Snap Judgement: Oscars 2010

So they've come and gone. Thank goodness that's over. The Oscars are done, at least for now. I got asked a lot today "What did I think?" "Was I happy with who won?" And my answer: Meh. I couldn't feel any more ambivalent towards last night's show. Overall I enjoyed it. I thought Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were hysterical during the opening monologue, especially the joke that for their film debut, both Steve Martin and Gabourey Sidibe from Precious were born as poor black children. CLASSIC. And the note that Meryl Streep collects Hitler memorabilia. Because I know she does.

The show movie along at a fairly brisk pace, thanks to quick acceptance speeches, a very quick Death Montage of Applause-o-Meter which left out the likes of Bea Arthur and Farrah Fawcett, but left in Michael Jackson? Mmmkay. I thought the dance piece set to the Best Score nominees was a good idea and concept, and looked cool, but felt out of place at the Oscars, and the montage dedicated to Horror films seemed liked a random way to include "Twilight" and a couple other not-so-scary movies. The entire ceremony also lacked the element of surprise, with whoever was the front-runner going into the ceremony, winning the award. Where's the fun in that? I was totally hoping Gabourey Sidibe would beat both Sandra and Meryl because she had the most impressive performance for a debut this year, and she freakin' rocks. She's so sassy, and she looked fierce. But, IMO, she won anyways when Oprah told her how much she loved her on the stage of the Oscars and she started crying. Adorably cute. Plus her mom was there, and she was so into Steve Martin.

I wasn't super successful in predicting who would win. 13/23 correct. But not that it even matters, after all, the awards go to the most deserving career-wise (see Sandra Bullock, Jeff Bridges) or to the movie that has the most momentum going into the broadcast (i.e. "The Hurt Locker") and not necessarily to whatever actor gave an amazing performance or to the movie that is the best all around film of the year. Though, I am OK with "The Hurt Locker" winning. It was a very good movie. I liked it. It was suspenseful, but it wasn't my favorite, nor was it my pick to win. Everybody has different ideas of what's good though, and in the end, the movie that wins the most Oscars doesn't make it the best.

So it's all done. I look forward to next year, where I'll try to see all the nominees again. Because even though the whole thing is a big spectacle and I tend to disagree with a lot of it, I get to see some awesome movies that I might not otherwise be able to see. Thanks Oscars. Now come the summer blockbusters.

Special: If I Voted for the Oscars

I don't vote for the Oscars. As if you didn't know that. I will probably never vote for the Oscars, though I  wish someday I might have the career to allow me to do that. Plus I don't necessarily agree with all they have to stand for. I read a really good article from New York magazine (read it here) describing how the Oscars work, and how rather than giving the award to the "Best" they often give it to who would create the "Best Story Arc" or who's career deserves the award, rather than who actually was the best actor or actress. It's all part of the Hollywood schlitz and glitz, and even though I might not agree with it, it's how it works. So for tonight's event, I'm going to say who I would've picked. Not who I think is going to win, and not even a will win/should win thing. Who I would've voted for the big awards, if I picked soley based on what I saw and watched. 

BEST PICTURE:

"Avatar"

For me, this was the best movie going experience of the year. Maybe it's not the best film I saw (that would have to be either "Up" or "Precious") but it was the best film I watched that took me away to another place. I go to movies to get taken away and to forget about being in a movie theater, and for the three hours of "Avatar" I was on another planet, totally absorbed into what was happening. Best Picture of the year for sure. And I would also probably vote for James Cameron as Best Director too, for having the vision to do what he did here.





BEST ACTOR:
Colin Firth "A Single Man"

The most moving performance of the year. He was in every single scene, every moment, and he was always present in the heartbreak and pain the character was feeling. Just seeing him in "Mamma Mia!" and then this? Complete difference.



BEST ACTRESS:
Gabourey Sidibe "Precious"

This was her first movie? Ridiculous. I would've never guessed if I hadn't known. And to see her in real life, and how buoyant and bubbly and total opposite from Precious she is, she is a real actress.






BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Chrisoph Waltz "Inglouorious Basterds"

Terrifying and vicious, and gentle and funny. Waltz was crazy good in this movie. He brought a completely new take to the role of a villainous Nazi.






BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Mo'Nique "Precious"

I remember watching Mo'Nique on Showtime at the Apollo. Never did I think she had it in her to portray a role like this. Phenomenal.

