Let me begin by telling you that I have a knack for predicting huge upsets -- just ask anyone who talked to me the week before the highly favored Rams played the Patriots in the Super Bowl a few years back. So before you call me crazy after reading some of the following predictions, keep in mind that the Academy is rarely as predictable as we tend to think they are.

Best Picture & Director: I decided to combine these two categories because history has shown that they've been treated more like Best Picture A and Best Picture B, and whenever the Academy wants to award two movies they almost always make the split right here (as was the case with SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE). To date, every Oscar prediction piece I've read has stated how THE RETURN OF THE KING and Peter Jackson are virtually a lock to win. In fact, this was treated as a foregone conclusion even before the movie came out, which is exactly what leads me to believe it won't happen. THE RETURN OF THE KING may be the second film to ever surpass one billion dollars worldwide, but it won't win both. Not long before the final ballots were mailed, Academy members watched the film win a handful of Golden Globes and won't feel as much pressure to acknowledge it. Expect a split with Clint Eastwood's MYSTIC RIVER, which received all of its six nominations in major categories and had three of its stars nominated. Remember, the Academy has traditionally placed a lot of emphasis on the performances, and Eastwood is respected by nearly everyone he knows.


Best Actor: Sean Penn, Bill Murray and Johnny Depp all deserve to win, and it's a shame that only one of them actually will. Oh, and Ben Kingsley and Jude Law were pretty good too, although neither has a chance this year. I agree with the theory that Penn and Murray might cancel each other out, allowing Depp to get just enough votes to win, but my gut is telling me Penn will finally receive his first Oscar because he's been nominated multiple times in the past without ever winning. His 21 GRAMS performance as a supplement certainly doesn't hurt his cause either. People have suggested Murray's Golden Globe speech helped him a lot, but if that's true then I also believe Eastwood's speech on Penn's behalf (in which he talked about how Penn is one of those actors who's always so good we take him for granted) would be just as effective.

Best Actress: Charlize Theron is the deserving favorite, and if she doesn't win it will be far more surprising than Peter Jackson going home empty-handed. Within the acting categories, Theron seems like the only sure bet.

Supporting Actor: Tim Robbins is the favorite for his wonderful performance in MYSTIC RIVER, and will probably follow-up his Golden Globe victory with an Oscar. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if Ken Watanabe stole this category the same way he stole THE LAST SAMURAI from Tom Cruise. Will it happen? I doubt it, but it's very possible. Benicio Del Toro gave the best performance of the group in 21 GRAMS, but he doesn't stand a chance having just won an Oscar three years ago.


Supporting Actress: Two months ago Renee Zellweger seemed to be an absolute lock in this category for COLD MOUNTAIN, but since the nominations were handed out Shohreh Aghdashloo (HOUSE OF SAND & FOG) has made this race far more interesting. This is essentially a battle between an actress who turns in a very subtle, moving performance and an actress who has paid her dues and tried something a little different this year. More often than not the Academy ignores subtlety and respects past nominations, so I say Zellweger will win.

Original Screenplay: Even though LOST IN TRANSLATION was more of a director's piece than a great screenplay, because Sofia Coppola acted as both writer and director leads me to believe she'll win. This will also be a way of acknowledging the film if it gets shutout elsewhere.

Adapted Screenplay: This one's a toss-up between Brian Helgeland for his adaptation of MYSTIC RIVER, Gary Ross for SEABISCUIT, and Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman for AMERICAN SPLENDOR. Because SEABISCUIT managed to land a Best Picture nomination and Gary Ross also directed the film, he'll probably win.

Foreign Language Film: I haven't seen all of the nominees so I don't have much perspective here, but I'm guessing it'll go to THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS (Canada).

Best Documentary: This will be a battle between CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS, MY ARCHITECT, and THE FOG OF WAR. I'm guessing the winner will be CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS, which has been slightly higher profile than the its competitors.

Best Cinematography: The truth is any of the nominees in this category could win, including John Seale for making COLD MOUNTAIN so beautiful or Cesar Charlone for CITY OF GOD, but I think the award will go to Russell Boyd for making MASTER & COMMANDER look great under less-than-desirable conditions.


Film Editing: Not only does CITY OF GOD deserve to win, I think it will. Consider it the Academy's way of acknowledging a film that was obviously respected, given that it received four major nominations despite flying under the radar.

