Your Clothes... Give Them To Me Now.

It suddenly dawned on me, reading something about Avatar the other day and the references to previous James Cameron movies, that I didn’t think I’d ever seen the original Terminator film from 1984. I know I’ve seen Terminator 2: Judgement Day numerous times. I think we had that one taped and would watch it over school holidays - it’s a great film. I also remember at the time thinking about the fact that I’d never seen the original, but it kept slipping my mind to actually check it out. Maybe I had seen it - I’d never know unless I checked out the DVD and revisited it.

Turns out, I’d never seen it. I’d never seen the original Terminator. I’ll be damned.

Cameron co-wrote and directed this breakout sci-fi smash, putting Arnold Schwarzenegger into probably his most famous role and making Linda Hamilton a household name. For a while. Hamilton plays Sarah Connor, soon to become mother of John Connor, father of the anti-machine resistance movement in the 2020s. The machines send a terminator (Schwarzenegger - man, that’s an irritating name to type out. Props to all journalists covering Californian politics) back in time to assassinate Sarah before she can give birth to their arch-nemesis John. The humans manage to sneak in someone to protect her also, sending back soldier Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn) to make sure the terminator can’t have his way.

From this prospect comes a fairly typical action film with a love story undercurrent between Sarah and Kyle. Hopefully nothing is given away by giving away the fact, 26 years after the film’s initial release, that this love affair blossoms and is, in fact, the relationship that begets young John. So, John has sent his own father back in time to protect his mother, posing some intriguing and paradoxical circular ideas of how the past and future could possible interact considering neither the past nor the future could exist without the other. But how could John have sent Kyle back to save his mother if John in fact wouldn’t exist without Kyle having gone back? How could Kyle have begat John in what is, for him, the past if, without being sent back in time by John, who can’t actually exist considering the fact that Kyle isn’t sent back in time until John is, what 43 or something. See what I mean? Best not to think too hard about this and just enjoy the neat conclusions.

It is a rollicking romp or a film. Hamilton is soft and gentle, stepping up rarely and quite emotional throughout the film, really relying on Kyle to see her through the trauma of being pursued by Schwarzenegger’s fairly impressive force. Cameron knows how to keep his stories rolling, and even at this time shows an adeptness with special effects. Sure, they look clunky compared to what could be achieved now, but this was almost three decades ago! Give the man some credit. It’s pretty damned impressive. Schwarzenegger, for his part, plays the role perfectly, considering he doesn’t need to do much more than hulk around and shoot stuff, muttering the occasional dry line of not-really-dialogue, and by nature of his being can’t really exhibit much in the way of expression. Biehn, who must have been quite the heartthrob back in the 80s considering I found him very attractive now despite the hairdo, was suitably dramatic and mysteriously knowing with his representations to Sarah.

All in all, it’s a good film. I knew the story of it, just from picking it up from the sequel and word of mouth, so it was no revelation of understanding as to the story of the terminator and the second installment. But it was nice to finally see it, an enjoyable action film that isn’t as good as the second one but is a tidy little start. 4 stars.

My Favourite Colour Is Fluorescent Beige.

Truly, everyone has heard so much about Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire that there doesn't really feel much more to say. Yes, it was the first film ever to take out the Audience Award at the two most influential North American film festivals last year (Sundance and Toronto - taking out the Grand Jury Prize at the former to boot. Plus it nabbed the audience awards at San Sebastian, Hawaii and Chicago.) Yes, it peaked hella way too early, somewhere around September everyone was saying that it would take something mammoth to beat it to the Best Picture Oscar this year. As we now know, it's not getting anywhere near that trophy - Avatar blitzed, The Hurt Locker came from behind, and Up In The Air safely flew through the middle. No one is even mentioning Precious in the same sentence as Best Picture unless they're mentioning that it received a nomination. It's definitely not going to win.

This is a textbook example of buzz creating backlash creating lasting damage for a film that otherwise should have been able to pose more of a threat. Probably released a little too early to be able to carry the high hopes through to Oscar, it nevertheless did the best thing for its box office (and that's the most important thing - let's be honest, Oscar is all glory and no moolah these days.) I do find it a bit upsetting, however, that it is being so comprehensively ignored these days. Apart from the gimme that is Mo'Nique's Supporting Actress Oscar, the only real surprise seems to be the Editing nomination for Joe Klotz and, to a lesser extent, that Lee Daniels arrogance and the Academy love for Clint Eastwood didn't shaft him from the Best Director race.


