Got the rest of the nominations here now, plus some interesting “insight” from around the Web. This will go down as the Oscar year where more digi-ink is spent on what WASN’T nominated than on what was. But first…

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

John Logan (Aviator), Charlie Kaufman and Michel Gondry and Pierre Busmith (Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind), Keir Pearson and Terry George (Hotel Rwanda), Brad Bird (The Incredibles), Mike Leigh (Vera Drake)

Boy, thats a sweet lineup. None of these would be a bad or undeserving, but my heart has to go with The Incredibles. That’s a shocker, and the best kind. Far from the “spoof” that many were expecting, Bird’s film was a work of raw fanboy love, an homage to the comic book superheroics of yesteryear. For the Academy to nominate an animated feature here is astounding enough, but to have it be such an unappologetic work of the fantastical is a true treat. Bravo.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

Before Sunset, Million Dollar Baby, Finding Neverland, The Motorcycle Diaries, Sideways

My gut tells me this is going to “Sideways,” making up for it’s likely loss in the Picture and Director categories.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

As it is In Heaven, The Chorus, Downfall, The Sea Inside, Yesterday.

Sea Inside has the most buzz, being a message movie with a semi-name star. Downfall is a German-made Hitler biopic that has yet to hit the U.S., but supposedly it plays big. The year’s biggest Foreign-made releases, “House of Flying Daggers” and “A Very Long Engagement,” are somehow absent, which is just a damn shame. (“Hero” was nominated last year when it was in limited release, and is inelligible.)

BEST ANIMATED FILM:

The Incredibles, Shrek 2, Shark Tale

Boy, big surprise here, eh? Incredibles should walk with it and that’s that, but it might get passed in favor of the higher-grossing Shrek 2. Surprised, but not upset, to see Polar Express not turn up here.

ART DIRECTION:

Aviator, Finding Neverland, Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, Phantom of The Opera, A Very Long Engagement

This is very possibly the single worst category this year. Put aside for a moment the once-again snubbing of “Kill Bill,” where the art direction not only flawlessly recreated the atmosphere of multiple distinct film styles but combined them all into an entirely new concoction, and this just a succession of poor choices. Not that the nominees weren’t all decent, they were (save for Phantom, where the overly-stagey set design missed a chance to catch us up in scope to match the sweep.) But, honestly… Aviator and Neverland don’t break any great new ground in the visualization of period peices, and Snicket’s look was ambitious but uneven.

Nothing for “Sky Captain & The World of Tommorow,” the most visually beautiful and original-looking film made this year? Nothing for “Spider-Man 2” or “Hellboy” for so perfectly capturing the hyperreality of their comic book source material? “House of Flying Daggers,” even? This is REALLY the best you can do?

CINEMATOGRAPHY:

The Aviator, House of Flying Daggers, The Passion of The Christ, Phantom of The Opera, A Very Long Engagement

Mixed bag. “Passion’s” camerawork is nothing special, Caleb DeSchanel or not, Phantom is sort of “eh” much like it’s art design. Nothing for “Spidey’s” diving, swooping cameras, though?

DOCUMENTARY:

Born Into Brothels, Story of The Weeping Camel, Super Size Me, Tupac: Ressurection, Twist of Faith

Michael Moore took “Fahrenheit 9-11” out of the running for this category, partially in deference to criticisms that his films have become more “opinion peices” than “documentary,” but also to make a go for the Best Picture prize. So the Academy gets to sigh in relief at dodging the bullet at letting the controversy lightning-rod of Moore’s politics take the stage. Morgan Spurlock’s fast food expose, “Super Size Me,” is the heavy favorite here.

FILM EDITING:

Aviator, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Collateral, Ray

“Neverland” is a fine film, but nothing about it’s editing struck me as noteworthy when I saw it. Curious, but on well. To me, the biggest omissions here are “Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind,” “Spider-Man 2” and “Sky Captain,” especially the last one because of the massive difficulty involved in composing it entirely with digital media. It also wouldn’t have killed them to nominate “Kill Bill” for the cutting between not only scenes, but whole styles.

MAKEUP:

Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, Passion of The Christ, The Sea Inside

What the HELL is with the technical awards this year? Passion is basic-level movie gore, nothing that hasn’t been done a hundred times better in any dozen made-for-tape horror films on the shelf at any given time. The years biggest and best achievement in makeup was “Hellboy,” which features two of it’s leads as full-body makeup FX suits, and it’s been completely ignored, which in my estimation renders this category not even worth looking at this year.

