Intergalactic Hazing Gone Too Far?

DARK SKIES
* out of ****

I do enjoy scary movies, but not because they're scary.  My appreciation of all film genres is completely versatile, but my appreciation for none of them is by default.  When people ask me what kind of movies I like, my response, as ever, is "good movies".  Admittedly, that doesn't mean much, because what I actually mean is that I like movies that I consider good movies, but the problem with that is that it just sounds stupid.  And then you factor in movies that aren't necessarily to your taste but you admire them, but I'll write about that some other time.  Now, I'll call this a scary movie, but only because it's made with the intention of incurring fright.  For some, the scares might work.  For myself, they did not; in fact, they occasionally provoked laughter.  By my reckoning, that alone is an indication of poor quality, as a successful tearjerker ought to jerk tears, a science fiction ought to fictionalize science, a horror ought to horrify and a thriller ought to thrill.  Through some dumb-ass reasoning, comedies are supposed to make you laugh, but that's beside the point.  But even scares alone simply are not enough.  A scary movie that scares but lacks substance is enjoyable in the sense that it provides the viewer with it's most basic promise, but it won't leave you with much without providing some substance.  Unfortunately, one might think there was a formula sheet or something being passed around the horror branch of the film industry, wherein a few blank spaces may be filled in, not unlike a Mad Libs story, for each new film, because it feels like the same story is being used a dozen times over.  It's kind of a POLTERGEIST-influenced formula with some modern elements tossed in for good measure.  You start with a family, usually a dysfunctional one, especially with marital strife or divorced parents, and you introduce a supernatural element, 99% of the time through one of the children.  The child behaves erratically, maybe winds up with a few marks, like bruises, and sometimes other members of the family join in on the fun.  Then, the parents become concerned, and one of them looks up similar weird occurrences on the internet, hopefully through a search engine product placement, and finds some wacko "expert" or otherwise professional.  The parents meet up with said wacko and realize he's/she's for real; sometimes he/she helps them, sometimes they just offer advice.  Then you have a climax, and sometimes a last minute twist.
DARK SKIES plays through the formula like idiotic clockwork, but to its credit, it introduces an interesting new element, that being that the supernatural element is aliens, which are announced at the very beginning of the film, before the titles, with a Carl Sagan quote, so we can blame all the morbid but very silly occurrences on something.  The parents, struggling with mortgage payments and an angsty teenager, are played by Josh Hamilton and Keri Russell, and they're surprisingly reserved about the whole thing; concerned, but rational.  Their youngest has dreams about "the Sandman" and blames weird happenings on his "imaginary" friend, and he draws creepy pictures of him with an alien.  The aliens, at first glance, are a bit ghastly, but you quickly realize that they're just rubbery naked versions of the dementors from the HARRY POTTER films.
That's just the beginning, and there really is not a single original note in this film, and other films, as recently as INSIDIOUS (from the same producers), have done it better.  DARK SKIES may have worked better if shown from the aliens' perspective where the whole thing is really all about a bunch of college-age extra-terrestrial pranksters who get their kicks by messing with all-too-easy human targets.  At least that kind of movie would be intentionally funny.

85th ACADEMY AWARDS: POST-CEREMONY ANALYSIS

I don't really have anything to say about the quality of Seth MacFarlane's hosting performance or the televised program in general, because I don't really care about those aspects of it, and nobody ever really likes the host anyway; at best, people try to justify it.  The show is about Hollywood indulging in their own infamous vanity, so why assign any undue value to it?  I would like to specify though, that Hollywood's vanity is frequently overblown, just as an addition to the industry's/community's traditional American role as a scapegoat.  I'm not saying that Hollywood isn't as vain as we say it is, just that they don't truly stand out when we're honest about the vanity of everyone.
Returning from that tangent, this is in regards to the results of the show, the winners vs. the losers.
Although there were a couple of big winners, last night's awards were unusually spread out.  Six movies received multiple awards, and three of the six were multiple award winners with only two (DJANGO UNCHAINED, LINCOLN and SKYFALL), and the most awards of the night for one movie was LIFE OF PI with four.
The two big winners of the night were Best Picture frontrunner, ARGO, with three wins, and in a bit of a surprise, my personal favorite, LIFE OF PI.  As expected, ARGO became only the third film ever to win Best Picture in the absence of a Best Director nomination, the most recent being 23 years ago for DRIVING MISS DAISY.  In addition to the night's biggest award, ARGO also won Best Film Editing and Best Adapted Screenplay, both of which I believed were more deserved by ZERO DARK THIRTY, but it seems the so-called "torture controversy" prevailed, leaving the critically-acclaimed epic with a single technical award for Best Sound Editing, having to share even that in a tie with SKYFALL. 
As always, we're left to query whether history will vindicate the Best Picture award; whether or not ARGO will be remembered in future years as the great classic of 2012.  It's kind of unlikely, although its legacy gets an automatic boost by its Oscar, for instance, other than the musical score, I doubt 1981 Best Picture CHARIOTS OF FIRE would be worth remembering by most without its award.  It's incredibly rare that the Academy gets the Best Picture correct by history's reckoning, the few examples that come to mind where they did get it right on are CASABLANCA in 1941, and THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PT. II in 1972 and 1974, respectively, but even with those, you do have to go by a generalized perspective, because there will always be unpopular opinions.  If I had to venture a guess at what 2012 films will be most beloved by future generations, I'd probably guess MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS (un-nominated), THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (no nominations in any category), ZERO DARK THIRTY and maybe DJANGO UNCHAINED and LINCOLN.  I'd like to hope for LIFE OF PI's legacy, but I feel a bit doubtful.  Even then though, just because a movie will be great to the future generations doesn't mean it's great right now.  I doubt last year's winner, THE ARTIST, will be especially enduring, but it was my definite favorite last year.  And then you have "too much, too soon" movies that are unappreciated in their time, and I don't usually agree with the romanticization of such phenomenons.  Just because something is lucky enough to be relevant in later years doesn't mean it deserved appreciation when it was bad in its own time.  ARGO is a fine film though, and if it doesn't endure as long as its fellows, future generations may find labeled as a Best Picture winner and be encouraged to watch it, while the greater films will be viewed without such additional encouragement.
My personal favorite of 2012 (specifically, in a tie with MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS), LIFE OF PI, surprised everyone by winning the most awards of the night, and Ang Lee winning the Best Director award that most, including myself, predicted was going to Steven Spielberg for LINCOLN, but more specifically for his legacy.  The award is Lee's third Oscar and his second for Best Director, having previously won for BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and winning Best Foreign Film for CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, but he's yet to win a Best Picture.  LIFE OF PI is the first film in 27 years to win an award for Best Director with a PG rating, the last being OUT OF AFRICA, which would probably be a mild PG-13 today.  In addition to Best Director, LIFE OF PI also received awards for it Best Special Effects, Best Original Score (by Mychael Danna) and Best Cinematography (by Claudio Miranda), the last of which was probably the most debated of its awards as it beat SKYFALL's oft-nominated but never winning favorite, Roger Deakins.
Best Actor predictably went to the overwhelmingly deserving Daniel Day-Lewis for LINCOLN, and making him the first ever to win three awards for Best Actor, while eight other actors have won twice.  LINCOLN, which was an early frontrunner and the most nominated of the year, with 12, only managed one other award, that being for Best Production Design.  Surprisingly, the super controversial DJANGO UNCHAINED, the other film to deal with the American history of slavery, won two awards as well; the first to Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor, his second, the previous win also for a Tarantino film (INGLORIOUS BASTERDS), and Quentin Tarantino won his second Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.
Academy Awards hunter extraordinaire Harvey Weinstein's prize horse, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, won a single award for Best Actress, going to Jennifer Lawrence, the youngest two-time Best Actress nominee at only 22, who tripped on her way to the stage and flipped the bird to cameras on the red carpet.  Now, I know that many will call her out on a lack of class, but at a ceremony as phony as the Oscars, I love to see a touch of blatant egotism to counter the headache-inducing false grace.  She's a got a real personality, and I was also a fan of James Cameron's infamous "I'm king of the world!" speech, so there.
Though most brush off that category, I'd also like to add that the award for Best Animated Feature was quite misplaced, even while, who'd have thought it, going to a Pixar film.  BRAVE was one of my most highly-anticipated films last year, but for all its visual beauty, it was a real letdown.  My favorite to win was PARANORMAN, which was one of the best films of last year, but I acknowledged its possibly too bold style and assumed my second favorite, WRECK-IT RALPH would win, and would have been significantly more deserving than the lackluster BRAVE.  If Brenda Chapman had been able to follow through with her director's duties until completion, I suspect BRAVE would have been more deserving, but as it was, no.
In regards to my predictions, my batting average was quite poor, with only 12 out of 22 correct, not including my 2nd guesses, but in fairness, there were a fair few surprises, not least of which was a tie (only the sixth ever, most recently in 1994) for Best Sound Editing that was split between ZERO DARK THIRTY and SKYFALL.  My prediction had been SKYFALL, so I tallied that one in my favor.