On to the film. Clareece Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) is sixteen, horrendously overweight, failing junior high school and pregnant with her second child. And her father is the father. She is kicked out of her current school, and is pressured to go on welfare by her mother, Mary (Mo'Nique), who is also on welfare and seems to do nothing but sit in her apartment, abuse Precious and smoke, occasionally trying to tidy up when a social worker comes to visit and she reclaims Precious' first daughter from Precious' grandmother - the child has Down's Syndrome, and Mary doesn't want it in the house, but she does want the welfare cheque that looking after a baby brings with it.


Precious enrols in a new school, an alternative school, where her teacher, Ms Rain (Paula Patton) proves an inspiration, very much in the vein of Michelle Pfeiffer's character in Dangerous Minds. She motivates her students to write, to learn to read, to explore what it is they really want to do with themselves. And she cares for them all from the beginning. Precious is also talking to Mrs Weiss (Mariah Carey) at the welfare office, who has taken an interest in the fact that Precious has been raped and impregnated not once, but twice by her own father, under the watchful gaze of her own mother.

I guess this is the majority of the storyline. I'm not going to go into the character arc of Precious, because, when broken down, it's actually quite basic, almost exactly what you'd expect. It does hold on to a few surprises, so that just when you're feeling better about it all it kicks you back down into the depths of despair without so much as an 'excuse me.' The film does manage to leave off on a hopeful note, contrary to all of the reports of how bleak and terrifying the film is. It is bleak and terrifying, but it is also profound and moving, funny in moments, and warming at the end.


The film basically takes any previous concept of female performance and shits all over it. Seriously. I don't aim to be crass, but that's really what I saw. Sidibe, a total newcomer, was astonishing, mumbling her way through trauma and tears, wrenching your heart, but constantly shining a light through the middle of her distress. Patton (her characters is a lesbian! For no reason! It means nothing to the story, is only really mentioned once! Is this the breakthrough we've been waiting for???) is perfect as the inspirational leader, pretty, confident, successful, with just enough superiority to keep the kids in line without once seeming to patronise them. Carey... dare I say it, but I think if Mo'Nique's character hadn't been in the film (because I think it is such a strong character that a lot of people would have been able to turn in award-worthy performances, though maybe not as stunning as Mo'Nique pulled off) there would be serious talk about her being a proper contender for Best Supporting Actress. She's only in a couple of scenes, but the last one especially is so tremendously crafted. As a social worker she's trying to keep her personal feelings and emotions out of it, but failing dismally, and you can see that struggle through her questioning of Mary. A definite match for the Oscar nominated turns by Mo'Nique and Sidibe.

Which brings me to Mo'Nique. Hot. Damn. Seriously. Monstrous. Switching between connivingly nice and outrageously awful in a heartbeat, she turns it all up to eleven, and then manages to push it closer to a hundred. Magnetic at the same time as she is hideous, she never makes Mary so detestable as to stop you from pitying her at least just a bit for whatever has caused her to be such a fearsome and loathsome character. You don't pity her for her desire and need for love, no sir, not when the most obvious candidate for love has been beaten and bullied so badly by both her and those around her, but you do feel sorry for the fact that she so needs to trample her child in order to feel worthy. She pushes so far into the realm of hatred that you come full circle and almost want to help her. Almost being the operative word. At the end of the day, I'd still be quite happy watching her fall under a bus. And all of this doesn't come close to describing the true gravity of her achievement here. Let it be said that if, somehow, she doesn't walk home with an Oscar next month, you can quite rightly expect riots in the streets. I'll be leading them.


All that having been said, it is far from a perfect movie. Some of the directorial choices seemed a little random, and I must say I didn't really enjoy the fantasy cutaways of Precious. I appreciate the idea, but they didn't work for me. They could have, maybe if they were a little more lo-fi, but as they were it felt manipulative. And little things, like pulling away from Mo'Nique's face to her hands in the middle of her final scene's explosive and powerful monologue. WTF? Stick with her face! It's redefining performance! This is what it's all been leading up to! WHY AM I LOOKING AT HER HANDS??? TAKE ME BACK!!! WAAAAH!!! (I really did feel that strongly about it in the movie as well. I think I actually muttered various curse words in surprise in the theatre. Truly.)