Review: Inglourious Basterds (DVD)

Finally I've finally seen all of the Best Picture nominees! I didn't succeed in seeing all nominated actor and actresses this year, but I saw more than I thought I would, and I set my goal for only seeing the Best Picture nominees this year, so I'm proud of myself nontheless.

And here it is, the final movie I had to see, Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds." So sue me, I'm not a gigantic fan of Tarantino. At least I never thought I was. I hadn't (and still haven't) seen a majority of his movies, with the only exception being "Death Proof" from "Grindhouse," and even that, though I like it, isn't my favorite of the two "Grindhouse" movies. So maybe it's not that I'm not a huge fan, but rather I hadn't given him a chance. Like at all. I assumed I wouldn't like his movies, so I never bothered to see them. I wrote them off as being too violent - which they are - but the violence is done with a smirk. It's not a bang bang shoot them all up and drive in fast cars with guns movie, it's an artfully done violence that kind of makes me smile. I can't describe it.

I've read other critics say that Tarantino purposefully makes you laugh during his movies in places that aren't really supposed to be funny. Like after a Nazi gets his head beaten in with a baseball bat! In real life, not that funny. But in "Basterds" I chuckled. I laughed at being uncomfortable at Christoph Waltz's terrifyingly hilarious Nazi, the "Jew Hunter." Especially the opening scene where he confronts a French farmer who had been hiding Jews under his floorboards. The Jew Hunter was an awful, terrible person - but that barely showed through the cracks of a gentle demeanor, unless he let it flourish, then he was truly scary. No doubt he will win Best Supporting Actor - and he should! He kind of held the whole movie together.

I'm going to try to make it a point this year to see the rest of Tarantino's movies. He has a unique style, kind of a throwback to the 70s, with a modern sensibility. I take it as he's a pretty fearless filmmaker. A couple examples: 1) He does things like direct a period history drama and it looks like everything is period accurate, but then uses a David Bowie song as background music before the climax. Or 2) He has the balls to rewrite WWII and almost create an American fairy tale story where everything turns out perfect. Well, except for the fact that SPOILER ALERT: barely any characters survive.

So I guess I do like his films, and should Netflix them because I really liked "Basterds." A lot. I rented it on iTunes (which was an adventure in itself, I had never done that before, but it's pretty nifty) and watched it in one sitting, totally enthralled. I don't think I even paused it to go to the potty!

Patrick Approval Rating: 10/10

"Inglourious Basterds" @ imdb

Review: A Serious Man (DVD)

If you haven't seen a Coen Brothers movie, i.e. "Fargo," "Big Lebowski," or "No Country For Old Men," you're missing on out two absurd ridiculous filmmakers who tend to puzzle audiences into loving their movies. At least that's how I feel about the brotherly directing team. "A Serious Man" is their latest whopdinger of a movie, nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars (happening THIS WEEK! Woof.) so I had to see this one before the big day.

I felt about this movie as I felt about "No Country for Old Men." As it starts I'm all - WHA? Idunngittit. And then I fall asleep. Seriously. I was bored and didn't get it and was also tired, so I fell asleep. When I woke up, I thought about giving it a second chance, and resentfully I do- but only because it's nominated for Best Picture. And then once the first 45 minutes/hour pass and the weird settles into my mind and I just succumb to the movie, I end up liking it (in the case of "Serious Man") or loving it (in the case of "No Country.")

I feel like I could've liked or understood the movie so much more if I was Jewish, or even a Christian who was familiar with the Bible, but I'm neither of those so a lot of the biblical parallels and Jewish in jokes that were apparently in the movie went right over my head. "A Serious Man" was like an ode to Judaism and the race and habits and even stereotypes. I found some parts hysterical, other parts awful and morbid - I guess the Coen Brothers really understand and embrace the meaning of dark comedy. This poor tortured soul, Larry, played by Michael Stuhlberg, is suffering one plague of misfortune after another and he tries to understand why it is happening to him. He is a physics professor, so perhaps there is a mathematical way to understand it all, or perhaps it is God punishing him.

I'm keeping this review short and tidy because of all the Best Picture nominees I've seen (which is 9/10 at this point) it's my least favorite. I'm going to give it an approval rating higher than "The Blind Side" because I think this is a better movie all around with better performances and a lot of thought put into every moment, but when I watch a movie I like to understand it, and it to not go over my head, whereas that's something the Coen brothers always seem to strive for. To puzzle their audience so only the savvy and genius can understand it.


