http://web-server1.daily-iowan.uiowa.edu/video/12575.mov

Tips for Next Years Oscar Pool

If you are one of the few people who walked with an extra skip in their step today because you won your Oscar pool last night, congratulations to you. However, the rest of us are listening to friends and co-workers gloat as they collect their winnings. Maybe next year.

Unfortunately, there are no saber metrics for the Academy Awards but with an understanding of voting techniques, past history and basic pool strategy you can be in contention year in and year out.

Pick an Underdog

Assuming none of the categories are weighted, don’t be afraid to shy away from the favorite. I’m not saying you should have picked Toy Story 3 for Best Picture – although calling that upset should be rewarded with a cut of the winnings but pick a nominee who will probably come in a close 2nd. Annette Benning, Geoffrey Rush, or The Social Network (Best Picture) all qualified under this principle.

As important as the major categories appear, in a pool they are only one category. I picked The Social Network to win best picture because I knew The King’s Speech was going to get a lot of love from my co-workers. If there was an upset, that could push me over the edge when it’s all said and done.

While strategy can help, I DO NOT recommend you apply this to your entire ballot. Favorites are such for good reason and a good portion of academy voters are just going to vote for whatever gets the most buzz. However, if you apply this to one or two categories and lose, you will make it up in the long run.

More Often Than Not, Match Your Best Picture and Director

A little known fact: Producers, not directors, get the Best Picture award. The Academy feels bad about this, so they give their Directing award to the film that leads their Best Picture rankings. Unless you are picking Best Picture as your underdog, match this category with the Best Picture Favorite.


There are years where the consensus is that the categories will split but this hasn’t happened since 2007 when Crash upset Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture (No going into the reasons for that debacle). This was another one of those years as people were convinced David Fincher would win for directing The Social Network even if The King’s Speech won best picture.

Look at (Recent) History

Did you see how I used a stat from the 2007 awards in explaining last night’s winners. The human element certainly hurts the Oscars from being a pure stat’s game, more so than sports but they’re still useful. There’s no need to look at trends from the more than five or ten years ago which can easily be done on IMDb.

This also helps out with those pesky technical categories like cinematography or visual effects. Directors often work with the same people, especially if they made a similar movie. Take the Coen Brothers True Grit, similar tone and landscape to No Country for Old Men. Both were shot by Roger Deakins. If Deakins hadn’t won for No Country, he probably would’ve won this year.

Don’t Pick the Popular Foreign Films


Another little known fact: Only the Academy members who attend designated screenings and see all the films nominated in the foreign category, vote for the category. This is the major reason why, Pan’s Labyrinth, Waltz with Bashir, The White Ribbon and A Prophet – all of which were extremely popular – didn’t win in their respective years. Use this to your advantage and eliminate those from your mind and just pick one of whatever’s left.

There are exceptions to the rule. If a foreign film is nominated for Best Picture a la Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, vote that film in the foreign category.

Pick the Blockbuster Best Picture Nom. in EVERYTHNG Else.

The move to ten Best Picture nominations allows hit blockbusters to get some respect from The Academy. Last year it was Avatar, this year it was Inception. For better or worse, these movies are generally considered out of the running for the big prize.

Inception was almost universally loved. This love helped it win for Cinematography, Visual Effects, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing. The “popular” films are generally a given for many of the technical categories.

Don’t Pay Attention to Any One Prior Award Show

I wrote an entry about this after The Golden Globes last year. Neither that or any other award show solely decides the Oscars. While that particular awards show was precise in the acting categories but so were other shows. All I can say on these is focus on the other shows as a whole, particularly those from the Globes on. Past Oscar stats are more important though.

Other Things to Keep In Mind

• Anything with a non-linear narrative is a safe bet for editing.
• If there’s an obvious choice for make-up, i.e. The Wolfman, is a sure thing more than not.
• Period pieces almost always win for Costume

As always make sure to follow Audible Motion on Twitter at www.twitter.com/audible_motion for news and updates on the blog.

The Lights Go Out in Dillon, Texas

The following post is a retrospective on not only last night’s Friday Night Lights Series Finale but the entire series as a whole. There are spoilers ahead. So if you haven’t seen this weeks series finale or plan on watching the entire show on your own time – why haven’t you? It’s on Instant – then you best stop reading.

Like most contemporary television shows, I find myself in the awkward spot with Friday Night Lights. I’m not one of the die-hard fans who were there from the premiere all the way to the end. In fact I was against the entire idea of building a show based on the solid sports movie, based on the book of the same name. I even went as far as to playfully mock others on my dorm floor with being captured by what appeared to be (and still is) a predictable sports show pilot. A year later, one of my best friends and fraternity brothers came back to school with the first season on DVD. As soon as he finished a disc, he would pass it on to me. From that point on, we were hooked.

Now that the spotlight on the fictional town of Dillon, Texas has been shut down for good I can say I never felt as connected to a place and its citizens. Yes, The Wire is still the best television drama ever and the understanding it gave me to Baltimore at that time is something this white-suburban male couldn’t find any other way. But I could never see myself, nor would I want, in that world. I would, however, be satisfied growing up in Dillon. I would long leave and go on to bigger and better things beyond football like Julie, Matt, Landry or Tyra but like those characters I can also see the value in living in Dillon which is best summed up by the show’s intro.