Overall, though, the story and the performance did incredible things, enough to help me get past all else. 4.5 stars, but with a note that Precious should still be very, very high on your list of things to see as a masterclass of an entire ensemble doing absolutely everything right every step of the way. Not a foot wrong, even from the lesser supports.

PS.

Avatar just cracked the top spot on the global box office charts, after a little over a month in release, shifting Titanic down to number two. Check out the figures here.

It Seems Diplomacy Has Failed.

What else is there to say about the behemoth that is Avatar? It has recently become the fastest film to ever pass US$550mil at the US box office, is only the fifth film to ever take more than US$1bil at the global box office, and as of today (presumably, though definitely by tomorrow) it will have overtaken James Cameron's previous directorial feature film Titanic to become the highest grossing film of all time on the world stage. (Let's not start talking about adjusted grosses or inflated ticket prices for the 3D presentation, because that's all academic, and nor shall we bring in the fact that major markets such as China have greatly opened up since the time of Titanic. Just let the glory ride. After all, it was only a couple of years ago I remember reading an article stating that the honour of box office champion would remain with Titanic for many years to come due to the changing nature of film performance and blockbuster patterns, something that Avatar has just shot down.) It's also the first film to stay at number one of the US box office for more than five weeks since The Sixth Sense did it back in 1999. It's one of the most expensive films ever made (though the actual cost of it is impossible to find out.) And this is all purely fiscal. The film is also extraordinarily groundbreaking for its visuals - each frame of the CGI world took an average of somewhere between forty and fifty man hours to render. Each. Frame.

This film has been the subject of so much publicity for so many years that I'm not going to go into plot, I'm not going to touch on the politics, if you don't know it by now, you're obviously living under a rock. In fact, if you haven't seen it by now you must be living under a rock. And I'd strongly advise you to get out from under that rock and go and see it immediately in a large cinema with those 3D glasses on. It will take your breath away.


Cameron has acquitted himself quite nicely. This film could have gone either way. If the technology hadn't been up to it, the film would have been a disaster. There's no way one could get so involved with a world and a people unless they looked as good as they did. The landscape created for Pandora is phenomenally realistic, awe-inspiring. I want to all of the visual team Oscars, and then knight them all, and then marry them all. Weta and ILM were both responsible (the larger part, I believe, came from Weta) and no superlative does justice to the splendour witnessed on screen. And the film itself, reasonably basic and run of the mill as it is, managed to live up to years of hype and a month of incredible performance on everybody's lips quite nicely - I had such sky-high expectations that were not only met, but exceeded. Those scenes in the Hallelujah Mountains - breathtaking. It did, I think, owe some debts to the world created by George Lucas (without the CGI power of today) in the original Star Wars films. There were many moments I watched and had flashbacks to the many times I saw those films as children. But that was actually kind of touching - an homage to another blockbuster groundbreaker.

This totally doesn't do it justice. Imagine this image, but about a million times better. Or a billion!

Sigourney Weaver as the scientist in charge of the Avatar operation is fabulous, as always. I've long been a fan of hers, and lately she has been doing amazing things for me. How Snow Cake got ignored a few years back is beyond me. Giovanni Ribisi as the head of the company mounting the mining operation creating the conflict in the film is fantastic. I think he is a terrific supporting actor, though I've never seen him carry a film as a lead. Keep him in supporting and I'll keep turning out to see him. Stephen Lang pulls of the role as the head of the US Marine unit on Pandora with amazing style. It's a role that quite easily could have been overplayed and hammed up, but he kept it to the minimum amount of hamming he could get away with and leant his character an air of arrogance and determination the fits perfectly with the setting and story. Zoe Saldana as Neytiri, the prominent Na'vi character, does incredible work considering her character is all motion-captured. (And that motion capture! It's really them on screen! Really! You can see it in their faces! Their expressions! Holy shit!) Sam Worthington has never been my favourite actor, though I'll commend his efforts in Somersault, but he pulls off the role of Jake Sully fine, probably because he doesn't really need to do much. He plays a marine well, though he couldn't quite nail the accent. And maybe I've seen him in too many Aussie movies, because I kept expecting him to pull out that hysterical line in his broad accent from his role as Macbeth, 'Is that a dagger I see before me?' (you have to see the film to understand that hysteria, but I wouldn't recommend it as I just don't think it's any good.)