Original Score: Overall I wasn't impressed with the selection of musical scores in 2003, so I'm guessing this will go to THE RETURN OF THE KING by default.

Original Song: I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Annie Lennox, Fran Walsh, and Howard Shore win for "Into the West" from THE RETURN OF THE KING, but I'm betting Sting will win for "You Will Be My Ain True Love" from COLD MOUNTAIN.

Best Sound: RETURN OF THE KING deserves to win and will.

Sound Editing: These categories are often tough to predict, so I'll just go with MASTER & COMMANDER because it was the only one of the nominees also in the Best Picture category.

Animated Feature: THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE could pull off a huge upset, but expect the Academy to finally award the impressive Pixar crew for FINDING NEMO.

Visual Effects: THE RETURN OF THE KING, deservingly so.

Art Direction: I was disappointed to see BIG FISH get snubbed in this category, but the remaining choices are still quite impressive. THE RETURN OF THE KING will probably win, especially if it doesn't win both of the top categories as I've predicted, but THE LAST SAMURAI or MASTER & COMMANDER could pull off an upset.

Posted February 25, 2004 | link | 0 comments

It's understandable why many people have mistaken 2003 for a bad year in film, when in reality it had a surprising number of good films to offer. If anything, I propose that 2003 was more disappointing than it was poor in quality, because so few of the year's good films can be classified as great films, and in the end it's the movies we feel passionate about that determine how we remember the year. For me, there were at least twenty films that I would call better than average, but only two that I would call great. Naturally, these two films are at the top of my list of the ten best films of 2003...

1. CITY OF GOD - I first saw CITY OF GOD over thirteen months ago, and there are moments in this film that are still fresh in my mind. When I wrote my enthusiastic review last January, I called it "a younger, more violent, less predictable, and extremely chaotic version of The Godfather II." What's most impressive is how it manages to combine a documentary-like approach with plenty of directorial style and flair, not to mention beautiful cinematography and some of the best editing of all time. CITY OF GOD stands out in my mind as a truly great achievement because as it unfolds there's no denying its sheer energy and spontaneity, but it also never loses sight of the tragic story it tells and ultimately comes together like a Spielberg film. Amidst all the violence -- and believe me, there's plenty -- it even manages to be uplifting by depicting the personal growth of one individual under such horrific conditions.


2. MYSTIC RIVER - This film is without a doubt some of the finest work Eastwood has ever turned in as a director, and serves as a nice contemporary follow-up to some of the themes he explored in UNFORGIVEN. What I enjoyed most is how it never compromised itself or went Hollywood on us, when there were more than a few opportunities to do so. The film is quite ruthless all the way to the bitter end, showing us how violence and traumatic events from the past can resurface years later in unexpected ways, permanently scarring those involved. Don't let the murder investigation fool you, MYSTIC RIVER is solid proof that the best movies are still primarily about character, not trying to dazzle audiences into submission.

3. PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN - Even though I just praised MYSTIC RIVER for its classic approach, I'm not going to apologize for placing a Disney & Jerry Bruckheimer production so high on my list. Sure, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN may be based on a theme-park ride and also has one of those annoying sub-titles (THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL), but in a summer that was plagued by bad sequels and almost nothing else to choose from, this flick delivered the goods and took me completely by surprise. Generally speaking, my cinematic tastes favor realism and more often than not I despise the over-use of special effects; however, I refuse to let my vanity as a holier-than-thou film critic overshadow how much I enjoyed this film. As well directed and written as PIRATES may be, I think I have Johnny Depp to thank more than anyone else, as his performance clearly made this blockbuster worthwhile. Perhaps this will start a trend of character actors appearing in more big movies, which could be a good or bad thing.

4. MATCHSTICK MEN - Easily the most under-appreciated film of the year, Ridley Scott's MATCHSTICK MEN is not only an exciting con-man movie with snappy dialogue, slick cinematography, and a clever screenplay, it's also a touching father-daughter drama, albeit with a huge twist. As good as the film looks and as entertaining as the story is, Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell, and the amazing Alison Lohman are the reason it works.