This love for Dillon and its citizens kept me through the shows down period which is basically the second season. Said season includes a number of plotlines beyond Landry’s murderous rampage that I completely forgot about (Street and Riggins’ trip to Mexico, Tyra’s short-lived volleyball career and Tami’s sister living with the Taylors). There were others in subsequent seasons (Matt’s internship with the metal sculpture artist) but no matter how off-beat the storylines were, myself and the other dedicated fans stuck with the show with the hope we would be given the glory of that first season and more often than not, we were rewarded.

Through the few failed plots, cast changes and small changes in tone, the show has always had two excellent leads in Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton to hold our attention as seen in the final shots of season three and season five, both of which were meant as a series finale.

There has been plenty said about how Chandler and Britton played the most realistic, happily married couple in the history of television. This is all true so I won’t spend a paragraph discussing it. All I’ll say is hopefully they get their second consecutive Emmy nominations and hopefully a win for at least one of them and go on to lead roles on other shows of a high caliber.

The same goes for the rest of the cast. Some who left the cast early are already making some noise. Gaius Charles (Smash) did four movies in the past two years including Takers, Salt and The Messenger. Minka Kelly is currently in theaters with The Roommate and is in the pilot for the Charlies Angels reboot. Based on their talents seen throughout Friday Nights Lights is potentially endless.

It’s going to be hard to live without a show with the quality of Friday Night Lights, possibly harder than something like Lost. I look forward to hearing friends ask, “Do you know about this show Friday Night Lights,” in the future and revisiting the show with them through a discussion about each season. Until then we’ll have to keep our eyes clear and hearts full and know that the show never lost as it left on its own terms.

Directors to Trust with 3D

Earlier this week, reports rose of Keanu Reeves breaking news of two more films in The Matrix franchise which will be shot back to back, in 3D, and according to Reeves will “truly revolutionize the action genre like the first movie.” While this report was latter deemed inaccurate but still brings up a larger topic. Movie franchises are getting an unnecessary extra film from the technology’s prominence i.e. the latest Chronicles of Narnia film which followed a less than stellar performance from its predecessor.

There has also been a large amount of backlash for Baz Luhrman’s adaptation of The Great Gatsby which is also being filmed in the third dimension. The novel is almost everybody’s favorite book (one of mine too) because they first read it in High School (as did I) so invariably, people hold it very close to their hearts and the unavoidable mistreatment of even the smallest detail will cause distress amongst high school graduates everywhere.

Criticism aside, I would actually be excited for a 3D venture from both the Wachowski’s or Luhrman. James Cameron created an excellent movie experience unique to theaters with Avatar and there are a number of other directors who could play with the tech in unique ways. Here are a few other director I would trust in the third dimension.

Tim Burton – I’m sorry to all the fanboys out there but last years’ Alice in Wonderland doesn’t count. It wasn’t shot in or for 3D. While his more recent films are bogged down in visual effects, his imagination his still rightfully intact as seen in Big Fish, his last great film. Imagine a situation where viewers only put on their glasses during that film’s story sequences. The scene at the circus would be breathtaking.

Steven Spielberg – A bit of an obvious choice and his films are known for crumbling when they over-rely on effects but dammit when his movies work, they pay-off tenfold. Look at something like Minority Report, a film that combines excellent effects and action scenes with a compelling mystery and sci-fi themes. A similar movie may actually make me pay extra for the third dimension.

Christopher Nolan – Inception was a visual feast for the eyes. We’ll have to wait till after The Dark Knight Rises before we get a chance to see Nolan experiment in the third dimension (which is for the better!) but it will certainly be worth the wait.

Wes Anderson – A dark horse to be sure and a director who is certainly capable of causing apathy in his audience (Darjeeling Limited) and I don’t approve of his directing methods for the very good Fantastic Mr. Fox. However, his commitment to mis-en-scene and his film’s overall visual style is amazing. His first 3D film would definitely grab the attention of every hipster and film student in the country.

Are there other directors you would trust with 3D? Would you even want some of these directors to take on the tech? Leave your comments below and check out the poll to left of the screen.

As always, make sure to follow Audible Motion on Twitter at www.twitter.com/audible_motion for news and updates on the blog. Also, be sure to check out my gaming blog, Eyes Open Thumbs Down at www.eyesopenthumbsdown.blogspot.com

Grown-up Movies #1: No Return allowed

Unlike many film lovers, my parents were surprisingly effective at keeping me away from films they deemed inappropriate. Even more surprising I honored their judgment and opinion. More than often, I picked age appropriate titles out at the video store. However, there were times when I’d bring my parents a video and was met with the phrase, “That’s a Grown-up movie.” I would then proceed to find a new choice.

I’ve decided to go back and watch or re-watch some of those films and offer my thoughts on if they were indeed worth the wait or if my parents were protecting me from more than violence, sex, and foul language.

Despite my parent’s stringent stance on films with a rating outside my age range, I experienced Tim Burton’s Batman for the first time at five years-old. This along with my biological alarm clock set for the daily airing of Batman: The Animated Series and the Dark Knight taking up the majority of my action figure collection, the caped crusader was easily my favorite of the comic book characters.

So when I first saw advertisements for the next Batman film in which he would battle The Penguin and Catwoman, I was stoked. I was Batman that year for Halloween, got the Happy Meal toys (before they were pulled) and got the Wayne Manor /Bat Cave play set for Christmas.

However when I wanted to go see Burton’s Batman sequel, I was met with a surprising “No,” which may have been due to stories of parents groups turning against the film, or just word of mouth from my mom’s friends who took their kids to see it opening weekend. All this hype and it surprises me that I never saw the film start to finish until a couple of years ago and just watched it again as I'm on a bit of an all things Batman binge.

