Oscar Predictions: Plus one?

I was unable to finish posting all my movie reviews of the Oscar-nominated films (ended up seeing eight of the 10 Best Picture nominees) before the telecast tonight, but it's something of a moot point since I have not added my theoretical "ballot" indicating who I felt should win in some number of years. Maybe next year, folks. Or just later this year. We'll see.

Last year marked the first time that I scored my Oscar picks in a descending order of confidence fashion similar to how the pool works for the NFL season. Of course, I've only had two years worth of picks up here on BMC (presumably got drunk and forgot to post the other two years), but last year's score of 293 268 (18 out of 24) was an improvement from the 248 (17 out of 24) I earned in 2006. So if we're to believe my improvement stays consistent, I'll get 19 out of 24 right this year.

Ebert has said he "can't remember a year when it seemed easier to predict the Oscars" (1993, perhaps?), so I imagine that my picks for the "big eight" are pretty much what everybody else has. But I wouldn't call all eight of those locks and even then, that still leaves 16 other categories:

Movie Review: District 9

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. THIS IS SCIENCE FICTION DONE RIGHT — And let's get this out of the way right from the start: I'm typically the least likely to get enthused about any sort of sci-fi flick. But it was easy to see why Peter Jackson produced District 9—and why so many people I run into think he directed it. But it's actually 29-year-old Neill Blomkamp directing his first feature here, effectively using limited special effects in the "splat-stick" style reminiscent of Jackson's earlier films. In comparison to the humans-as-enemy angle James Cameron reheated and served up for Avatar, Blomkamp's method feels fresh and unique.
   
2. THE UNEXPECTED SOCIAL COMMENTARY — Blomkamp, who was born in South Africa, stages District 9 such that his giant alien spaceship docks not over the typical New York or D.C. location, but right over Johannesburg. And without ever feeling preachy or heavy-handed, the film's TV news style and resettlement of its aliens touches on apartheid and xenophobia issues that added unexpected complexity.
   
3. CAN I PICK ON CLOVERFIELD AGAIN? — Because here's another handheld attempt at sci-fi, but done with far more skill and with characters I actually liked. As Wikus van der Merwe, the cowardly son-in-law to the head of the film's evil corporation, Sharlto Copley is nothing short of revelatory in turning his character into a hero.
   

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. "MULTINATIONAL UNITED"? — Was this really the best name they could come up with for the giant evil corporation? Such obviousness seems better suited for the audience of, say, Wall-E. Or maybe even the Starship Troopers crowd that felt that Paul Verhoeven effort was something wittier than it actually was.
   
2. BECOMES SOMETHING OF A BUDDY FLICK TOWARD THE END — The alien Wikus has a couple of rather coincidental run-ins with is named Christopher Johnson (Jason Cope). Christopher has a young son too and the film's third act essentially sends the trio into fairly standard shoot-out action.
   
3. COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN — I guess 20 years is a long time for a spaceship to be having engine trouble, but it still seems like too short of a span to have the aliens and humans having so little trouble understanding one another's language.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

I'd consider it to be the highest possible praise when I say that I would be interested if there is indeed a sequel.

The Bulls' Third Quarter: The waiting is the hardest part

I'll give the Bulls one decent-looking coin for this latest quarter, seeing as they did do, you know, something before the trade deadline. The moves of John Salmons and Tyrus Thomas weren't front page-type deals, but Ken Berger of CBS Sports did place the Bulls among his deadline winners for clearing the cap space they needed to in order to get at least one of those big free agents everybody will be clamoring for this coming summer. I'm keeping the two other dirty looking quarters though, because with just over 20 games to go now in this year's campaign—and just like I was feeling during the last quarter's end—I'm still not expecting anything more from this particular squad beyond the first round.

Shortly after that last write-up about the Bulls, the team had a minor notable accomplishment when they became the first team to win five consecutive road games against teams with winning records at the end of January.

Then they came home and lost to the Clippers.