Patrick Approval Rating: 6/10


"A Serious Man" @ imdb

Review: The Blind Side (Theatrical)

This movie is nominated for Best Picture?... Really?...Really.

When I first saw the trailer for this film attached to some movie I saw last summer, or fall, or whenever - regardless, I scoffed. I thought "What a sentimental piece of dreck!" And I continuously scoffed at it until it opened and it turned out to be a huge hit. And even as it played in theaters, I scoffed at it and vowed I would never see this movie because it looked cheesy and stupid. And after it started picking up steam and awards talk happened, I thought...really? This movie? And I scoffed some more. Then as it was shockingly nominated for Best Picture, I reluctantly thought "Well now I guess I have to see it. Maybe on DVD." And here we are, roughly three months since it's original release and I ventured to the theater to see the movie. THE MOVIE THEATER?! HOW IS IT STILL PLAYING!? THIS MOVIE?! SERIOUSLY?! HANABHBBJAHjnqskjnauyBIN.

Turns out, it was everything I dreamed it would be. Super sentimental, cheesy, eye rolling worthy - and yet I still enjoyed it. I enjoyed it in a way I thought maybe sometime, five years down the road I could rent a movie like this and curl up on my sofa and watch it at home and I may enjoy it. I don't understand why the audience we saw this with LOVED IT! I'm pretty sure the woman behind me was crying at the end, and the black couple in front of me were riotous throughout. The movie was entirely predictable with a story that seemed to go nowhere until a forced conflict appeared in the last 15 minutes of the movie that gets resolved as quickly as it comes on.

Sandra Bullock was nothing special. I hate saying that because I like her a lot, but to think she's the front runner to win Best Actress for a film released in the year of 2009 above all other actresses in all other movies for THIS MOVIE?!  WHY! Don't get me wrong, she was hugely entertaining in "The Proposal" and I loved her in it, so what if in this movie she's kind of serious for maybe a combined four minutes total when she tears up a little bit on screen. Hand the lady an award, please. Meanwhile Meryl Streep is tackling some very big (no pun intended) shoes with Julia Child and Gabby Sidibe is dealing with issues no person should ever deal with as Clarice Precious Jones, so I'm sorry Sandra Bullock, you don't deserve to win for this movie. Not this year. Comic actors have done the drama route before and it's been marvelous for some (Jim Carrey in "Eternal Sunshine" for instance) but "The Blind Side" does not do you justice.

And I haven't even began to discuss the craptastic message of the film. I assume it was meant to be one of hope and inspiration, a twisted Cinderella tale- boy ripped from the streets and becomes successful NFL player. But to me it played as "poor black boy saved from the dirges of his social position thanks to a nice white Christian lady, because poor black boys can only be saved by white ladies and their families, and especially if those families are Christians, because only Christians do good things." I didn't realize there would be religious undertones or overtones, let alone as prevalent as they were featured. Did a mega-church help fund this movie or something? The cross Sandra Bullock wore around her neck seemed to gleam every time her character did a good deed. And I'm not dissing religious people, or Christians, because to each their own, and it's cool and all, but when a movie appears to be about a woman who only does good in her life because she's Christian and that's what they do, rather than doing good because that need comes from deep within her, well I kinda get irked. It's not to say the woman Bullock is portraying wasn't a good person deep down and that's where the need came from to help poor Michael, but the Christian philosophy was continually shoved in the audience's faces and I didn't think it was a good enough justification of character.

I compare this movie to "Precious," a movie I adored, which is roughly about the same thing (poor black teenager overcomes their home roots to triumph) but whereas Precious found her inner strength from a place deep inside her, Michael finds his inner strength...well...he never actually seems to find it. He finds a way to smile a little bit more only because these white people have been so kind to him. That's not a well deserved payoff of a character's triumph, it's a movie called "The Blind Side." Woof.


Patrick Approval Rating: 5/10


The Blind Side @ imdb

Review: The Lovely Bones

Let's start this review by tackling the age old book vs. movie argument. It's always said "the book is better than the movie." Well of course it is! Reading a book is like producing or directing a movie in your own head. As a matter of fact, I usually approach reading books in a very cinematical way, imagining it as a movie. When I read "The DaVinci Code" I read it as a movie. I visualize the book as it were a film. So when I see the movie, of course it will disappoint because my movie was my own creation and thus much better than anything Ron Howard could've done. Please. Even the Harry Potter books - books I adore, and even though I enjoy the movies, the movies pale in comparison to how I feel about the book. And it goes the other way too, once you've seen a movie based on book, it will forever change your vision of that book should you ever re-read it or read a sequel or something. It's just the way these things go.