MUSIC SCORE:

Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azakaban, Finding Neverland, Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Passion of The Christ, The Village

Awwww, look. They gave “The Village” a pity nod, ain’t that considerate? Otherwise, “Potter” was the best music of the series yet and “Snicket” had an eclectic musical cool, but Neverland and Passion were standard genre work.

Clint Eastwood’s self-composed minimalist work for “Million Dollar Baby” deserved a nod, as did “Hellboy’s” dramatic dirges and Kill Bill’s gorgeous genre-mixing delights.

SOUND EDITING:

Incredibles, Polar Express, Spider-Man 2

“Kill Bill Vol. 2,” “Sky Captain,” and “Hellboy” should all be in here, also the great atmospheric work in “Million Dollar Baby,” but what interests me here is that 2 of 3 nominated films are animated, which is highly appropriate for the category but surprising none the less.

SOUND MIXING:

Aviator, Incredibles, Polar Express, Ray, Spider-Man 2

Well done. “Ray” would actually be a good pick here, for the film’s use of subtle sound shifts to suggest Charles’ change of attention within a scene, plus the spectacular integration of music tracks. Don’t count out Spidey, though, or Incredibles (which The Academy definately seems to have caught a fondness for.)

VISUAL EFFECTS:

Harry Potter, I Robot, Spider-Man 2

What.

The.

HELL!!??

This is just ridiculous. The most groundbreaking visual-effects film of the entire year was “Sky Captain & The World of Tomorrow,” and it’s just that simple. To not award it is one thing, but to not even nominate a film comprised of 90% visual effects in the visual effects category is just about the single worst snub of the year. Skipping “Sky Captain” for this award is the equivalent of skipping Jamie Foxx for the acting nods. Academy, this is pathetic.



So anyway…

There y’have it for now. Let’s hear some feedback in the Comments, and I’ll be back in a few with some fun links to OTHER people getting all hot and bothered over this. Enjoy!

And here are the nominees, each set to be followed by some brief-esque commentary from moi. Let the games begin.

BEST PICTURE:

The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Sideways, Ray.

Those of us living out our days in the Geek Community were able to experience a different sort of Oscars these past three years, as the sheer unignorable size of the LOTR films finally forced a fantasy film through The Academy’s rigid genre-bias shield. This year, though, we’re right back to the standard formula: Straight drama, “true” stories and star-cast biopics are once again evidently the only genres of filmmaking worth nominating.

Short and sweet: The best film of this year was “Kill Bill: Volume 2.” It has been shut out of this category and all others because it exists in a genre(s) that The Academy does not consider worth nominating. There was no more difficult, nor more excellently-executed, achievement in film directing, writing and acting this year, and to pass it over speaks a thousand words about how narrow The Academy’s perception of the cinematic universe is and a billion words about how far above the pack “Kill Bill” and it’s iconoclastic director truly are.

Occupying, more or less, “Bill’s” place is “Ray.” It’s a decent little movie, above-average, but it doesn’t belong on a best list. It’s a decent, well-made biopic, but just because Jamie Foxx gave (and will be rewarded for) one of the all-time starmaking performances doesn’t make the film automatically equal to the others.

Of the nominated films, “Million Dollar Baby” is my favorite though it’s a fine list overall. Far and away the nicest surprise is that The Academy has elected to ignore the clarion call of the Christian Fundamentalist media to nominate Mel Gibson’s plotless exercise in anti-semetic sadomascochism. The film has been passed over in all major categories, as it deserves to have been, which is just about the ballsiest move The Academy has pulled in a long time. The ramifications of this will be ugly, look for the likes of Falwell, Robertson and Dobson to spend the next month and a half to whip their flocks into frenzies about how “unholy” the mythic liberal/jewish/gay “cabal” in Hollywood is for skipping “their” movie. There’ll be a lot of hillarious and frightening things spewed about this, and when I find them I’ll post them here.

So, they ignore “Bill” but skipped “Passion.” Thus, I hereby declare that the Academy now officially has ONE ball-of-steel, and maybe this means we can look forward to the other one hardening up sooner than later.

BEST ACTOR:

Don Cheadle, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Clint Eastwood, Jamie Foxx

Jamie Foxx wins, and anyone who bets against him is either a fool or brave as hell. A fine list of actors overall, though where’s Paul Giamatti for “Sideways?” His cohort Thomas Hayden-Church is up for supporting, and this really feels like a missed opportunity. Still, I suppose I can’t see who’d have been passed in his favor. It was a good lead performance year.

