the field for both the BFCA and HFPA.

And I definitely don’t think anyone can count out Golden Globe nominee Rooney Mara for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.”  People sensed the passion wasn’t there for this film, but it’s been stealthily building a healthy résumé throughout the season.  It was one of the top ten movies for the National Board of Review and the American Film Institute; this week, it was nominated by both the Producers Guild and the Writers Guild.

The movie has supporters where “Albert Nobbs,” which currently sits at 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, has few. But love from producers, directors, and critics doesn’t provide any direct aid to Mara, who must be nominated by her peers in the acting branch of the Academy.  They may be more inclined to vote for Glenn Close because she’s a five-time nominee who worked tirelessly for three decades to get this story on screen, whereas Mara is making her first big splash (and will likely have two other chances to be nominated for this role) and Theron seems to have had her moment in the sun.

Here’s an interesting mini-trend I’ve picked up on: since 2003, only once has the Academy not included an actress under the age of 30 in the field.  Michelle Williams is now 31, so only Mara (or dark horses Felicity Jones and Elizabeth Olsen) fills this new quotient.

Best Supporting Actor

1. Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”
2. Kenneth Branagh, “My Week with Marilyn”
3. Albert Brooks, “Drive”
4. Jonah Hill, “Moneyball”
5. Brad Pitt, “The Tree of Life”

At once, this is the most solid and the most fluctuating race this year.  The frontrunner still is – and has been since June – Christopher Plummer for his incredible turn in “Beginners.”  I don’t really think anyone else has a prayer because this is both a sentimental, Lifetime Achievement Oscar (think Morgan Freeman and Alan Arkin) and a consensus pick (think Tim Robbins and Javier Bardem).  Of course, this assumes that he will steamroll to wins from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA, a scenario which I think is incredibly likely.

Branagh is the only other sure-fire nominee after scoring nominations from all three of the big organizations thus far.  Brooks also seems pretty secure, although the SAG omission raises some eyebrows since the Oscars have matched the SAG five in this category for the past two years.  I would also say that given the support for “Moneyball,” Jonah Hill seems like a decent bet after SAG and HFPA nominations.  It’s that very support and presence that I think is the X-factor for him and perhaps the nail in the coffin for Nick Nolte, whose movie “Warrior” is totally absent on the precursor scene.

As for that final slot, I’m going gusty and saying it will be Brad Pitt in “The Tree of Life.”  I don’t see why this performance can’t ride in on the coattails of his sure-fire nominated one in “Moneyball.”  And it would make Pitt both a competitor and a co-star of Jonah Hill; how awesome would that be?  Dark horse nominees, unnoticed by the big three organizations, happen in this category – look to Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road,” William Hurt in “A History of Violence,” Alan Alda in “The Aviator,” Djimon Hounsou in “In America.”  But this is a gusty pick; smart money always goes the SAG five.

Best Supporting Actress

1. Berenice Bejo, “The Artist”
2. Octavia Spencer, “The Help”
3. Jessica Chastain, “The Help”
4. Janet McTeer, “Albert Nobbs”
5. Shailene Woodley, “The Descendants”

BFCA/HFPA/SAG only agreed on Bejo, Spencer, and Chastain.  This is the only category where, to my knowledge, getting all three of these nominations does not ensure a nomination.  Last year, Mila Kunis missed for “Black Swan,” and Cameron Diaz missed in 2001 for “Vanilla Sky.”  It happens, although I’d say that that was more of a character judgement disapproving of some of their other, non-Academy friendly projects.  None of these actresses seem to be at risk for a similar fate.

I’d call Bejo the frontrunner because there might be some vote-splitting for the scene-stealing Spencer and the year-stealing ubiquitous Chastain.  If Viola Davis emerges as the one to beat for Best Actress, I would guess that the urgency to reward one of the ladies of “The Help” here will go down.

The race gets murkier beyond that, though, as the three organizations differed on how to fill those final two slots.  BFCA went Melissa McCarthy in “Bridesmaids” and Shailene Woodley in “The Descendants” (they nominate six, so Carey Mulligan was also in there for “Shame”).  SAG went McCarthy and Janet McTeer in “Albert Nobbs.”  HFPA went Woodley and McTeer.  Again, the rule is usually to follow SAG … but I just don’t think Melissa McCarthy can manage a nomination because comedic actresses just aren’t usually the Academy’s cup of tea.  I think the only precedent is Robert Downey Jr. being nominated for “Tropic Thunder,” but that was a lot more daring and probing of a performance.  McCarthy just – drains her plumbing in a sink.

McTeer disappears in her role (so I’ve heard) and Woodley is in the #2 movie of the year.  I think those are my other two.

Best Original Screenplay

1. Midnight in Paris
2. The Artist
3. Bridesmaids
4. Win Win
5. 50/50

Here is where I think the surprising “Bridesmaids” love – among the top movies feted by the AFI, SAG, HPFA, PGA, and WGA – will register.  It’s a well-written movie where the comedy is so heavily in the dialogue and the plot; while Apatow movies have yet to show up here, there has to be a first time for everything.

“Midnight in Paris” and “The Artist” are slam-dunk nominees destined to duke it out until the end, unless “The Artist” just pulls away and can’t be stopped.  I hope the WGA nominees “Win Win” and “50/50″ translate their success there into Oscar nominations, but this category could go a number of directions.  It’s hard to imagine that they would spring for a slate of five comedic nominees, but it could very well happen.

There’s a chance that “The Tree of Life,” thinly plotted as it is, will show up here.  ”Beginners” is also an option; “Margin Call” could surprise.  It was a very good year for original screenplays, so many things are fair game.

Best Adapted Screenplay

1. The Descendants
2. Moneyball
3. The Help
4. Hugo
5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

“The Descendants” is about to lap the field here; barring a huge surge for “Moneyball” (which would make Aaron Sorkin a back-to-back winner), I don’t see anything standing between Alexander Payne and a second Academy Award win in this category.

As for the rest of the field, it’s kind of a mess.  I went with the WGA five here, which subbed the surging “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” for the sagging “War Horse.”  (Funny enough, that would make Steven Zaillian nominee again in the category – the Oscars are seeing double this year!)

I think Tate Taylor, who will most likely miss for Best Director, can earn a nomination here for his work adapting “The Help.”

And while “Hugo” is a director’s movie, I don’t see why hot scribe John Logan (who also penned “Rango” and “Coriolanus” this year) can’t score a nomination.

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” ineligible at the WGA, could also sneak in for a nomination given its labyrinthine plot.  But given its total radio silence during the season, I’m seeing that as a long shot at best.

Tune in this time next week for my LIVE BLOGGING of the Golden Globes!

No matter the general consensus of film in a year (and I don’t think it takes an expert to tell you this wasn’t a stellar one), the top 10 list is a reminder to all critics and readers that there will always be something to celebrate.  Even amidst all the chaos of the year, we found reasons to be happy … and thus a way to be happy.

Much was said about high profile divorces – Demi and Ashton, Sinead O’Connor, Kim Kardashian – but the whole world tuned in for the Royal Wedding.  Even with the American divorce rate soaring and half of all marriages are unable to last, it was love that brought us together.

Much was said about our military’s inefficacy in Iraq as we pulled out the last troops in December, but Seal Team Six gave Americans something to be proud of as they flawlessly took down the elusive Osama bin Laden.  Failure and cynicism may make for an interesting editorial page, but it was success that captured the attention and the heart of America.

Much was said about the dumbing down of youth with mindless blockbusters like “Transformers” grossing a billion dollars worldwide and mindless literature like “Twilight” flying off the shelves.  Yet the young generation – my generation – proved it was hardly an empty one by turning out in record numbers on the opening day of the final “Harry Potter” movie.  If you couldn’t feel a real magic from the movie, you had to take comfort in seeing that the experiences of reading a book and going to a movie theater, thought be many to be endangered, were alive and well.

So while our president may have abandoned hope and change for 2012, I, for one, am full of it.  I am confident that all will pan out for the future, especially given how willing filmmakers were in 2011 to tackle some of the toughest issues facing our society.  In my top 10, you will see movies committed to showing us how to live, how to love, and – most importantly – how to change.  Like Owen Wilson’s Gil Pender from “Midnight in Paris,” living in the past only works as a fantasy.  We have to live in the now; we have to face its challenges; we have to accept pain as a natural part of progress.

So, without further ado, here were the 10 best movies I saw in 2011:

#10
“The Beaver”
Directed by Jodie Foster
Wirten by Kyle Killin
Starring Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, and Anton Yelchin

“While everything may not be okay, one thing I know is true: you do not have to be alone.” – Jennifer Lawrence as Norah

I hope that one day people will drop their preconceived notions of this movie as “Mel Gibson’s latest crazy shenanigan” and watch this movie to discover the potency of its message.  Jodie Foster crafts a fantastic drama about the challenges of living in a digital world as it deteriorates our connections to our family and to our society.  Gibson’s character, Walter, looks to distance himself from the unbearable burden of his past through the use of a charming beaver puppet, not unlike how we use clean, neat Facebook profiles to represent our lives as orderly to the world around us.  It’s an incredibly cathartic moment not just for Jennifer Lawrence’s Norah towards the end of the film when she openly declares, “I’m not okay; I’m missing something.”  It’s cathartic for us as she says what most of us are too scared to admit.