Now I've heard and read people who have read "The Lovely Bones" thought the movie was awful and horrendous and blame director Peter Jackson for destroying this beautiful novel. As someone who has not read the book, I thought the movie was pretty good! So what if it lacked any real character development and was just a study on grief and the afterlife, but isn't that a good enough topic for a movie? I thought afterlife explored by the main character, Susie Salmon, played by Saoirse Ronan, was pretty cool to look at despite being overtly CG. And the whodunnit mystery of who killed Susie Salmon is thrilling. Oh please, her death is not even a spoiler alert. You find out within the first two minutes she's dead and within the first five who killed her. Nay - you find out the answer to both of those questions in the trailer for the movie.

The movie was creepy and terrifying and intensely cringeworthy at points. It covers some horrific events in the life and death of this little girl, and Best Supporting Actor nominated Stanley Tucci is Kreepy with a capital K. I think that was probably his character's name. Kreepy McKreeperson. I even didn't hate Mark Wahlberg as Susie's grieving father. I mean remember when he was Marky Mark? And now he's acting in Oscar nominated movies? He's come a long way.

Patrick Approval Rating: 7/10

The Lovely Bones @ imdb

Review: Crazy Heart (Theatrical)

"Crazy Heart" vs. "The Wrestler." That's all I kept thinking going into this movie. I knew it starred someone who all the talk was about for Best Actor and the story line was about a person who had been famous and successful and who had since fallen from grace and kept on keeping on the road to self-destruction. I knew the main character fell for a girl who was messed up herself and had a kid, and though she wanted to be with him, she knew he was bad for her. On paper it just sounded a lot like "The Wrestler" from last year starring Mickey Rourke, but in reality it was different. Obviously. It's a different movie.

Jeff Bridges plays Bad Blake, an old country singer who's broke, down on his luck, and can't seem to make his way back up from playing in tiny saloons and bowling alleys. He meets Jean, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal (too many letters of the same type), a reporter writing an article on him who he basically charms and begins a doomed from the beginning relationship with. So the two fight and get on and off and he keeps drinking and she keeps worrying and I keep wondering where this could possibly go. I knew if it was anything like "The Wrestler" I was going to walk out being all mopey and sad. But just when you think it's going down that road, it doesn't. Things kinda turn around for Bad Blake- maybe not in the best possible way - but the movie ends on a fairly good note whereas with "The Wrestler" I was all "Behhhhhhhhh" and sad.

I did like how the movie was almost a country musical. The songs by T-Bone Streep, nope...I mean T-Bone Burnett sort of commented on the place Bad Blake was in his life, but still could've been taken out of context to work as the bluesy folksy classic country hits they could've been. I don't particulary like this type of music but I found myself tappin' my toes quite a bit and Jeff Bridges is quite a musician! So is Colin Farrell, which was a big surprise to me. Who knew. Remember when he was always on coke?

So Jeff Bridges is front runner for the Oscar? Eh? Alright. I can see it. He made it look easy, almost like he wasn't even acting at all. Which might be the key to him playing this part because it doesn't seem like he's much different than Bad Blake in real life. Well, maybe he is, but he made me think he was Bad Blake regardless. He's very good. With seeing this film, I've now seen all Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress nominees. While I'm still partial for Best Actor to Colin Firth in "A Single Man" who crushed me with a single hearbreaking scene, Bridges does carry the whole movie, and he's good, so I'll be OK if and when he wins. Maggie Gyllenhaal is good, but she won't win Best Supporting Actress this year (Hello M'oM'o.) Plus Gyllenhaal always bothers me always bothers me a little bit. Maybe it's because of all of her Ls and As in her name, but I think it more likely has something to do with her sloopy shoulders she always seems to show off when she wears a lot of strapless tops.


Patrick Approval Rating: 8/10

Crazy Heart @ imdb

Review: The Hurt Locker (DVD)

After I saw "An Education" I figured why not continue my streak of Oscar movie seeing, especially on this nice long weekend, so I Redbox'd it up at Stop & Stop and rented what I guess is being called the frontrunner for the Best Picture win, "The Hurt Locker."