James Horner's score is a James Horner Score For A Major Motion Picture, which means it's sweeping and majestic and doesn't really try anything new. It suits the film, but I'm not about to go out and buy it. And besides, it's all about those visuals. Not to say the rest of the film doesn't matter (if the visuals had been that stunning but it was let down in story and performance, it would be a shit film), but it is definitely the major element. And I'm going to give James Cameron full credit and a hats off for managing to not only conceptualise it, but then to impart that concept to his team, reign in all the things that could go wrong and make it work, and then inject the humanity of the story and the truth of the performance.


Seriously, go and see it. I'm sure it's going to win a bunch of Oscars (though my pick for Best Picture and Best Director is still probably The Hurt Locker and Kathryn Bigelow, which is actually looking more and more likely as the days go on), and deservedly so. It's a mammoth blockbuster making packets of money that I'm not going to object to. It deserves its acclaim. Bring it.


5 stars.

Holy Blue Gemini.

If all estimates hold up, Avatar just became only the fifth film ever (with the others being The Dark Knight, the last Lord of the Rings, the second Pirates of the Caribbean film and Titanic) to crack through the US$1billion dollar mark at the global box office. Oh, did I mention that it's only just finished its third weekend in release?

That is FREAKING huge. After the biggest third weekend in the States on record (US$23mil more than the old title holder, Spider-Man) it's looking damn likely that the film will hit US$500mil in the States alone. I think it will probably crack The Dark Knight to become number 2, though a number of people think that's a risky prediction. It has a shot at Titanic's record, something I didn't think we'd be saying for a few years yet, on the domestic front, though I'm not going to really make a call either way until I start to see what it is capable of grossing outside of the holiday period. Once people go back to work and school it should fall pretty heavily, but if the January releases don't provide anything to really drag people into competing cinemas, Avatar could just get there.

Can it get another US$800mil worldwide to beat Titanic? That's going to be a big task for it. Though if I'm predicting US$200mil more just from the States, it could, theoretically, happen. Personally, at this stage, I think I'm going to say that it won't get there. It'll give it a red hot go, but I don't think so.

Meanwhile, everyone involved is basking in the glory of knowing they were right. And James Cameron is basking in the glory of pretty much being god.

Some Thoughts On The Big 4.

I just finished listening to a podcast from InContention.com where they touched on the 'Big 4' yet to drop in a serious way on the world, which have been variously considered possibilities of major Oscar news. They are, in no particular order, Nine, Invictus, The Lovely Bones and Avatar.

First, Nine. There have been some press screenings, with various elements of embargo in place, but people are talking about it. They're saying kind of what I anticipated, which I didn't really go into earlier, probably because I was tired. I think it will look incredible - just see the trailer and I'm sure everyone would agree. Rob Marshall knows what he's doing here - he was responsible for Chicago and Memoirs of a Geisha after all. But, like Chicago, I don't expect it to be a film that I'm head over heels in love with. I'm sure it will be entertaining to an extent, and the line up of talent means that surely it can't really go wrong (apparently Kate Hudson is the weakest link here - who would have thought?) But I just don't think it's going to hold up to some of the more powerful films of the year. I think it will be flashy, pretty, and fairly well irrelevant. That kind of seems to be what people are saying after these screenings. Its craft representation will be strong and in a pool of ten Best Picture nominees that might see it pull through, but I don't think it's going to pull of the heights that Chicago did with 6 of the pretty gold men including the big one.

Invictus. That's Clint Eastwood's new film. As I mentioned it only needs to be good to show here, I think. Early word on the film (embargo, embargo, embargo) seems a little mixed. Though generally what I've heard is that it is kind of flat, not Eastwood's best, not quite what it could have been. And that Matt Damon is out at a Supporting Actor shot, and Morgan Freeman is fine and perfectly cast - but will that be enough. Generally, it seems that the expanded Best Picture slot will be the film's saving grace, as it doesn't actually have a great deal else going for it. I think it will be a hit (and with the rugby setting, it could play bigger overseas than at home in the States), I think the reviews will generally be at worst kind of lukewarm, especially from the influential players, and I think it could be happy with a couple of noms. Whether it can play into the major category I just don't know. I wouldn't be surprised though. I mean, it's Clint Eastwood. Everyone loves him. Even if he does leave you a bit... cold.