#9
“In a Better World“
Directed by Susanne Bier
Written by Susanne Bier and Anders Thomas Jensen
Starring Mikael Persbrandt, Trine Dyrholm, and Ulrich Thomsen

“If you hit him, he hits you, and then it never ends.” – Ulrich Thomsen as Claus

Melodrama is usually akin to nails on a chalkboard to me, and when I use the word in a review, it almost always carries a negative connotation.  Yet when I watched Susanne Bier’s latest film – which is a melodrama indeed – I found myself being incredibly moved on a very deep emotional level.  I couldn’t help but care passionately for the two children at the heart of the movie, Elias and Christian, as they grapple with the complicated morals of violence after an incident of bullying.  Bier makes us feel, which then make us contemplate.  And I couldn’t be happier to have this film lingering in my mind for weeks on end.  (As a side note, this won an Oscar in 2010 but didn’t hit the United States until 2011, so I count it for this year.)

#8
“Life in a Day”
Directed by Kevin Macdonald

“I want people to know that I’m here.  I don’t want to cease to exist.” – YouTube user

Diversity has become a hot-button issue as our culture has globalized thanks to the Internet, but Kevin Maccdonald along with Ridley Scott and some other geniuses nullify any controversy associated with the word through a documentary of staggering proportions.  Their paean to the human experience, confined to a single ordinary Saturday in July 2010, celebrates how every culture and every individual is different.  We all have our own way through life, but as humans, we are all linked by basic practices. Be it brushing our teeth or fretting about what the future holds, Macdonald reminds us that we all have more in common that we normally think.

#7
“Young Adult”
Directed by Jason Reitman
Written by Diablo Cody
Starring Charlize Theron, Patton Oswalt, and Patrick Wilson

“Love conquers all. Haven’t you seen ‘The Graduate?’” – Charlize Theron as Mavis Gary

I now find it easy to resist old-fashioned emotional goading, such as the score that commands you to feel sad at a certain moment or the cinematography that forces you to feel captivated.  I’m much more taken by the style of filmmaking that I call emotional manipulation, which makes you feel something inexplicably and then forces you to go back and uncover why you feel the way you do.  The old king was Alexander Payne, but with Jason Reitman’s latest work, the student may have eclipsed the master.  Thanks to a great script by Diablo Cody, the movie is able to play with established genre narratives and character archetypes.  One moment, it feels like a romantic comedy; the next, a horror movie as you clasp your hands over your face in shock.  Behind a ruthless performance by Charlize Theron, the movie soars as both a critique of a generation unable to leave high school and audiences who want their comedy to be run-of-the-mill waste.

#6
“The Help“
Written and directed by Tate Taylor
Starring Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, and Emma Stone

“You is smart, you is kind, you is important.” – Viola Davis as Abileen

The only movie on my top 10 list to take place explicitly in a prior era, Tate Taylor’s adaptation of his friend Kathryn Stockett’s best-selling novel hardly teaches antiquated lessons.  The movie serves as a reminder that discrimination still exists in America; while much still lingers for African-Americans, quite a bit has transferred to Hispanics and homosexuals.  But, most strongly, it simply communicates that these barriers are no match for love, courage, and understanding.  If the story doesn’t move you, the acting definitely will.  I struggle to think of a movie better acted from top to bottom, and this phenomenal cast adds an extra jolt of life to the feel-great movie of the year.

#5
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2“
Directed by David Yates
Written by Steve Kloves
Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint

“Pity the living, and, above all, those who live without love.” – Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore

It was the bookend of a generation, and it did not disappoint one bit.  This series has been the uniting artistic link for a generation, and I couldn’t have been prouder to close a chapter of my life with this movie.  It reminded us of the power of the story, the power of acting, the power of visual effects, the power of direction … and the power of movie magic.

#4
“Martha Marcy May Marlene”
Written and directed by Sean Durkin
Starring Elizabeth Olsen, John Hawkes, and Sarah Paulson

“If you want to have a meaningful relationship, you need to let your guard down.” – John Hawkes as Patrick

I can’t in good conscience try to declare some grand social significance to Sean Durkin’s debut feature after he said time and again that it was not any sort of statement.  So for what it is, the portrait of Martha, a haunted, traumatized cult escapee, the movie is an absolute knockout.  He takes us into her mind as she struggles to acclimate to normal life and come to terms with what happened to her.  But at the end of the movie, as she has yet to find closure or answers, neither have we.  What Durkin leaves us with is a puzzle to solve without every piece.  It’s an experience that is at once frustrating and exhilarating; add in the spellbinding performance of Elizabeth Olsen, and you have a movie that may render you unable to move when the credits roll.  The movie isn’t meant to end for the viewer after the final shot, and the hour-long conversation I had afterwards in the lobby is one of my fondest moviegoing memories of 2011.

#3
“Midnight in Paris“
Written and directed by Woody Allen
Starring Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, and Marion Cotillard

“The present is a little unsatisfying because life’s a little unsatisfying.” – Owen Wilson as Gil Pender

An unapologetic love letter to the City of Lights and a cautionary tale of Golden-Age Thinking, Woody Allen’s return to form clicked with me on an incredibly personal level (and may very well be the reason why you don’t see “The Artist” or “Hugo” on this list).  While the neurotic director packed up his camera and went abroad and into the past, the existential problems that face all of his neurotic protagonists in New York come along with him.  Anxiety and unpleasantness can’t just be left at home; they always make into our emotional baggage.  There is, of course, the route of denial.  But I dare you to make that choice after Allen makes the case once he’s totally won you over with his trademark wit and uncharacteristic charm.

#2
“Shame”
Directed by Steve McQueen
Written by Abi Morgan and Steve McQueen
Starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan

“I don’t wanna talk. Try not talking. Try just listening or thinking for a change.” – Michael Fassbender as Brandon

The most gripping movie experience of last year came courtesy of a schizophrenic ballerina in New York; this year, it came from the tribulations of a sex addict in the same city.  It’s the dark underside of Carrie and the gang’s activities as the adjectives most likely to be associated with fornication in Steve McQueen’s sophomore feature are painful, agonizing, monotonous - really anything BUT pleasurable.  Thanks to the fierce commitment of leading man Michael Fassbender, McQueen’s vision is achieved and lucidly portrayed.  Sex has pervaded our culture, and we are bombarded with it nonstop.  Fassbender’s insatiable Brandon is a victim of its constant barrage, and coupled with a rough childhood, his obsession has become self-destructive.  Brandon also prefers prostitutes or online chat rooms, allowing him to satisfy his desires without having to deal with messy emotions or connections.  As the digital generation matures and begins to face the consequences of constant sexual exposure, I have confidence that McQueen’s film  will be looked at as a warning far ahead of its time.

#1
“Win Win”
Written and directed by Thomas McCarthy
Starring Paul Giamatti, Amy Ryan, and Alex Shaffer

“Me? I’m pretty good.” – Paul Giamatti as Mike Flaherty

In a hypothetical time capsule for the year 2011, I would choose Tom McCarthy’s exploration of recession morality as our representative.  If cinema is truly the representation of the collective unconscious thought, there is no better movie that captures us as we are.  McCarthy centers his story on Mike Flaherty, played understatedly yet superbly by Paul Giamatti, a man who makes some poor decisions.  Yet he’s not a bad person; in fact, he’s a great father, a volunteer wrestling coach at a local high school, and agrees to take on the financial responsibilities of raising a teenager in a real pinch.  In a year when most people looked to idealized or simplified versions of the triumph of the human spirit, I saw this as the most inspiring, real, and worthwhile vision of America.  We can all be lead astray, sure, but we are all good people at heart.  We will all eventually have to answer for our mistakes, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be happy.  And that, my friends, is my zeitgeist of 2011.

Politically, the year started with such promise as we looked to put an end to inflammatory and hateful dialogue in the wake of the horrific shooting in Tuscon that nearly took the life of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.  In a horrifyingly ironic twist, Sarah Palin had put her district on a map with a shotgun sight on it a few months earlier, drawing attention to the overuse of words like murder and kill in the vernacular.  The tragedy shamed us all, although apparently not nearly enough.

In this age of uncertainty, Washington moved towards its idealogical poles, only drawing attention to their vast differences instead of our many similarities.  We are all committed to having a government that functions (and functions with less debt), yet the parts nearly came to a screeching halt as politicians disagreed as to the machine’s output.  We all want to get out of this economic slump, but the inability to find common ground may have only added to the problem.  And amidst it all, you heard the same kind of hateful speech that we wanted to eradicate back in January.  Much of it was directed at the Tea Party: Rep. Maxine Waters said they “can go straight to hell,” Vice-President Joe Biden called them “terrorists,” and perhaps worst of all, Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa issued a rallying cry to “take the sons of b*tches out.”  We could be better … but for some reason we weren’t.

It was also a year of scandals that highlighted the inability of men to handle the power granted them by society.  Rep. Anthony Weiner was forced to resign after moronically tweeting nude pictures of himself to young women (the icing on the cake was his wife’s pregnancy coming shortly thereafter).  It likely went unnoticed amidst the debt ceiling drama, but Rep. David Wu also vacated his position after an alleged sexual assault.