Firstly, I had to lookup what a hurt locker is, and apparently it's soldier speak for getting messed up real bad. As in when you do get messed up, you're stuck in a locker of hurt. So calling the movie "The Hurt Locker" is kinda like also saying if you're in the army in any way, you're also in somewhat of a permanent hurt locker because you're just asking for pain, especially the guys who this movie is about. It's about a US Army bomb squad in Iraq in 2004 who risk their lives to diffuse bombs that have been placed by insurgents by literally walking up to a bomb and diffusing it with their bare hands. Let's just say the movie is way intense. Here I was last night after a long day of work, seeing my second movie of the day, and I was tired- but I was literally was on the edge of my couch during several scenes, flinching at the possibility of what was coming. It had me right from the first frame all the way until the last in its poweful grip. It's shot almost like a documentary so you forget you're watching a movie - it feels so vividly real and scary. "The Hurt Locker" is a classic suspense thriller, where you know the dangers these characters face and you watch them do it, and it can either end one of two ways - the live, or they die. I loved how director Kathyrn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal could have just let the story run the film, but they didn't. We were given glimpses into who these guys were and why they were doing what they were doing and how they felt about their jobs. Some were conflicted, some thought they were sure of it, but not be, and some did it because it made them feel alive to be so close to death. Not only did we get these clues through dialogue but simple shots with just a closeup or a quick look.

Sidenote: I always enjoy seeing actors I didn't know were in movies pop up in random bits. Like I remember hearing Evangeline Lilly (Kate on "Lost") was in this, but by the time she actually popped up in the movie I was so into it I forgot about her and I was like "OH YEAH!" Other notable cameos included Guy Pierce, Ralph Fiennes, and the Ice Truck Killer from "Dexter." He was one of the most exciting to me because I can't recall seeing him in anything else except for when he scared the pants off me as the serial killer from "Dexter's" first season.

Well, did I enjoy this movie? Yes! Yes I did. Do I think it should win Best Picture? No...no I don't.

Maybe I'm suffering a little "Slumdog" syndrome, where the hype and focus for the big win is for one of the movies I liked, but I didn't like the best. And maybe this just shows that the Academy Award winners don't necessarily mean that movie is the best. I've certainly seen movies that weren't nominated for anything and thought they were better than any movies that won or were nominated. But I think what these awards allow for, and why I get so obsessed with seeing the movies, is that a wider audience becomes aware of and gets to see films that are excellent and should be seen. I may have never seen "The Hurt Locker" if it wasn't nominated for anything, but I'm very glad I did. It's a powerful, affecting movie - a commentary on the war against terror and the soldiers who risk their lives to fight for what and why? But do I think it should win Best Picture? At this point, when I've seen seven of the ten nominees, I'm going to say no. I still think "Up" was the best movie of the year, "Avatar" completely blew me away and made me forget where I was in a theater for a good three hours, and even "Up in the Air" connected with me more than "The Hurt Locker." But it's still a very good movie, and one I'd like to revisit when the Oscar hype is not all up in its grill.


Patrick Approval Rating: 9/10

The Hurt Locker @ imdb

Review: An Education (Theatrical)

I woke up this afternoon from a much needed nap to some obscure Olympics happening on the telly and lounged around for a bit before I ended up feeling stir crazy and needed to get out of my apartment. I tentatively and spontaneously ventured to what may be my new (old) favorite movie theater, Images, in Williamstown, where I caught the matinee (and thus cheaper!) showing of the Best Picture nominated "An Education." What a pleasant way to spend a restless afternoon!

The movie was a joy: charming, funny, romantic. Throughout the movie in my head I kept saying "Swinging 60s baby, yeah!" a la Austin Powers, which I know makes me super cool, and I'm just glad I didn't say it out loud. And since I'm a big fan of this era in history, I appreciated this coming of age story of a 16 year old schoolgirl (Jenny, played by Oscar nominated Carey Mulligan) who has bigger aspirations to be more than the simple English schoolgirl as the world and womanhood changes around her. She meets David, an older man who leads a life of jazz and nightclubs and gambling, and is taught the ways of life (both the good and the bad sides) by him, thus the film being titled "An Education." Makes sense right? Well there is also a lot more to the plot, and it goes from a cute romantic comedy to a heartbreaking drama in a matter of moments, but I'm not going to ruin the movie if you haven't seen it. It's one of those where when you finally see what's coming you get knots in your stomach. But unlike say, "A Single Man" where that knot in your stomach never gets resolved, this one does - but maybe not in the way you'd expect (or want.)