It’s interesting to go back and watch the Burton Batman films having now experienced Nolan’s Gotham City. The current trend to favor gritty real-world action in lieu of theatrics definitely dates the Batman of the nineties, especially Burton’s. However since Batman Returns features characters not yet seen in Nolan’s films, this sequel holds up far better than its predecessor. The scope of the film is much tighter with the first films klunky handling of the mob eliminated and characters meant to deepen the universe like Billy Dee Williams’ Harvey Dent left out of the final script. Despite these positives there were still too many characters.

The first major Superhero sequel is also the first to suffer from “too many villains syndrome,” that is now a significant part of the superhero film lexicon. While The Penguin character was always a part of the film, it definitely feels like he character operates outside of the film’s most compelling threads. His master plan of murdering Gotham’s first born is over almost before it even begins. In the film’s best scene and final showdown, he’s nowhere to be found.

It’s funny to think of how The Dark Knight visits the same concept of Batman being no different than the crazy villains he fights and throws in Arkham Asylum, yet back then, everyone talked about the films dark atmosphere and the scary nature of the Penguin. Excluding the Penguin from the film would result in a much more mature film but also less theatrical and action oriented. No one in 1995 – Warners, Audiences or Burton – wanted a Batman film that was a deep meditation on who comprises of Gotham’s truly insane. This would result in a film that would bore more children than it would frighten, upset fewer parents and be an overall better film.

Finally there’s the films last scene – specifically the last shot – that is fresher in my mind than any other Batman moment. The scene marks a strong sense of hope, for both the characters and subsequent films that is truly beautiful. It’s too bad Burton wasn’t given another chance to bring Gotham alive.

Worth the wait or Worse than any inappropriate content: Worth the wait.

Would you like to see more posts in this series or would you rather things stay current? Make your voice heard in the poll to the left.

Remember to follow this blog on Twitter at @audible_motion for updates on new posts and some random thoughts on Film and TV.

Also be sure to check out my gaming blog Eyes Open, Thumbs Down.

Can a Good Film Have Only Bad Performances?

At a panel interview with the Hollywood Reporter Mark Ruffalo and Jesse Eisenberg compared David Fincher’s shooting technique – one in which he shoots many takes – to that of legendary director Stanley Kubrick. After the comment, actor Robert Duvall commented that Kubrick’s films contain “the worst performances I’ve ever seen.” He did add that they may be good filmsbut he still thought the acting was terrible.

I currently do not subscribe to the Hollywood Reporters online service so I do not have access to the full quote. You can read more about it on The Onion AV Club here.

I have no interest in criticizing Duvall’s comments (interviews can cause people to simply say things) or point out the great performances Kubrick got out of the likes of Kirk Douglas, Peter Sellers, and Malcolm McDowell – to name a few. What does interest me is whether or not a “great” film can exist with poor performances from its principal actors.

One common thread in modern film criticism is to point out individual actors that give excellent performances in lesser films. Popular recent examples include Kate Winslet in The Reader, Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, or Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart (hmm…all Oscar-winning performances). However, it is very rare for critics to praise a film while dismissing the principal performances.

Kevin Smith’s Clerks finds itself in this small group. While Smith wasn’t working with then professional actors, Brian O’Halloran (Dante) and Jeff Anderson (Randal) give sometimes hard to watch performances relative to their performances in the sequel. Each performance is there to reiterate the script, which is interesting considering a popular rumor that Smith never allowed his actors to improvise – a myth he dispelled in the comic-con panel for Zach and Miri Make a Porno. That being said, Clerks is a hilarious film. From its release to this very day, its’ refreshing dialogue opens viewers to a unique brand of comedy and dialogue.

As charming as Smith’s first film is, there is something special about a movie that combines a compelling story, interesting idea and excellent performances. Nearly all universally praised films like Goodfellas or Casablanca are exalted for their themes, technique, and story, directing and yes…acting. These are also all rated higher on iMDB than Clerks. While this can’t be taken as gospel, (movie criticism is subjective…imagine that!) audiences clearly recognize certain films as being “complete,” in this regard.

It’s very rare for a film to earn praise without at least one solid to astounding performance. It’s definitely more common in first films like Clerks or Darren Aranofsky’s Pi. It’s certainly possible, however a poor performance can go a long way to pull viewers out of a film.

What do you think? Are there any films you love that don’t have any especially great lead performances? Is it possible for a film to be great but not have a single good performance? Post your thoughts in the comments below or share them on Twitter @audible_motion.

Also be sure to check out my Gaming blog “Eyes Open, Thumbs Down” at www.eyesopenthumbsdown.blogspot.com.

Down on the Boardwalk: Why the Show That Couldn't Fail Left Viewers Wanting More

No new show was built higher... and made to fall farther than HBO's Boardwalk Empire. Even as the highly anticipated premiere approached, a small stream of negative buzz and backlash began to surface. I first saw the ads for the new series as I sat down for The Pacific Steve Buscemi's line of pure exposition was fresh and exciting at the time and the proposition of seen Michael Pitt do some serious mainstream work was promising.



The hour and a half long pilot won praise from both the critics and audiences alike. The show averaged 4.8 million viewers - a record for HBO and enough to warrant renewal for a second season. And why not? HBO treated its viewers to the latest feature length production from none other than the man who brought us Goodfellas, Mean Streets and The Departed. The show couldn't possibly fail. But it did...sort of.