The most sickening, though, was the Penn State child sex abuse drama that resulted in the termination of much of the football staff including the legendary coach Joe Paterno.  As if 2011 needed any other humiliating debacle, Jerry Sandusky’s use of his charity for at-risk children to fulfill his perverse sexual desires (read the grand jury report if you want to gag) makes everything else look tame.  Yes, even you, lovechild bearing governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, accused rapist and IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, or philandering former Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain.  It makes Charlie Sheen look like he actually could be #winning.  We could be better … but for some reason we weren’t.

Look at TIME’s Person of the Year and you can deduce the prevailing emotion of the year: anger.  Protesters throughout the world channeled their distrust and disapproval of government, of institutions, even of people into the streets.  Some were organized, like the Arab Spring through social media and around a particular message, such as Egypt’s demands that Mubarak needed to resign for the sake of freedom and posterity.  Others, like Occupy Wall Street and its various offshoots, just inspired people to bring whatever grievance they had in a display of civil disobedience.  While the topics of income inequality, corporate greed, and the government influence of the financial sector floated into mainstream conversation, the lack of a unified goal has led to frustration, confusion, and inefficacy.  In America, anger has just bred more anger.

And in the tradition of societal tumult, we look for a scapegoat.  For some it was John Boehner’s Congress.  Others blamed President Obama.  But during the summer of our discontent, Americans found an unlikely figure to project their uncertainty and insecurity onto: Casey Anthony, the Florida mother accused of murdering her young daughter.  Here was someone that represented everything wrong with the country – neglecting her duties, failing her children, squelching the possibility of a bright future – yet ironically, she was deemed innocent.

Cue everyone on Facebook and Twitter screaming in all caps “CASEY ANTHONY IS SO GUILTY!”  No one wanted justice, they wanted blood.  An eye for an eye, the perpetrator for the victim.  That misplaced anger showed up once again at Penn State, where students rioted in support of their beloved Coach Paterno, whom they believed to be collateral damage in the fallout of the scandal.  Yet if they had really listened, they would have known that Paterno had not called the police when directly given the information of Sandusky’s sexual misconduct in his facilities.  We could be better … but for some reason we weren’t.

So why are you reading this on Marshall and the Movies?  You probably could have read all the above on CNN.  For one, I have firm belief in the ability of the history (the societal narrative) to affect the biography (the personal narrative), so everything from the shameful scandals to the angry Americans to the partial politics played a role in how we watched (or didn’t watch) movies and how they reflected us.

It was a year of intelligent apocalyptic movies, on a global scale by way of storms (“Take Shelter”), viruses (“Contagion”), planetary collisions (“Melancholia”), technological manipulation (“Rise of the Planet of the Apes”), and financial meltdown (“Margin Call”), all of which tied into the anxieties of living in the now.

There was also an abundance of movies tying into non-apocalyptic but hardly apocryphal personal crises.  Much of it centered around loss  - the loss of a family member (“The Descendants,” “Super 8″), the loss of health (“50/50″), the loss of a job (“Everything Must Go,” “Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop”), or the loss of perspective (“Martha Marcy May Marlene,” “The Beaver”).

However, plenty of these catalysts for change are the result of society, be they from industrial shifts (“The Artist,” “Hugo”), the impact of digital culture (“Shame,” “Page One”), the fallout of economic downturn (“Win Win”), an unfair playing field (“Moneyball”), hatred (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” “In a Better World”), injustice (“The Help,” “Weekend”), or a general loss of faith in an institution (“Higher Ground, “The Ides of March”).

Just as the movies had a tumultuous relationship with society in 2011, society had a tumultuous relationship with the movies.  Revenues fell again as ticket sales were the lowest in 15 years; you know, when Tom Cruise suited up as Ethan Hunt for the first “Mission: Impossible” movie, “Independence Day” ruled the box office, and “Super 8″ star Elle Fanning had yet to be born.  Why so low?  Look to the same distrust of corporations that moved the Occupiers to New York’s Zuccotti Park.

Just like “Inside Job” showed us that the banks scammed America, the preponderance of 3D revealed to most moviegoers that the technology was being used less for art (like in “Hugo”) and more for increasing profit margins (like for “Captain America”).  As Grady Smith of Entertainment Weekly put it, “Consumers balk at the idea of having to pay a regular ticket price PLUS an additional $3.50 for an experience that doesn’t often provide much more than a headache.”  With the growing precariousness of the country’s economic situation, the consciousness of high ticket prices might have kept the public at large from seeing non-essential movies in the theater.

There also seemed to be a paradoxical audience reaction to sequels in 2011 (as if there already wasn’t enough confusion this year).  The top seven movies of the year were all sequels, and the rest of the top ten belonged to some larger franchise.  Only at #12 (“Bridesmaids”) do you get anything original.  However, this sequel success is double-edged as only the last “Harry Potter” film, “Fast Five,” and “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” were able to outdo their predecessors.  Some fell just short, while others, particularly animated sequels like “Alvin and the Chipmunks” and “Happy Feet” severely underwhelmed.  The success of original films like “Inception” seems to have done little to phase the studio executives, one of which said that spectacle over story is what they count on for success.  Unfortunately, audiences have wised up thanks to filmmakers like Nolan, and traditional strategies now seem more and more out of touch.

Finally, before I reach my 10 worst movies of the year, which are awful for lack of creativity, purpose, ambition, and cohesion, I wanted to end this post on the worst of 2011 on a personal note.  After nearly 18 months of posting every day, I largely fell off the map this year.  I returned to blog all of summer, but in the spring I let festivities of high school graduation overpower my will to blog; similarly in the fall, I let the transition to college life get the best of my writing capabilities.  I never stopped watching movies (I saw a whopping 114 released this year). Hopwever, I did stop sharing my thoughts about them and interacting with the community at large, making all that time spent in front of the screen self-serving.  I could have been better, but I wasn’t.

But just because I wasn’t better doesn’t mean I can’t be better.  Mark my words, I will be better in 2012.  Hopefully, we all will be.

THE WORST MOVIES OF 2011
Such a waste of my time that they don’t even merit a description.

#10
“The Art of Getting By”

#9
“Green Lantern”

#8
“Red State”

#7
“Another Earth”

#6
“Your Highness”

#5
“Bellflower”

#4
“Battle: Los Angeles”

#3
“The Change-Up”

#2
“New Year’s Eve”

#1
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon”

]]> http://marshallandthemovies.com/2011/12/31/worstof2011/feed/ 8 Marshall Gabrielle Giffords Charlie Sheen The Protester Casey Anthony CONTAGION 3D 10 Art of Getting By 9 Green Lantern 8 Red State 7 Another Earth 6 Your Highness 5 Bellflower 4 Battle LA 3 The Change Up 2 New Year's Eve 1 Transformers http://marshallandthemovies.com/2011/08/21/wu821/ http://marshallandthemovies.com/2011/08/21/wu821/#comments Sun, 21 Aug 2011 13:47:50 +0000 Marshall http://marshallandthemovies.com/?p=8341 ]]>

“How much does your life weigh? Imagine for a second that you’re carrying a backpack. I want you to pack it with all the stuff that you have in your life… you start with the little things. The shelves, the drawers, the knickknacks, then you start adding larger stuff. Clothes, tabletop appliances, lamps, your TV… the backpack should be getting pretty heavy now.

You go bigger. Your couch, your car, your home… I want you to stuff it all into that backpack. Now I want you to fill it with people. Start with casual acquaintances, friends of friends, folks around the office… and then you move into the people you trust with your most intimate secrets.

Your brothers, your sisters, your children, your parents and finally your husband, your wife, your boyfriend, your girlfriend. You get them into that backpack, feel the weight of that bag. Make no mistake your relationships are the heaviest components in your life.”

- George Clooney as Ryan Bingham in 2009′s “Up in the Air“

“For what it’s worth: it’s never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There’s no time limit, stop whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.”

- Brad Pitt as Benjamin Button in 2008′s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button“

In case you missed it…

It was a pretty slow week as I was incredibly preoccupied running last second errands before leaving for college on Wednesday.  Hopefully I won’t fall off the map too precipitously, but things might be running slow for a while – especially in terms of reviewing new releases.

I took this as an opportunity to run reviews for some older movies that tied into other releases this week.  With Jessica Alba headlining the new “Spy Kids” movie, I reviewed her “Machete” and “Little Fockers” from 2010.  James McAvoy’s “The Conspirator” hit video this week, so I took the opportunity to review “Gnomeo & Juliet,” the animated Shakespearean tale to which he lent his voice.

I also took a look at the September crop of releases, which has a few gems shining amidst the trash heap.  Kris Tapley of “In Contention” just updated his Oscar predictions to include “Moneyball” as a probable nominee for Best Picture, Actor, and Supporting Actor.  More reason to get excited.  Click on the picture below to see the September preview post.

And the end of the week saw a lot of emphasis on Anne Hathaway as “One Day” opened in theaters.  On Friday, the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” was “Rachel Getting Married,” Oscar-nominated because of her performance.  On Saturday, I reviewed “One Day” and for the most part liked what I saw.  Click the picture below to read the review.

Recommended Reading

Save a tree, read a blog. Unless you want to print out a review … in which case, you aren’t saving trees.