I can't quite place what genre the film falls in. It feels almost like a contemporary costume drama, mixed with a romantic comedy, with a twist of drama. Regardless, the movie wasn't perfect for me - it seemed to lack a reason for being made. Don't get me wrong, I liked it and enjoyed it and thought the performances were good - but I didn't come out of it being wowed. I thought, well that's a good story, but what was it's purpose? You get what I'm throwing at you? No? Well that's OK. I still recommend it, because I think it's a good film, maybe I just didn't "get" this one.

Carey Mulligan is a natural actress, and carries the entire film. It's her story and she drew me right in with her subtle acting. Peter Sarsgaard does a fine job as her love interest, David, and I continue to think he's one of today's most under-appreciated actors. I also think he has too many A's in his last name, and find it amusing he's married/dating/with Maggie Gyllenhaal and she also has one too many A's. Most amusing for me however was Alfred Molina as Jenny's uptight dad. This part could've been a cliche villain of the story, but not only did I find his off-color remarks hilarious, but he also had quite a bit of heart in the character, which was refreshing for a role like this.

I can knock off another Best Picture nominee from my list now. Though I really liked "An Education," I think this is one of those movies that if there wasn't 10 nominees, this one would not be nominated. But y'all should still see it anyhow. It's cute.

Patrick Approval Rating: 8/10

An Education @ imdb

Review: A Single Man (Theatrical)

Wow. So this movie happened and I kind of went home from the theater feeling numb. Now after I saw "Precious" my body ached with pain, but after "A Single Man" I just wanted to curl up in my bed and hug my teddy bear. If you don't know, the movie is about George, a middle aged college professor played by Colin Firth whose lover of sixteen years, Jim, was killed in a car accident eight months before the action takes place. And on this day the movie takes place in George's life he has decided to kill himself because he is a lonely, miserable, single man who feels like he is drowning underwater and cannot breathe through his loneliness. At school that day he meets a young student who has an interest in him and comes on to George, who at first pushes him away, but through persistence, the boy, played by Nicholas Hoult, gets to George and...well...I don't want to spoil the rest of the movie, because I think you should all see this one.

So the story is good, but the movie as a whole is great. Everything from the cinematography to the score to the acting is quite close to perfection. It's hard to believe the movie was directed by a first time director, nevermind a director who is normally a fashion designer. Tom Ford directs the movie like a pro, and his designer eye lends itself beautifully to film. Whereas I feel sometimes film is all over the place and I don't quite get it, I got everything single thing in this movie. When I saw Stephen Sondheim lecture at Williams a couple weeks ago one of the things that really stuck in my head was when he said "Art is a conscious effort" and I think Tom Ford really took that to every frame, every shot, every composed moment in this film - it was all a piece of art that was consciously thought about, and I ate that up like the rice and beans I had for dinner tonight. The bleak colors and tinting to George's world when he was alone and lonely, and how the film and colors would literally subtly brighten up every time he made a connection with another person made me squeal with joy. It just worked! And the opening credits! Oh my, how amazing they were. A naked Colin Firth sinking deeper and deeper into this murky water while this pounding, driving score played. Beautifully sad.

The music overall was amazing - I'm not sure who wrote it, and I'm too lazy right now to look it up, but I could feel the darkness of the film in the music. I don't often notice the music of a movie, which is usually a good thing, it's not supposed to stand out - but maybe when it does stand out and makes an emotional impact, the music is super awesome. And it was in "A Single Man." OH! And the acting - well I haven't even touched on that yet! Colin Firth is so far my favorite to win, even though he probably won't. His best moment in a movie full of amazing ones was when he hears Jim has died - I could see his heart break on the screen. His chest heaved up and down and I was sucked into his pain. So much so I didn't even notice it was Mad Man's Jon Hamm on the other end of the phone! But Amy picked up on that. Firth really made George real, taking in each last moment of his last day of life - even when he creepily smelled a stranger's dog and said it smelled like buttered toast. Umm...sure it's creepy, but actually kind of really true. Sometimes my Sydney dog at home smells like toast too. Not that I smell her on purpose, but it's noticeable. She's cute and so it's forgivable. Also the scene where George tries to kill himself and cannot find a comfortable way of doing it KILLED ME. Not literally, but I was stifling laughter because it shouldn't have been funny, but it most definitely was. I think the other people in the theater just didn't have a sense of humor. And why Julianne Moore isn't nominated for an Oscar this year when she was nominated for every other award for this movie is beyond me. Her character Charley, George's hag, was absolutely pathetically in love with George and a big giant bitch because she couldn't do anything about it. The scene where she is spending so much time applying and perfecting the makeup for just one of her eyes so she can look pretty for George when they meet that night killed me. It's so tragic.