BEST ACTRESS:

Annette Benning, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Imelda Staunton, Hilary Swank, Kate Winslet

Uma Thurman gave the best female performance of this year, and passing her over for this is the most egregious of all the “Kill Bill” ignores, and with no disrespect to the nominees her absence really kind of invalidates this for one for me. It’s a good list, but everything every actress here did she did better and often all at the same time while dangling from a stunt-wire. She was required to do comedy, drama, stylized and straight dialogue, plus physical acting and real human pain in three different languages, plus she had to be the “real” grounding force in a fundamentally unreal flight-of-fancy film.

Genre-biased disrespects aside, Kate Winslet should get this one but my money is on Hilary Swank if “Baby” becomes a runaway juggernaut type-thing.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Thomas Hayden Church, Alan Alda, Jamie Foxx, Morgan Freeman, Clive Owen

Three guesses what I’m about to say.

Yes, definately, David Carradine should be in here for the title role in “Kill Bill.” As for who should go… Alan Alda? Are they joking? Don’t get me wrong, I like Alda. He’s a fine actor with a distinguished career, but he’s here because the industry likes him as a person, not because he did anything great in Aviator. His role amounts to a 3rd-act cameo, and it’s just another “slimy politician” riff that he and others have done to death before. Also, Foxx is a lock for Actor, does he REALLY need to be here, too? Yes, fine, it’s “his year” and he was great in Collateral, but this is overkill. Clive Owen would be a nice win here, but my gut says Morgan Freeman, which would be fine as well.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Laura Linney, Cate Blanchett, Virginia Madsen, Sophie Okendo, Natalie Portman

Good lineup, no complaints from me right now. I think Portman takes it for a “breakout” role, but I’d be even happier with Laura Linney for “Kinsey.”

BEST DIRECTOR:

Clint Eastwood, Taylor Hackford, Mike Leigh, Alexander Payne, Martin Scorsese

Clint or Marty are walking with this, too close to call. Mike Leigh is just there so Vera Drake can get some good airtime. Hackford? People, this is getting out of hand. “Ray” is the pretty good stage on which Foxx gave a great performance. Payne and “Sideways” are nice to see, but it’s the “we watch indies too, see?” nod this year. This would’ve been the place to either pay Quentin back for snubbing his magnum-opus otherwise OR to play damage control with the CBN-crowd by nominating Mel Gibson. Boo on the first count, well done on the second.

Chew on that for awhile, I’ll be back later with the “rest” of the nominations.

The Oscar nominations are due in a few hours, and I’ll have some thoughts on all of them up as soon as I can. Until then, the “Golden Rasberry Awards” (aka “Razzies”) have released their annual nominations list. For those not familiar, the Razzies are a “joke” award ceremony that purports to award the “worst” films.

This has been going on for about 25 years, and it’s billed as this big deflation of Oscar pomp and self-importance but, really, I’ve never found it especially clever. There’s a great OPPORTUNITY to take down some inflated egos in this premise, but all the Razzies ever tend to do is simply rubberstamp what the mass culture and mainstream entertainment press has already agreed was “bad” that year, and this time around is no different: Leading the charge are “Catwoman,” a universally-panned bomb, and “Alexander,” ditto. Boy, didn’t see that coming, eh?

For my money, if the Razzies wanted to show some “berries” of a more substantial nature, they’d toss the nods in the direction of some films that were crappy but ALSO hugely popular and “important.” For example, why not take the opportunity and raise a righteous middle-finger to Mel Gibson’s Religious Right torture-porn epic, “The Passion of The Christ”

This year brings us the added attraction of watching the Razzies not only be groan-inducingly unoriginal in their film-related jabs, but since we just got done with an election we’re also afforded some groan-inducingly unoriginal political jabs via some wink-wink nudge-nudge nominations for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for “Worst Actor” and “Worst Supporting Actor,” respectively, in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Ha. Ha.

Bush is also nominated for “Worst Onscreen Couple” alongside either Condoleeza Rice OR “his pet goat.” Boy, these guys don’t miss a months-old beat, eh?

You can read the full list here:

http://http://www.razzies.com/asp/directory/25thNoms.htm

Look, it’s not that I want to rain all over the Razzies parade. I’m sure they all have a lot of fun, but in the end really, guys… they’re selling themselves as this sharp slam on the Hollywood hype machine, when all they do is fuel it by contributing to the same conformity of viewpoints in regards to “bad” film that similarly irrelevant awards like the People’s Choice or Blockbuster Entertainment shows enforce in “good” film.