While the first episode made great use of the show's elaborate rendition of the Atlantic City Boardwalk with the bustling fanfare of Dixie bands, side-shows and carnival games, the second episode was much quieter focusing more on character interactions than place.

This was to be expected as it’s the pilot episodes job to introduce us to the show's Who, What, Where, and When - it's also worth noting that second episodes are shot well after pilots, and Boardwalk is no exception. Now that the show is nearing the end of its inaugural season (and significantly lower ratings), it's clear that the first episode was vastly different from what the show turned out to be.

In a B.S. Report interview with Lost producer Carlton Cuse, host Bill Simmons asserted Lost would be the last show of its kind and the days of the big budget network drama were over. Simmons also said the television drama will transform to a series of interpersonal interactions, often indoors and between no more than three characters. HBO's newest drama couldn't represent that transition more clearly.

With this transition, show's such as Boardwalk Empire will serve only to confuse viewers who don't give it a chance. This isn't the epic look at the emergence of organized crime that audiences thought it would be but a small examination of a place and time leading up to The Great Depression and what some will do to make sure they don't fall victim to a very prevalent lower-middle class.

Remember you can follow Audible Motion on its BRAND NEW! Twitter page at twitter.com/audible_motion.

It Makes Me Blu

*Sorry for the extended delay. Along with some issues with school I've taken on an internship at Summer of the Arts so I have to dedicate the majority of my time.*

I recently picked up the new Toy Story Blu-Ray's, excited to finally enjoy two films from the end of my childhood (before explosions and four letter words were necessary to entertain me in my teen years). While I definitely got a solid deal on the pair of films, I was also forced to pay for the DVD versions of the films, which will never see the light of day. I also noticed the DVD versions are also sold with the Blu-Ray version, making the size of the box, the only difference.

More studios are including DVD and Digital Copy versions of their films with a Blu-Ray release and while I understand the need to reach a wider audience with the high-def format but I have some problems paying for more than I want and different studios are taking different routes.

Disney


Overall the least offensive of the studios and part of that has to do with their market. As a company that specializes in family entertainment and few households have one blu-ray player and it probably doesn't sit in the kids playroom. Throw in the DVD player that sits in the family minivan and the standard-def inclusion makes sense...for those who want the option.

Pixar's Up is one of my favorites from last year and also one of the prettiest. I'd love to pick up a copy in glorious 1080p but unfortunately the only option for blu-ray owners is to drop around $30-35. The "four disc" set include a blu-ray copy of the movie, the blu-ray special features, a dvd version of the film and a digital copy. Before the DVD combo pack was a big hit, Pixar's previous entry Wall-E came with the blu-ray disc, a second disc for blu-ray special features. Customers also had the option to buy the film with a digital copy but i gladly ignored.

If Disney is intent on keeping its DVD combo packs for a long time, (and it appears they are), then they should consider abandoning digital copy. Or make a special dvd version that can be copied to a computer one time. I don't know if it would save the consumer money but it's worth a shot.

Others

MGM is the newest studio to sprain their ankle by jumping on the multi-format bandwagon by releasing and re-releasing some of their blu-ray catalog with a DVD version.


The studios must really be worried that people didn't make the leap to Blu-Ray last holiday season the way they all bought HDTV's. I only ask that they don't increase the price to an already expensive new format.

Oscar Spectacular!

Alright everybody here it is...the same thing that every magazine, newspaper, and self-proclaimed critic with a blog is posting this week. I'm sorry for the dead time. I will go into who should win, who will win, The Dark Horse and who the academy missed. Keep in mind I haven't seen The Blind Side or Crazy Heart so i won't have much to say about those films.

Best Actress In A Supporting Role

Who Should Win: Monique for Precious-It seems like the supporting categories are always sure things and this year is no different. Monique manages to create arguably the worst mother on film, and then gets a bit of the audiences sympathy from the monologue near the end of the film.

Who Will Win: Monique for Precious-Like I alluded to before, this one is no contest. However, the other reason she will walk away with the trophy is because it will be the films only award that evening.
Dark Horse: Anna Kendrick for Up In The Air-Who knew the tightly wound girl from Rocket Science was this good? She was as close to a foil for George Clooney's character as possible and the heart of the film.

Who Was Snubbed: Melanie Laurent for Inglorious Basterds-Arguably a lead performance but the film is an ensemble piece so she belongs here. Her performance helps save what could've been the boring non bastard part of the film and makes it the best part of the movie.

Best Animated Film
Who Should Win: Up-The 3D glasses got misty in the first 10 minutes but I'm not giving the award for just that scene. The rest of the film was just as good.
Who Will Win: Up-It's Pixar and the movie is really that great.

Dark Horse: The Fantastic Mr. Fox-I haven't seen the film yet but it stands out enough to give it a shot.

Who Was Snubbed: Monster's vs. Aliens 3D- I really enjoyed this funny and charming film that had a surprising amount of substance.

Best Actor In A Supporting Role


Who Should Win: Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Bastards-If you haven't seen this brilliant performance yet, what are you doing reading this?

Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds-This is a runaway. Nothing else comes close.

Dark Horse: Woody Harrelson for The Messenger-This year is for Woody Harrelson what last year was for Robert Downey Jr. (albeit to a lesser extent). I haven't seen this one yet but I haven enough faith in Harrelson that im gonna call this.

Who Was Snubbed: Peter Sarsgaard for An Education-Even though I knew where the film was going, I was still taken with his charm. I was also surprised at how well his accent came through.

Best Adapted Screenplay


Who Should Win: Nick Hornby for An Education- A great script from Hornby, who may in fact be one of the best writers of his generation.