• Take a look at an opinion piece dissecting the depiction of females in “Bridesmaids” from Anna of “Split Reel.”
• Don’t know that I agree with Tom Clift’s take on “Hanna,” but I’ll give you the opposite of my opinions before I unleash my review on the day it hits video in the U.S.
• Alex Withrow at “And So It Begins” lists off some of the best beef between directors.  It will seriously make you laugh – these filmmakers are no better than middle schoolers telling “your mama” jokes during recess.
• Whiffer does a great review of “Source Code,” which is still one of the best movies of 2011.  And I’ve already seen 68 this year…
• Dan, the man, has convinced me fully to wait for video for “Fright Night.”  I always had a suspicion it would play much better there.
• Nick Prigge of “Anomalous Material” thinks that “Inception” is emotionally unavailable.  I’m not setting him up for a firing squad, only suggesting you read it even if you disagree.

And Vulture asks the question we are all pondering: Why Do Studios Think There’s So Much Value in Old Titles?  After the flop of “Conan the Barbarian” and “Fright Night,” here was their best conclusion.

“‘Studios remake these movies because they often already own the title,’ says Ammer. But it’s more than that. After all, it wouldn’t cost a studio any more money to hire a writer to write an original screenplay than it would to have him or her write one based on an older film. The real appeal of an old title is more superstitious: The studios use them, says Ammer, because ‘they know it’s worked in the past.’ Even though it’s an entirely different movie made by different people for a different generation, the idea is, hey, the title worked before, why not give it another shot? For all of Hollywood’s supposed liberalism, studios, like their audiences, are quite conservative. Genre is the most predictive aspect of a film’s future results, and then title, so why not double down? A remake of a successful genre film allows a studio the greatest possible risk reduction.”

The Tree of Death

/Film said it best when they broke the story: Even Sean Penn did not care for Sean Penn in “The Tree of Life.”  However, I’ll give credit to where I saw this first, Guy Lodge of “In Contention.”

Sean Penn moping about in my hometown.

In an interview with the French magazine Le Figaro, Sean Penn had this to say about Terrence Malick’s enigmatic film:

“I didn’t at all find on the screen the emotion of the script, which is the most magnificent one that I’ve ever read. A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and its impact. Frankly, I’m still trying to figure out what I’m doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context! What’s more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly.”

I’ll go ahead and add this disclaimer to those that love the movie or the fact-checking Gestapo that yes, I realize that’s not the full quote.  But for the sake of this post, it’s easier to just analyze this part.

Where to begin?  The fact that a two-time Academy Award winner would bash his own movie would be shocking even if it was a total sellout, but even I as a non-impressed watcher see “The Tree of Life” as anything but a sellout.  It’s high art, just not the kind of art that was to my taste.  He doesn’t exactly mince his words there, pretty openly stating his distaste for how his role in the movie turned out.

This is nothing new, of course.  Adrien Brody complained when he was largely cut out of Malick’s “The Thin Red Line” – while I don’t like when whiners get their way, he certainly got it with Roman Polanski’s “The Pianist” in 2002.  But Penn’s statement goes far beyond just a diva fit, although I do think it dabbles in a sort of self-centered sensibility.  He questions the very way that the movie was made!  Keep in mind that Sean Penn has stepped behind the camera before, even turning out an all-time favorite of mine with “Into the Wild.”

Penn gets to the core of my issues with the movie.  I’m even a little bit more flexible – I’d be fine without a conventional narrative.  But Penn points out that the movie was incredibly disjointed.  I’m sure that the movie was beautiful in Terence Malick’s head, just as Penn says it was beautiful on the page.  Interestingly enough, I’ve heard from industry insiders that Malick shot the script with the dialogue, even allowing Jessica Chastain to speak.  Then he would cut, walk over, and tell her to emote all of the dialogue just with her eyes.  An interesting philosophy that produced an interesting end product.

Still moping...

Yet when everyone on set is not working in sync with the same vision towards a final product, the movie inevitably suffers.  If an actor doesn’t understand his purpose on screen, how can he do a decent job?  Moreover, how can he contribute anything to the movie?  If a director can’t even articulate his vision to the people he entrusts to help him create art, how can he articulate it to an audience?  I’ll inevitably be hit with the “it’s subjective” argument, but give it up here.  You can’t honestly argue that Malick is such a visionary that he can’t even be on the same page with his fellow artists.

Even those that I’ve talked to who LOVE the film can at least admit that the Sean Penn segments were the weakest parts of the film, and the actor’s statements shed some light on why that is.  An actor just existing on screen because a character exists on the page doesn’t make for compelling cinema if he doesn’t understand the basic objectives and motivations.  It’s just … boring.

I guess my biggest question here is why didn’t Penn make a bigger fuss on the set?  It seems kind of cowardly to whip out these harsh words now, potentially even in “too little, too late” territory for those who feel they’ve wasted their life watching the movie.  I get the whole mindset that Malick is a genius and you don’t question him, but for such primal acting concerns as these, why wouldn’t you demand more from the master during production?  If he was really that dissatisfied, why not walk off the movie?  These problems Penn has should have been settled a long time ago, and by just bringing them up now, he’s either searching for attention or absolution for being the worst part of the movie.

Penn did close with this statement about the movie, something that I’d say I basically espouse:

“But it’s a film I recommend, as long as you go in without any preconceived ideas. It’s up to each person to find their own personal, emotional or spiritual connection to it. Those that do generally emerge very moved.”

“What is comedy? Comedy is the art of making people laugh without making them puke.”

- Steve Martin

“I am thankful for laughter, except when milk comes out of my nose.”

- Woody Allen

There’s a MASSIVE analysis of comedy down at the bottom.  Please read and comment or I’ll feel like all my hard work was for nothing.

In case you missed it…

I gave two stellar reviews this week for summer closers “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” and “The Help” as well as major kudos to Dominic Cooper’s performance in “The Devil’s Double.”  Things were not so rosy for “Final Destination 5,” “Another Earth,” or “30 Minutes or Less.”  Speaking of the latter, this week’s “F.I.L.M.” was “Roger Dodger,” the film debut of Jesse Eisenberg.

Recommended Reading

Here’s some of the good stuff I was reading.  If you don’t like to read, then why are you on my site?

• Brian of “The Soap Box Office” counts down the 10 best non-Pixar animated films made by Disney.  Some expected favorites along with some unexpected appearances by unfairly underrated flicks.
• Steven Flores reviews Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator.”  Not to spoil the fun, but I may or may not have my own commentary up my sleeves for a date to be named…
• Whiffer takes a look at “Every Little Step,” which I may have to make a concerted effort to see now that he compared it to “Black Swan.”
• Max of “Anomalous Material” does a part personal essay, part review of “Midnight in Paris” that really makes me want to stop banging my fingers on this keyboard and go to Europe.
• Sam of “Duke and the Movies” gets me excited for “The Guard,” which finally opens in Houston this weekend!

Sunday Funnies

The New York Latino Film Festival’s ad campaign revolved around movie clichés and implausibilities, and they nail some of the stuff we just accept spot on.  (via /Film)

The Inadvertent Activist

On Monday, I noticed a humongous uptick in traffic.  Naturally, I got a little skeptical, especially when a lot of the hits were coming from Facebook.  Then I started getting a lot of redirects from a site called R-Word.org.  I had heard of this site before, but in case you haven’t, here’s a video that succinctly states their mission:

They saw that I had called out the filmmakers of “The Change-Up” in my review for senselessly using these people as the butt of a joke.  Some people are calling for radical action, and they have done a good job of making their voices heard.  But as offensive as it is, the writers have the right to free speech and can say it if they want.  The joke falls flat in the movie, and if you do for some reason decide to see it after my D+ review, use it as a reminder to eradicate the word from your casual vernacular. If you want more information on this campaign, click the picture below.

An R-Rated Renaissance?

In The Los Angeles Times back in July, Steven Zeitchik asked this question, “How deep will the R-rated renaissance run?”  He cites the statistic that 2011 is “the first year ever that at least four R-rated comedies have topped [$75 million].

I’d like to respond back with this question: is this what a Renaissance supposed to look like?  Because all I see is one comedic gem shining amidst a surplus of lackluster and forgettable others.  Just because there has been a great quantity hardly means there has been great quality.  Before I jump into my own analysis, I’d like to review my reviews of the seven R-rated comedies of summer 2011.

While “Bridesmaids” does ultimately have its heart planted in romantic comedy, it’s got one killer funny bone.  There are plenty of big laughs to go around here, be they from physical comedy, hilarious situations, or witty writing.  B+

“The Hangover Part II” is like breathing in airplane air.  Recycled, stale, but better than not having air to breathe at all.  In essence, it gives you exactly what you expected – and nothing more.  B

If this is supposed to be a satire of the American education system, then its writers clearly failed ninth grade English.  It may expose human folly and error, but “Bad Teacher” doesn’t take Halsey down the path of criticism and ridicule, but rather down the path of a romantic comedy heroine.  C

 ”Horrible Bosses” is definitely irreverent, but it’s a dish that tastes best to those who have ever had to work under Satan … or who happened to have not seen “The Hangover.”  B-

If you can look past the shamelessness in being just another romantic comedy, you might find that “Friends with Benefits” is a pretty decent movie. It’s wickedly funny, undoubtedly helped by its R-rated liberty to be raunchy, disgusting, and vulgar to the extremes.  B

“The Change-Up” represents that lazy and misplaced mentality that  doubling the crudeness and gutting the inventiveness down to next to nothing will still produce a good comedy.  D+

While Ruben Fleischer’s directorial debut was a fun, creative comedy, his second go-round, “30 Minutes or Less,” is exactly the opposite.  It feels like something Adam Sandler didn’t have time to squeeze in his schedule between “The Waterboy” and “Big Daddy.”  C+

As of August 16, 2011.