The Bulls currently sit one game over .500 at 31-30 and occupy the seventh seed, which would earn them an opening round date with the Magic—a team they beat the first time they played them this season in Chicago, then got thumped by 20 points the next time Orlando came to town and have one more date in Florida next week. Of course, the Bulls are going to be in the midst of five teams fighting it out for four spots and 11 of their remaining 21 are against teams with winning records—three of those other 10 games being against teams currently at .500.

Since there's really no good idea of when we're getting that crazy bastard Joakim back from the plantar fasciitis thing, the only thing I'm quite confident I can expect in the coming weeks will be repeated nonsense about how making or missing the playoffs will have some sort of effect on whether free agents want to sign with Chicago. That, of course, is utter nonsense.

As long as the checks clear and the contract's valid, I think if the Bulls are able to outbid everybody else on at least one of those guys that keeps getting mentioned, they'll land the big name they're seeking this off-season. There's been hopes they can pick up two big names, but that's going to take a bit more wheeling and dealing than I really believe GarPax can pull off when considering the bidding war they'll be in.

If nothing else, I can just slap on my 3D glasses and watch how the whole thing plays out. Or I can keep watching this:

Movie Review: Paranormal Activity

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. I DON'T KNOW IF I'D CALL THAT ACTING, BUT GREAT RACK ANYWAY — The term "mockumentary" seems more appropriate for comedies, but Paranormal Activity is the latest low-budget creeper that's presented as being amateur home video footage. Part of taking that approach typically involves finding no-name actors to fill the parts, and if the leading man was supposed to be a douchebag, then fine casting was done with Micah Sloat (as himself, of course). It's the San Diego house of Katie Featherston (also as herself) that's the setting for movie and, well, at least I know I'm not alone in admitting what I found most memorable about that performance. Sue me.
2. LESS IS MORE — Director Oren Peli reportedly shot the flick for around $11,000, so Paranormal doesn't resort to excessive gore or special-effects. As a result, Peli manages to effectively squeeze suspense from the simplest signs, be it a door creaking opened and closed while the couple sleeps. Of course, the whole thing begins to feel like a tedious exercise where we're most invested in the scenes in which the couple is asleep while the daylight hours are really just often throwaway filler (a particular Ouija-board sequence earned more laughs from me than shivers).
   
3. DOES THE FOUND-FOOTAGE THING BETTER THAN CLOVERFIELD ... — I'll leave it to the reader to decide if that really counts as a compliment.

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. ... BUT IT'S STILL MILES AWAY FROM BEING THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT — And that's supposed to be a slam. It's impossible not to make the comparison, of course, because that was precisely the word-of-mouth success story the brains behind Paranormal wanted to mimic. The limited release push was certainly there, but it's all style and no substance—and even the style ain't all that mind-blowing. I had been well aware of the hype surrounding Blair Witch before it hit theaters more than a decade ago and reached a fever pitch that ultimately led to the unfair backlash against it (of course it didn't live up to the expectations for those who were among the last to see it). It's ironic that the same people who criticized that 1999 film for "not being scary" were also the ones unspeakably terrified by Paranormal—which essentially does the exact same thing, only nowhere near as well.
2. IT'S BAD WHEN I'M HOPING FOR A CHARACTER TO DIE, RIGHT? — If we can shove the accompanying hype that seems to influence every viewer's opinion to the side, the reason Blair Witch still remains the best of the "found footage" bunch was the strength of the film's characters and performances. Heather Donahue's infamous runny-nosed video apology ended up being relentlessly lampooned, but most every other low-budget digital effort since has lacked the power of that on-camera confession. Just as I went through Cloverfield without a single character I cared about, related to, or even genuinely wanted to see survive until the final reel, I found myself often hoping for a particular grizzly death for Katie's day-trader boyfriend, Micah. His character could have just as easily been named "plot device" since he's consistently projecting some macho image about being in control even as he can't explain what is occurring in his video footage. I believe Roger Ebert coined a term in his movie glossary for this kind of stuff.
3. MY DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE ENDING LINGERED WITH ME FAR MORE THAN ANY FEAR — It's a haunted house film. Nothing more, nothing less. There's familiar tricks here that got the girl I was watching the movie with to squeeze my arm a little bit or whatever, but after the movie was over, pretty much nothing about it stayed with me.

