Avatar

The movie event of the decade. James Cameron created it a decade ago with Titanic, and he's seemed to have done it again with Avatar, which has already made $1 billion at the global box office in 17 days and seems almost certain to surpass the record for the highest grossing film of all time...held by Titanic.

Then again, Titanic's not exactly known for being a great piece of cinematic wonder. Grandeur, sure, and that seems to be all that Avatar is. A budget thought to be anywhere between $300 million and inflated as high as $800 million, Cameron had boasted self-invented technology just for the sake of going about this vast undertaking in cinematic storytelling.

Avatar takes place in a future where our planet colonizes others, destroying the untouched nature of such lands as Pandora, in which Cameron immerses us and the people of Nav'i who live there. Jake Sully (played by Sam Worthington), a crippled marine who is limited to the mobility of a wheelchair while on earth (you would think science would have advanced a bit past the wheelchair by this time), is called to some generically high-tech center that allows humans to go into "avatars" that put you in the body of a Nav'i person through the control of your own mind and able to explore the lands of Pandora. Jake is called to replace his fallen twin brother, despite a gross lack of training and simple-mindedness on his part that would not make him an ideal candidate for an avatar.

Jake is so unsure of himself and easily manipulated that his ultra-macho colonel Miles Quartich (Stephen Lang) — with such tough guy lines as "you're not in Kansas anymore...you're on Pandora!" — to tell him secrets of the Nav'i people and the geography of their landscape during his adventures as an avatar so that the military could more smartly arrange a strategy for going into these "savage" peoples lands and obtaining unobatanium (or something) in exchange for Jake Sully to get new legs as a human.

But as he's doing this, uh oh! Another conflict. He falls for the Nav'i babe who was chosen to teach him the ways of their land. Neytiri (played in motion capture by Zoe Saldana) is a Pocahontas/Sacajawea/any other strong female Native American caricature in the canon of Americana who allows Jake Sully as an avatar to realize that they are a very special people, not savage at all, and it is the militaristic humans who are, indeed, the savage ones. But, being as dimwitted as he is, he only realized this at the point where he already blabbed to higher gung-ho authorities on where the most sacred and vital spots to the Nav'i people were where they could find the most...whatever element they need, possible. So, their whole world is practically destroyed and Jake's only hope at Neytiri not being pissed at him anymore is if he goes back as an avatar and tries to stop these Earthly forces from attacking any longer.

...clearly. This bloated excuse for a storyline that any liberally-raised third grader fresh off of watching either Pocahontas or Ferngully and Star Wars could have imagined seems to be excused by most people for the immersive experience Cameron allows his audience in a good old fashioned popcorn movie. But even then, the first two-thirds of the movie prove unbearably long, pointless, boring, and absurd. Seeing the full brunt of his newly invented CGI at work in Pandora is pretty damn neat, even if it isn't flawless. There were things that did seem blurry, digitized, and moved unrealistically. But the pros of the technology far outweigh the cons, even if there is room for eventual improvement.

But that's not enough for me to excuse this profoundly stupid storyline, which Cameron seemingly slapped on to his vision for revolutionary technology instead of the other way around. Bitter anti-Republican storyline at a point where there's no ramification or risk of doing so? Check. Romanticist message of nature over technology? Check. Does that second storyline really make sense given that this film's central selling point is it's groundbreaking technology? Probably not. Does the humanist message makes sense when the Nav'i people Cameron proposes as more ideal can just latch onto pterodactyl-like things and fly and talk to each other through little voice things in their throat, which, had humans been so biologically lucky, could have prevented us from destroying our own "mother" to begin with? Yeah, probably.

I can't say that the 3D ticket wasn't worth the price of admission, though. By the time it got to its climax is where it really shone through. Yes, this is a truly entertaining piece of cinema. And I do wish to go back again through IMax to rewitness this "event," but the more I think about it the more I feel like I don't want to be subjected to that torturous first act. Or that lame second act, for that matter. Whenever they got out of Pandora I wanted to kill myself from how lame the movie was. And the climax itself got to a point where I was really anxious for it to finally get to the end. But if there were any reason to go see this movie, aside from saying that you were one of the many who experienced such a cinematic milestone, it would be for the badass fight sequences and the awesomely created creatures of Pandora. Not for the atrocious acting. Not for the weird Jamaican accents the Nav'i people had when speaking English. Not for the papyrus font that James Cameron seemed only able to afford for subtitles in his $300+ million budget.