We’ve seen quite a variety of success both critically and commercially for these movies.  ”The Hangover Part II” capitalized on goodwill from its predecessor for the highest live-action comedy debut in history but failed to sprout the legs of the original.  ”Bridesmaids” used its originality and humor to show remarkable strength all summer, rarely dropping more than 30% per weekend and stayed in the top 10 for eight weeks, something no other movie achieved this summer, not even “Transformers” and likely not even “Harry Potter.”  Its opening weekend will amount to barely over 15% of its total gross, second to only “Midnight in Paris” among wide releases so far this year.  ”Horrible Bosses” opened decently but benefitted from strong word of mouth and will likely wind up at around $120 million.

“Bad Teacher” opened strongly but lost steam quickly and will likely fall short of the magic $100 million.  ”Friends with Benefits,” kicking off the back half of the 2011 R-rated summer, wasn’t able to match the opening of “No Strings Attached” and then hemorrhaged greatly each weekend, only remaining in the top 10 for 3 weekends.  It will probably wind up earning around $60 million.  ”The Change-Up” and “30 Minutes or Less” both opened around $13.4 million, disappointing starts that probably point to both earning below $40 million, or how much “The Hangover Part II” grossed in a day and a half.

So whether you judge by critical or audience reaction, this really doesn’t seem like a Renaissance in comedic filmmaking.  In case you happen to be easy to please when it comes to comedies or are actually impressed by these statistics, let me lay out the definitive case that this definitely NOT a Renaissance.

The box office record books are usually kept in terms of how much money a movie made when it opened.  However, as I explained in a post last year when “Avatar” was proclaimed the new highest grossing movie ever, this may not be the best way to chronicle box office glory.  Here’s an excerpt from that post, entitled “Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Box Office.”

“Simply put, the adjusted system measures a movie’s box office not by the amount of revenue that it brings in, but rather by the amount of tickets sold.  The domestic gross of a movie is how much in cash the movie brought in…

Box office speculators often make a big fuss over the $100 million mark, a common indicator for success.  2009 was the biggest year for $100 million in history – according to the domestic system.  But in previous years, it has taken more total tickets sold to hit that mark.  In 2009, it took over 13.3 million tickets to make $100 million.  But in 1990, when ‘GoodFellas’ was released, it took well over 23.6 million tickets to make the same amount.  After a little bit of math, I discovered that it only took $55.6 million in that year to make the equivalent of $100 million.

According to the adjusted system, ‘Avatar’ is not number 1.  With a gross of $603 million, it has yet to even crack the top 20.  The #1 movie is “Gone with the Wind,” which made the modern equivalent of nearly $1.5 billion.  It reached such an astronomical gross because it played for years in American theaters.  And yet on the domestic chart where ‘Avatar’ ranks #1, ‘Gone with the Wind’ is one $200 million movie away from being knocked out of the top 100.”

Granted that with the growth of at-home options and the emergence of independent and arthouse cinemas, largely due to the scaling-down and increase affordability of filmmaking equipment, competition makes the disparity a little bit exaggerated.  Yet when you look at the difference in attendance from today’s movies to decades-old comedies, that can’t count for a gap this big.

When you look at the unadjusted domestic chart, the highest grossing adult comedy is “Meet the Fockers” at $279.2 million.  Just below it is the highest grossing R-rated comedy, 2009′s “The Hangover” at $277.3 million; the second-highest grossing R-rated comedy is “The Hangover Part II” at about $254 million.  Nowadays, it’s pretty much unheard of for a comedy to reach $200 million.

However, when you examine the chart that adjusts for inflation, you’ll see that comedy hasn’t always been such a hard sell for Americans.  The most attended R-rated comedy ranks at #40 on the adjusted chart, 1984′s “Beverly Hills Cop,” which made the equivalent of $535 million in terms 0f 2011 tickets.  That’s twice what “The Hangover Part II” made this summer and more than any “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie would have made at these ticket prices.

Other R-rated comedies would have made mind-boggling sums adjusted as well.  1973′s “Blazing Saddles” would have made $503 million and ranks higher in attendance than any “Lord of the Rings” movie.  1978′s “Animal House,” which Stephen Zeitchik calls the birth of the modern R-rated comedy, would have grossed $477 million and ranks higher than any “Harry Potter” movie.  1970′s “MASH” would have grossed $427 million and ranks higher than any “Toy Story” movie.

So going by these standards, how can you even begin to call this a Renaissance when “Horrible Bosses” is dubbed a box office success despite bringing in a quarter of the attendance of these comedic smashes?  If anything, look to the 1980s as the “Golden Age” of R-rated comedy and the 2000s as a sort of “New Wave.”  For comparison, here’s what the R-rated comedies were pulling in during the Reagan Era:

 1980

• “Stir Crazy” – $300 million
• “Private Benjamin” – $206.9 million
• “The Blues Brothers” – $169.5 million
• “Caddyshack” – $118 million

1981

• “Stripes” – $244.5 million

1982

• “Porky’s” – $285.9 million
• “48 HRS” – $213.8 million

1983

• “Risky Business” – $160.7 million

1984

• “Beverly Hills Cop” – $535 million
• “Police Academy” – $192.6 milion
• “Revenge of the Nerds” – $97 million

1985

• “The Breakfast Club” – $103 million

1986

• “Ruthless People” – $153.8 million
• “Down & Out In Beverly Hills” – $133.4 million

1987

• “Beverly Hills Cop II” – $313.3 million
• “Good Morning Vietnam” – $252.5 million
• “Lethal Weapon” – $132.9 million
• “Broadcast News” – $104.4 million
• “Eddie Murphy Raw” – $103 million
• “Plains, Trains and Automobiles” – $101 million

1988

• “Coming to America” – $252.1 million
• “Working Girl” – $123.6 million
• “A Fish Called Wanda” – $121.1 million
• “Bull Durham” – $98.6 million

1989

• “Lethal Weapon 2″ – $295.6 million
• “When Harry Met Sally” – $186.3 million
• “The War of the Roses” – $174.4 million
• “Tango & Cash” – $127.3 million
• “Major League” – $99.9 million

Particularly towards the end of the decade, that starts looking incredibly impressive.  It wasn’t just a couple of exceptions or flukes; R-rated comedies were dependable sources of money and entertainment.  If you were looking closely, you’ll spy two Best Picture nominees on that list and seven of the American Film Institute’s funniest films of all time.  There was obviously one dominant star, Eddie Murphy, whose standup act could bring in more viewers than Cameron Diaz could with “Bad Teacher.”

The genre had a turbulent time in the 1990s, starting with a bang thanks to “Pretty Woman” scoring $336 million and an Oscar nod for star Julia Roberts.  Yet successes were few and far between, and the ones that did well were usually blended with another genre: action-comedy “Lethal Weapon 3″ ($277.9 million), dramedy “Jerry Maguire” ($277.6 million), horror comedy “Scream” ($185.8 million).  An exception would be “The Birdcage” which scored a cool $223.7 million in 1996.  Then along came “There’s Something About Mary,” which was the surprise hit of summer 1998, grossing $300 million from a very unique run – the movie reached #1 for the first time 8 weeks after release!

Then there was a short boom, headlined by 1999′s “American Pie” ($161 million) and 2000′s “Scary Movie” ($232.1 million) and their sequels, but the genre was still not reliably producing hits.  Then, two movies came along that sparked interest in the R-rated comedy again in the summer of 2005, reminding us of the humor they could provide with all their boundless freedom.  ”Wedding Crashers” was the sleeper hit of the year, grossing $258 million and garnering widespread critical acclaim.  A few weeks later, the world got its first taste of Judd Apatow, the man who is now the leading name of the genre’s rebirth, with “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.”  It only grossed $136 million, but its massive appeal to audiences and critics alike had people in love with R-rated comedy again.

The genre got a boost from the poor showing of PG-13 comedies from the so-called “Frat Pack” or “Slacker Pack” of Will Ferrell, Jack Black, Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, and Owen Wilson.  The summer of 2007 brought “Knocked Up” and “Superbad” to the tune of $172.3 million and $140.7, respectively.  Those movies both received widespread critical acclaim at 87% and 90% on Rotten Tomatoes.  If there was any doubt ater 2005 that the R-rated comedy was back and here to stay, there couldn’t be any now.