25 WORDS OR LESS:

The most memorable part of Paranormal Activity will ultimately be how well the film was marketed, not anything it contained.

The BMC Vault: Terry Boers goes to Olympics, angers animal-rights activists

Welcome to The BMC Vault, yet another tag recently created that will hopefully provide future excuses to post. Since so many online publications decide to be dicks and not leave some of their really great older stuff available for the sake of our posterity, I'm trying to lend a helping hand in the name of humanity. Requests for future installments can be sent here.

I know I'm becoming an old man because the only television show I watch every single week is This Week with [Person Replacing George Stephanopoulos]. During the week, I almost never watch anything on the tube, only exception being the game of one of my favorite teams or of some national significance.

Most of the days, I listen to AM sports talk radio—more specifically, Boers and Bernstein. Terry Boers is already an old man, but a far more entertaining and a far more accomplished one than I. Still, I took some comfort in his comments this past Friday in regards to the recent news bit regarding Tiger Woods and PETA. Unfortunately, I don't think a podcast of that particular clip is available at the moment, but Boers went on to describe his own experience in dealing with animal-rights activists after penning a column during his trip to the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul where the former Sun-Times columnist was served dog while dining out.

Movie Review: Crazy Heart

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. THE DUDE ABIDES — You always love to see an under-appreciated old pro like Jeff Bridges get some long overdue recognition. As Bad Blake, the alcoholic country performer whose best days are behind him, Bridges sinks his teeth into the redemption role. Playing and singing all of the songs in Crazy Heart is almost certainly going to get Bridges an Oscar that many would say has probably been overdue anyway, but his performance here deserves to be celebrated for much more than just the impressive musical element. Indeed, the actor also nails every tiny detail in between the scenes showcasing his vocals or guitar, moments of both humor and human error that Bridges elevates from convention.
   
2. GIVE THAT CASTING DIRECTOR AN OSCAR TOO — It might sound odd to have Colin Farrell playing the part of Tommy Sweet, Bad's former protégé with whom there's a bitter relationship now that the young star has eclipsed his mentor. But as lukewarm as I was to using the Irishman at first, I came around by the film's end when it became clear that Farrell was indeed the right choice for a role that's supposed to be more of the trendy poseur to Bad's over-the-hill has-been. The dynamic between the two performers is made even better by writer/director Scott Cooper's decision to hint without fully disclosing specifics as to what caused the rift between Bad and Sweet. Maggie Gyllenhaal, bless her heart, lends her typically sweet touch to the role of a reporter who's also a single mom that in most lesser movies would have been a throwaway love interest.
   
3. IT FEELS LIKE FLYING MORE OFTEN THAN FALLING — Crazy Heart isn't going to surprise you, but it isn't going to bore you either. Even as we can anticipate what life's going to hand Bad next, we're still rooting for him every step along the way. The film's sentimental, but it's sincere too.
   

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. COUNTRY SONGS AND REDEMPTION TALES NEVER SEEM TO GET MADE WITHOUT CLICHÉS — Consider it this year's version of The Wrestler. Or Tender Mercies. Or ... you get the idea. (Robert Duvall actually makes an appearance here too, though he is not reprising Mac Sledge.)
   
2. EASY ON THE CONFLICT — Crazy Heart's so busy sketching out it's main character that you don't really notice that it never really spends much time constructing a plot. The movie relies on its performances to carry it through the third act developments that feel rather manufactured.
   
3. THIS IS ONLY GYLLENHAAL'S FIRST OSCAR NOMINATION? — Should have been at least two more that I can think of.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

Even when Crazy Heart feels like the country song you've heard before, Bridges' performance makes you want to listen one more time.