The Lovely Bones dropped in London with a Royal Gala screening earlier this week, and has been doing some other press screenings (embargo again!) I personally think the trailer looks stunning, but it also looks like a whole film of that could be a bit over the top. Word is, again, mixed. Quite decisively mixed. And it seems to be lacking a major rave anywhere. People are saying Stanley Tucci and Saorise Ronan are very good, and apparently they put more Susan Sarandon in because the test screenings liked her character. People are also having different reactions based on whether or not they have read the book - I have not. This is Peter Jackson, and I think he has a fair bit of respect, so I think ultimately if the film plays well it could be in the picture. I think if the public like it it could just sneak in there. I definitely don't think it will win the majors (in fact, from what I'm hearing I don't think either of the three mentioned so far have a shot of upsetting the current favourites) but it may just sneak through with more than people anticipate IF the public get behind it.

Lastly, Avatar. No one has seen it yet. Except, apparently, for about forty people who James Cameron invited to see it because he wanted their opinions, because the film has not been tested at all. Word of one of these (this is coming from Anne Thompson on IndiWire) is the the film is fantastic. It's a really tough one to call. There are a few elements at play here. Firstly, let's not forget that Cameron's last feature film won eleven Oscars and is the highest grossing film ever (when not adjusted for inflation.) Obviously, the man can do that right. Secondly, the anticipation on this film from the filmmaking community is running white hot. How revolutionary is it? Can Cameron pull it off? Just what the fuck is it all about? Thirdly, will it make money, or at least pull in enough to not bankrupt people along the way. This is the toughest call. Apparently the tracking for it isn't great. I really want to see the film, but I haven't booked tickets yet. I figure I'll see it when I see it. I can't imagine the anticipation levels of my parents are particularly high - they're going to need people to say 'oh my god it's incredible you have to see it' before it registers enough for them to go out to it, I think. Younger people, sure, they'll see it. Families? Maybe. How dark is it looking? Too dark to take your kid to? Cameron said they can't afford to have a target audience (remember, word on the street is putting total costs for the creation and marketing of the film, including ancillary events, at close to half a billion dollars) and that they're banking on it playing to eight year olds and eighty year olds. Really? You really think an eighty year old is going to put this high on their list of things to do for this week? It'll open big (I don't think it'll open Twilight II big, but inflated Imax and 3D screening ticket prices might push it up there - though I still don't think so), so ultimately it comes down to word of mouth. If it holds around (as Titanic did, though that was in a very different box office era) then it'll be in for a shot. If this gets people talking it could be a formidable contender. I think the only shot this film has at being anywhere near as big in the Oscars as Titanic was is if it is spectacular. Groundbreaking in the truest sense of the word. Just merely being very good is not good enough. In fact, it'll hurt it. This film literally needs to lock its lips around yours and suck the air out of your lungs for the three hours I expect it will play for. You need to leave the cinema feeling like you have just witnessed the birth of christ. Without that, I think you can count it out of majors, though not the craft categories. Anything beneath leaving you in a state of hysteria will mean that the film, the buzz, the hype, everything Cameron has been telling you will fall short of expectation, and no film can survive that. Even if expectation is so damned high that it could still be an excellent film.

That was a bit of an Avatar rant, really. But they're my thoughts on the matter. Other things that could affect any of these films showing in the big ten are whether the voters take this opportunity to reward lesser known indy films because they feel the widening gives them that duty. They may think putting precious at the top of their list is enough, but they may also start to go with films like Crazy Heart, The Last Station etc. Basically, these films that could have been locks if they had lived up to anticipation are now maybes like everything else. When the embargoes are lifted and the public starts to get a feel for the films we'll know for sure, but at the moment... it's all get set for the last one to hit next month.

I Don't Need This Shit! I Am Reality!

Platoon is probably the best war movie I've seen yet. Oliver Stone's incredible break-out success as a director (he had previously won a screenplay Oscar for Midnight Express, but this was his big directing success - according to Box Office Mojo it took over US$130mil from a US$6mil budget...back in 1986) netted him a directing Oscar and the film a Best Picture statue, amongst six other nominations.