Yay! First review! First review!

Ahem.

So, by now we’ve probably all heard about “Hotel Rwanda.” You’ve heard it’s a big, outside-the-studio-ish fact based drama about a recent tragedy you’re probably not familiar with. You’ve heard that it’s going to make you feel really, really down about not being familiar with it beforehand (the word “sobering” has probably been used.) You’ve heard it’s good, you’ve probably even heard that it’s great. You’ve heard that Don Cheadle, as expected, shines in his dramatic lead performance. You’ve may have even heard the appolation making the rounds that it is “the black ‘Schindler’s List,’” a turn of phrase that, while innacurate, does more-or-less prepare for you the broad outline of what your getting.

So, I heard all the same things you have. And I saw it today. So, then, I can report back that most of what you’ve heard is true, though as is often to case with these things, it’s best to go in expecting it to be simply “good” given how widely opinions can vary on “excellent.”

The film takes place during the Rwandan genocide of the late 1990s, when a breakdown in peace talks between the country’s Hutu majority and Tutsi minority led to a full-scale massacre of Tutsi’s by the Hutu military and roving machete-wiedling street gangs. Cheadle stars as a real life figure, the House Manager of a resort hotel who found himself concealing some 1000+ refugees from the violence inside the hotel when the United Nations (and all other foriegn nationals) fled the country.

The film has two main modes of operation: firstly, to make Westerners feel bad about not paying much attention to this when it was going on. The film is in English, it’s leading roles are cast largely with American and European talent, and it holds itself rigidly to the established structure of True Life Tragic Stories made in the U.S. (usually for TV or cable.) Make no mistake, the primary target of this film is Western (read: American) folks who heard about this on the news, as opposed to Rwandans or other Africans who may have lived through it.

On the one hand, this is probably the best way to present the material to achieve the overarching goal of drawing overdue attention to an overlooked tragedy: This is the template by which mainstream America is used to recieving it’s bad news recap, so the artful dodge here is to tell them a story that is “alien” to them in the most familiar way possible.

On the other hand, is does reduce the impact of some potentially powerful scenes because anyone remotely familiar with the “beats” of the genre will see them coming. It’s innevitable, for example, that the film’s early attention to Cheadle’s pride in putting on his suits and ties for work is a setup for a later scene where tearing them off is used to visualize his primal breaking point (complete with popping buttons, no less.) Whenever Joaquin Pheonix’s BBC (?) reporter character asks a question, it’s understood that he’s doing so for the benefit of the audience and that the slightly-preachy answer will be followed by a “think about it, won’t you?” pause. When a pair of lead characters find themselves alone and surrounded by fog, you just kind of know that the camera will pull back and reveal something of corner-turning hideousness.

The film’s impact is also slightly undercut with a PG-13 rating which, as you might imagine, renders the film’s central image of mass-villiany, the Hutu machete death-squads, as a bit less frightening than you may be expecting them to be. The film is, of course, not about gratuitous violence, but there are moments where the film seems to be willfully holding back, and it plays as a mistake.

The film is much MORE successful at it’s second mode of operation: “Don Cheadel is The Man.” Chealde is a powerful force as an actor with a seemingly inexhaustable range, and here he takes one of modern cinema’s more worn archetypes (“the practical man who doesn’t want to get involved until he does”) and turns it into one of the best characters of the year. The film is fine, well made and written, but it’s Cheadle who grabs “Hotel Rwanda” by the scruff of it’s neck and pulls it up from the level of an above-average USA Network “true story” to a real film of power and depth. The film is great because he makes it’s great, and otherwise it’s merely “good.”

“THE great film” about the Rwandan genocide is probably yet to be made. This isn’t it, and really, it’s not trying to be. This is a story about a remarkable person, embodied in a remarkable performance by an actor finally getting his proper due. See it because the story is important, yes, but also see it because Cheadle is only going to become a bigger star, and you owe it to yourself to get familiar with him.

FINAL RATING: 7/10

Hello.

I’ve tried the Blogging thing before, to little luck. This, however, seems to be a much more user-friendly system than I’ve seen before, so here’s hoping 🙂

In any case, my name is Bob. This will be a blog of musings on film and all things related to film (often swinging back around to politics, you have been warned.)

Reviews and such will follow, and hopefully this will grow to something you and I will enjoy.