And then there were three

With football behind us, baseball still yet to come, the NHL on break and the Bulls not quite to their 60th game of the year yet, you might've noticed I've taken to putting up a lot more of my thoughts on the movies I've been seeing in preparation for this year's Oscars. For a while, I toyed with the idea of putting reviews up on my Tumblr, but now I'm starting to like the idea of putting them up here. (NOTE: If you hadn't caught on yet, the color of the text in that little "25 WORDS OR LESS" section is supposed to be my indication whether or not I recommend it [sorry, but no letter grades or star ratings], but basic rule of thumb here at BMC, more or less, is green = good/positive, red = bad/negative)

But I feel that I should mention that I do intend to make this a more frequent contribution to BMC—because we need something that's outside the sports world every once in a while. Another reason I'm choosing to put those "reviews" up here instead of over at excitablehonky is the timeliness issue. Obviously, I'm months behind here on seeing, well, all of these films. So if you're here looking for thoughts on new releases in theaters right now, I'd recommend coming back when it's on DVD.

The entire theater experience vs. home viewing issue has been brought up a few times to me this Oscar season—most notably because of many friends' insistence that Avatar must be seen in IMAX 3-D Super-Mega-Hyper-Wacky-Outrageous-Giant-Boner-ifficVision (or whatever they call it). I still can't get over the idea that the movie's nearly three hours long, but then again, I made it through Titanic in the theater, so who am I to say?

But seriously, a moment to vent here: I prefer watching movies on DVD as opposed to going to the theater for multiple reasons. The cost is one issue. Neither the fat guy who chews his popcorn with his mouth open or the middle-age woman who has explain every joke to her husband at the theater are there to annoy me in my basement when watching a film on my DVD player. If a movie's too long, I can pause it and use the washroom without fear of missing anything. I can have a cigarette. Maybe two. If there's a date over, the movie sucks and we're horny, I don't have to worry about getting out of a theater and keeping her in the mood until we get back home.

In short, I become more and more convinced with each passing year that the "theater experience" that I'm told is so necessary for so many otherwise bad movies ("Yeah, but the special effects were good" automatically makes me even more cynical) is losing more and more of its appeal to me. As TVs and home audio systems continue to improve while the prices for both decline (I remember when a giant plasma screen in somebody's home was a sign of wealth, but now it seems everybody has one—except for me, of course), I don't see how the steadily increasing cost of seeing a movie in the theater really strikes me as the preferable option. Yeah, I guess if there's more people than just the lady and I, then the theater's the most logical choice.

But the girl I've been rolling with the past few weeks finally got me to move my living situation around and now that the TV and Bose system are in the real bedroom, I'm kind of enjoying the past few nights of getting almost an entirely new movie experience (NOTE: Not really anything new about said movie experience). Five of those seven films I've got checked off there were seen on DVD, while the other two have been seen in the theater. I'm making plans with one friend to see Avatar this weekend at the really ghetto-ass place next to where I used to work, and if we don't get shot there, then I imagine I'll be hoping to find Precious is still out there somewhere and saving The Blind Side for last (me thinks I might have seen one too many comments like this one, although I'm certainly not going to complain about Nine not being nominated).

And after that? Well, here's to hoping I just keep writing about whatever I'm seeing. Feel free to leave any recommendations in the comments and I'll let you know what I think.

Movie Review: A Single Man

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. COLIN FIRTH PROBABLY WOULD HAVE EARNED THAT BEST ACTOR NOMINATION JUST FOR ONE SCENE — Based on Christopher Isherwood's 1964 novel, Firth plays George Falconer, a Los Angeles-area college English professor who is grieving the loss of Jim (Matthew Goode), his lover of 16 years. In the movie's most powerful scene, Firth unforgettably displays the sorrow he's forced to repress after learning of Jim's death and then being informed that services are "family only." There's an enormous amount of pain Firth manages to put into his two word response: "Of course."
   
2. JULIANNE MOORE, NATIONAL TREASURE — I'm not so sure how much I would've bought into a character like Charley, George's lush of a divorcee friend with whom he had a sexual past in his youth. But as Moore has had a habit of doing throughout her career, she makes even the least likable role somehow appealing. Thankfully it's her night of boozing with George and a careless comment that allows Firth to have another memorable display of emotion that the film had been needing pretty badly. I don't know when she's going to get her Oscar, but I feel comfortable saying it's overdue at this point.
   