Stone, himself a Vietnam vet, wrote this powerful story centring on the beginnings of a year-long tour by Chris (Charlie Sheen), though the incredible standouts came from Willem Dafoe and Tom Berenger as Sergeants Elias and Barnes respectively. Their relationship was heated, confrontational and deadly in many ways, exacerbated by the horrible nature of the Vietnam War and their equivalent rankings. Their completely different takes on right and wrong, and the influence they had on the men in their command, affects the viewer's morality in unnerving and uncomfortable ways. We'd all like to be the compassionate liberal portrayed by Dafoe, but a part of you understands the trauma and torment running through the veins of Berenger's Barnes. And they completely nailed their performances.

Sheen's Chris, however, left me wanting. I've never been a Charlie Sheen fan, in anything (though I've never seen Two And A Half Men, so maybe all the awards mean something), and I'm not a fan here. It might just be a personal dislike, but his actions and motivations fail to ring true throughout the film. His character develops, on paper, but I don't see him going through the journey - I see him saying the words, and pulling the faces, but I don't believe it.

Nothing, however, can take away from Stone's masterful and harrowing direction, not even Sheen's sub-par contribution. Some monumentally iconic and memorable shots, scenes and words pummel you from the screen. A few points had me audibly gasping. The score fell together perfectly (and while the repeated use of Barber's Adagio For Strings did start to grate through the film, it did become a warm blanket by the end), all of the other performances were fantastic (brief yet incredible turns from Johnny Depp, Kevin Dillon and Forest Whitaker being particular highlights), stunning scenery captured perfectly - it all blended to make a war movie that felt powerful and triumphant whilst simultaneously deriding the war and the politics at hand. I think that only a veteran of the war could truly undermine it in such a way whilst holding the soldiers who fought in it up as such heroes. The film is telling us that, like it or not, war happens. And in war, shit happens. And some of that shit is really, really bad. Some of the things people do are really, really bad. But, for the most part (though not all), respect must be given to those who fight them because when you're out there you just don't have a choice.

Platoon has a new relevance now, with much of the Western world embroiled in a couple of sagas that seem to be heading down the same route as Vietnam (when can we stop with the rhetoric and just admit that Afghanistan and Iraq are unmitigated disasters?) The film looks at the futility of going in against an enemy (who are, for all intents and purposes, unjudged in the film - they are treated as the enemy, but in much the same way as I imagine the Na'vi will be treated in Avatar. There is inherent racism, but it is also a one-sided look at the war) who know the lay of the land so much better, who are much more knowledgeable about the jungle and what it holds, and who are willing to risk everything to hold on to what they have. And doesn't that sound like something going on right now?

4.5 stars for Platoon. That the film overcomes the weakness of the lead to the extent that it only loses half a star is testament to the combined power of the other elements.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? Yes. Let's.

This may end up being a little long, but we're all grown-ups.

It's the beginning of November. In the States this signifies the beginning of the Oscar season, in real and expensive terms. I thought I might just run my mouth off a little about what I think sits where in terms of this particular awards ceremony, in order that those participating in workplace sweeps and the like can start their planning. I'm only going to go over some of the major categories right now, because... that's what I'm going to do. It's worth bearing in mind that, due to my lack of media pass and living on the other side of the Atlantic, I haven't actually seen many of these movies yet. This is all based on what is being said in various forms from around the world. And I'm going to link to a trailer wherever I can. Because trailers are pretty.

First up, let's kick off with some supporting players, shall we?

Best Supporting Actress

The only name that really rings in this category right now is Mo'Nique for the cumbersomely titled Precious: Based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire. She's been hot favourite for this category literally all year, since she snaffled a Special Jury Prize for her performance at Sundance. From what I've been hearing, every single notice for this film is ranting and raving to the high heavens about her performance. There has been talk lately of the fact that she's not doing any promotion for the film, which traditionally has hurt people in a campaigning sense, and there have been whispers of diva-style antics. But fuck it. If the performance is even half as good as what I'm expecting, she'll be a shoe-in. I think this film is actually going to be hard to kill in a backlash, and she along with it, but we'll get to that. At the moment, I'm putting her as the actress to beat. And that's probably going to be an impossible feat.