Then the floodgates opened and we started getting a mixed bag, a mix of stupid vulgarity and smart Apatow Factory flicks.  Here’s what we’ve had since August 2007:

The Good

• “The Hangover” (2009) – $294.7 million
• “The Hangover Part II” (2011) – $254 million
• “Bridesmaids” (2011) – $167.2 million
• “Tropic Thunder” (2008) – $122.7 million

The Alright

• “It’s Complicated” (2009) – $119.8 million
• “Step Brothers” (2008) – $111.5 million
• “Horrible Bosses” (2011) – $110.6 million
• “Due Date” (2010) – $101.5 million
• “Bad Teacher” (2011) – $97.9 million
• “Pineapple Express” (2008) – $96.9 million
• “The Ugly Truth” (2009) – $94.4 million
• “Zombieland” (2009) – $80.3 million

The Average

• “I Love You Man” (2009) – $75.9 million *
• “Role Models” (2008) – $74.7 million *
• “No Strings Attached” (2011) – $70.6 million
• “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” (2008) – $70.1 million

The Disappointments

• “Bruno” (2009) – $63.8 million
• “Get Him to the Greek” (2010) – $61.6 million *
• “Funny People” (2009) – $55.1 million
• “Friends with Benefits” (2011) – $53.6 million **
• “Hot Tub Time Machine” (2011) – $50.7 million
• “Cop Out” (2010) – $45.3 million
• “Hall Pass” (2011) – $45 million
• “Death at a Funeral” (2010) – $43.1 million
• “Semi-Pro” (2008) – $37.1 million
• “Zack and Miri Make a Porno” (2008) – $34.9 million
• “Love and Other Drugs” (2010) – $32.7 million
• “The Change-Up” (2011) – $27.7 million **
• “Your Highness” (2011) – $21.6 million
• “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story” (2007) – $21.2 million
• “Going the Distance” (2010) – $18 million
• “Jennifer’s Body” (2009) – $17.2 million
• “30 Minutes or Less” (2011) – $17 million **
• “MacGruber” (2010) – $8.6 million

* – Unfairly placed here, ** – Still in release but unlikely to leave the disappointment area.

That hardly looks consistent to me.  For every movie does as well fiscally and critically as “Bridesmaids,” there are three movies that do poorly like “The Change-Up.”  Most of these movies are entirely forgettable, and I’d argue that my favorites of the bunch didn’t even do well at the box office.  Just because there has been quantity this summer doesn’t mean there has been great quality.  In reality, all this summer amounts to is the Hollywood reaction to the success of “The Hangover.”

So, am I right or wrong?  Is this a Renaissance?

“I felt kind of trapped in that material. I felt, This is not my boat. I’m just a passenger, but I’m going down and there’s no way out.”

- James Franco on hosting the 2011 Oscars

“Here’s my guess: Critics will be out to kill ['Rise of the Planet of the Apes'] and blame me for it just because they are out to kill me. Last year people were pretty nice. This is the year when people are going to have fun going after me. I don’t feel the same way about ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ as I do about ’127 Hours’ or ‘Milk.’ It was a ­different kind of acting.”

- James Franco on the media in Playboy, July 2011

Credentials

This week, I went to a promotional screening for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.”  I decided to show up an hour and a half early because I knew the line would be ridiculously long.  However, I didn’t anticipate that the theater would already be full by the time I got there!

Reeling, desperate, dying to see the movie, I resorted to a card I had yet to play.  I went up to the rep and said, “You may not believe me but I’m a member of the press.”  I wasn’t lying.  And no, I’m not a member of the press just because I write a blog.

I guess it’s time for me to make a big announcement, one that I should have made several months ago.  My work now appears on The Christian Science Monitor‘s webpage.  That’s right, selected posts from “Marshall and the Movies” now appear on a section of the Monitor‘s site called the “Culture Café,” which pools a handful of bloggers for their opinions on the culture at large.  Since May, 8 posts from my blog have appeared on their webpage, ranging from reviews of new releases to Classics Corner posts and even, most recently, a “F.I.L.M.”

Don’t believe me?  Check it out for yourself by clicking on the link below!  I’ll do a better job from now on including links to the posts they syndicate on “Weekend Update,” but know that you can always read it here first!

In case you missed it…

Not much went on at “Marshall and the Movies” this week.  Running frantically behind, I resorted to publishing a lot of reviews I’d been holding back for a long time, “The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest” and “Burlesque.”  I did, however, strategically publish my review of “Howl” as James Franco had a big movie opening this week.

Yesterday, I reviewed “The Change-Up.”  What a disaster that was.  In case you don’t want to read the whole review, let me sum it up for you in one fragment: AVOID AT ALL COSTS.

The F.I.L.M. of the Week was Charles Ferguson’s “No End in Sight,” a documentary about the American occupation of Iraq.  It’s still a fascinating watch even though the end is in sight … hindsight, as a matter of fact.

And because I didn’t get a chance to point it out in last week’s post, the July edition of “Classics Corner” took a look at Mel Brooks’ timeless comedy “Blazing Saddles.”  Thank goodness people like it enough to put clips on YouTube so I can embed them here.

Recommended Reading

And here’s what I read this week.  You should read it too, unless you are illiterate.  Then find someone to read it for you.

• James at “Central Florida Film Critic” examines the perhaps misplaced righteousness of critics who tear down the “Twilight” series.  Don’t think it inspires me to check them out, but it sure would make me review them differently if I was bound, gagged, and forced to watch them.
• Steven Flores over at “Surrender to the Void” gets me excited to watch “Psycho” soon in my “Hitchcocked” series with his review examining just about every aspect of the film.
• PD1248 of the new blog “Celluloid Dreams” – keep an eye on this one – makes me want to watch “About Schmidt” again with his career retrospective of Jack Nicholson teamed with a review of one of Alexander Payne’s finest.
• Kai of “Man I Love Films” counts down the 5 best movies with primates - props on remembering Jack from “Pirates.”  I had forgotten how much I loved Geoffrey Rush in that movie spouting off, “Not you, we named the monkey Jack.”
• Alex of “And So It Begins” reviews “The Devil’s Double,” which I saw earlier this week.  His take is somewhat more extreme than mine, but I agree with very many of his points.  In case you want a preview of what my review will somewhat sound like.

Other cool things I read this week from non-blogger types:

• If you have the time, listen to NPR‘s awesome interview with Andy Serkis, the man behind Caesar in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.”
• Kris Tapley at In Contention, my favorite awards season blog, makes the case that Serkis deserves a Special Achievement Oscar (since the Academy clearly isn’t progressive enough yet to nominate a motion capture performance in a competitive acting category.)

James Franco and the Rise of the New Celebrity

You’re always hearing something about James Franco.  Whether it’s him pursuing yet another degree, opening yet another movie, publishing a book, announcing a directorial venture, or appearing on a soap opera, the man seems to keep reinventing his own celebrity as he goes.  But at the same time, we can’t help but ask, “Who is James Franco?”  A Renaissance Man or a jack-of-all-trades spreading himself too thin?  An entertainer or an artist?  And I think that’s the question he wants us to be mulling over constantly.

The one thing that is certain about James Franco, however, is that he is brutally and blatantly honest.  The man will say what’s on his mind and act his feelings; he won’t take pull any punches or hide behind any veneers.  Case in point: the Oscars this year.  You may or may not have read the quote at the top of the post, but he hated the material and was very vocal about it.  In that same interview with Playboy, he said that he told the producer of the telecast that “I just don’t think this stuff’s going to be good.”

So how did he react?  With boredom and a complete lack of enthusiasm while Anne Hathaway tried to exude enough enthusiasm for both hosts.  But for those of us who know James Franco beyond the obvious filmography, this isn’t really a surprise or something we haven’t seen before.  Have you seen 2008′s “Camille,” a little indie he starred in alongside Sienna Miller?  If you haven’t, don’t because it’s awful.

Here’s the thing about “Camille” – Franco knows it’s terrible and acts accordingly: bored and brutalized, much like how those of us stupid enough to watch the movie feel.  Or if you saw “Eat Pray Love,” you’ll see a similar display.  The guy caught in the thankless A-hole ex-boyfriend role isn’t an exciting place to be, and Franco doesn’t act thrilled at all.  But honestly, should he be?  If you see “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” you’ll see a similar side of Franco: bored and acting like he’s above the material the whole time.

My question to you, the reader, is this: is James Franco justified in showing his feelings toward the movie on screen?  Is he allowed to say “Yes, this is a paycheck movie, but that still doesn’t mean I have to like it” through an inferred glance?  Or does he need to swallow his pride and just act?  Because in the end, do we pay to see James Franco or the person that James Franco is acting as?  Do we need to be able to separate the actor from the character?  Or can we accept a post-modern blurring of the two?

Now allow me to shift gears while you mull over the tremendous amount of questions posed in the last paragraph.  Back in March, when the Charlie Sheen phenomenon was raging out of control, the brilliant author Bret Easton Ellis (“American Psycho”) wrote a fascinating editorial for Newsweek cleverly titled “Charlie Sheen IS Winning.”  In it, he broke down how Sheen epitomizes the modern (or post-Empire, as he calls it) celebrity.  While acknowledging that there may be some mental or substance issues present with Sheen, he lays out a convincing case for Sheen as the smartest celebrity in Hollywood because he understands what the public wants.  Try arguing with this:

“To Empire gatekeepers, Sheen seems dangerous and in need of help because he’s destroying (and confirming) illusions about the nature of celebrity … What Sheen has exemplified and has clarified is the moment in the culture when not caring what the public thinks about you or your personal life is what matters most—and what makes the public love you even more (if not exactly CBS or the creator of the show that has made you so wealthy)…

… Do we really want manners? Civility? Empire courtesy? Hell, no. We want reality, no matter how crazy. And this is what drives the Empire to distraction: Sheen doesn’t care what you think of him anymore, and he scoffs at the idea of PR.”

So, is James Franco the bellwether of a new kind of celebrity entering the mainstream consciousness without having a drug-fueled implosion?  Or is he something else entirely?  Weigh in!

“Acting is not about being someone different. It’s finding the similarity in what is apparently different, then finding myself in there.”