3. THE THERE AND NOW — Not to be confused with Joel and Ethan Coen's A Serious Man (review on that forthcoming), which is also set in the 1960s, I'd say Tom Ford's effort was more successful at recreating the time in which the film is set. Indeed, beyond the Cuban Missile Crisis dominating the news of the time in the film, that phone call and that night with Charley—who still seems to think things can, you know, "work" for her and George—effectively captures a time in America when very few even dared to imagine life outside the closet.
   

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. NOT TO SOUND TOO MUCH LIKE A FOX NEWS ANCHOR, BUT I DON'T CARE WHAT THE DIRECTOR SAYS; IT'S A FILM MADE BY THE GAY MAN, FOR THE GAY MAN — In addition to the Best Actor Firth received for the film at Venice, A Single Man also took home the Queer Lion. Still, Ford actually insists that despite him being a gay director funding a movie about a gay man based on a novel by a gay author that, of course, "this is not a gay film." It's just coincidence then that so many bare-ass shots found their way into the film as well as so many of the young men George run into throughout the movie resemble models in magazine ads. But ultimate shame falls on on Ford—presumably some time shortly after he sold the project to The Weinstein Company—for following the safer Oscar marketing route of publicly downplaying a rather obvious aspect of the film he'd probably accept praise for privately were it not for having to publicly pander to notoriously homophobic Academy voters.
   
2. SHALLOW ON BOTH ENDS — As far as artistic flourishes go, too much is never enough for Ford. And even the slowest members of the audience aren't going to have too much trouble catching on to the metaphorical use of color and how the director uses it to hammer home those momentary glimpses of beauty George experiences over the course of his day. Truly a case where less could have been more, Ford goes over the top in his attempts to create beautiful imagery so often that I found myself beginning to crack up at moments I'm fairly sure were not intended to be humorous. George's relationship with a student named Kenny (Nicholas Hoult) struck me as not only a predictable element of erotic fantasy, but also achingly familiar.
   
3. ARE WE THERE YET? — I'd typically be attracted to movies that focus merely on limited time frames such as the single day a A Single Man is trying to cover (it involves the periodic flashback, obviously), but pick up the pace a bit. Aside from the two scenes I initially mentioned, the movie trudges through just about every other moment in a way I can only describe as frustratingly lethargic. The running time is around 100 minutes, but the film sure felt like it took more than two hours to arrive at its rather unsatisfying conclusion.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

Firth and Moore provide the most genuine moments of a movie otherwise awash in excessively attempted visual artistry.

My Mailman > Your Mailman

So dudes don't typically buy other dudes gifts—or at least that's how I've operated for most of the 31 years I've been alive. There were the occasional exceptions, like when you find certain things on clearance that are just too good to pass up.

Seeing as my now former employer gave me a good old-fashioned ass-raping by failing to include my tips on our final checks two days before Christmas, friends got nothing from me this past holiday season—although that didn't stop dear buddy B. Doggy from giving a fine winter cap just like the one pictured here.

"Are you going to wear it?" he originally asked, seemingly concerned about it. I assured him I was truly thankful for his gesture and now some two months later, I can't think of an occasion he HASN'T seen me wearing the gift. I couldn't find my old one at the time and it's still winter here in Chicago.

The cap serves both of what I believe are its two intended purposes: Keeping my ears warm and getting people to talk to me about the Blackhawks (which is preferable to talking about ... oh, just about everything else in my life). One person that the hat has most certainly had a visible effect on is our mailman.

He's deaf, so he has a bit of a speech impediment, but most days he comes up to the house and hands me the mail while I'm smoking, he'll point to the top of his head and say something along the lines of "Go Hawks!" Today, I was on the phone, so I figured he'd just hand me the mail and go about his way. I was talking with a friend about what was happening with work and how it was sounding like I was going to be fired—for watching a Blackhawks game, actually.

After handing me the mail, however, he began saying something which I didn't catch the first time because my friend on the phone was also talking. Any other person—especially in the middle of this employment situation—interrupting a phone call of mine would likely get an earful.