HISTORY OF THE OSCARS EDITORIAL

That's a wrap, folks!  The 85th Academy Awards have run their course and what we have left now is, did they get it right?  Or more importantly, will history consider them right?  No one wants to be the South at the end of the Civil War, but you can always come up with an alternate version later on, but enough about politics...aw, bullcrap.  Everyone knows the Oscars (and Hollywood) are all about politics.  Not necessarily governing politics, although that comes into play quite frequently, but more of a high school type of politics.  So-and-so becomes prom king/queen because enough people like them/ admire them/ don't give a damn so they throw away their vote/ etc, and people are largely voting for what they hope will make them look good.  In the end, all movies are subjective and we all have the odd highly-acclaimed movies we hate (for me, the deadly bore, TREE OF LIFE (2011) or any of Terrence Malick's movies, really) and the occasional low appeal movies we love (me, I love PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END (2007)), and you can't really say which great movie is the greatest, because in many cases, you're comparing apples to oranges compounded with variations of human taste and relevancy.  Mainly, the Oscars are a big fat commercial for Hollywood, specifically their movies.  Winners and nominees can use it as a marketing point, emblazoning their count across the disc packaging, and it gives a reason for their movies to be talked about.  Furthermore, the awards bring in-industry credibility to the the winners (and to a lesser extent, the nominees), giving them something to pad their resume with, and usually comes with a bunch of job offers the next day.  Directors who win, usually with a few other awards for their film, often get to try their dream project after, such as Peter Jackson, who swept the Oscars with THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING and left the ceremony on a plane to begin work on KING KONG (2005).
A Few Examples of Notorious Best Picture Losses:
The most recent example of film widely considered superior losing to a lesser-loved film was probably the Oscars for 2005, when CRASH, a well-received, but unremarkable urban drama/thriller won in an infamous upset against the awards juggernaut and cultural icon that was BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, although there was a bit of a spat, though a less surprising one, in for 2010, when Tom Hooper's fine but safe royal drama, THE KING'S SPEECH beat David Fincher's Internet Age Citizen Kane, THE SOCIAL NETWORK.
Still, what's a notorious loss at the time and what is later is not always, or necessarily often, the same.
FORREST GUMP, Best Picture Winner 1994, was a box-office smash, 2nd biggest of '94, next to THE LION KING, was a case of the genuine people's favorite and is still a much beloved film, but not one, but two major classics have since blossomed from that year, removing all doubt that FORREST GUMP was not best pick.  The two films, both nominated for Best Picture, were Quentin Tarantino's iconic masterpiece of non-linear storytelling and rich dialogue, PULP FICTION, and Frank Darabont's "man-weepy", THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, which currently holds the highest ranking of user reviews on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).  While PULP FICTION managed to nab an award for Best Original Screenplay, SHAWSHANK not only went home empty-handed, but didn't even garner a nod for Best Director, losing that nomination spot to Woody Allen for BULLETS OVER BROADWAY, which nobody can tell you anything about.
The most famous Best Picture loss amongst critics is 1941's CITIZEN KANE, losing to HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY, and politics play pretty heavily into that one though.  CITIZEN KANE clearly, though unofficially, dealt harshly with the legacy of yellow journalism tycoon William Randolph Hearst, a man with unlimited resources and power in the media industry.  When the film won its single award, for Best Original Screenplay, the occasion was marked with jeers from some in the audience.
FARGO lost to THE ENGLISH PATIENT in 1996, GOODFELLAS to DANCES WITH WOLVES in 1990, STAR WARS to ANNIE HALL in 1977, APOCALYPSE NOW to KRAMER VS. KRAMER in 1979, THE GRADUATE and BONNIE AND CLYDE to IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT in 1967, and Alfred Hitchcock never won a single Oscar for directing, while only one of his films (REBECCA (1940)) ever won Best Picture.  Funnily enough though, it was THE GRAPES OF WRATH that probably should have won that year (John Ford won for Best Director), while many of Hitchcock's films are considered greater than REBECCA, such as VERTIGO, PSYCHO, NOTORIOUS and REAR WINDOW, to name a few.
Still, all of these examples of history offering a new opinion to what was begs a new query, being; just because a film is considered the greater in future years, does that prove the previous opinion wrong?  Perhaps further history will re-justify currently derided past decisions, perhaps not.  But then again, perhaps it's a futile argument, but contemporary issues, sentiments and personal taste are ever changing and weigh so heavily on our opinions.  Movies will always be subjective.

THE PRE-CEREMONY ACADEMY AWARDS COMMENTARY! (INCLUDING PREDICTIONS): PT 2 OF 2: EVERTHYTING ELSE, PT. 2 OF 2

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
ARGO
BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
LIFE OF PI
LINCOLN
SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
People sometimes think of the Best Screenplay categories as the film with the best dialogue; that's actually about half of it.  Maybe even a little more of it when comes to the 'adapted' screenplays, being screenplays based on previously existing written sources, such as a film version of a novel, i.e. LIFE OF PI and SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK and specifically credited as being based "in part" on a non-fiction book, LINCOLN, or sometimes an article, a previous screenplay in the case of a remake, and really any number of media forms, as another huge part of a great script is, of course, the story and its structure.  SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK has a strong "screwball comedy" style that plays well, LIFE OF PI's screenplay was the first step to bringing the "unfilmable" story to the screen and BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD, based on a one-act play called Sweet and Juicy, has an incredible script it seems, but there's a strong possibility of onset set improvisation and intense editing that make me skeptical about how direct the script-to-film relation is.  If it's close, then it would deserve the win, but it's also so unconventional that it probably will alienate a good portion of the Academy.
The frontrunners for Best Adapted Screenplay are LINCOLN and ARGO.  LINCOLN is a political thriller, so not an easy thing to structure, and furthermore, is set in the 1860's.  Written by Tony Kushner, who also wrote Spielberg's LINCOLN, it utilizes sweepingly lyrical and poetic language, but to it's slight detriment, there are a few corny bits, however, those bits do play better when read directly from the script, as opposed to how they play in the film.  ARGO is written by Chris Terrio and is a fairly rapid-fire, intense thriller with snappy dialogue exchanges.  I'm personally more fond of this kind of script, and ARGO weaves through many tones and emotional environments with ease as well.  My pick here is ARGO, but by a slim margin and consideration to my own personal preferences.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
AMOUR
DJANGO UNCHAINED
FLIGHT
MOONRISE KINGDOM
ZERO DARK THIRTY
The Best Original Screenplay does not necessarily indicate an original story, for example, ZERO DARK THIRTY, which depicts the true-life events in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, but as was the case there, the original screenplay does not use a previously published form of written media as a direct source.  Again, I have not yet seen AMOUR as of this writing, but the rest are strong candidates.  To the chagrin of many, I'm sure, I think I'd rank MOONRISE KINGDOM as lowest of the bunch because, amusing as it was, I thought it was the typical Wes Anderson-y whimsy he churns out, and I've seen better examples of that (see THE ROYAL TENANBAUMS.), and DJANGO UNCHAINED is great and chock-filled with witticisms, dark humor, and intelligent prose much like every other script by Quentin Tarantino but in a western setting and is very much a good script, but considering that Tarantino just won the award with his last film, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS in 2009, he probably won't win this round.  I think my favorites for this one are FLIGHT, written by John Gatins, whose sketchy hard-knock drama tendencies finally bloomed into something great and possibly a fluke, and ZERO DARK THIRTY, written by Mark Boal, who won for his previous screenplay, THE HURT LOCKER.  My favorite for the win is ZERO DARK THIRTY, for its balls-to-the-wall attitude and impressive ability to squeeze an insane amount of information into a palatable two and a half hours.

BEST DIRECTOR:
MICHAEL HANEKE for AMOUR
BENH ZEITLIN for BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
ANG LEE for LIFE OF PI
STEVEN SPIELBERG for LINCOLN
DAVID O. RUSSELL for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Best Director is the soul brother (and one-time soul sister) to the award for Best Picture.  They are hand in hand awards and are almost always the easiest to bet on because the winner for Best Picture is usually the winner of Best Director as well, being that the popular (though probably generalizing) auteur theory states that the director of a film is the defining force behind it, and for the most part he/she is.  He's/she's there instructing the film, he/she approves the various cuts and elements, and basically chaperones, provides input to and approves the results of nearly everyone working on the film.  Finally, in accordance with studio negotiations, the director decides on the final product.  Every once in a while, the Best Picture and Best Director awards go to separate films, and though it's unusual, it's not usually a big surprise, the most recent being in 2005 when CRASH won Best Picture in an upset, while the frontrunner, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, retained Ang Lee's second of two Best Director awards, the first of which, for CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, was without a Best Picture win as well.  Yet again, Lee is up for Best Director, this time for LIFE OF PI, which is unlikely to win Best Picture and could be a third win for Lee without a Best Picture.
This year, the Best Director race, and with it, Best Picture, has seen an incredible shakeup after ARGO slipped into a frontrunner status despite a currently infamous snub where Ben Affleck failed to garner a nomination for Best Director.  If, or perhaps when, ARGO wins Best Picture as expected, it will only be third film in history to do so without a Best Director nomination, most recently being DRIVING MISS DAISY in 1989 with Best Director going to Oliver Stone (his second win) for BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, and before that was the first Best Picture winner (then, Outstanding Picture), WINGS, but under significantly different rules and organization.  With the Best Picture frontrunner missing from the Best Director category, the win is wide open for speculation.  Even still, certain elements are predictable; Michael Haneke, nominated for AMOUR is an unlikely win, mainly due to his limited appeal arthouse style, and previously-nominated David O. Russell isn't considered very likable, not enough to score this year anyway.  Benh Zeitlin's nomination is mostly for show alongside other nominations, strictly as nominations, for BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD; a brilliant film, but too bold for the current Academy.  Haneke, Russell or Zeitlin all could have been interchangeable for the snubbed Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow for ZERO DARK THIRTY.
Spielberg is the frontrunner for this award, with Lee as a possible second.  Spielberg's LINCOLN was great, but this award, as opposed to his two previous wins for masterpieces SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993) and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998), wouldn't so specifically be for this particular work, but largely because it's an opportunity to recognize Spielberg, the biggest Hollywood legend working today, and hell, I'm always for awarding Spielberg, but if I had my way, LIFE OF PI would win Best Picture and Lee, accordingly for Best Director.  But my bet to win, is Spielberg.