5. BIG FISH - After crashing and burning with THE PLANET OF THE APES, Tim Burton returned to form with one of his most emotional and inspiring films to date. I admire BIG FISH for merging the real with the surreal and somehow making it all come together without losing control of the film's overall sense of tone and feel. Although I'm not about to give Ewan McGregor an award for his performance as the younger Edward Bloom (as he appears in a series of crazy, supposedly true tall tales), his upbeat and quirky approach to the role was absolutely perfect and really made the movie work. It may not hit every note it reaches for, but it gets most of them.

6. LOST IN TRANSLATION - Not a whole lot actually happens during LOST IN TRANSLATION, and I can appreciate why some people have problems with the film, but if you can connect with it emotionally then chances are you'll find yourself being pulled in. You have to hand it to director Sofia Coppola for taking a hands-off approach and allowing Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson to be subtle in expressing their malaise, although the story does wander a bit at times. LOST IN TRANSLATION isn't so much about the dialogue as it is the expressions on the characters' faces and the things left unsaid.

7. SEABISCUIT - Gary Ross' SEABISCUIT is one of those movies that's easy to criticize in hindsight, as it's filled with a lot of pandering moments and sentimental hooey. But there's no denying that the film can be quite engaging if you leave behind some of the cynicism and don't let a few flaws get in the way of your enjoyment. The races alone make SEABISCUIT worth watching, and even if it drives the whole "gotta have heart" theme into the ground, it moved me both times I saw it.


8. OWNING MAHOWNY - This film was barely released in theaters and vanished after a matter of weeks, but after catching it on DVD I still can't understand why it hasn't received more acclaim. Philip Seymour Hoffman is excellent as real-life gambling addict Dan Mohowny, who took advantage of his position at a Canadian bank to feed his endless habit. You always hear about compulsive gamblers and think you understand what makes them tick, but seeing what one man actually did in the early 80's and the kind of risks he took along the way was truly fascinating to watch.

9. MAN ON THE TRAIN - The second foreign film on my list, this little French production wasn't seen by many on this side of the Atlantic, but those who took the time to seek it out were pleasantly surprised. The story follows two aging men, one a bank robber and the other a professor, who strike up an unlikely friendship and come to discover that each envies the other's life.

10. BAD SANTA - I'll admit that from an artistic standpoint BAD SANTA isn't as good as some of the movies I give an honorable mention in the next paragraph, but without question it provided the biggest laughs of the year. Billy Bob Thornton is superbly despicable as a nihilistic, alcoholic, shopping mall Santa Claus who robs the places he works in each year. What made it so enjoyable was how director Terry Zwigoff didn't worry about making the audience like his main character, instead focusing on the story's great mix of witty humor and good old fashioned vulgarity. It's a good thing the people who were offended by Janet Jackson's breast at the Super Bowl didn't see BAD SANTA, because I'm sure they'd be outraged. This film earns the final spot on my list for political incorrectness alone.


Honorable Mention...

Two films that were difficult to not include in my top ten were WHALE RIDER and SWIMMING POOL -- both foreign films that had all the gloss of a Hollywood production with none of the commercial BS. The former was a unique drama featuring a surprising performance from newcomer Keisha Castle-Hughes, while the latter was an interesting character study that Hitchcock would have admired. FINDING NEMO was one of the most beautiful-looking films of the year, COLD MOUNTAIN was one of the most unfairly disliked (with some great moments), and X2 was a lot better than most people give it credit for. I loved Kevin Costner's western OPEN RANGE, but felt the contrived final ten minutes ruined the experience. AMERICAN SPLENDOR was smart and enjoyable but not quite worthy of the heaps of praise it received, while BETTER LUCK TOMORROW provided an honest and interesting look at the genuine dangers of boredom amongst American high school students. Finally, I still haven't come to a conclusion regarding KILL BILL -- I honestly don't feel I can judge the film without seeing Volume 2, although there are definitely things I admire about its blatant style.

Posted February 10, 2004 | link | 0 comments

WIN A DATE WITH TAD HAMILTON! offers cardboard characters, has very few truly funny moments, and is about as predictable as a movie can get. Did I mention I also found it to be enjoyable despite my better critical judgment? This is one of those movies people can't argue about -- you either like it for what it is or you don't, and that's it. There's no point debating the film's merits and flaws because it all comes down to how it rubs you. I'm not saying those who dislike it are necessarily wrong in their objections, but I do disagree with them.