I was genuinely excited for this. I was genuinely hoping that the clichés of the storyline would not have outweighed the thrill of the viewing experience. It was funny to see people who had criticized the look of it from the trailer to say that they were wrong. But, I didn't realize it would be to this level of absurdity. And, I'm sorry, but the initial criticisms of the trailer do remain for me. The characters of the Nav'i people themselves still looked really stupid. And the dialogue was, unimaginably, even worse than that of Titanic. Trying to make "I see you" the next "I'll never let go Jack" ended up being an absurd failure and left a rather creepy aftertaste.

This will probably end up winning the top prize at the Academy Awards this year, making it perhaps the most retarded film of all time to do so. But damn, if it isn't kickass...

Read more!

MOB - Christmas Predictions

By my count here, Inglourious Basterds leads with 9 nominations.

Best Picture:
Avatar
(500) Days of Summer
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Invictus
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

Alternates here would be Nine, but with it's overwhelmingly negative response I think something more respected like (500) Days of Summer will bypass it as the virtual tenth spot.

As for the win, it's one of the most exciting races. The winner basically comes down to what the five nominees would have been: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious, and Up in the Air. Hurt Locker and Up in the Air have been getting the lion's share of the critics awards before we get into the actual Hollywood precursors, which I would see as generally a bad sign with any open Best Picture race. I think the heat for both of these movies could easily sizzle out by the time Oscar voting rolls around (later this year than normal as of recent) and though both have been getting the critics awards, none of them are being touted as definite wins (a la Slumdog or No Country).

I actually think the single movie gaining the most buzz as of late is Inglourious Basterds, slowly building its buzz throughout the critics rewards thus far (it's the most winningest movie overall of all the contenders as of now). It would solve the Academy's problem of rewarding a mainstream movie, but it would also be appreicated by critics more than something mainstream like Avatar. Avatar is getting some extraordinary notice as of late, but it's not quite being well received for its storyline which could hurt it. I also think its computerized novelty prevents it from many possible nominations (acting, cinematography, costume design, etc.) that Inglourious Basterds could take and make it the most nominated movie of the year.

A lot of it could depend on the guilds. I do think Precious will win the SAG (screen actors guild) ensemble award, but Inglourious has a very good shot at it. Those two are tied for the most nominated (3) of the SAGs while being nominated for Ensemble (as opposed to Up in the Air, which could prove a deadly blow). Both movies are assured one major category each (Supporting Actor for Inglourious and Supporting Actress for Precious). Aside from Ensemble, Basterds' only other chance at a SAG win is in Supporting Actress which we've already established is off limits (Mo'Nique is unmovable). Whereas Precious' other win could come in Lead Actress with Sidibe. Streep won her first movie SAG just last year, whereas the only other contender with an Ensemble nomination to her film is Carey Mulligan — though a shocking Molina snub may suggest less passion for An Education than something like Precious.

As for the other guilds, Katheryn Bigelow will still win her DGA (Directors Guild Award) for The Hurt Locker, ultimately following in a similar vein of Picture/Director splits where the epic movie takes Director while the more light hearted and mainstream fare takes Picture. This could apply to Avatar, Inglourious Basterds or Up in the Air. I do think Up in the Air seems like more PGA fare, but if Inglourious Basterds manages to take it with the help of an urgency to reward veteran producer Lawrence Bender, and also takes the SAG, that will give it an obvious edge in terms of major Hollywood Guild awards that ultimately vote for the Academy Awards (in addition to its likely WGA [writer's guild award] for Original Screenplay, in addition to Up in the Air in adapted).