AND FINALLY, IN SUMMATION:
BEST PICTURE:
Will win: ARGO  /2nd (my safety): LINCOLN /Should win: LIFE OF PI  /Should received a damn courtesy nomination: MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS
BEST DIRECTOR:
Will win:  Steven Spielberg for LINCOLN  /2nd: Ang Lee for LIFE OF PI  /Should win: Kathryn Bigelow (not nominated) for ZERO DARK THIRTY
BEST ACTOR:
Will win:  Daniel Day-Lewis, LINCOLN  /2nd:  Don't really need one here  /Should win:  See "Will win" 
BEST ACTRESS:
Will win:  Jessica Chastain, ZERO DARK THIRTY  /2nd: Jennifer Lawrence, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK  /Should win: Jessica Chastain
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Will win: Tommy Lee Jones, LINCOLN  /2nd: Robert DeNiro, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK  /Should win:  Tommy Lee Jones
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
Will win:  Anne Hathaway, LES MISERABLES  /2nd:  Don't really think I need one  /Should win:  Anne Hathaway
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
Will win:  ZERO DARK THIRTY  /2nd: MOONRISE KINGDOM  /Should win:  ZERO DARK THIRTY
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
Will win: LINCOLN  /2nd: SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK  /Should win:  Probably LINCOLN
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM:
Will win: WRECK-IT RALPH  /2nd: PARANORMAN  /Should win: PARANORMAN
BEST FOREIGN FILM:
Will win:  AMOUR  /2nd: N/A  /Should win:  Don't know.  Didn't see any of them.
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:
Will win:  SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN  /2nd: N/A  / Should win:  Don't know.  Didn't see any of them.
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT:
Nobody gives a f-ck.
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT:
Again, nobody give a f-ck.
BEST ANIMATED SHORT:
Will win: PAPERMAN  /2nd: FRESH GUACAMOLE  / Should win: PAPERMAN
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:
Will win: LINCOLN  /2nd: ARGO  /Should win: LIFE OF PI
BEST ORIGINAL SONG:
Will win: Skyfall from SKYFALL  /2nd: Suddenly from LES MISERABLES  /Should win: Skyfall, I guess
These categories aren't as important so I'll half-ass them.
BEST SOUND EDITING:
Will Win: SKYFALL  /Should win:  Why not SKYFALL?
BEST SOUND MIXING:
Will and should win:  LES MISERABLES
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN:
Will win:  ANNA KARENINA  /2nd: LIFE OF PI
BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING:
Will win: LES MISERABLES
BEST COSTUME DESIGN:
Will win:  LINCOLN  /2nd: LES MISERABLES
BEST FILM EDITING:
Will win: ARGO  /2nd: ZERO DARK THIRTY  /Should win: ZERO DARK THIRTY
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:
Will win: LIFE OF PI  /Should win: LIFE OF PI