Who Will Win: Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner for Up In The Air-I believe the Academy is in sync with me on this one. The film is going to get shut out of every category so they'll give it to this heartwarming picture.

Dark Horse: Nick Hornby for An Education-Another case where a great and highly acclaimed film will be shut-out come Sunday night.

Who Was Snubbed: Peter Morgan, David Peace for The Damned United-Great story, and structure. Helped make a sport i have little to no interest in, well interesting.

Best Original Screenplay

Who Should Win: Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds-Honestly, it wouldn't stand a chance up against most of the scripts in the adapted category but compared to it's competition, it's the clear front runner - and if Avatar win's for being "Original," it will be a rough night.

Who Will Win: Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds-This award is often given to the third runner-up (Eternal Sunshine). While The Hurt Locker is an academy favorite (and one of mine) it's screenplay isn't as defined as Bastards.

Dark Horse: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen for A Serious Man-Sadly, I think the Coen's film will go home empty handed come Sunday night but then again the Academy loves the Coens and they may just get away with this one.

Who Was Snubbed: (500) Days of Summer - My pick for snub of the year but all that aside - The structure and dialogue blew me away.

Best Actress in a Lead Role

Who Should Win: Carey Mulligan for An Education-What a discovery! It's one thing to act as a child and adult but to be a child who thinks shes an adult? Brilliant.

Who Will Win: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side-Bullock is one of those actors whose appeal isn't a mystery to me but the way women absolutely LOVE her is a little unclear to me. Again, clearly a favorite in an overall weak category. Should win no problem.

Dark Horse:Gabourey Sidibe for Precious-As a white, upper middle class male from the Chicago suburbs, I was worried that I wouldn't be able to connect with the lead character or the film for that matter. Sidibe drew me in and blew me away. Even with a weaker category this year, I'm bummed she isn't getting the hype she deserves.

Who was Snubbed: Zooey Deschanell for (500) Days of Summer-This is the role Deschanell was born to play. Not only does she play a Manic-Pixie Dream Girl but she plays a parody of one as well.

Best Actor in a Leading Role


Who Should Win: George Clooney for Up In The Air-There should be an asterik on this one as I've only seen two of the performances nominated (Clooney and Renner). However I did really enjoy Clooney here and whenever he retires, this will be one of the roles we remember him for.

Who Will Win: Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart-I haven't seen the film yet but Bridges seems to be the runaway favorite. It may be a bit of a life time achievement award but its well deserved.

Dark Horse: Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker-Anyone who can show both sides of an Iraqi soldiers persona and do it seamlessly deserves some recognition. I just can't see him withstanding Clooney or Bridges.

Who Was Snubbed: Joseph Gordon-Levitt for (500) Days of Summer- In The 40 Year-Old Virgin Paul Rudd speaks about love. "Of course it's horrible. It's suffering and it's pain and it's... You know, you lose weight and then you put back on weight, and then you, you know, you call them a bunch of times and you try and email, and then they move or they change their email, but that's just love. " Joseph Gordon-Levitt captures all of this perfectly and it's a shame he won't be recognized.

Best Director

Who Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker-Bigelow really surprised me here as I never thought the woman behind Blue Steel and K19: The Widow Maker, would make a film like this. Credit is also due for putting together a movie about Iraq that doesn't suck.

Who Will Win: Jame's Cameron for Avatar-I've ignored, and had a few jabs, at James Cameron's epic thus far. I should be clear that I actually enjoyed the movie despite all its flaws. Let's face it Jimmy Cameron knows how to put together an action sequence and the last hour is a perfect example. Also, the Academy isn't gonna leave the Navi without their own little tree of life.

Dark Horse: Quentin Tarantino for Inglorious Basterds-He won a writing oscar in 1995 but one of today's most iconic directors still hasn't won for his work behind the camera. It'd be nice if the academy made this write but unfortunately the competition is too heated.

Who Was Snubbed: Marc Webb for (500) Days of Summer-If it isn't clear, I loved this movie and first-time feature director Marc Webb did an exceptional job with the popular dance sequence, and the split screen scene. Again the competition is steep but a nod would have been nice.

Best Picture

Who Should Win: Inglourious Basterds (Lawrence Bender)-What better film to win best picture than one that has such a love for other movies. Yes, this is the film geek in me speaking but very few films get better with multiple viewings. Besides, Tarantino is due.

Who Will Win: The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicholas Chartier, Greg Shapiro)-A great movie regardless of any of the recent criticism of the films depiction of soldiers or Bigelow's out spoken political agenda behind the film. It had me on the edge of my seat the way very few other films did and everyone else is finally taking notice.

Dark Horse: Inglourious Basterds (Lawrence Bender)-The way the ballots are made this year actually hurts films that are heavy favorites (Avatar & The Hurt Locker), making room for movies like Basterds to pull the upset. Still, bomb squads in Iraq and giant blue smurfs may be just to big to stop.

Who Was Snubbed: (500) Days of Summer-Even with ten nominations, the academy still gets it wrong. The closest thing we will ever come to a modern day Annie Hall.

Bonus Snub: Stu's Song from The Hangover for Best Original Song-If the academy really wanted to get ratings for the telecast, they would've let Ed Helms tickle the ivories for this hilarious song.

Remember to follow the blog on Twitter at twitter.com/audible_motion where I'll be live tweeting sunday nights festivities. Also make sure to check out the poll to the left of the screen.

Audible Motion Now on Twitter.