There's one very distinct and obvious reason I enjoyed TAD HAMILTON: Topher Grace. If you still aren't familiar with this young comedian, he's best known for playing Eric on That 70's Show and also had small roles in TRAFFIC (in which he proved he has real acting chops) and OCEAN'S ELEVEN. Truth is, I think he's probably one of the most promising comedic talents of his generation and over the next ten years will slowly gather more of a following. In this film he basically continues the same self-deprecating shtick he's so good at on television, and if you like this sort of stuff then chances are you'll find a way to overlook all of the film's problems. Kate Bosworth, who you may recognize from either BLUE CRUSH or WONDERLAND, fills the role of the "cute girl" nicely, and Josh Duhamel is good as the self-centered title character, but there's no question this thing belongs to Grace.

I think the reason I wasn't bothered by the film's predictability goes beyond the fact that it's a romantic comedy and by nature they're supposed to be predictable. In the opening scene, Grace and Bosworth are watching one of Tad Hamilton's movies in a theater, and Grace mockingly suggests that he thinks the guy and girl are going to end up together. Of course, no matter what happens we know this will be the result of our movie as well, and by acknowledging this I no longer cared that there would be few surprises along the way. If you're going to make a movie in a genre that's been played out, the story had better be self-aware to some extent. I find it much more annoying when a movie like this pretends to be unique and turns out to be anything but. WIN A DATE WITH TAD HAMILTON! isn't great and may not be the type of film you'll even remember a month from now, but at least the people who made it weren't trying to make us believe otherwise.

Posted February 2, 2004 | link | 0 comments

I'm not going to get into a full category-by-category breakdown of this year's Oscar nominations until I do my official predictions column a few weeks from now, but I will share some of my thoughts on the nominees. I always find it amazing how people try to predict the winners right after the nominations come out without giving them time to resonate, as well as interpret how the studio spin and press reaction will affect the final voting.

Without question, I was most excited to see CITY OF GOD -- a film I've been begging people to give a chance for well over a year now -- receive nominations in four major categories, including Best Director, Editing, Cinematography, and Adapted Screenplay. From what I understand, it wasn't eligible for Best Foreign Film because Brazil didn't officially submit it, which is a shame, but the nominations it ended up with more than make up for it. In fact, seeing that SEABISCUIT landed a Best Picture nomination without Gary Ross receiving a nod for Best Director means CITY OF GOD couldn't have been far from ending up in its place. What a thrill that would have been, although I think anyone who admires this wonderful film has to be quite pleased that it was nominated at all.

While it's a foregone conclusion that every batch of nominations is going to annoy some select group of people, I think overall it would be difficult to criticize the Academy for their choices this year. They basically gave Harvey Weinstein a big middle finger by denying COLD MOUNTAIN any major nominations in non-acting categories, while also demonstrating a willingness to acknowledge a wide range of films both large and small. I was pleasantly surprised to see Johnny Depp receive a Best Actor nomination for his truly memorable comedic performance in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, but before you say that was only because the film made a boat-load of money (pun intended), they also selected Samantha Morton and Djimon Hounsou for IN AMERICA, not to mention Alec Baldwin for THE COOLER.

The headlines will naturally focus on THE RETURN OF THE KING's eleven nominations, but as impressive as that tally is, many of them are in the technical categories so the reality isn't nearly as dominant as it might appear. To put things in perspective, MYSTIC RIVER "only" received six nominations, but they were all in major categories (Picture, Director, Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress).

If I had to find one thing to complain about I'd say BIG FISH deserved a lot more than it got, particularly in the Cinematography and Art Direction categories. That said, not every film can always receive the attention it deserves.

By far the biggest snub was the lack of a nomination for Scarlett Johansson for her performance in LOST IN TRANSLATION, especially because Bill Murray and Sofia Coppola were recognized. On the other hand, it was nice to see Keisha Castle-Hughes from WHALE RIDER land a surprise nomination for Best Actress (the youngest ever nominated in that category), but something tells me if she were the same age as Johansson she would've been left out as well. If we could see a breakdown of how the Academy voted, I'd be willing to bet that far more women voted for the younger and less-threatening Castle-Hughes, while more men voted for Johansson. Decipher what you will from that statement.

Posted February 1, 2004 | link | 0 comments