Obviously, if you can't tell by now I loved and adored the movie even though it made me tense and forget to breathe on occasion. It's a downer, with no happy ending, so don't go into it expecting to leave feeling "light in your loafers" but it comes highly recommended for me. I can't wait to revisit this one.

Patrick Approval Rating: 10/10

"A Single Man" @ imdb

Revisiting: Julie & Julia (DVD)

I first saw "Julie & Julia" (or "Julia & Julie" - whatever. It's basically the same both ways) in September with Mallori in Florida. I wanted to see it soley because of Ms. Meryl Streep, but figured it was a rent on DVD movie. Which it kind of is, but that's besides the point. I really liked it, thought it was memorable, and laughed quite a bit during the movie. I didn't even hate the Amy Adams parts as much as everybody else, but of course, I liked the Streep as Julia Child sequences much better. Almost makes me wish the whole movie was about her, but it's not so I digress.

Upon second viewing, I liked the Julia half even more and the Julie half even less. What an unsympathetic and selfish character Julie is. I almost don't care if she succeeds in cooking all of Julia's recipes in a year because she's such a bitch about it. But I love Amy Adams, and she does good with what she has, but compared with the other half of the movie, the Julie part sucks. Julia on the other hand is a completely charming and endearing character, how can anybody not love her?! Streep is hilarious as Julia and you can tell she had a blast playing this crazy character, which allows the audience to have fun watching her. I caught myself smiling almost every time she's on screen, speaking in that loopy falsetto, which I imitate quite often. "Bon appetit!"

Another thing that excited me much more this time around was the presence of Jane Lynch as Julia's sister. I had seen just one episode of "Glee" when I watched the movie the first time around, and I had an appreciation of Jane Lynch, but now I have a well deserved obsession with Sue Sylvester and how she "C's it and so I love her in this movie way more the second time around.

So rent it. It's a good movie to cozy up to at home with a nice warm blanket, and maybe some popcorn. Because if you don't have something to munch on, you certainly will want to shove your face with food after watching it being cooked on screen for two hours. "Bon appetit!"

Patrick Approval Rating: 6/10 for the whole movie, 9/10 for Julie half.

"Julie & Julia" @ imdb

Snap Judgement: Oscar Noms 2010

As exciting for me as finding out who's playing in the Superbowl, heck, more exciting to me than the actual Superbowl is hearing who the nominees are for this year's Academy Awards. I don't know why it means so much to me, it's just another award show, but I feel the other awards just lead up to this one and this is the granddaddy mother of all award shows, the one every other award show aspires to be.

This morning the 2010 nominees were released with the much discussed new 10 Best Picture contenders, which IMO allowed deserving pictures a chance, even though the ones who ended up getting in with the top 5 will never win, but in the case of "Up" especially, it's so nice to get nominated as the second animated movie EVER to do so. ("Beauty and the Beast" was the first and only up until this point. Hard to believe.)

Russell is so excited to be nominated! As am I.

And I'm better off with seeing all the nominees this year than I thought I would be. And despite me scoffing repeatedly at the joke that I knew as "The Blind Side," I guess I just might have to watch it now. It's still playing in theaters despite being released at Thanksgiving. For reals I never saw that one coming.

So here's some nominees in categories I care about with some thoughts:

Best Picture

• "Avatar"
• "The Hurt Locker"
• "Up in the Air"
• "Precious"
• "Inglourious Basterds"
• "An Education"
• "District 9"
• "Up"
• "The Blind Side"
• "A Serious Man"

I'm so excited for "District 9" and "Up" here, two movies I thought never stood a shot though I thought were very deserving. And I'm doing good as I've seen 5/5 here, with easy access to three I haven't seen (Basterds, Serious Man, and Hurt Locker are on DVD now.) And there's that stupid "Blind Side."

Best Actress

• Sandra Bullock ("The Blind Side")
• Meryl Streep ("Julie & Julia")
• Carey Mulligan ("An Education")
• Gabourey Sidibe ("Precious")
• Helen Mirren ("The Last Station")

Meryl Streep, please. I love me some good Sandra Bullock a la "The Proposal" or "Miss Congeniality" (as opposed to the too often bad Sandra Bullock) but Meryl Streep was delish as Julia Child. BON APPETIT THIS MERYL! MUAH.