THE PRE-CEREMONY ACADEMY AWARDS COMMENTARY! (INCLUDING PREDICTIONS): PT. 2 OF 2: EVERYTHING ELSE: PT 1 OF 2

BEST ACTOR:
I don't give a whole lot of regard to the acting categories most of the time; I'm not really sure why.  I can detect and eagerly condemn bad acting, but the thing about good acting is that a lot of it is directly connected to how the character is written.  Even if an actor is great and invested, it's not worth a lot without a well-written character.  What these seem to come down to most of the time is more about the best character than the best acting, with some exceptions mainly specific to portrayals of famous persons that call for the best embodiment/imitation, i.e. Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher in last year's winner, THE IRON LADY, or Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles in 2004's RAY.  Also in consideration here is the actor's imprint on cinematic history, which is where you get the veteran actors, usually in the Best Supporting categories.  These facts apply to Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress.
NOMINATED:
BRADLEY COOPER for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK:  For the star of films such as THE HANGOVER and ALL ABOUT STEVE, as well as a few quality but under the radar dramas/thrillers like LIMITLESS, the nomination is the award.  His performance as bi-polar Pat Solitano is the stuff the Academy adores, but he'll win in later years if he maintains quality.
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS for LINCOLN:  The hands-down favorite and far ahead frontrunner for the win, Day-Lewis deserves it, and if he does win on Sunday as expected, he'll be the new record holder for the category at 3 wins, following wins for THERE WILL BE BLOOD in 2007 and MY LEFT FOOT in 1989.  The current record is 2, currently held by himself and 8 others, including the likes of Marlon Brando, Spencer Tracy and Gary Cooper.  Jack Nicholson's sometimes considered to record holder by default for having a Best Supporting Actor win in addition to his 2 Best Actors.  But if anyone was going to break the record, it would be the chameleonic method actor Day-Lewis, and his performance as Abraham Lincoln is phenomenal and easily the crown jewel of Steven Spielberg's presidential biopic.
HUGH JACKMAN for LES MISERABLES:  The actor most familiar as Wolverine from the X-Men film franchise will likely have opportunities to win in future years, but he's no match for Day-Lewis this year.  Still, his performance as Jean Valjean is the stuff the Academy dreams of, including a wide age range, weight manipulation and singing, live on set no less.
JOAQUIN PHOENIX for THE MASTER:  Phoenix's performance as a mentally unstable WWII veteran adrift in post-war life who finds solace in deathly strong drink and a Scientology-esque cult was extremely well-crafted and intense, but the likability issue is a problem here because as well as he performs, the awkward character is not sympathetic, and Phoenix's bizarre I'M STILL HERE stunt a few years ago may have harmed his public likability, as well as among his peers in the Academy.
DENZEL WASHINGTON for FLIGHT:  FLIGHT is a magnificent film and Washington is its brilliant centerpiece, but with one Best Actor and a Best Supporting Actor already under his belt, the Academy will likely wait for a future year.  Still, if anyone was going to provide an upset against Day-Lewis this year, it would be Washington.
BEST ACTRESS:
JESSICA CHASTAIN for ZERO DARK THIRTY:  Chastain suddenly exploded on the scene in 2011 for her work in TREE OF LIFE and THE HELP, having only made her feature film debut in the 2008 indie JOLENE.  Her first Oscar nomination, Best Supporting Actress, came last year for THE HELP, which she lost to her co-star Octavia Spencer.  In ZERO DARK THIRTY, her starring role as CIA operative Maya is electrifying, and as one of the greatest of the new generation of actors, she's sure to have many more chances, she sure as hell earned it this year, however, she's only one of  two frontrunners in this category...
JENNIFER LAWRENCE for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK:  J-Law, only 22 years old, has already been up for this award once, for 2010's WINTER'S BONE, and is probably the greatest young actress today.  However, her record is a bit spotty (something the voters may take into account), including howlers such as 2012's THE HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET and 2011's THE BEAVER.  Also a mark against her is her recent "I beat Meryl!" moment at the Golden Globes that may hurt her likability.  Nevertheless, her performance as an unstable widow in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is stellar, and I would not be disappointed if she won, although my pick is Chastain.  Still, Lawrence has the ultimate weapon on her side: Harvey.  F---ing.  Weinstein.  Oscar Hunting Extraordinaire.
EMMANUELLE RIVA for AMOUR:  As of this writing, I haven't seen AMOUR, so I don't know the merits of her performance.  However, she's got a good chance considering she's the oldest Best Actress nominee ever at 85, previously held by Jessica Tandy for DRIVING MISS DAISY in 1989 and also won at age 80.
QUVENZHANE WALLIS for BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD:  Her's is a stunning performance, one of the best child performances I've ever seen, but her chances of the win are nil.  For one, nobody can pronounce her damn name.  For another, child acting doesn't get much respect because there's speculation about the director's manipulation, and also, most of them suck.  She's the youngest Best Actress nominee ever, at 9 years old, previously held by Keisha Castle-Hughes at 13 for WHALE RIDER in 2003.  I'm not sure exactly though if this is a case of incredible acting of divine casting/editing though.
NAOMI WATTS for THE IMPOSSIBLE:  Still haven't seen this one, but this nomination is mainly an afterthought that's been largely ignored.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Nominees:
ALAN ARKIN for ARGO
ROBERT DeNIRO for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN for THE MASTER
TOMMY LEE JONES for LINCOLN
CHRISTOPHER WALTZ for DJANGO UNCHAINED
For the first time ever, every nominee in this category has already won in previous years, DeNiro twice.  Other than Arkin, all of them are deserving; I didn't think Arkin was very remarkable, he was just playing himself.  DeNiro could win, but that would be more of a tribute to his legacy than his SILVER LININGS performance, good though it was.
I think the real standouts here are Jones, Waltz and Hoffman.  Hoffman was a welcome charismatic presence in the distant THE MASTER, but he's unlikely to win, possibly due to that film's unkind portrayal of a fictional but Scientology-esque cult that may be offensive to some of Hollywood's top players.  Waltz is stellar as the German bounty-hunting dentist raisonneur in DJANGO UNCHAINED, but how much of that is him and how much is Tarantino's script is arguable.  I'm guessing Jones, despite rumors of his crusty unlikability among his peers akin to his films, for his bombastic portrayal of fiery abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens in LINCOLN.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
Nominees:
AMY ADAMS for THE MASTER
SALLY FIELD for LINCOLN
ANNE HATHAWAY for LES MISERABLES
HELEN HUNT for THE SESSIONS
JACKI WEAVER for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
I haven't seen THE SESSIONS yet, but from what I understand, I'm surprised Hunt wasn't in the Best Actress category.  Either way, she's unlikely to win; her's is a case of  what I assume is a good performance that locked the nomination with daringly frank nudity.  Weaver was good in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, but like everyone and everything else in that film, with the exception of Jennifer Lawrence, was just really good, not exceptional.  Field, winner of two previous Best Actress Oscars, hasn't won for almost 30 years (1984's PLACES IN THE HEART), but I found her character unlikable, which, whether it's due to her acting or not, is a factor.  Regardless, she has garnered heavy acclaim and has a strong chance.
Adams and Hathaway are a couple of the greatest actresses working today.  Hathaway's record is quite spotty, but even in her bombs, she turns in good work and stands as the shining light.  Adams was my favorite part of THE MASTER, a film I was disappointed by (I am so sorry to the world of film scholarship!), but her seemingly sweet but surprisingly steely performance was what held my attention.  Hathaway has been nominated once before, for Best Actress in RACHEL GETTING MARRIED in 2008, and Adams thrice before, for Best Supporting Actress in JUNEBUG (2005), DOUBT (2008) and THE FIGHTER (2008).  While I'd probably say Adams is the better actress overall (by a miniscule margin), and both have had Oscar gold a long time coming, this one has to belongs to Hathaway, and she's been the hands-down favorite ever since she was featured singing I Dreamed a Dream in the LES MISERABLES teaser trailer last May.  Not only does she do everything that impresses the hell out of the Academy, i.e. significant weight loss, on-set singing, a disturbing sex/rape scene, onscreen head shearing and just plain great acting, but she stole the entire show all within the first act, and she didn't even need that much, just her angry and heart-wrenching solo of I Dreamed a Dream.
BEST ANIMATED FILM:
NOMINEES:
BRAVE
FRANKENWEENIE
PARANORMAN
THE PIRATES!: BAND OF MISFITS
WRECK-IT RALPH
It's important to note that this is not for the best animation but for the best animated film.  Pixar has their obligatory appearance with BRAVE, but they seem to have fallen out of their "Golden Age", and although it was far better than CARS 2, this year's effort failed to meet expectations.  FRANKENWEENIE and THE PIRATES! are both fine films, but there are only two real standouts this year:  WRECK-IT RALPH and PARANORMAN.
WRECK-IT RALPH is a continuation of Disney's recent return to quality, full of inventiveness and damn good entertainment.  But PARANORMAN.  My goodness, PARANORMAN was one of my favorite films of 2012.  It is smart, it is funny, it is stunning, it is scary, it is beautiful, it is emotional and surprising.  While the liberal causes of PARNORMAN, such as themes of tolerance and a major homosexual character (much to the lamentations of the political right), may appeal to Hollywood (not for their politics but rather, to their sense of self-importance), WRECK-IT RALPH seems to be the favorite.
CINEMATOGRAPHY:
NOMINEES:
ANNA KARENINA
DJANGO UNCHAINED
LIFE OF PI
LINCOLN
SKYFALL
Roger Deakins received his 10th nomination in this category for SKYFALL, and it's about time that he won, and SKYFALL is just the film to give it to him for.  Still, LIFE OF PI, which is probably the more likely winner, is deserving too, but its hypnotic and hallucinogenic sequences make it pretty easy.  Still, if the Academy voters saw it in 3D, which they probably didn't, they might just have to give it to LIFE OF PI.
BEST COSTUME DESIGN:
NOMINEES:
ANNA KARENINA
LES MISERABLES
LINCOLN
MIRROR MIRROR
SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN
I don't think there are any actual standouts here, although I haven't seen ANNA KARENINA, but SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN had some cool but non-showy pieces, so I guess I'll go with that one.
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:
NOMINEES:
3 BROKEN CAMERAS
THE GATEKEEPERS
HOW TO SURVIVE A PLAGUE
THE INVISIBLE WAR
SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN
I haven't seen any of these.  I'm not really a documentary fan, but SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN is the undisputed favorite.
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT:
NOMINEES:
INOCENTE
KINGS POINT
MONDAYS AT RACINE
OPEN HEART
REDEMPTION
I don't even know why this is category.  I mean, who the hell cares?  I haven't seen any of them, I doubt many of the Academy voters have seen more than one at the most, if that.  Nobody talks about this one.  The only place you might even see these is at a special Best Documentary Shorts screening that normal people don't go to on purpose.
BEST FILM EDITING:
NOMINEES:
ARGO
LIFE OF PI
LINCOLN
SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
ZERO DARK THIRTY
For those who don't know, the editor takes the raw product of the film, basically hours of film footage and multiple shots of the same scene, and assembles them in a coherent whole using the best footage.  Of the most important film professions, it's probably the most overlooked by the general public.  LIFE OF PI is a remarkable feat of editing that takes a story about a kid in a boat with a tiger in the middle of the ocean and makes that relentlessly enrapturing, but I'd pick ZERO DARK THIRTY, which takes an epic 8-years-long story packed full of information and pieces together a brutally tense thriller that entertains through every one of its 157 minutes.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:
NOMINEES:
AMOUR
KON-TIKI
NO
A ROYAL AFFAIR
WAR WITCH
I haven't seen any of these, but AMOUR is also nominated for Best Picture, which it won't win, so this is basically the default consolation prize.
BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING:
NOMINEES:
HITCHCOCK
THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
LES MISERABLES
None of these feels that remarkable to me.  THE HOBBIT was the same old stuff and the orcs looked better in THE LORD OF THE RINGS anyway.  Although it didn't get much love due to its light (if macabre) tone and artistic liberties, I loved HITCHCOCK, but the makeup is all about Anthony Hopkins' fat suit, which gets the job done, but it's an old trick by now.  LES MISERABLES will likely win as the Academy does whatever it can to leave it with something.
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:
NOMINEES:
ANNA KARENINA
ARGO
LIFE OF PI
LINCOLN
SKYFALL
My favorite here is LIFE OF PI for its emotional Indian-styled score by Mychael Danna, but ARGO or LINCOLN could easily take it as a pile-on prize.
BEST ORIGINAL SONG:
NOMINEES:
"BEFORE MY TIME" from CHASING ICE
"EVERYBODY NEEDS A BEST FRIEND" from TED
"PI'S LULLABY" from LIFE OF PI
"SKYFALL" from SKYFALL
"SUDDENLY" from LES MISERABLES
The Academy voters don't usually give this one much thought, but Adele's Skyfall is a genuine favorite.  I kind of like Pi's Lullaby, Suddenly is an unimpressive piece of Oscar-bait, and while Everybody Needs a Best Friend is nothing special, they should have nominated the Fuck You, Thunda Song from TED, because that just would have been awesome.
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN:
NOMINEES:
ANNA KARENINA
THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
LES MISERABLES
LIFE OF PI
LINCOLN
Production design is the overall visual aesthetic of the film, i.e. set design, props, etc. and how it all works together.  I like LIFE OF PI for this one, ANNA KARENINA's production all takes place in a theater, which is pure Oscar bait.
BEST ANIMATED SHORT:
I don't feel like listing the nominees for this one.  All that matters is Disney's PAPERMAN, which is simply one of the best things ever.  Also it has a good chance of winning, largely because it's had great buzz, and this is another category none of the voters see many of.
BEST SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION):
Nobody cares about this category.
BEST SOUND EDITING:
NOMINEES:
ARGO
DJANGO UNCHAINED
LIFE OF PI
SKYFALL
ZERO DARK THIRTY
Sound editing is the sound effects that are added in post-production, after the filming has taken place.  Nobody really cares about this category; usually it goes to a quality action blockbuster that made a lot of money, so probably SKYFALL this year, but LIFE OF PI could sweep the technical as a sort of consolation for not receiving the big awards, like happened with HUGO last year.
BEST SOUND MIXING:
Sound mixing involves the sond that is actually recorded onset.  LES MISERABLES has this one in the bag because, yet again, they desperately want to give something, anything, to it, and much has been made of the live onset singing. 
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:
THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
LIFE OF PI
MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS
PROMETHEUS
SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN
THE AVENGERS and PROMETHEUS, while apt in their FX work, didn't have much that was remarkable, except maybe that extended trailing shot during the New York battle in the former.  SNOW WHITE did some pretty cool stuff, especially the dwarf effects (which offended dwarf actors' unions by giving dwarf roles to non-dwarfs).  THE HOBBIT looked disappointingly "computery" in its effects, only really pulling out the big guns for Gollum's appearance.  LIFE OF PI was unconventional, superb and unsentimental with its animated fauna, so that's my pick, and the Academy is almost certain to concur.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2 OF PART 2...