Also-rans would include Julianne Moore for her role in Tom Ford's debut A Single Man; any one of all the girls in Rob Marshall's Nine, though my personal hopeful is Judi Dench because she is actually my god; and Maggie Gyllenhaal (be still my beating heart) for Crazy Heart now that it is getting a release. Some people are bigging up Anna Kendrick for Up In The Air, but I'll get to that film later.

Best Supporting Actor

I'm throwing Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds and Matt Damon for the unseen (by anyone) Invictus at the top of my list. Waltz for obvious reasons. Everyone's talking about this performance, and have been for months. He's not as strong a lock as Mo'Nique in her respective category, but he's still probably the one to beat. Damon... look, I've never been a major Matt Damon fan. But there's something about him this year, the props he's getting for this (where I think, if the film turns out all right, should at least net him a nom) and that he received for The Informant!, which actually bombed a little at the box office and will probably not pan out to a second lead actor nod (after that which he received for Good Will Hunting back in the day.) This is a film by Clint Eastwood, about a major recent historical figure, with allegorical ties to the current American administration (both black, both reconciling a country, both trying to make up for past wrongs etc) with Morgan Freeman in the lead - I think it will be a formidable contender, and the trailer looks fantastic.

Also-rans: Christopher Plummer for The Last Station (why can't I find a trailer! Waaah!), which I'm not really feeling, especially since it feels a little like category fraud, though that didn't stop the Winslet win last year. Not that I'm complaining about Kate Winslet winning - I think she's incredible. But still. Where were we? Oh yes. Anthony Mackie for The Hurt Locker because I don't think anything can kill that film and he'll pull through with ground support.

Best Actress

This category is a little all over the place. Gabourey Sidibe is hot right now for Precious, but I think she will have to content herself with a nomination. Come on - she's a non-actor who, granted, may be pulling off a stunning turn, but until people actually know that she can indeed act in anything else, they're not going to give her a naked gold man to play with. Carey Mulligan is running hot for An Education, but she's very young... Helen Mirren is getting attention for the aforementioned The Last Station, but she just won one and this isn't The Queen. People are talking Meryl (of course) for It's Complicated or Julie & Julia, htough probably the former. There is also still lingering sentiment for Abbie Cornish for Bright Star. None of these, however, are slam dunks. I think Mulligan and Sidibe can count themselves in for a nod, but that's about it. I'm not willing to speculate any further until I've seen some more.

Best Actor

It kind of looks same-old, same-old in here, a kind of Best Of of the last forty years. With Crazy Heart being pushed into this season, Jeff Bridges seems to have overnight solidified himself as the front runner, almost four decades after his first nomination. He's never won the man, so I'll pay it. Plus, his performance is meant to be extraordinary, meaning he can get this deservedly and not be forever talked about like Michael Caine - a career-achievement award wearing the plaque of a Best Performance award. He looks set to beat Colin Firth for A Single Man, for which he won the Volpi Cup in Venice and has been receiving a lot of notice for. George Clooney is looking like a nominee again for Up In The Air - who would have thought he'd be such an Oscar darling when we were drooling over him on E.R.? I think Daniel Day Lewis may make a showing with Nine, Morgan Freeman may turn up with Invictus, Damon may turn up with The Informant!, I think Jeremy Renner will turn up with The Hurt Locker. This is a mighty strong category this year, with a lot of product still to come. I think it's Bridges' trophy to lose at the moment, however.

Best Director

This year has been touted as the year of the woman in film. Kathryn Bigelow is hot here for The Hurt Locker. Jane Campion has cooled somewhat but is still a possibility for Bright Star, though not a strong one. Lone Scherfig is looking likely for An Education. So that's three, which is a fair number. Lee Daniels has to be thought of for Precious, but it actually wouldn't surprise me if he didn't get it. There's a bit of a backlash against him personally for kind of taking the credit for the direction of Monster's Ball (which he produced) and for just generally appearing to think that he is god. So he might drop out of the race, probably controversially. I don't think you can count James Cameron out for Avatar. If the film is actually any good, I think it will redefine a number of these categories. And obviously Clint Eastwood for Invictus. If Eastwood is working, he'll get nominated these days. There are a number of other strong contenders, but I think it will look like being amongst these people at the moment, with one or two being replaced by any number of others. So let's leave it at this until it clears up, shall we? Yes. Lets.