Best Actor

• Jeff Bridges ("Crazy Heart")
• George Clooney ("Up in the Air")
• Colin Firth ("A Single Man")
• Morgan Freeman ("Invictus")
• Jeremy Renner ("The Hurt Locker")

I've only seen Freeman and Clooney here so I'll hold off on judgement. "Crazy Heart" and "Single Man" open up soon here so I'll be seeing those easy and plan to see "Hurt Locker" ASAP too.

Best Supporting Actress

• Mo'Nique ("Precious")
• Vera Farmiga ("Up in the Air")
• Anna Kendrick ("Up in the Air")
• Penelope Cruz ("Nine")
• Maggie Gyllenhaal ("Crazy Heart")

Very excited for "Nine" to get a big nomination here, but this one goes to MoMo. Le duh.

Best Supporting Actor

• Christoph Waltz ("Inglourious Basterds")
• Woody Harrelson ("The Messenger")
• Stanley Tucci ("The Lovely Bones")
• Matt Damon ("Invictus")
• Christopher Plummer ("The Last Station")

I need to get me some Best Supporting Actors since I've only seen Damon and he doesn't stand a chance.

Best Director

• Kathryn Bigelow ("The Hurt Locker")
• James Cameron ("Avatar")
• Jason Reitman ("Up in the Air")
• Quentin Tarantino ("Inglourious Basterds")
• Lee Daniels ("Precious")

Either Cameron or Bigelow. I loved "Avatar" and really still love "Titanic" but James Cameron just irks me in general. Creeper? Yes.

Best Animated Feature Film

• "Coraline"
• "Fantastic Mr. Fox"
• "The Princess and the Frog"
• "The Secret of Kells"
• "Up"

This is "Up's" best chance to win, but I'm so excited for "Princess and the Frog." Just glad to see classic Disney is back AND good.

I promise I care about the rest, and will be back to comment later when I see more of them, but I wanted to give a rundown of the ones I care about the mostest. Hooray for Oscars! One month to do my best to see them all.

Review: Invitcus (Theatrical)

I was hoping for something extraordinary to see for my first movie of 2010. I started 2009 off with Slumdog Millionaire, which was just a little known movie that nobody saw or cared about. I wanted to see Invictus, but felt sort of ho-hum about the film. I've always appreciated seeing those feel good losers become winners "sports" movies, a la Friday Night Lights or Remember The Titans or hell, even The Big Green. ( I think The Mighty Ducks fits in there too, actually. Anyways, Invictus falls right in the same category, but possibly because it's directed by Clint Eastwood and stars Oscar winners Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon and is getting all sorts of buzz for those three people, the film is supposedly elevated to above those other movies that fall into the inspiration sport movie film.

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but the movie was absolutely nothing special, and not even anything I hadn't seen before. Granted those movies didn't involve Nelson Mandela, or rugby for that matter, a sport which I know NOTHING about except that it's super violent and involved a lot of grunting. Morgan Freeman as Mandela was very good. I mean

1) who doesn't love anything with Morgan Freeman in it? He could narrate a documentary about penguins walking on ice and make it entertaining. Wait a second...

And 2) Who other than Morgan Freeman could play Nelson Mandela? Nobody. He was perfect for the part, and suprisingly funny!

Matt Damon, an actor who I've never fully appreciated probably because I don't really like the Bourne movies and I associate him with them, got to show off some mad rugby skills. Talk of an Oscar nom for him for this? Seriously? He was way better in The Informant!, a movie I hated (and fell asleep during in the theater) but thought he was excellent in it. But whatever.

The movie plays out exactly like you'd expect an inspirational sports movie to play out, except because it's directed by Clint Eastwood, the cinematography has a slightly blue/dark tone to the film. It's definitely a departure for him, though he did do a sports movie with Million Dollar Baby, but that was also way more of a drama and character study than Invictus. At least I thought so.

I'm glad I saw the movie as it will probably be nominated for some Oscars and I like seeing all the Oscar nominated movies, but it would otherwise be a movie I'd rather rent on DVD and watch in my own home and wipe my misty eyes at the end when, OBVIOUS SPOILER ALERT, the team wins.

Patrick Approval Rating: 7/10

Invictus @ imdb