- Meryl Streep

“You have to show violence the way it is. If you don’t show it realistically, then that’s immoral and harmful. If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity.”

- Roman Polanski

Out and About in the Community

As a sort of cop-out for not publishing this on time, I’m going to overpublicize two events I participated in recently over at the Large Association of Movie Blogs (The LAMB), a giant database of bloggers that get together and pool ideas and posts.

The first was the LAMB Acting School, a monthly series that gathers reviews and retrospectives centered around a single actor.  This month, it was the legendary Meryl Streep, the woman who may well be the greatest actress of her generation.  For those who get sick of her or claim that the Oscars are overly obsessed with her, just look at her filmography and tell me that the diversity of roles present and the dexterity with which she pulls them off isn’t flooring.  Her emphasis is obviously on the drama, but she can pull off comedy just as easily.  She is often lauded for her ability to change the accent of her voice to fit a character; however, it’s that incredible Streep pathos that she brings to every role that has made her a symbol of consistency and reliability in a volatile cinematic climate.

Not to mention I owe Meryl Streep a very special favor myself.  If it hadn’t been for her and “Julie & Julia,” this blog probably wouldn’t exist.  She has changed my life for better and for always, and I am eternally grateful.

Click on the graphic to go see all the posts, but here are links to what I have reviewed from her illustrious career:

It’s Complicated

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Julie & Julia

Adaptation

Music of the Heart

Then, a week prior, I participated in the “LAMBs in the Director’s Chair” event, which celebrated the career of Roman Polanski.  I haven’t seen too many of his movies and have reviewed even fewer, but I admire his skill behind the camera and don’t wish to comment on his legal status.  I saw “Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired,” which I found an interesting portrait of a haunted man, and it just made me even more torn.

Nonetheless, “The Pianist” may be one of my all-time favorite movies.  It is so powerful and moving, perhaps the only intensely personal non-documentarian account of the Holocaust we will ever get.  I’m really hoping “Carnage” is another big success – I always love a good play adaptation.

Again, click the link to be taken to the post with reviews and commentary. Here’s what I submitted:

The Ghost Writer

Classics Corner: Rosemary’s Baby

A Week in Review

This week, I reviewed the two non-Smurf new releases, “Cowboys & Aliens” and “Crazy Stupid Love.”  My expectations were high for the former, low for the latter; the output was low for the former, high for the latter.  Click the pictures to be transported to the reviews.

I also celebrated my two year birthday/anniversary, whichever it is – without the pomp and circumstance.  And I’m totally OK with that.

Recommended Reading

Here’s some of the great work I read this week:

• Alex at “And So It Begins” was even less impressed by “Cowboys & Aliens.”  And I thought I hated that movie…
• Sam, writing this post for “Anomalous Material,” took a different take on “Crazy Stupid Love.”  Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

• James at “Cinema Sights,” quite a while ago, wrote a piece entertaining the notion of slow films.  I agree with almost all points, but that doesn’t mean I have to like “The Tree of Life.”
• Univarn at “A Life in Equinox” reimagines classics movie lines in the digital age.  It’s guaranteed a few laughs.
• Darren at “The M0vie Blog” re-examines the place for nostalgia in our moviegoing culture.  It’s a fascinating, thought-provoking read that may have you wanting to revisit “Midnight in Paris” again.
• Andrew at “A Constant Visual Feast” asked us to question our notions about reboots, remakes, reinterpretations, and any other movie term you can stick a “re” in front of, particularly in the wake of “The Amazing Spider-Man.”

The Rant

This is a thought I had upon further thought on the sex friend movies of 2011, “No Strings Attached” and “Friends with Benefits.”  (Believe it or not, it is possible to think on them.)

Isn’t in hypocritical that the MPAA has begun a crusade against cigarette smoking yet have done nothing about what I think is a much bigger issue in movies nowadays: the casual attitude towards unprotected sex.  While I’m not going to dismiss smoking in movies as something that can influence kids and teenagers, I would argue that they are much more likely to imitate the sexual behavior of screen characters.  Smoking is a social behavior, so kids see it out in public all the time.  Movies just reinforce what they see in real life.

Sex, however, is a very private matter.  Their education nowadays is abstinence or a very sanitized, conservative, condoms-on-bananas approach, like Coach Carr from “Mean Girls” (see the clip below).  What they see in the movies defines how they perceive it in the real world.

While sex on film has evolved with the constantly changing societal norms, from “Carnal Knowledge” to “Brokeback Mountain” to the 2011 duo touting casual sex, I’m surprised that public awareness (and perhaps anger) of how sex is being portrayed on screen hasn’t caught up with the times.  While the conservative definition of sex as an act between man and wife was thrown out quite a while ago, that isn’t an excuse not to care.  Attitudes may have changed, but that doesn’t mean that we turn a blind eye and abandon all responsibility simply because we don’t fully agree with something.

The routine nowadays for sex is two people start passionately kissing, find a flat spot, disrobe each other, and begin thrusting.  Is it really that hard to add the simple, responsible step somewhere before the thrusting begins of adding a condom?  Would it really disrupt the scene that much to add in a shot of a Trojan wrapper on the ground?  A hand reaching in the drawer for a rubber?  We don’t actually have to see it slide on, but for kids who believe that movies reflect real life, there really needs to be some sense conveyed that these people have taken measures to be safe.  Otherwise, there should be consequences.

Only two mainstream movies (to my knowledge) have really dared to have any major results from having unprotected sex, both coming in 2007: “Knocked Up” and “Juno,” both of which featured characters who had to deal with a life-changing pregnancy either willingly not using a condom (the latter) or accidentally not using one (the former).  Both tackle the issue in a respectful manner but also serving as subtle cautionary tales.  But other than those, the only other movie I can think of that shows safe sex being practiced are, ironically, “No Strings Attached.”  (I should also credit 2005′s “Must Love Dogs,” a lame Diane Keaton rom-com that featured a scene where she and John Cusack choose not to have sex because they can’t find a condom.)

Does Hollywood really expect us to believe that 95% of the time, there are no consequences of having unprotected sex?  Wouldn’t it be so refreshing to see Katherine Heigl get chlamydia in her next romantic comedy?  Or after a drunken one-night stand, have Jessica Alba get pregnant?  These are things that happen to real people when they don’t act responsibly, and by dwelling on the small percentage of times that unprotected sex has no ramifications, they are promoting an illusion that could damage lives.

In our immediate gratification culture which demands movies on DVD sooner, data quicker, and social information faster, I find it almost unfathomable that people have chosen to fixate on eradicating smoking from cinema with all of its LONG-TERM effects.  Lung cancer takes a while to develop; you start to feel pregnancy within a month or so, a sexually transmitted disease sets in even sooner, and emotional scarring may be present the next morning.  While the wages of sex are usually not life-threatening, that doesn’t mean we should just turn a blind eye to Hollywood’s dangerous condoning of an irresponsible practice.

Check back for more “Weekend Update” on August 7 … hopefully it will be published on time!

“He adored New York City. He idolized it all out of proportion. Eh uh, no, make that he, he romanticized it all out of proportion. Better. To him, no matter what the season was, this was still a town that existed in black and white and pulsated to the great tunes of George Gershwin.

He was as tough and romantic as the city he loved … New York was his town, and it always would be.”

- Woody Allen as Isaac Davis, “Manhattan” (1979)

Empire State of Mind

In case you couldn’t tell from the epigraph, this post is going to have something to do with New York City.  This post is so late because I just got back from a fantastic vacation there, a “graduation trip” of sorts.  I chose this domestic locale rather than some European hotspot mainly for one reason: Broadway.  I’ve been so busy being in shows for the past four years – 10, to be exact – that I haven’t had the flexibility to get up to see shows.  So, as a celebration of my semi-retirement from theater, I chose to see four musicals in the hotbed of the business.

But before I get into the shows, I have to talk about the city.  Just walking around, you feel the cinematic quality of the town.  More than anywhere in the world, New York City has been a muse to countless filmmakers from Scorsese to Woody Allen, who might as well built a celluloid shrine to the place.  It’s a city full of character and life, beauty and squalor, successes and failures, but above all a sense of passion in the air, a passion that can only be found in truly great cities.

First, it was off to “Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark.”  Even those who don’t pay attention to musical theater HAD to have heard about this show, be it the cast members getting injured, the plot problems, the dreadful music, or the direction turmoil – all amplified by the biggest Broadway budget ever.  With all the problems and publicity, they made a wise move to stop the show for a month to iron out the kinks, and about a month ago, they opened a “reimagined” version.

It could have been absolutely dreadful originally; however, what I saw was nothing short of incredible.  The story wasn’t all that great, and some of the music didn’t really work for me.  However, as I often say about cinema, theater is not only a written medium, but also a visual one.  If a work can be truly stunning to the eye, showing innovation, creativity, and imagination, then it can still be successful.  So in that regards, consider the musical version of “Spider-Man” the “Avatar” of musical theater.  Both are breathtaking experiences that push the boundaries of what we consider possible from their respective artistic media.  Say what you will about them being shallow works of art, but we need them just as we need movies like “The Social Network” and “Pulp Fiction.”