THE PRE-CEREMONY ACADEMY AWARDS COMMENTARY! (INCLUDING PREDICTIONS): PT. 1 OF 2: BEST PICTURE

I'll cover everything in this article, but unlike most, I'm not going to be coy; let's start with the real goods-

BEST PICTURE:
AMOUR 
ARGO
BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
DJANGO UNCHAINED
LES MISERABLES
LIFE OF PI
LINCOLN
SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
ZERO DARK THIRTY

The award for Best Picture is widely considered the big one; it goes to what the Academy voters have deemed the greatest movie of the year.  The problem with that though is that all movies are subjective and as when judged by their own merits, there can rarely be justified comparison between great movies.  So the Best Picture at the Oscars is not necessarily the greatest movie of the year.  It is the opinion of the Academy voters as a whole, but even then, it's rarely an actual, honest opinion, because there is a hell of a lot of Hollywood politics involved.
ARGO is expected to win, mainly as a result of Ben Affleck being snubbed as Best Director.  See, usually the nominations for the Director's Guild of America (DGA) are announced prior to the Oscar nominations, and the Academy voters, each nominating within their own category, i.e., film directors nominate for Best Director, usually use earlier nominations as a sort of guidebook of suggestion.  This year, the dates were switched, and somehow, despite even all the other hype, Affleck failed to garner a nomination.  Now, as Affleck has picked up Best Director wins in just about every other pre-Oscars awards, the Academy, which votes which nominees to win as a whole as opposed to the sectioned nominating process, will likely favor ARGO, partly as a consolation.  In addition, ARGO has won the Best Picture-equivalents at almost every other awards ceremony so far, and it makes Hollywood a hero, albeit while roasting them too, and Hollywood is justifiably famous for vanity.  I don't think they're more vain than really anybody else (hello, politicians!), but they don't invite enough conflict to distract from the fact. 
If ARGO wins, it will be the first time a film has won Best Picture without a Best Director nomination since DRIVING MISS DAISY in 1989, and only the third time since the inaugural Oscars in 1929 where WINGS won what was then Outstanding Picture with a director's nomination, but under a vastly different system.  As such, if it won it would be 3 out of 85!  Best Picture and Best Director just go hand in hand.  It's unusual but not shocking for a Best Picture and Best Director to go to two different films, the last time being 2005 when CRASH got Picture (inexplicably) and Ang Lee got Director for BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.  Anyway, ARGO is expected to win Best Picture, but in regards to the others:
AMOUR is the probably the least seen of the Best Picture nominees, and I am among those who haven't seen it, so I don't really have anything to say about it.  Even still, because I just have to have an opinion about everything, I will say that it is an art film, and I have nothing particular against those, but it did win the Palme de'Or at the Cannes Film Festival last year, and those are often pretty sketchy in my opinion.
BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD is very unlikely to win, but it's wonderful to see it nominated.  It's a low budget indie and an art house flick, but it was definitely one of the best films of last year, so if it won, it would deserve it, but this one's the sort of nominee that is awarded by being a nominee.
DJANGO UNCHAINED has little chance of winning either, but likewise, it deserves the recognition.  It's too bold and controversial for the Academy tastes though.  They like to nominate Tarantino films, and sometimes even nominate Tarantino, but they never give it to him.
LES MISERABLES was a pre-nominations favorite before its release.  The Academy loves musical spectaculars; they gave Best Picture to the not-so-deserving CHICAGO in 2002, probably just for the sake of awarding a genre that's become at bit rare in adult-aimed films.  For Oscar, a musical doesn't really have to be great, good will be good enough.  On top of that, LES MISERABLES was Tom Hooper's first film after winning the Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director for THE KING'S SPEECH in 2010 (an all too common case of the voters picking a nice and safe choice over the bold and once-in-a-generation excellence of THE SOCIAL NETWORK), with an all-star cast, not to mention the stage musical's status as one of the most popular musicals of all time, but then people actually saw the film.  It's a very good film, and for many viewers, a great one, but against the competition, it just wasn't what we were hoping for.  The nomination is justified, but a win would not be.
LIFE OF PI is my definite favorite of the bunch.  I freaking loved this movie, and in the unlikely case of a very surprising upset, it could win.  It would still be among the nominees with the pre-2009 system that was limited to 5 nominees, but the current Academy is pretty iffy about religion, and that's exactly what LIFE OF PI is about.  Ang Lee is an undisputed great director, but he's yet to win a Best Picture.
LINCOLN was the immediate post-nominations favorite, and is still the main competition for frontrunner ARGO.  Two rules predict a Best Picture winner, the first being that the winner of major pre-Oscars awards such as the Golden Globes, the British Academy, the Critics' Choice and assorted Hollywood workers' guilds will win Best Picture, and the points to ARGO.  The second rule is that the film with the most nominations overall will win Best Picture, and that distinction belongs to LINCOLN with 12, ARGO being in fifth behind LIFE OF PI, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK and LES MISERABLES with a regardlessly respectable 7.  So LINCOLN can and might win, but ARGO built strong momentum, so if it did, it would be a mild surprise.
SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is a really, really good movie and caters to Academy tastes, so I wasn't at all surprised by its nomination, but I am surprised by the status it's earned as a favorite, because as much as I enjoyed it, I've held it slightly lower in regard than most of the other Best Picture nominees.  Just goes to show that you should never underestimate the power of Harvey Weinstein, the incomparable master of Oscar schmoozing.  It probably won't win the big one, but it's definitely one to watch in other major categories, especially considering that it received nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress, a feat unmatched since 1981's REDS, which lost Best Picture.
ZERO DARK THIRTY has been woefully, undeserving of its heavy misfortune, which is largely rooted in the idiotic "torture controversy", regarding the film's graphic depictions of torture and accusations of a pro-torture stance.  Firstly, the pro-torture claims are an epic load of shit that has been perpetuated by typically smart people with good intentions.  ZERO DARK THIRTY is another first film following Oscar gold, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who won Best Picture and Director for THE HURT LOCKER in 2009, but her newest exceeds anything else she's done, and while ZERO DARK THIRTY has little chance of winning, it will probably earn justification in history and prove to be a greatly enduring and important film.

IN ORDER, #1 BEING MY TOP PICK, MY PERSONAL FAVORITES OF THE BEST PICTURE NOMINEES AT THE 85TH ACADEMY AWARDS:
1.  LIFE OF PI
2.  BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
3.  ZERO DARK THIRTY
4.  ARGO
5.  DJANGO UNCHAINED
6.  LINCOLN
7.  LES MISERABLES
8.  SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
EXEMPT: AMOUR

MY PREDICTIONS TO WIN BEST PICTURE AT THE 85TH ACADEMY AWARDS, #1 BEING THE MOST LIKELY:
1.  ARGO
2.  LINCOLN
3.  SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
4.  LIFE OF PI
5.  AMOUR
6.  ZERO DARK THIRTY
7.  BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
8.  LES MISERABLES
9.  DJANGO UNCHAINED

 

ACADEMY AWARDS: BEST PICTURE #8: LIFE OF PI

 LIFE OF PI
**** out of ****

This was one of my favorite, if not my favorite, films of 2012.  While I have appreciated the craftsmanship of director Ang Lee's past works, I never really connected with any of them, with the possible exception of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005), but even that I felt didn't meet my hopes.  Ang Lee's films all take rather emotional issues, i.e. estranged love in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, budding sexuality and marital tension in THE ICE STORM, star-crossed love in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON; but I've always felt like Lee keeps them a little distant, never really allowing the emotion to take hold like it could and should.  I'll love a movie for being intelligent, but I'm primarily an emotions-based moviegoer.  I can tell when a film is substituting cheap ploys and sentimentality for actual emotion, and I'm no fan of that, but I really want a movie that isn't afraid to kick an audience's emotions in the balls.  I believe the best stories have heart-wrenching midsections laden with loss and despair, which contrasts sharply with a jubilantly triumphant conclusion that has been well-earned through a baptism by fire; for more on this, see Samwise Gamgee's (Sean Astin) monologue towards the end of THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS (2002), heard as the climactic battles are coming to a close.  Anyway, this time, Lee delivered payment in full.
LIFE OF PI is the kind of movie that coyly strides up to your emotional personification and and politely ask, "Excuse me Mr. Emotions, but are those your genitals?"  And when your emotions replies in the unassuming affirmative, the film proceeds to deliver a walloping upward kick directly to your emotional testicles, so to speak.
LIFE OF PI is a tricky movie to explain; after all, the story, adapted from a novel of the same title by Yann Martel, was often shamelessly described as "unfilmable".  In essence, it is a film about religion, or more specifically, religious belief.  Pi Patel, played as a teen by newcomer Suraj Sharma, is a young lad in Pondicherry, India, named after the Piscine Molitor swimming pool in France (Piscine being French for "swimming pool".  His father is the owner of a zoo and an ardent atheist, but his sweet-natured mother raises him as a Hindu.  He becomes very occupied with religion, learning about Jesus Christ from a kind priest in a Catholic church and of Islam when wandering into the city's Muslim Quarter.  While mostly ignoring the dogma and simply wishing to love God, Pi takes part in all three beliefs, having learned of heavenly power from Hindu teachings, of God's love from Christianity and of religious brotherhood from Islam.
When Pi's father closes the zoo and books passage for the family and animals aboard a freighter set sail for North America where the animals will be sold for better prices and the Patels will start a new life in Canada, tragedy strikes.  From there, I describe the story as akin to that of Job in the Old Testament, that is, a baptism by fire trial of faith.
The shipwreck is amongst one of the most stunning sequences in any film of the year, harrowing and majestic.  Pi loses everything, left raw with nothing but his soul and the grace of God.  The sole human survivor in a lifeboat, he soon discovers he shares this boat with a wild tiger from the zoo named Richard Parker.  The main body of this epic religious fable involves Pi's experiences attempting to share a boat with the tiger in the vast midst of the ocean.  It is not as bad as it sounds, in fact, it isn't bad at all; it is brilliant!
Unfortunately, it seems this film's best chance at the Oscars is in the not so prestigious category of Best Special Effects, but it sure as hell deserves it.  In addition to a few other animals and a dozen or so major sequences, the tiger is CGI.  Actually, some scenes of the tiger are of a live tiger on set and some are CG, but I could not identify them for you.  I won't exaggerate, there are a few shots where I thought it was clearly a special effect, but I had just assumed it was all CGI, but after learning otherwise, I'm really unsure which is what.  LIFE OF PI is a very sfx-heavy film, but in an unconventional way outside of action and the like, and the CG animals are very realistic, lacking any apparent sentimentalizing.
Without the 3D, it is regardless a magnificent masterpiece, but when you've seen the 3D presentation before seeing it in 2D, it's a little sad, because LIFE OF PI earns the use of the format well, often using it blatantly like a gimmick and yet with relevance.  I'm not saying it needed to be made in 3D, but what they did with it made it very worth it indeed.
As a 3D film aimed at families from a director known for mainly mature films (with HULK in 2003, Lee turned a popular comic book character into a psychological experiment), LIFE OF PI invited comparisons to 2011's HUGO, directed by Martin Scorcese, but HUGO was actually a family film.  I guess, going by what's actually onscreen, I can understand the MPAA's PG rating, but even then, it really pushes it.  I would encourage "mature" children to see it, but it's no family film.  This is extremely intense, heavy stuff, exploring themes of religious understanding, human cruelty, extreme hardship and pain, including dialogue-referenced elements of cannibalism.  It's not an easy movie; it's just very worth it, and you'll leave feeling edified.