It doesn't always quite work, though, like in the close Best Picture race of 2006. Little Miss Sunshine took the WGA, PGA, and SAG award while the eventual winner, The Departed, had its DGA and WGA. Its deciding factor could have been Scorsese's director lock, just as The Hurt Locker will not be ignored for its masterful direction by a female (the chances this year to give it to Bigelow are just too good). But, in any case, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Best Actor in a Leading Role:
Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
George Clooney - Up in the Air
Colin Firth - A Single Man
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

In close races such as this one, the actual race for the nominees seem rather boring. These five, also the SAG nominees, seem pretty locked in. Veteran Jeff Bridges could take it by virtue of being well overdue, already with several nominations over close to 40 years in the business. Worked with many, and veterans could be unstoppable unless faced against a sweeper (the reason Peter O'Toole lost to Forest Whitaker and Hal Holbrooke lost to Javier Bardem). There don't seem to be sweepers here, though George Clooney seems to (bafflingly, in my mind) be taking the lion's share of critics awards. Then again, he took many for Michael Clayton as well and the Academy just gave it to this relatively young superstar only a few years ago. But without a SAG ensemble nod with this movie, I don't think Up in the Air has nearly as much Hollywood support as the precursors are making it seem. Especially among actors. For this, I think Adapted Screenplay will be its only reward.

Colin Firth, in my opinion the best performance here and one of the best of the decade, is getting some smaller awards. He seems to be in third place, strong contender for the BAFTA (British members of the Academy sometimes being the deciding factor in close races). If Bridges and Clooney split, it's conceivable that Firth can take it. The whole "fizzling out" theory could also help him, where the buzz for the likes of Bridges and (especially) Clooney could be too soon. I'm predicting several noms including a Picture mention (perhaps wishful thinking) for the sauve A Single Man, but unless with some strong support (a Tom Ford nomination or a Julianne Moore one) I don't know if the film itself has enough love to give Firth a win. The nomination could be his reward.

Freeman has plenty of love in Hollywood and the Academy, as evidenced by his very few precursors before winning Supporting for Million Dollar Baby. Here is an undeniable veteran in a role seemingly tailor-suited for him to win a Lead Oscar. Many see the fact that he doesn't have a Lead Oscar as being enough of a mistake. Clint Eastwood is good at bringing his actors some statues (Penn, Robbins, Swank, Freeman). He could also benefit from a Bridges/Clooney split, or could be considered more of a "veteran" than Bridges and more of a beloved Hollywood figure than Clooney. However, Invictus has made underwhelming box office so far and the film itself isn't looking like it'll do too swell in terms of the general Oscar race. Could be the Frank Langella of the year.

Which brings us to Jeremy Renner. Commanding presence, but subtle performance. Subtle, younger, rather unknown actor in Hollywood. Does not usually translate into Oscar success. Probably only in here based upon the love for his film. But if the film stays hot throughout the season, becoming a virtual sweeper in the actual Oscars, then he could become an Adrien Brody of this year. Up against four, better known (some veteran) actors in the business. Could benefit from vote splitting and vote siphoning.

Best Actress in a Leading Role:
Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

As we wear on, this category used to be as exciting as the actor category. As opposed to the precursors there, however, it seems like this has already established a winner. Meryl Streep, unrewarded for 27 years in what would have itself made a fantastic and worthy career, goes against an unknown little british girl, a fat young black NSYNC fan, a woman who took every possible award known to man three years ago, and Sandra Bullock. It's a biopic of a beloved international figure, and Streep already has a supposedly great comedic performance in a Nancy Meyers flick under her belt this year.

I guess we could have figured this one out, in hindsight, but that was back when we didn't think Julie & Julia was exactly a critics charmer. She could have easily gotten several Hollywood awards, but it also seems like she's in the lead with critics trying to influence the Oscar race as well. Carey Mulligan could have major Brit support as people there seem to be gaga for An Education, and I already mentioned how Precious steam could rebuild especially with a possible SAG for Sidibe. Sandra Bullock could also take that SAG, however, in a film much more mainstream and with much more box office than any other movie here to gloat. I think Mirren's the most vulnerable one here in an underseen film, but with her scenery chewing and leftover good will from The Queen, I don't think Emily Blunt will do much vote siphoning from her.