Hey everyone just wanted to let you know Audible Motion now has a Twitter page at http://www.twitter.com/audible_motion . So now all two of the readers don't have to come to Blogger to see if there is a new entry. This isn't a personal feed but dedicated only to this blog. Just go to twitter.com/audiblemotion

Mass Effect 2: The Best Movie of 2010?

*Note: I normally don't discuss video games on this blog I am an avid gamer and as you will see there is a reason for this venture away from my normal medium.*

January is typically the dumping ground for movies that had promise on paper but failed to
warrant the money required to promote a prestige film. The same is usually true for the gaming industry, the prestige games (a.k.a the big sellers) all come out in time for the holiday season.

However the big story in gaming this last year was a number of delays on some major titles like Red Dead Redemption, Alan Wake, and of course Mass Effect 2 all of which are currently slated to come out in January or early spring.

Chances are you've saw commercials for Mass Effect 2 during yesterday's playoff games and if you knew nothing about the game before hand, you may have thought it was the first of the studios line of Avatar rip-offs.



Yes there is little to no game play footage in the in ME2's ad campaign but this is due to the same reason the game is advertised during a mainstream sporting event on network TV. For you see, Bioware's sequel is a role-playing game, also known as an RPG, a genre that usually draws images of World of Warcraft players like these guys.



Unlike World of Warcraft, the Mass Effect games have a story, and that's an understatement. The characters are as well developed as any Oscar winning picture. There are moments in the first game where the player has to make decisions that decide which characters live and which die. More importantly the decisions are some of the most difficult in any game due to the commitment to story.

Finally, that brings me to the games cut scenes, which in most games are are more stiffly acted than any of the Star Wars prequels. Not only are these better acted but the gamer can seamlessly choose Commander Shepard's dialogue choices. Take a look:

http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/718963/mass-effect/videos/masseffect_garrus_091407.html

So if you have a roommate or are planning on getting the game yourself. Make some popcorn, because you'll have one hell of a story to watch.

What Do Last Nights Golden Globes Mean For The Best Picture Oscar? Nothing!

Last night's Golden Globe's gave us few revelations; Ricky Gervais is HILARIOUS and should host every awards show possible, the trendy TV Comedy will always win (although I do like Glee), and Avatar is apparently the best movie of the year. The last of these however is kid stuff compared the Oscars, the Grand Daddy of them all.

The statement that the Golden Globe winners foretell the Oscars has lost nearly all of its relevancy when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that there will be ten best picture nominations this year. However, there are important things to keep in mind when looking at this years Best Picture race:

1. The Golden Globes differentiates between Comedy/Musicals and Dramas-In the past there is usually one spot reserved in the five Best Picture Oscar spots - think colllege basketball's conference tournaments that lead up to the national brackets (see Sideways or Little Miss Sunshine). So by that rule The Hangover would have a lock on the fifth Best Picture slot. However, any of the other Comedy/Musical Nominees are more the Academy's flavor. Given the now 10 nominees, there will now be a couple of spots for comedies. What it means: The Hangover, (500) Days of Summer, and It's Complicated/Julie & Julia will get a nomination-non of which will win.

2. History has shown the winners for Best Picture-Drama rarely match with the Oscars-The Hours, The Aviator, Brokeback Mountain, Babel, Atonement-all movies from the past decade that won Best Picture Drama and failed to win the best picture Oscar. We can put an asterik on The Hours as Chicago won best Comedy/Musical and the best picture Oscar that year. Avatar's win was certainly disheartening, not because its a bad movie but it was in much better company thankfully the odds are still stacked against it. What it means: Per usual, all of the nominations for Best Picture-Drama will carry over to the Oscar's Best Picture Race.

Other factors due to the 10 Nomination rule:

Animation now has a say...kinda-So if you're keeping score my predictions for the nominees leaves 2 slots available. One is pretty much reserved for anything Pixar cranks out that is better than Cars or even A Bugs Life. So Up is a lock. However this poses a predicament for animated films in general. Back in the day, an animated film that makes it into the coveted category is one in a million (in fact only Beauty And The Beast has done it). However, no animated film will ever win the award. So here's the gist: Any animated film that's nominated with nine others for best picture IS the best animated film in the Academy's eyes. Therefore the Animated category loses its prestige as it is actually awarding the second best animated film of the year.

The Mysterious 10th Spot-Here it is the 10th spot left unfilled. If the academy used this slot for the popular Documentary or Foreign film of the year however odds are it will go to a wild card movie like last year's The Dark Knight. Otherwise it could go to another indie film that failed to get some earlier awards love like A Serious Man or District 9.

My roommates can attest that I was upset over Avatar's big win last night however its important to keep cool and remember the Golden Globes mean less than ever in terms of the Oscar race.

Best Picture Nominations What If Series: 2008

While I don't approve the of the academy's decision to bring back the 10 nomination system, one can't help but wonder what could've been. I've decided to go back through the year 2000 and guess at what could've been nominated had this system already been in place. I've based these guesses on Golden Globe Nominees and Winners as well as if they received a nomination for their screenplay. Remeber there are technically 10 screenplay nominations every year (adapted, original) but only five director nominations and those usually are in line with the Best Picture nominations. The actual nominations are listed first followed by the five that would've been nominated under the new rule. I've also given a reason for the each one of the 6-10 as well as the nomination that would have had the best shot.

2008 was definitely a weaker year for film in terms of quality but there were definitely some underrated films that made this list easy to compile.