Then it was on to “The Book of Mormon,” this year’s Tony Winner for Best Musical.  It was probably the main reason I wanted to come to New York this summer in the first place; I mean, who doesn’t want to see the guys from “South Park” and “Avenue Q” take on Mormonism in a musical?  And to have it win 9 Tony Awards just increased the allure.  It’s now the hottest ticket on Broadway, and we were very lucky to get seats as cheap and as early as we did.  Try getting one now and you’ll probably be asked for $900 to $1,000.  Unless you are a politician paying for love, that kind of money for that amount of time just isn’t reasonable for most people.

I don’t know if I could ever justifiably fork over that much for any one show, but I can tell you that I’d easily pay $500 to see “The Book of Mormon” again.  It’s the musical you’ve been praying to see your whole life – smart, funny, electrifying, and a rocking good time.  While musical theater has generally been considered an artistic medium solely for escapism, Matt Stone and Trey Parker turn the tables on the preconceived notions, delivering a shocking work that deserves to be deconstructed like any other piece of intelligent literature.

I may not personally agree with all that Stone and Parker have to say, but anyone who dares to tackle an issue as big as religion in this age of artistic repression amidst commercial domination deserves a listening ear.  ”The Book of Mormon” is not anti-religion, but it will ask of you to keep an open mind and ponder certain notions that you’d probably prefer to leave alone.  It certainly weeds out the weak at heart by the fourth number, “Hasa Diga Eebowai” (if you want to know what it means/ruin the surprise, go ahead and listen).  It’s bold but never brazen, mocking but never disrespectful, offensive but never off-putting, and challenging but never condemning.  While art nowadays consists so much of staying far away from the fine lines of acceptability, “The Book of Mormon” takes joy in finding those lines and having a rollicking song and dance number on them.

I can’t recommend this show enough.  Now that you’ve read this, I’ve officially dubbed every day that you spend in New York without seeing this show a wasted day.  It’s a musical theater experience unlike any other I’ve ever seen, and if for nothing else, see it for a laugh.  I laughed more in one scene of “The Book of Mormon” than I have at the movies ALL SUMMER.  Yeah, it’s that good.

After “The Book of Mormon” blew my mind at the matinee, I moved onto the revival of “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying” that evening.  Yes, that IS the musical with Daniel Radcliffe.  I’ve never had any reason not to admire him, but this was a very smart career choice.  While I’m sure Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are fretting about how to break away from their Harry Potter personas, Radcliffe has already proven that he can do just about anything he can put his mind to.  Here, he sings and dances like a trained professional Broadway star.  He has charisma and charm totally independent from his world-famous character.

It takes time to get used to him speaking in an American accent, but after a while, the strangeness subsides and the fun reigns.  He and John Larroquette are an awesome duo; neither are classical musical theater actors, yet it’s so evident that they are having so much fun on that stage that it reverberates through the whole theater.  Call it the anti-”Spider-Man” with its top-notch satire on corporate ladder-climbing and its simple, resourceful set design.

And then, because I’m stupid, I tried waiting for him Daniel Radcliffe at the stage door for a picture/autograph.  Big mistake.  Huge.  I even left the show before the bows on a tip that as long as you left a little early, you were all good.  Well, all the “Harry Potter” fans were already lined up, so I was WAY in the back.  Then everyone else came out, and I was caught in this claustrophobic clump of hot, sweaty fans all voraciously craving an autograph.  I like to think I was most deserving since I made him a big sign for his birthday, which I couldn’t even raise above my head due to the crowd’s tightness restricting the motion of my arms.  This picture is all I have to show for my hour of waiting.  He’s the short, scrawny looking one in red – not the big one in orange.

My last stop on the musical theater tour was “Anything Goes,” the Cole Porter classic that was this year’s Tony winner for Best Revival.  While everyone loves contemporary, there’s something to be said for the classics, and this one reminded me of why musicals keep getting revived.  This production featured the incomparable Sutton Foster, a name you should start knowing.  She’s the Bernadette Peters of a new generation, a fantastic performer abounding in skill and smiles.  In the past decade, she has been nominated five Tony Awards and won twice – and she has only been in six shows!  Those are stats that would make Meryl Streep blush.

So get on board the Sutton Foster train; you won’t be disappointed.

What Else …

Not much.  I had a bunch of stuff planned, but I’ll save it for next week when I can do a better job.  I’ll throw in a few links here so a few people will actually read this post.  But until the next reel, hasta luego.

• Sam of “Duke and the Movies” premiered his interesting new series, featuring capsule reviews by a variety of bloggers published each Sunday.  I’ll throw my hat into the ring this week because I’m back home.
• While I wished happy birthday to Daniel Radcliffe from afar on Saturday, Andrew at Encore Entertainment was wishing happy birthday to Philip Seymour Hoffman and did a picture retrospective of his roles.  Gosh, that man can act.
• Jim Turnbull at “Anomalous Material” counts down the best 10 actor-director combos.  It makes me feel bad that A) I haven’t seen a Kurosawa movie and B) James Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock weren’t the chosen combo.
• The LAMB Photoshops turning adult films into kiddie flicks are great for a laugh; I highly suggest you click on it.

“Writing should be useful. If it can’t instruct people a little bit more about the responsibilities of consciousness there’s no point in doing it.”

- Edward Albee

So what is this “Weekend Update” thing that Marshall wants me to read now?  Is it some rip-off of the “SNL” feature that seriously needs to get another good-looking girl on it (sorry, Seth, but we need a Tina/Amy) and just roasts American politicians and other assorted morons?

Well, to answer the questions that I posed for you to hypothetically ask me, it’s a new feature on “Marshall and the Movies” that conveniently borrows the non-trademarked name of a popular, long-running “Saturday Night Live” segment.  It seeks to provide a lot of the same things for its audience as that segment – humor, commentary, and all sorts of fun characters.  Ultimately, it’s something dependable that is always here on the weekends no matter what else I’m writing about, just like no matter how poor the “SNL” writing is nowadays, you can always get a giggle from “Weekend Update” sandwiched in the middle.

Now, as to the epigraph of this post, it mainly refers to my random factoid series, which, as you may have noticed, has gone the way of the VHS tape.  It was, simply put, a pain in the butt to come up with some new nugget of commentary every single day.  I would get ridiculously behind on posting them, and writing became a chore rather than a passion.  So with “Weekend Update,” I’ll get the chance to provide you some of that clever witicism I like to think I’ve been providing through the “Random Factoid” series – just on a more manageable timetable.  Who knows, maybe I’ll still surprise everyone with a factoid every now and then when I get REALLY worked up about something.

So without further ado…

In case you missed it…

It was a very Potter week at Marshall and the Movies, in case you couldn’t tell by my changed header (which previously adorned the 2010 Oscar favorites from October).  I got the chance to see the movie early on Monday, which was totally AWESOME.  To show you how true of a fan I am, just 12 hours before the screening, I had all 4 of my wisdom teeth removed.  When the Warner Bros. logo flew at me in 3D, I could still feel some of the anesthesia lingering in my bottom lip.

Read my review of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.”

And then, because I couldn’t miss the opening night festivities, I had to go on Thursday night as well.  I got all dressed up, wearing my Gryffindor Quidditch robe from Halloween … in third grade!  I also had my Deathly Hallows T-shirt and Platform 9 3/4 cap (won at Monday’s screening) along with a wand borrowed from a friend.  Oh, and I rocked the Harry Potter 3D style glasses that I got at the Monday screening as well.  No one had them at the 7 P.M. screening I went to, so they were quite the rage.

The first time was a charm for this movie, but that didn’t stop me from seeing it for the third time on Saturday.  I was babysitting, and the decision was easy between this, “Green Lantern,” and the torture better known as “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”  I got to see it in the lovely RPX, a nice way for Regal to charge slightly more money for a slightly better experience.  Still, the 3D is totally awesome on this movie, something I’ve been longing to say about a movie since … well, “Avatar.”

But the week wasn’t without its sad moments too, as the joy of this momentous occasion also brought the sorrow of knowing that there will be no more “Harry Potter” movies to bring us all together in a night of magic and fun.  With that in mind, I ranked all eight of the films on Thursday – you’ll have to read it to figure out which prevailed.

See how I ranked the “Harry Potter” films.

And there was also a Friday DVD release (can you say random?), so I posted my review since I saw the film back in its theatrical run.

Read my review of “Rango.”

Recommended Reading

Here are some of the best posts that I’ve read in the past week from other bloggers.  For future reference, I’ll probably post things here that are either ridiculously intelligent or ridiculously funny.

• Andrew took a fascinating look at the Pixar backlash surrounding “Cars 2″ and what it has to say about us and the future.
• Kevyn Knox at “Anomalous Material” picked his ten favorite Tarantino characters.  I would pick differently for the top, but he does a nice job of hitting the best-written of the bunch.
• Sam Fragoso of “Duke and the Movies” has a death match set-up between David Fincher and the Coen Brothers.  I sided with the former, who I dedicated an entire week to on my blog, but the conversation is very interesting indeed.  Definitely worth pondering.

• Can’t say that I agree with James, the Central Florida Film Critic, on his July 14 midnight plans, but all Harry H8ers should enjoy.
• Univarn of “A Life in Equinox” examines the idea of defending a movie, particularly in the wake of the release of “Harry Potter.”  Good call, as I’d definitely defend those movies.
• The Soap Box Office does a bit more thorough ranking of the “Harry Potter” series, and while I don’t agree totally, it’s definitely worth reading his detailed thoughts.
• The Mad Hatter gives his best farewell to Harry Potter, one that hopefully I can match below.