Unless something goes terribly wrong for this woman, who just recently finally admitted that it could be NICE to win another Oscar instead of going to these things every year to disappointment, no one's taking Meryl's Oscar away.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role:
Matt Damon - Invictus
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Alfred Molina - An Education
Stanley Tucci - Julie & Julia
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

The more obvious the win, the more interesting the race to the nominations are. By the time the nominations are announced, the contest in this category is caput. Christoph Waltz's commanding presence as a Nazi who's as utterly evil as he is completely charming and likable will not be overtaken. He has his Cannes, he has his sweep of the critics awards, he will get his SAG, his Golden Globe and his BAFTA. End of story.

Damon, in a very well respected performance in The Informant! should get a body of work nom for this film much more likely for Oscar success (unless there's a major Tommy Lee Jones-esque shocker), also being beloved in Hollywood and not nominated since 1998 (when he won for his writing skills, imagine that). Woody Harrelson also had a good year with Zombieland and 2012, in a film and performance with near unanimous critical praise and not nominated in even longer than Matt Damon. Alfred Molina's got some pretty painful snubs so far with the Globes and SAG, but I think the British vote could still secure him a nomination here over Plummer, whom I don't think is seen as very overdue in the Academy since he doesn't even have a single nomination to his name and is in a very underseen film. If Tucci doesn't get in at all for The Lovely Bones (which was a perfectly lovely fail of a film), then he'll get in for box office hit Julie & Julia.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role:
Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
Mélanie Laurent - Inglourious Basterds
Mo'Nique - Precious
Samantha Morton - The Messenger

Pretty self-explanatory, here. Mo'Nique's going to win, whether anyone (including herself) likes it or not. Farmiga and Kendrick are pretty safe. The rest between the Laurent, Morton (both mentioned here), Cotillard, Cruz, Moore, Gyllenhaal, are pretty much in a crapshoot. Harvey Weinstein recently switched Laurent's campaign from Lead to Supporting when it became clear from the SAG's recognition of Diane Kruger that Laurent would have been recognized had she been placed there. This could cause some splits and confusion, but if people can vote for her in Supporting I think they will (over Kruger, anyways). Morton does not have much precursor support but she never has whenever she's gotten all two of her nominations, and this is a very well received film that will be seen thanks to Woody Harrelson. I think Moore's snub at the SAG was a virtual kiss of death, I think there might not be enough Nine support to carry Cruz and too much category confusion with Cotillard (whose Weinstein-endorsed lead campaign stays in place). Gyllenhaal just recently got placed Supporting as the Lead category tightened up, and I could see her as a potential surprise. Her film, however, is getting lackluster reviews and the campaign placement could very well be too late for this young, already overdue actress.

If there ever is going to be a surprise in the nominations it will be where there is a heavy frontrunner. Mo'Nique and Waltz, for example, are sweeping and will take the majoirty of the #1 votes on the Academy's weighted ballot. This means that the rest of the list could be anything. As I said, the possibility of Maggie Gyllenhaal cracking Supporting is not unheard of. If there's enough Hurt Locker passion, then someone like Anthony Mackie (as good as Jeremy Renner) could crack the Supporting list. Even someone with enough Hollywood power like Natalie Portman could make a Supporting list for Brothers, as divisive as the film may be.

Best Original Screenplay:
(500) Days of Summer
Inglorious Basterds
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man
Up

These have been pretty safe for a while.

Best Adapted Screenplay:
An Education
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Precious
A Single Man
Up in the Air

This is completely hard to say, since as opposed to the Original race, the winner here is clearly apparent (Up in the Air). I think Precious has a pretty safe home, here, but anything beyond that could go to a lot of the basically disappointing Oscar contenders mostly based on material (Nine, Invictus) or go to more critically friendly summer fare (District 9). But what I got here is a combination of movies that I think will be well received and generally approved by writers.