2008's Top 5 (According to the academy)

Slumdog Millionaire (Won) Milk, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Frost/Nixon

The could've beens:

The Wrestler- Let's be honest, everyone thought this would be nominated before The Reader (HAARRRVEEYYYY!!!). While it recieved 2 nominations (Actor, Supp. Actress) the lack of nominations in Director and Screenwriter (Even if it deserved them) leave me to think it could've been as arbitrary a nomination as The Reader, even if The Wrestler was a much better film

The Dark Knight-This was most likely 6th amongst the academy. It had the most nominations of any non-best picture nominated film (8) and while many of them were technical and none of them were for director or screenplay, this film was favored to be the Gladiator of 2008. An epic, genre blockbuster that had some real depth to it. Also, the previous years best picture winner (No Country For Old Men) was a genre film with depth, Javier Bardem won Best Supporting Actor for playing a hybrid of Ledger's Joker and Eckhart's Two-Face, except more people saw and liked this movie. I would've had no qualms with the academy if this was nominated. I've watched it as much as any other movie to come out that year and I can find something new almost every time.

Wall-E-It was my favorite film that year and I wish it was at the top of the bottom but unfortunately I just couldn't see it happening. It blew me away with it's maturity and willingness to go where it did and show all the kids with the Cars lunch boxes what their future might be like if they aren't careful. Unfortunately animated family films will rarely be serious contenders despite this one also receiving a best screenplay nomination.

Gran Torino- I just saw this after the initial post. How Clint didn't get nominated for best actor or director is a mystery. Yes he is playing an older Dirty Harry and sometimes the comedy comes from the shocking, racist remarks his character makes but the performance has more depth to that, the movie goes. The only reason I can think of why the academy didn't nominate this for best picture is because they have already shown Clint plenty of love (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby and a smaller amount with Letters From Iwo Jima) even if this was better than Baby. Many thought this had the most timely oscar campaign and would garner a nomination. With 10 there would've been no excuse not to.

Happy-Go-Lucky- Based on this list, the 10 nomination change could do exactly what the academy wants: more underdogs! This was one of the most underrated and under seen movies of last year and also one of the best (Boom! Hyperbole!). It was nominated for Original Screenplay and one can't help but think, Sally Hawkins might have picked up the best actress nomination if not for the infamous Kate Winslet nomination screw-up (I'm working on a better name). She was wonderful in this movie but the real reason it gets the last spot of the nominations is because it is the real indie darling that should've been. By the time of the nominations it was pretty much a no-brainer that Slumdog was going to win. This was as quirky, kitchy but much better than either Juno or Little Miss Sunshine and if there is one thing the Academy has come to love in the past few years, it's quirk.

Honorable Mention: In Burges ,Vicky Christina Barcelona*

*Was in the original ten but has since moved since I've seen Gran Torino.

Hi Everybody!

Sorry there haven't been any new posts lately. Summer's been busy at the DI and my other job. A few quick updates though as to what's in store for the next few posts and possibly the rest of the summer.

• With the addition of 5 more Oscar nominations for next year, I am going to look back (at least through 2000) at what movies would have been in the extra 5 spots.

• I recently watched She's Just Not That Into You and it got me thinking about the "intertwining characters device" and how it's used much more frequently so there should be a post on that.
  

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull: One Year Later

I joined the family at the lake house in WI for the long weekend and a tradition is to watch a movie together after dinner. My Dad has recently discovered the merit of Blockbuster's 4 for $20 deals and just goes back to get 4 more whenever he finishes the last ones he bought. So when I got to the house I was curious to see what they had brought for the weekend. To my disappointment (not surprise) there laid a copy of the most recent Indiana Jones movie. I hadn't seen the movie since I went to see it opening day with my friends but i remember our reaction being similar to this:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/187266

Okay so it wasn't as bad as all that, we did stay for the whole thing, but it was safe to say that we felt our childhood had been tainted. So much so, that a few of us went to Burger King the next day (with our Indiana Jones cups) and watched Raiders to get the bad taste out of our mouths.

So the time came to pop in a movie and it was unanimous amongst my mom, dad, sister, and uncle that we watch the film that had caused me so much pain about a year ago. To my surprise, it was fairly harmless this time around, in fact, it may have been as butters put it, pretty good...maybe not that good. At least they didn't pull a Rocky and have Ford do something crazy (fridge aside).

Here are to problems I still have with the movie but don't completely ruin it.

Too Much CGI/Green Screen!: With the exception of the man-eating ants, the CG took me out of the movie. I understand that both Harrison Ford and Karen Allen don't have the endurance for action scenes that they once did , but they couldn't at least film in a real jungle? And for the temples? I would've loved to see some old-school special effects with that infamous black line around the miniture sets. This brings me up to the issue that most found disheartning.

The Aliens were fine...until the ship took off: There's a reason the 1st and third movie are considered by most to be the best of the bunch, is because they involve christian artifacts. Temple of Doom was actually the first Indiana Jones I saw as a kid and I like it as much as the third. Until recently though, it was considered to be the worst of the franchise and I honestly think this has to do with the majority of the US audience belonging to either the Christian or Jewish faith. Because of their faith, a lot of people find it easier to believe the holy grail or arc of the covenant are real but an obscure section of indian religion or the possibility of a mayan civilization worshiping aliens are ludicrous. If some tribes worshiped the sun, then aliens aren't far off. I'm not knocking Christianity, people of faith, or any other form of religion but it is ridiculous to discount the plausibility of a different belief, even if it is subconciously.