DIRECTED BY:  Ang Lee
STARRING:  Irrfan Khan, Suraj Sharma, Tabu, Rafe Spall
Rated PG for emotional thematic content throughout, and some scary action sequences and peril.

ACADEMY AWARDS: BEST PICTURE #7: ARGO

ARGO
**** out of ****

ARGO is currently the frontrunner to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.  It was the the frontrunner to win even before the nominees were announced, but the hype stumbled some when director Ben Affleck failed to garner a nomination for Best Director.  Since then though, it's regained traction by winning nearly every other major award that typically foreshadow an Oscar win.  For reference to the most likely reason for Affleck's snub, see his work in the late 1990's and early 2000's. especially GIGLI, PEARL HARBOR, SURVIVING CHRISTMAS and most of everything else he acted in from 1998 through 2004.  Hopefully, one day, the Academy voters will find it in their hearts to forgive him, but seriously, those Michael Bay movies were really, really, really bad.
ARGO though: so what does it mean?  "Argo f--k yourself," as Alan Arkin, as director/producer Lester Siegel frequently declares throughout the film, and eventually becomes the catchphrase for the film's heroes.  Chris Terrio's Oscar-nominated script, the first feature screenplay to his credit, is based on the declassified C.I.A. mission to smuggle six U.S. diplomats out of Tehran, Iran during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.  The film opens an a quick, sort of comic book-styled animated prologue that provides a great deal of background information on the Iranian political situation of 1979 and then begins an incredibly intense sequence depicting the Iranian storming of the U.S. embassy where all but six are taken.  These six diplomats escape and find secret refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador, Ken Taylor, played by Victor Garber, best known for playing Mr. Andrews in TITANIC (1997).
In addition to his directing and producing duties, Affleck stars as C.I.A. officer and "exfiltration" specialist, Tony Mendez, who is inspired while watching the atrociously boring BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES to put together a "fake movie" as a cover to the operation to rescue the escapees.  Mendez contacts PLANET OF THE APES movie makeup artist John Chambers, played with excellent panache by John Goodman, who introduces him to washed-up film producer Siegel.  Together, the trio buys a script for a science fiction b-movie adventure Argo, assemble a cast, crew and publicity gala, all in the name of a non-existent movie.  The first half of the film is largely a comedy, milking big laughs from Arkin and Goodman while roasting the hell out of Hollywood.  Then, as the operation goes into action in Iran and Medez vets the escapees in their roles as members of the film production scouting team, the movie shifts hard into thriller mode.
In terms of the rave reviews and Oscar hype, I'm not positive what exactly makes this one so unique, but it is extremely well-made, informative and gripping.  But maybe that's all it needs.  In any case, it would be no real crime if it won.
IF YOU LIKE ARGO, YOU MAY LIKE:  THE TOWN (2010), GONE BABY GONE (2007), ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976), JFK (1991)
DIRECTED BY: Ben Affleck
STARRING: Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Bryan Cranston, Victor Garber
Rated R for language and some violent images.

ACADEMY AWARDS: BEST PICTURE #6: DJANGO UNCHAINED

DJANGO UNCHAINED
**** out of ****

Like all of his prior films, Quentin Tarantino's DJANGO UNCHAINED is a surprisingly deep and insightful work masquerading as a magnificently violent but cartoonist cinematic frolic.  The extreme seriousness of most other attempts to understand slavery through cinema, such as Spielberg's disappointing AMISTAD, is not apparent in this work, but I believe it is present and all the more powerful.  I'm hesitant to say the film about slavery is this, directed by a white man, but it's unlikely that a film like this could get through the system with a black director, because some brush it off as racial rage.  While I abhor that speculation, I believe it.  But I suppose slavery affected everyone, including white people, as it was that wretched institution that rotted the soul of the south and where much of the racism of today holds its roots like a shroud of shame, and Tarantino does a hell of a job.  It's a tribute to the "spaghetti western", and as such, the story structure is mythic in nature.  A hero, in this case, Django, is cast in the raging fire, formed by his wicked enemies.  A mysterious and usually eccentric  figure, either being a hermit or a nomad (in this case nomadic), arrives on the scene in time to begin a tutelage with the hero, this mentor being Dr. King Schultz.  From there, the raw hero is refined and polished into what he must be to fulfil his mission, which here openly takes a cue from the German myth of Sigfried as Django's quest is to find and free his wife Broomhilda Jamie Foxx exudes the necessary coolness to play Django, but is so well served in the writing and production that most of his work is already done for him.  The two titans of the distinguished cast, who both compete to chew up the most Tarantinoan scenery, are Christopher Waltz as Dr. Schultz and Leonardo DiCaprio as the superbly and sickeningly wicked plantation aristocrat, Calvin Candie.  There's obviously very open condemnation of the south's history of slavery, but Tarantino also subtly and wittily mocks/condemns the culture of hypocritical ignorance through Candie, a man who decorates his mansion with Parisian flair and request to be addressed as "Monsieur" but Schultz is told not to speak French to him because Candie does not speak the language, or Candie's fondness of author Alexandre Dumas, naming one of his Mandingo fighting slaves D'artangan, but is unaware that Dumas had African ancestors and was considered black.  A spectacular slow motion shot shows blood from a slave master spilling on the white tufts of cotton out in the field, suggesting the stain of blood upon the Old South, one of their one doing and deserving.  Like in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, Tarantino shows little respect for period accuracy and aesthetics, rather only maintaining strong loyalty to the ideas, feelings and issues of history, but it works.  The production design takes huge advantage of this, such as Django's badass sunglasses when he masquerades as a Mandingo expert or Schultz's whimsical dentistry wagon with a great big molar that rocks on a spring.  The often contemporary soundtrack is surprising, but also unbelievably appropriate.  It's a film bound to rile, in fact, it is designed to do so, and whether you love it or hate it, it's great that it allows these issues to bubble up back to the surface of our society, because these are things that need to be discussed, not forgotten.  It's great that it's so bold in its assertions too and dares to embrace the cinematic taboos that usually result in whitewashing in their absence.  It is stomach churning, about 3 hours long and deals with very heady topics, but it rushes by as a thrilling and thought-provoking entertainment.
IF YOU LIKED DJANGO UNCHAINED, YOU MAY LIKE:
INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (2009), KILL BILL: VOL. 1 (2003), DJANGO (1966)
DIRECTED BY: Quentin Tarantino
STARRING: Jamie Foxx, Christopher Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington
Rated R for strong graphic violence throughout, a vicious fight, language and some nudity.