Best Animated Film:
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
Coraline
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Monsters vs. Aliens
Up

This race is essentially Up vs. Fantastic Mr. Fox. If Up gets its predicted Best Picture slot, the race is over. If Fantastic Mr. Fox also manages one, in addition to Adapted Screenplay (while Up is expected in Original Screenplay), then we'll have a horse race on our hands. Other than that, I think you can never underestimate the power of big business (hence the Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and Monsters vs. Aliens). I think Coraline's meticulous craft will be honored, as well.

Best Cinematography:
Bright Star
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
A Serious Man
A Single Man

Veterans at the helm of Inglourious Basterds and A Serious Man, baity camera work in Bright Star and The Hurt Locker, and I think we got four guarantees. A Single Man is a rather random guess, but I do think it will be one of the smaller contenders of the sort.

Best Editing:
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
Precious
Up in the Air

Basically what the five Best Picture contenders would have looked like. No film has been able to win Best Picture without a nomination here (what many foresaw as the kiss of death for Brokeback Mountain) since 1981. But the editing in all of these movies are rather flashy to begin with (big budget success, two war movies including a summer sensation, and you're just going to have to see the last two to know what I'm talking about). Expect the more serious war flick to win, here.

Best Costume Design:
Bright Star
Inglorious Basterds
Nine
A Serious Man
The Young Victoria

Mostly period pieces, token musical, and then one for what seems to be a growing trend in more recent time periods (most specifically the 70s, and even more specifically in A Serious Man).

Best Art Direction:
Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Inglorious Basterds
Nine
A Single Man

Harry Potter's always a good bet in this category this decade, with beautiful sets in Avatar, a tragically overdue veteran in Inglourious Basterds, another flashy musical and the suave Tom Ford sensibilities evident in A Single Man.

Best Visual Effects:
Avatar
District 9
Star Trek

Out of the visual effect shortlist, I think these three films all commercially successful and praised in both story and visual effects should be able to make it in.

Best Makeup:
District 9
The Road
Star Trek

Avatar didn't use much makeup, so I'm thinking they'll honor the artists who made Viggo Mortenson look really dirty.

Best Original Score:
Avatar
The Informant!
The Princess and the Frog
A Single Man
Up

A wide variety of sounds, some proven (the Disney duo and epic James Horner collaboration with James Cameron) and others that could be more "different" (...the rest).

Best Original Song:
"The Weary Kind" - Crazy Heart
"Cinema Italiano" - Nine
"I Can See In Color" - Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
"Almost There" - The Princess and the Frog
"All is Love" - Where the Wild Things Are

I'm just putting "Weary Heart" here since so far the precursors who seem to like Bridges also seem to like this song. But it seems kind of similar to "The Wrestler" last year where it didn't even make the quality cut from the music branch. They love their 2D Disney, urban sensations, and original songs for prior musicals. The Karen O. mention could very well be wishful thinking, but it seems up their alley.

Best Sound Mixing:
Avatar
District 9
Nine
Star Trek
Up

I usually keep Pixar as a token bet in the sound categories, while the others are usually more commercially successful flicks.

Best Sound Editing:
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Up

Again, token Pixar. Token commercial sensation. Token war flick. Avatar should sweep most of the techs it can but I think The Hurt Locker will also find a reward here.

Best Foreign Language Film:
I Killed My Mother - Canada
Mother - Korea
Un Prophete - France
Samson & Delilah - Australia
The White Ribbon - Germany

Total guesses.

Read more!

Best movie posters of the decade

Inspired by the auteurs.

In alphabetical order, more or less.





















Read more!

District 9

From the intriguingly creative ad campaign to the full theater-going experience, this film builds high expectations and blows them out of the water - succeeding in aces across the board in the art of film making. Neill Blomkamp has created a piece that is sure to satiate one's thirst for witnessing as much destruction as possible through heavy action - the last third of the film acts essentially as an extended scene of war - but at the same time accomplishes the absurdly difficult task of imbuing the characters and the storyline with the same amount of heart.