Best Picture

This is the biggie, and now the hardest to make any sort of call in, as they have widened it to ten nominees. I'm just going to run through a few that I think will be in, and maybe a couple of others.

Precious is a gimme. Seriously. If this film doesn't end up in contention I'll buy a hat, and then eat it. (Please note that I reserve the right to not actually buy a hat, or eat it. But I don't think it will come to that.) It's the only film to ever win the Audience Award at Sundance and Toronto. It's an Important Film. It's a black film. It's backed by Oprah. It is receiving kudos from around the world. And it opened over the weekend to an estimated USD$100,000 per screen on 18 screens, the highest screen average for any film playing on over 6 screens, ever. This film is going to be big. While most people whose opinions I've heard say that it's a hard slog of a film, and that going into second viewings they have trepidation, winning those two big audience awards says that, difficult though it may be, it is pushing buttons with viewers.

The Hurt Locker is more than likely going to hit home here. Most critics are calling it the film of the year. It is at a disadvantage because it was an early release, though it is not unprecedented for a film to hit cinemas in the States early and go on to major glory - just look at The Silence of the Lambs. I don't think it will manage to trump any major awards, really, but I think it will heavily feature.

Up In The Air will probably feature. I don't know what I'm thinking about this film. I think the widening of the field to ten nominees will pretty much assure it a place, but there's something about the trailer... it all looks to easy. People are loving it from festival appearances, and Clooney is on the campaign trail and well liked so that won't hurt its chances, but for me, he kind of looks like George Clooney in it. There must be something bubbling under the surface, but it's just not ringing with me. I liked Jason Reitman's Thank You For Smoking as a debut, I really liked Juno as an entertaining piece of cinema, and this is meant to be much bigger, better, deeper, metaphorical, all that stuff without doing away with the entertainment aspect. People have been comparing Reitman prematurely to someone like Billy Wilder. The must be something to this film, but I'm just not gagging for it like so many others seem to be. It looks like the kind of film I'll go and see, really enjoy, and then forget about when it comes to crafting a best of 2009 list. This is totally judging a book by its cover, but there you go. That's my feeling. If there is going to be one major upset this year, it wouldn't surprise me if this is it. I don't think it will be, however. I think it's a nominee lock in this category. But don't expect it to be lifting the trophy.

Invictus. It's Clint Eastwood. It's Morgan Freeman. It's political. It's everything they want it to be. Unless the film is a pile of crap, expect it to show up here. If it's good, I'd even be calling it a shot at a Precious upset. There's really not much more to say about this one.

Up is going to be the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture. Deal with it. It won't win, but there you go.

Avatar - it's too early to call for sure. But, like I said earlier, you can't count Cameron out of the race. Remember Titanic? The movie we all love to slag off? It's still one of the highest grossing films of all time when adjusted for inflation, it's still one of only three films to win 11 Oscars. He's a powerhouse of blockbusters, and the Academy will want to show that they appreciated diversity, even if it means saying hello to a major CGI film from the director of Terminator. This is groundbreaking stuff. If the film works thematically, expect it to be here.

Nine? Maybe. It'll depend on how it plays. A Serious Man? I'm not an enormous fan of the Coen Brothers, but a lot of people are. It could show up here. It's not going to pull a No Country For Old Men, however. The Lovely Bones? Again, don't count Peter Jackson out, but it is WAY too early to tell. Anticipation runs from white hot to totally cold. An Education will probably pull through because of the bigger list. But really, I think the major contenders here are Precious, The Hurt Locker, probably Up In The Air, probably Invictus, and that's about it.

I know I haven't seen it yet, and I am totally aware of the lukewarm critical and commercial receipt it is getting, but I really want to call Where The Wild Things Are a contender. It's easily my most anticipated film of the year. And if that isn't just one of the best trailers ever... But I don't think it will be. I'm DYING to see it, and I can't believe I have to wait another MONTH to see it when it has been out for WEEKS in the States and it is a HIGHLY ANTICIPATED MOVIE that they really should be releasing DAY AND DATE across the globe. But there you go.

So they're my major thoughts right now. It will of course change over time, and I'll probably update bit by bit as I get around to seeing the films mentioned. But it's a bit of an overview of what you should be watching out for should you be interested in all this jazz.