ACADEMY AWARDS: BEST PICTURE #5: ZERO DARK THIRTY

ZERO DARK THIRTY

**** out of ****

This incredible dramatization of the ten years-long mission to apprehend/kill Osama Bin Laden takes a staggering amount of information and presents it clearly and compellingly in two-and-a-half hours, which is a testament to the skill of all involved, especially Mark Boal's Oscar-nominated script, Dylan Tichenor and William Goldberg's Oscar-nominated editing (Goldberg is also up for the same category for ARGO), Kathryn Bigelow's direction and a tour de force lead performance from Oscar-nominated Jessica Chastain.  So, in that order...
The responsibility for the mechanics of presenting that vast amount of information in a cinematic form falls largely on the screenplay by Boal, who won an Oscar for his last collaboration with Bigelow with 2009's THE HURT LOCKER.  Even though his ZERO DARK THIRTY screenplay is nominated for Best Original Screenplay, the material is largely already there in the historic events and governmental records and the interviews, but assembling it all would be the first stage of editing, the writing stage editing, and it's basically a 10 years long movie that needs to be edited down to no more than 3 hours, and in a comprehensible, gripping way.  In all this is Boal's script successful.
The editing by Tichenor and Goldberg is basically the same in a second stage; the vast raw product to be assembled coherently and cinematically.
Bigelow proved apt with such material with her Oscar-winning Iraq War-based psychological thriller, THE HURT LOCKER.  ZERO DARK THIRTY is similar territory; the War on Terror, Middle East war politics and perils, the ethics and feelings of warfare.  This is perhaps her masterpiece though, so far at least.  Despite being the first (and so far, only) woman to win the Academy Award for Best Director, all of Bigelow's previous works; POINT BREAK, K-19: THE WIDOWMAKER and THE HURT LOCKER have all been distinctly masculine films with hardly a female presence to be found.  ZERO DARK THIRTY is no chick flick to be certain, in fact it's just as rough and tough as anything Bigelow's done before, but through its factual basis, her lead character is a woman, Maya (Chastain).
Chastain has proved time and again her aptitude and range as an actress, but Maya is, to date, the best character she has had the opportunity to play.  Maya is a hard-edged, tougher-than- nails woman, but unmistakably a woman character.  The most common pitfall in movies aspiring to create a "strong female character" is making what Roger Ebert referred to in his review for Pixar's BRAVE (2012) as an "honorary boy", that being a character we're told is female and looks feminine, but in none of her behavior or personality does she portray feminine traits.  Boal's script, Bigelow's direction and Chastain's performance all contribute to avoiding such, and doing so while keeping the character in one believable figure.  She dominates the workplace with a furious drive, the occasional humorous demonstration, and Chastain's naturally demure sensibility counters her harsher aspects creating a well-rounded and believable personality.
Interesting to note is how the film addresses politics while sidestepping any apparent partisanship, and still, it became the most politically-charged mainstream film of the year.  The film does not allow itself a dog in this fight.  While still in production, political righties threw accusations of inappropriate access to information given to Boal and Bigelow by the Obama Administration and further accused the film of being pro-Obama propaganda that would remind voters of his executive order to take out Bin Laden in time to sway the 2012 presidential election.  Of course, it would be no falsehood; President Obama did give the order, but to appease those accusers, Sony agreed to reschedule the film from its original October 2012 release to a limited December 2012 release and a wide January 2013 release.  In the final product though, Obama is only seen once briefly in a television interview and is never referred to by name.
When the film was finally released, the political fury switched sides as political lefties condemned the depictions of torture that allegedly portrayed the practice favorably.  Unfortunately, these well-meaning accusations are rubbish, and torture was as much a fact of the involved events as Obama's executive order to which conservatives protested.  Even many conservatives felt that the film vindicated their politics by showing successful results from so-called "enhanced interrogation" and the difficulty of obtaining information from "lawyered-up" detainees.  I believe these gloaters are incorrect as well.  ZERO DARK THIRTY is a political film, but a very neutral one, uninterested in giving any opinions, only in showing the events as they were with cold apathy.  In my own personal political views, I abhorred the use of torture the film addresses, but I doubt that through all of it not a single piece of useful information was obtained.  It simply defies logic and probability to believe so, however, this film does not justify such practices, nor is useful information obtained through them; not directly anyway. 
ZERO DARK THIRTY is a factual account of the ends justifying the means, but it leaves the viewer with the question, is it still worth it when the end justify the means but you've lost your soul?  What was all of it worth?  10 years, all for one man, a man who, above all others, deserved to die, deserved the justice of hellfire, but presented an unlimited array of moral quandaries.  When all is over and the powerful obsession has reached its fruition, what then?  Do you feel proud or simply allow yourself a mission well done and move on?  Could it have been done better?  What was the why of it all?

A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD

A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD
* out of ****

In spite of favorable critical reviews, fanboys bemoaned Len Wiseman's LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (2007), largely for its "watered-down" PG-13 rating.  I didn't think it was a bad movie; it wasn't the best of the series by a long shot, but in any case, it was entertaining and I enjoyed it more than DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER, which, in spite of its hilariously awesome title, was a shameless and uninteresting retread of the classic original.
For A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD, directed by John Moore (MAX PAYNE and the 2006 remake of THE OMEN), we get back the R rating, but we don't get Die Hard.  Sure, Bruce Willis is present, bearing the John McClane monicker, but this is no Die Hard movie.  Die Hard movies are laced with wit; this has none.  John McClane fights terrorism in "wrong place, wrong time" situations on the homeland; this John McClane goes to Russia to wreak destruction while getting to know his uninteresting son, Jack (Jai Courtney of Starz's SPARTACUS: BLOOD AND SAND).
Nearly the whole product is a mix of  the ugly and the uninteresting.  The characters are very boring, the only one possessing any substance is McClane, but all of that is just whatever is left over from the previous films, but without familiarity to those, the viewer would probably think him just as vapid as the rest.  The script is the weakest element of all, utterly lacking in substance.  At 97 minutes long, it's the shortest DIE HARD movie by far, but it does feel long, and even still, feels feather-light, and at the end, I was left wondering what just happened, like, what was the point of anything that just happened?
The cinematography and scenery is all very unappealing.  I'm sure Moscow isn't so gray, decrepit and smoggy throughout as it is here, and the cinematography seems to be aiming for a raw look, diverting from the other films in the franchise, with shaky camera work and a frequent lack of clarity.
Yeah, the violence is bloodier than the previous film, but most of it is crappy post-production CG blood, and you get the occasional f-word, but without the wit of the earlier films.
This seems to be the death of the franchise, and if it's not, maybe it should be anyway.
 Directed by: John Moore
Starring:  Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Sebastian Koch, Mary Elizabeth Winstead
R for violence and language.

If you like A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD, you may like:  LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, MAX PAYNE, JACK REACHER

ACADEMY AWARDS: BEST PICTURE # 4: LES MISERABLES

LES MISERABLES  ***1/2 out of ****

I liked this film.  I wanted to love it.  Perhaps if my expectations had not been so high, I may have received even more favorably, but damn, did I like what I saw in the marketing.  I have never seen the musical live onstage nor was I already a devotee of the musical, so in that respect, I cannot judge it's merits as an adaptation, however, I am familiar with previous incarnations of the story by Victor Hugo.  My only major complaint toward the film is one that may have its source in the stage musical adaptation; that is, the pace was too fast.  It is an odd complaint, but I felt there were various plot where the film breezed on by while I would have preferred more time and pondering upon certain characters and their struggles.  Though there are a few parts where I felt this way, the most particular was the character of Fantine (Anne Hathaway), who was plainly the most "miserable" character but also the most interesting.  Hathaway's performance is the film's trump card, as she evokes tears from the staunchest hearts with her raw rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream", but her character is gone by the conclusion of the first act, not to return until an encore in the finale.  Meanwhile, some characters are given undue attention, most specifically, the Thenadiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter), who are an amusing bit, but well overdrawn.  Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) is also shortchanged in screen time, this to the detriment of the story when the major events rely so heavily on her presence in the audience's mind.  Despite my disappointment, it should be noted that my opinion is still a favorable one. 
This movie musical epic possesses a uniquely almost naturalized form of spectacle, and the positive influence from the original source of Hugo's novel is plainly apparent in the full-bodied display of human emotion and moral dilemma.  When it gives them the chance, the film gets great traction from its cast, especially Hathaway, as aforementioned, and from newcomer Samantha Barks as the lovelorn Eponine, who steals the second half of the film.  Some fuss has been made over Russell Crowe's lack of singing talent, but that wasn't much of an issue in my mind considering director Tom Hooper's insistence on a "recitativo" approach to the vocals, wherein the singing adopts the rhythms of ordinary speech, as opposed to the more usual bravura singing in similar movie musical. 
One point I think worth adding, is that, whilst I cannot speak for elsewhere, here in ultra-conservative Utah, the die-hard fans of musicals and most everyone else have such a powerful adoration for this emotionally-driven story of the downtrodden in society, a plea for social mercy, welfare, moral understanding; a story of "class warfare" and the struggle to survive in a morally-absolute society.  It's yet another example of how previously set emotional attachments will trump the obvious every time.