The film most certainly has its shortcomings, and they are worth noting. Stylistically, it's hardly consistent - it opens as a tale told only through faux-archival footage, fit with documentary style interviews and everything - then somehow meanders its way out of this format into a rather normal film narrative shot Cloverfield-style through hand held cameras. Eventually it starts to look like an average Summer action movie, with aliens, before it turns into the opening of Saving Private Ryan. Cut back to the interviews as if you've just abruptly changed the channel from ActionMax to the History Channel. Mind you, up until this point, the transitions have been fairly smooth. But at one point I couldn't help but think that the film just could not make up its mind as to what it wanted to be, aesthetically. It also stuck in my mind how the film convinced me that this general "feel" of movies has so much potential that this film will certainly help to open up, but not completely reach.

But that was before Blomkamp hit us with the film's true emotional punch.

Blomkamp and co-writer Terri Tatchell surely faced a significant dilemma going about this ambitious task of a film: How can you make an audience sympathize, as powerfully as possible, with a completely fictitious species that isn't even meant to be native to this very planet? The results were astounding, to say the least. They made the film virtually a study in sociology - illustrating their situation on Earth to be as reminiscent as possible to grittily realistic scenarios of select groups of people in major urban areas all over the world. They emphasized this parallel at the start of the film and developed it masterfully through the climax as we meet Christopher (or something?), the sort of "head Alien" in charge, and not only find his wit and courage admirable but find him easy to root for after witnessing heart wrenching examples of his paternal instincts. The very fact that I'm describing a non-Earthly-language-speaking and rather hideous looking alien in such a fashion is a testament to the development of character Blomkamp and Tatchell were able to achieve with so little to work with.

Brilliant enough as it is conceptually, the way in which Blomkamp executes it is truly where the mind begins to blow. The blood races and heart falls with one look in the aliens' eyes - their sheer pain and horror and fear soar off the screen and pierce through your soul, compelling every ounce of your being to forever keep your loyalty to them. It's that symbiotic relationship between the surface level visual effects and the psychological thematic undercurrents that shows the true-blue mark of impressive craftsmanship. Your eyes surely ejaculate to the visual feast you see before you, but Blomkamp keeps the visual mastery almost as a background note only revealed in the most of its full-fledged glory to serve the story with such restraint that you'd be hard-pressed to have found this whole Summer. This keeps the film so disturbingly naturalistic that the subtlety of the visual effects, which alone is surely among the best I've ever seen in a film like it, hits your senses so unsubtly like a bulldozer when the film exerts the fullest of its visual strength.

Throw in how painstakingly Blomkamp paces this piece, and just how satisfying he makes many of the death scenes (among the most creative you'll ever see), and all previous flaws I found myself meditating upon are easily forgiven. Anything else that may not be up to par, like the amateurish acting, is not even worth mentioning considering how much the film compensates in virtually every other area. Blomkamp sure knows what he is doing. Read more!

MOB: SAG noms

So I lied, SAG nominations were actually announced this morning and not yesterday as my previous post suggested. I didn't do so swell on my predictions...

So, Up in the Air missed out on an Ensemble nomination. Considering this got three acting nominations, I think this is a significant blow to the movie that was considered the frontrunner to win Best Picture after its NBR win. Recently, the SAG have been showing Best Ensemble to be akin to its Best Picture category, giving movies like No Country for Old Men and Slumdog Millionaire the wins most likely just because they liked the movies themselves the best. With three acting noms for Clooney, Kendrick and Farmiga, it seems like the actors love the actors but probably don't love the movie itself. And actors make up the largest branch of the entire Academy. Not a single movie has won Best Picture without a nomination here (Bravehart). It'll definitely be nominated, but doesn't seem like it can win.