Of course, what really gets accomplished by yelling at a deaf person?

What's more, the guy was just asking about the hockey games. Yeah, I know, he was asking about Olympic hockey, and if you don't know how I feel about that whole two-week exercise in meaningless television, well here you go. Still, I told my friend on the phone to hold on for a second and I verified the times of the day's hockey games in the newspaper for the mailman, who smiled, thanked me and went along his way.

Then I apologized to my friend for placing him on hold and tried to remember where I left off. I'd probably been bitching about something with how the whole situation with work went down or maybe voicing concern about where the next paycheck would be coming from. In short, they were a lot like the concerns I've heard countless others have in this Great Recession.

I went to the end of the driveway and watched the mailman sorting through envelopes in the back of his truck, wondering how difficult it must be to drive if you're deaf and if it's like I remember Jake "The Snake" Roberts teaching me during his episode of blindness that the weakening of one sense makes the other four stronger. Or something like that.

But perhaps what registered with me the most was that our mailman obviously worked through his disability and hardly lets it get in his way. And then the next natural question I had to ask myself was, "So what's my excuse? What's holding me back?"

And the answer, of course, was nothing other than myself.

Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. THE FIRST SCENE OF THE FILM WAS THE BEST SCENE OF THE YEAR — At least that's what the Skandies voters said. I'm not sure I can argue either—although I've still got movies to get to. Still, if anything else at this point can give the outstanding more than 20-minute beginning to Basterds in which Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) is memorably introduced by calmly using a kitchen table interrogation to work a confession out of a farmer (Denis Menochet) hiding a Jewish family under his floorboards, it would probably be a later scene from this very film—an undercover tavern sequence with the Basterds, a unit of Jews under the command of Brad Pitt's Lt. Aldo Raine and committed to scalping Nazis, immediately coming to mind. But the point here is that Quentin Tarantino crafts a number of scenes that seem to be him doing what he does best: getting lively dialogue while building suspense and always finding a satisfying payoff.
   
2. IT'S THAT LAUGH-OUT-LOUD, FEEL-GOOD HOLOCAUST MOVIE YOU DIDN'T KNOW WAS MISSING FROM YOUR LIFE — Because Hitler dying in his bunker's so, you know, boring. Instead, Tarantino offers the twist of having a group of Jews kill him—where esle?—in a movie theater. And beyond that, Hitler's hardly the character that steals this show anyway. I haven't even mentioned the performances QT got out of both Mélanie Laurent and Diane Kruger, two more strong females that both had Oscar consideration (although the Up in the Air girls got both the supporting nods they were vying for).
   
3. I SEEM TO LIKE EVERYTHING TARANTINO DOES — Depending on how you classify the Kill Bill deal (I'm still waiting for both to be released in a single DVD package, although it appears a third is in the works), this is either Tarantino's sixth or seventh feature full-length film—and I've liked all of them. It's been nearly two decades since Reservoir Dogs came out and this guys still hasn't made anything I didn't enjoy.
   

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. I SEEM TO LIKE EVERYTHING TARANTINO DOES — It isn't to say I'm passionate about everything he's done anywhere near the level of craziness some of his fans have, but seriously, not one thumb down from me on anything he's directed. Does this make me a fanboy?
   
2. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A HISTORY LESSON ... — But you're talking about World War II here, so you know how some people feel about that. Some people insinuated it was wrong to laugh along with Life is Beautiful, and of course there's going to be the usual guilt others may insist you feel for taking a little sadistic glee in watching Hostel director Eli Roth play the Jew from Boston who bashes Nazi brains in with a baseball bat.
   
3. ... BUT IT WON'T HURT BEING A FILM JUNKIE EITHER — Roth's role was something I was aware of going in, but Tarantino litters Basterds with references that I either missed or didn't find as profound as some fans have made them out to be. Take what you like (I still liked a lot, obviously) and leave the rest.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

Manages to simultaneously inspire Tarantino's most devout fans as well as enrage his most passionate detractors, myself closer to being among the former.