ACADEMY AWARDS: BEST PICTURE #3: SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK  ***1/2 out of ****

David O. Russell's sleeper hit is probably the most lightly-toned of this year's Best Picture nominees, the runner-up being DJANGO UNCHAINED, but that deals with some gnarly slavery and race issues under a tongue-in-cheek veil.  SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is a romantic comedy that deals in one of the Academy's favorite topics, mental health.
Pat (Bradley Cooper, best known for THE HANGOVER) is a man with bipolar disorder recently released from a court-mandated inpatient mental health facility after he caught his wife cheating on him and beat the living hell out of the man she was with.  Now he's trying to put his life back together, the piece that occupies most of his focus being reuniting with his wife Nikki, but she's moved on well past him.  He becomes acquainted with his friend's sister-in-law, Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a recently widowed woman with plenty of mental health issues of her own who also recently lost her job when her grieving led her to sleep with every one of her co-workers.  From here on, sparks fly but Pat continues to pursue Nikki while Tiffany ropes him into a dance contest with her, from which bets and coinciding bets on the Philadelphia Eagles game are made through a convoluted series of events. 
The cast is the strongest factor and did receive nominations in all four acting categories; Best Actor for Cooper, Best Actress for Lawrence, Best Supporting Actor for Robert DeNiro as Pat's father and Best Supporting Actress for Jacki Weaver as Pat's mother.  The real standout and most deserving of these nominations is Lawrence, whose wacky widow ranges from caustic to sweet, from impulsive to withdrawn and from crazy to witty with believability and unpredictability.  It's especially remarkable when contrasting her work here to her recent starring turn as Katniss in THE HUNGER GAMES, a role which she also inhabited well, but was a very different character, a tough-as-nails, quiet teenager, as opposed to this extroverted, world-weary wild woman who spouts fast and furious dialogue with vigor.
The film's most notable weakness is its pacing which occasionally drags and the tone is sometimes shaky, so it really is up to the actors most of the time, but fortunately, they deliver.  There are many funny moments, especially Pat's enraged middle-of-the-night tirade after finishing Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms, and Pat and Tiffany's dinnertime bonding over story-swapping about various prescription drugs, and there is plenty here to interest both genders as a date movie.

ACADEMY AWARDS: BEST PICTURE #2: BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD  **** out of **** (highest rating)

I did not think I was going to think much of this film.  I felt the marketing I saw and reviews that I read gave off a vibe similar to Terrence Malick's 2011 critical-darling TREE OF LIFE, a film which I found to be woefully boring and pretentious, despite all it's ambition.  With BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD though, I was very pleasantly surprised.  It's impossible to put into writing just what this film is, because it is "pure film"; a story that can hardly exist within any other medium.
Basically, the plot entails the adventures of a 6 years-old girl named Hushpuppy, played with Oscar-nominated vigor by newcomer Quvenzhané Wallis, with her hot-tempered father Wink, played by fellow newcomer Dwight Henry, in a forsaken bayou community called The Bathtub, cut off from the rest of Louisiana by the levees.  The Bathtub is a film world of its own, like Pandora in James Cameron's AVATAR or Oz in Victor Fleming's THE WIZARD OF OZ.  It's a place out of time, with seemingly post-apocalyptic touches and a salty demeanor, where almost everything floats on the water, and everyone is a close, if sometime cantankerous friend.  The inhabitants of The Bathtub are a wildly bizarre assortment of rednecks, riverfolk, yarn spinners and Creoles, with a diet of raw crustaceans and grilled gator among other things.  The does not have a very focused narrative, but this is never to its detriment because the film is endlessly gripping, largely carried by Wallis' perfect performance.  Her's is the best child performance in recent memory, providing Hushpuppy with a well-mixed combination of hearty grit, childlike wonder and an earthy outlook and giving a marvelous commentary-like narration of the ongoing events.  The story and structure reminded me of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, with its loose, episodic narrative about life on the water, and Hushpuppy's strained, but ultimately much more loving, relationship with her father. 
The film teeters often between wondrous fantasy, gritty reality and just plain oddball scenarios, such as loading an alligator carcass with explosives in an attempt to demolish a levee, and it's never really clear which tonal perspective is the real, or dominant one, but it seems to all be happening through Hushpuppy.  There's a childlike wonder to this world; not a pretentious or false one, but one of seemingly complete honesty.  There's peril and tragedy and a healthy portion of gut-bustingly bizarre humor, and when all is said and done, it leaves you with much to consider.

SAFE HAVEN

SAFE HAVEN  *1/2 out of ****

Film adaptations of Nicholas Sparks' novels rarely venture from the formula.  They are almost a sub-genre of their own; the posters all have couples embracing on them, most of them with one person, usually the male, grasping the sides of their partner's head as if about to tear it off and run away.  The plots involve a man and a woman, one is usually running from something in their past and is therefore reluctant to enter into a relationship, but eventually they let their guard down, they usually get caught in the rain, kiss passionately, have intercourse and then deal with the impending peril that has been lurking in that one party's past this whole time.  SAFE HAVEN follows through with this formula like schlockwork, except for a plot twist that comes at the end to rape what was already not such a great movie.  Unfortunately, it would be unethical for me to reveal what this last minute reveal is, but suffice it to say that while it isn't hidden well enough to have prevented me from seeing it much earlier on, it's still a bit of a surprise, if only because any self-respecting moviegoer has a hard time believing that a filmmaker would have the nerve to take such an unjustified right turn into Bullshitsville.
The story involves a young woman, Katie (Julianne Hough, from 2011's FOOTLOOSE), who flees a bloody scene in the prologue and arrives in the small harbor town of Southport, South Carolina, a picture-postcard of a town with beaches, docks, romantic bayous and even a few senior citizens to predict the weather with their aches and offer the occasional "witty" commentary on the romantic tension going on.  Of course, Katie isn't eager to form any close ties to anyone in town, although she's chummy right off the bat with any widower's kids she can get her hands on.  Said widow is Alex (Josh Duhamel, from LIFE AS WE KNOW IT and WHEN IN ROME), an abnormally hunky and charming widower who runs a quaint little shop by the dock, with his overtly chipper and lispy girl Lexie (Mimi Kirkland) and his silently moody boy Josh (Noah Lomax) who acts as a stubborn watchdog over his deceased mother's vacant position.  On the side, Katie has a nosy neighbor, Jo (HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER's Cobie Smulders), and a creepy cop in ruthless pursuit.
Each of the genders has their own lowest common denominator form of entertainment specific to their own, franchises and otherwise similar films that cater successfully to the specific gender with the worst possible quality.  For males, these include anything made by Michael Bay, especially his TRANSFORMERS series, various horror series, nearly anything with which Adam Sandler is involved and the odd special effects-spectacular; for the ladies, it's the TWILIGHT series, most of Katherine Heigel's films, most of Julia Roberts' films, most of Reese Witherspoon's films and anything adapted from the work of Nicholas Sparks.  That's not to say this film is all bad; there is plenty of beautiful cinematography from Terry Stacey, and honestly, it is a movie for the ladies, though hopefully even they don't take it too seriously.  But it's a girls' night out sort of thing.  Sure, the guy must really love you if he takes you to it, but how much do you love him if you're making him sit through it?

ACADEMY AWARDS: BEST PICTURE #1: LINCOLN

LINCOLN  ***1/2 OUT OF ****

Steven Spielberg's presidential biopic is the most Oscar-nominated film for 2012 with a total of 12 nominations, and as such, had been the favored film to win Best Picture, especially when the pre-nominations favorite, ARGO, failed to garner a Best Director nomination for Ben Affleck.  ARGO has since reestablished its standing, but LINCOLN is still expected to win big.  2-time Academy Award-winner Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Abraham Lincoln is remarkable and the frontrunner for Best Actor, an award he deserves and would make him the new record holder for most Best Actor wins, currently tied between Day-Lewis, Tom Hanks and Jack Nicholson.
Day-Lewis owns this film.  Spielberg's indelible stamp is clearly present, but it is Day-Lewis' masterful performance that elevates the film to its stature of prestige.  To those familiar with his work, perhaps it's not too surprising, but this is not the Lincoln most are familiar with and yet, it is more accurate for this.  The classic, stoic Mr. Lincoln of Disneyland memories is cast off here, leaving only the already accurate physical details.  His voice, assembled from contemporary descriptions and regional accents, is probably the most striking thing with its alto pitch and folksy inflections, but with assistance from the script by MUNICH screenwriter Tony Kushner, we're treated to a less iconic but more honest humanity as well.  These elements to the film's approach are not exactly unknown elements about the man, the time and the place, but we so often ignore them in favor of a grand American myth that it's a bit incredible to see that route taken.
The 16th president here is not the simplistic version of heroism we learn as children, neither is it a smear or a hokey, self-important aim for historical realism.  He is a great man, but a man, molded into greatness fitting for his timely role.  He's a father, both the playful sort who joins his child Tad on the floor to play, as well as the troubled father to his adult son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who is compelled to join the war effort against his parents' desires, even while Lincoln finds himself sending the many sons of others to the carnage of battle.  Lincoln is also the emotionally frail husband to Mary Todd (Sally Field), in a marriage that has ups and downs including a fierce shouting match when they argue over Robert's intentions.  Most prevalently though, is Lincoln the politician.  He is a sharp wit, a talent which he most often displays through a folksy charm that often involves a storyteller's approach that finds him sitting, crouched over while he applies gently humorous anecdotes.  He outwits his political opponents through practiced legal trickery and delicate pandering, while carefully weighing means and ends, and as an audience you can see those wheels turning furiously in his head while he maintains a neutral appearance.
The supporting cast is all very strong and well-cast, but the standout is the Tommy Lee Jones, nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, as the boisterous Radical Republican abolitionist Rep. Thaddeus Stevens.  He utilizes his well-practiced crusty demeanor to the utmost for his character who struggles to play a watered-down approach to his conscience for the sake of achieving his political goal.
Some of Spielberg's weaknesses make "cameos" here and there, such as Peter McRobbie's snarling villain of a Democrat who leads the effort against the abolitionists, and some corny moments during the climactic scene of congressional voting.
Of course, none of these issues are a significant detriment to the film's quality and it's a classically-styled "Best Picture", if not especially bold or unique as a film.  It has potential to be a minor classic in future years.