The nominations themselves were An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Nine, and Precious. Very good news for Inglourious Basterds, good for Precious which I'd say is in the lead to win with a possible sweep. Actor was pretty predictable — Bridges, Clooney, Firth, Freeman, Renner. Probably the Oscar five. Win here is very uncertain but I do think most overdue veteran of all Jeff Bridges will take it for Crazy Heart.
Actress was also predictable and predicted — Bullock, Mirren, Mulligan, Sidibe, Streep. Streep seems to be the frontrunner here, but she just won last year. Bullock has a shot being loved in the community, and Mulligan's film was surprisingly included in the Ensemble list, but I think this will go to Sidibe. Mostly based on the love for the film itself (An Education got Ensemble but missed out on veteran Molina for Supporting Actor, and obviously The Blind Side ain't going anywhere).
Supporting Actor matched the Globes with Damon, Harrelson, Plummer, Tucci, Waltz. Molina's snub here really hurts, and I think shows a telling lesser passion for the movie that might allow Mulligan to have a win here. Waltz will obviously win.
And then Supporting Actress went to Cruz, Farmiga, Kendrick, Mo'Nique, and the inspired shock choice of Diane Kruger for Inglourious Basterds. This shows an enthusiasm for the film that shows a) that Mélanie Laurent probably would have been nominated had she been campaigned here, which could help her chances in this very category come Oscar time and b) that the film could launch itself to a very deserved Ensemble win. I'm still sticking with Precious, though.

So, more or less, what does this tell us. In my opinion, I think it means that Up in the Air simply will not win. Reitman's screenplay will be this film's reward. Otherwise, not much. The Actor and Actress slots might be locked in, and this could prove a deciding factor in who will win the Oscar there (it seems like we already know in the Supporting categories). But, even though the actors make up the largest branch in the Academy (and all of the actors are obviously in the Screen Actor's Guild), the Academy-voting members themselves make up the smallest proportion to their guild than any other guild.

Read more!

MOB: SAG Nominations tomorrow

I'd love to get to some more reviews, but this week simply has too much MOB. It's almost over, promise!

SAG nominations come out tomorrow which are much more valuable indications of acting awards than the Golden Globes, but they are the least dependable out of all the guilds. This is because, out of all the major guilds (PGA, DGA, WGA, SAG), they have the least percentage of Academy members. The Producers Guild of America, Writers Guild of America and Directors Guild of America work largely in film and television. The Screen Actor's Guild can include actors of all walks of life. Stage actors, extras, TV extras, stage extras, etc. So usually these don't correspond with the actual nominations 100%, but it is what it is. If you miss out here, it could be the kiss of death.

Ensemble:
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The Messenger
Precious
Up in the Air

Alt: Star Trek

Best Actor in a Leading Role:
Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
George Clooney - Up in the Air
Colin Firth - A Single Man
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

Alt: Matt Damon - The Informant!

Best Actress in a Leading Role:
Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

Alt: Abbie Cornish - Bright Star

Best Actor in a Supporting Role:
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Alfred Molina - An Education
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Stanley Tucci -The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz -Inglourious Basterds

Alt: Matt Damon - Invictus

Best Actress in a Supporting Role:
Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
Mo'Nique - Precious
Julianne Moore - A Single Man
Samantha Morton - The Messenger

Alt: Penélope Cruz - Nine
Read more!

MOB - Golden Globe nominations

http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2010/globes

Predictions tally?

Drama - 5/6 (I guess this was kind of cheating seeing as they only had five nominations)
Comedy/Muscial - 4/5
Actor Drama - Fail, 3/5
Actress Drama - 4/5
Actor C/M - 4/5
Actress C/M - 4/5
Supporting Actor - 2.5/5, ugh (predicted Tucci for J&J, not TLB)
Supporting Actress - 4/5
Director - 4/5
Screenplay - 2/5 (ouch, kicking myself over Hurt Locker and It's Complicated. I was so close to including them)
Song - 3/5 (what do I look like)
Score - 2/5
Foreign Language - 3/5 (The Maid and Broken Embraces should have been obvious but noooo)

Meh, could have done a lot worse.
Notes:
FUCK YES JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT AND MICHAEL STUHLBARG!!! Two of my favorite performances of the year. Not really expecting either of them, good thing I got JGL. How did Stuhlbarg get in but not A Serious Man?
They kept it to five nominees each this year, interesting.
Eastwood but no Invictus?
Maguire but no Portman?
Bullock and Damon - double nominees. Of course. Not to mention Streep.
They love them some Tarantino.
Would have NEVER guessed Roberts.

And...not much else. Pretty tame. Read more!