D2 Mighty Ducks Entry

Just letting everyone know that the D2 entry is added but Blogger puts the posts in order of when I started writing them, not when they are actually posted. Ill try not to let this happen again.

A Different Controversy Found In Disney's New Movie

If you haven't heard, Disney is releasing a new 2-D animated movie based on the classic story The Frog Prince called The Princess and The Frog. This seems like a great move to bring back the audience whose childhood revolved around the Disney Renaissance of the 90's. While there has been plenty of controversy on the internet about the race of the characters and the setting I was offended by the trailer's marketing but before I get to that I should go over some things I liked about it.

Disney has been showing some real balls lately- When was the last time a G-rated animated movie was in contention for the best movie of the year? I still maintain that Wall-E should've been nominated and won best picture and the majority of that goes to the risk Disney/Pixar took to make an animated movie with limited dialogue and hold the mirror up to society. Here, Disney is showing similar guts by releasing a 2-d animated movie when everything is moving towards 3-D CGI it is nice to see someone taking a chance. Also when was the last time there was a mainstream animated movie with an African American main character? While Disney is probably trying to make up for characters like the Crows in Dumbo and that Disney himself was apparently a racist, this is huge for Disney to take a step in this direction. Disney certainly has needed to catch up with the times. It's good to see they did.

John Lassater is an Executive Producer-When Ratatouille came out everyone talked about Brad Bird being the best animated storyteller in the western hemisphere. While thats true, Lassater has some major chops with the aforementioned Wall-e and Finding Nemo.

Essentially An Unknown Cast-I know some of these actors are very well known but the only one I could recognize is Terrence Howard. This is also a sign of Disney's guts in an age when solid movies like Kung-Fu Panda are released with a bloated cast.

Despite these redeeming qualities I can't get too excited about this next outing from Disney. My main problem with the trailer & the marketing campaign in general is that it is manipulating those of us who were kids in the 90's during the peak of not only Disney animation but western animation in general (Don Bluth). To imply that this movie is going to come close to classics such as Aladdin, Lion King, and Beauty and The Beast is absurd. Disney's last few original 2-D animated movies have been, for the most part, less than stellar. Let's take a look at the list:

Brother Bear (2003)
Treasure Planet (2002)
Lilo & Stitch (2002)
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)

Just to be clear, I do like Lilo & Stitch a lot and The Emperor's New Groove certainly has it's moments. If we are really being honest with ourselves though, the last great Disney 2-D venture is Mulan. However there is something to be said for the best movie of that bunch (Stitch) using water colors, so maybe this throwback is enough.

One other thing, why is this movie being put out in limited release? Disney is really showing confidence in the box office draw of its own name. My only guess is that they are really trying to push the nostalgia factor in a way that would make this an "art film." As I mentioned before, just because it's in 2-D or hand drawn, doesn't automatically bring it up to par with those from the 90's. Again, heres the trailer, if you haven't seen it or need to watch it a second time. Let me know what you think.

Poll extended (TWSS)

A quick update,

I noticed there was one more vote in the poll than expected so I've opened it back up to see if anyone else will vote. Be sure to leave a comment saying which "Other" movie your looking forward too.

Also, Finals are ending so here's some posts to look forward to:

• My thoughts on the new trailer for Disney's venture back into Hand-drawn animation, The Princess and The Frog

• Where Exactly Was Canada In D2: The Mighty Ducks?

Thanks for reading,
Tyler

Where was Canada in Mighty Ducks 2's Junior Goodwill Games?

So my friends and I have been playing a lot of NHL '09 (or "Chel") and decided to play a couple with international teams. Naturally we wanted to recreate some of the classic international match-ups Russia v. Sweeden, U.S.A. v. Russia, and of course, U.S.A v. Iceland. That's right, as kids who grew up in the 90's the most heated hockey rivalry is between Coach Bombay's U.S.A team and Wolf "The Dentist" Stanton's team from Iceland. Unfortunately, Iceland's hockey team (if they have one) isn't recognized in NHL '09, but in shuffling through the other countries my friends and I came to a mindblowing realization: Canada may not have been in D2: The Mighty Ducks.

We were stunned! It's safe to say hockey is Canada's game, no question about it. The Hockey hall of fame is in Toronto and the Canadian Junior Leagues are considered the gateway to the NHL. So why weren't they in D2:The Mighty Ducks?

I did a little research by rewatching the childhood classic and found that Canada was in the Junior Goodwill Games Tournament albeit in a loophole.



There you have it Canada was in a Group B while USA was in Group A. However if these groups only played each other in the finals, then why did USA play Iceland in the championship? We're led to believe that it's a round-robin format because we are told that Russia upsets Iceland, bringing the Vikings record even with USA's.

Lets jump back a bit because of the pairings of the groups. Group A consists of USA, Iceland, Italy, Trinidad-Tobago and Germany. Group B includes Sweden, Canada, Russia, Denmark and France. Group B is clearly the tougher division with Sweden, Canada, and Russia while the only two good teams in Group A are USA and Iceland. They could have switched Italy with Denmark so Group A at least gets a scandinavian team in the mix.

Am I reading too much into this? Probably, but there probably is a real reason for this. Disney realized they would have bigger market in Canada than Iceland or Trinidad-Tobago. Therefore they didn't have to worry about offending the Canadian market with stereotypes like the ones used with Iceland and especially Trinidad (see steel drums after they score a goal).

Update To "These Will Be Kept"

I remembered another rule I made for myself and my movie going experiences. It's the last one in my last real entry. Hopefully that can hold you over for a while.