Actors Miscast

The other day I found out that Natalie Dormer is playing Margaery Tyrell in season two of Game of Thrones.  I think this is the first serious miscast that HBO has done in the series, and I said so on Twitter - and then my friend Spencer said, "Hey!  Talking about miscast actors would make a good blog post!"  And I agreed.  His first example was Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan in Clear and Present Danger, which unfortunately I can't comment on because I've never seen the film.  But!  I came up with some pretty solid examples of my own for you!

I think it is sometimes easy to forget that what actors are doing onscreen is their job - some are better at it than others, and some probably enjoy doing it more than others, but when it comes right down to it they are all doing it to support themselves.  And, if they're good (and lucky), eventually they get to the point where they can pretty much pick and choose the roles that they play.  Most of the time, this is a good thing - a good actor in a good (or even halfway decent) role can really take a movie from "merely good" to "truly great."

But sometimes this doesn't happen.

For whatever reason, whether they need the paycheck or they thought the role would be fun or they got persuaded against their better judgment, actors we like take roles that suck.  Or, they take roles that don't necessarily suck, but that they're really not right for.  Here are my thoughts on some seriously miscast roles, and who I would have preferred to see in them instead.

Alan Rickman, Sweeney Todd
: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

I love Alan Rickman.  Sometimes I go see things just because he's in them (Bottle Shock, Perfume: the Story of a Murderer, Blow Dry, and Dogma, to name just a few).  And in his defense, most of those are really good films (well, except Perfume).  But he is an obvious weak link in Sweeney Todd, a film that I will freely admit I didn't care for anyway, because he can't sing.

I'll say it again: Alan Rickman can't sing.  And Sweeney Todd...is a musical.  See the trouble here?

Under normal circumstances, Rickman would have been pitch-perfect as the nefarious, brooding Judge Turpin.  But he apparently can't hit a note to save his life.  And the film definitely suffered for it.

So who would I rather have put in this role?  Um, duh:

Mandy Patinkin is broody, grizzled, and experienced on both the screen and the stage.  And I know he can sing, because I have the original Broadway recordings of several of his performances.  He would have brought the same kind of gravitas as Rickman to the role, with the proper pipes behind it.

Edward Norton, The Hulk

I CAN'T be the only one who said "lol whut?" when this casting decision got announced.  Edward Norton is brilliant and refined and introspective at his best, and the Hulk...well, the Hulk is a giant green man-thing that breaks windows and tears up SWAT teams.  I kind of get what Leterrier was going for here, because I think the right way to get your audience to sympathize with this particular Marvel being is to get them sympathetic with Bruce Banner, but this almost takes it too far.  Hearing Norton say that iconic tagline ("You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...") with all his dark subtlety was too much for me.  Norton should save his talent for the bigger roles that demand it, like, say, Eisenheim in The Illusionist.

A better choice by far:

I'm cheating a little, because Mark Ruffalo is already slated to take over the Hulk in the upcoming Avengers flick.  But I don't care because if I'd given it some thought beforehand he probably would have been my choice anyway.  Ruffalo generally has a less complicated approach to his characters than Norton - and that's not an insult, by the way.  I thought he was excellent in The Kids Are All Right, Shutter Island, and The Brothers Bloom, all characters which he played very straightforward.  And that's what this role needs; you shouldn't have to work as hard as Norton did to make the Hulk sympathetic.  He suffered a horrible scientific accident, and that's really all the depth he needs.

Ruffalo is also a little meatier than Norton, so visually he fits the role much better as well.

Speaking of The Brothers Bloom...

Rachel Weisz, The Brothers Bloom

Rachel Weisz is one of those people who always comes across as an incredibly likeable person in the real world, because of all the charm and depth she brings to her characters.  But as Penelope the heiress, the bubbly, frenetic multi-hobbied romantic interest, she's wasted.  Penelope was written with charm, she didn't need the excess that Weisz brought to the table, and the end result was someone so saccharine that I was frankly irritated with her by the end.

She needed a bit of tang to go with all that sugar.  My suggestion?

Amanda Peet is ALSO a charming woman, but she can do rough-around-the-edges in a way Weisz really can't.  That kind of edge is what Penelope needed to go from being a pretty simple, bored, rich girl to actually being interesting.

Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, Interview With A Vampire

I don't really know how the emotive, whiny Louis translated into tall, naturally blonde, caustic Pitt...or how the commanding, charismatic, and decadent Lestat became the smaller, weaslier, naturally brunette Cruise.  In a movie where the mood should have been everything, these actors were hitting the wrong notes.  My solution?

Switch the roles.

Pitt is physically larger, commands more of your attention, and is more naturally likeable.  Cruise is small and dark and squirrelly, and while I really do like him and think he's turned out some brilliant work, he needed to be the needier, whinier, more sycophantic Louis.  As the tempestuously moody, libertine-dandy Lestat he just falls way flat.

Kristen Stewart, Twilight

When you're working from shit source material and you have shit characters, you need a REALLY GOOD and REALLY LIKEABLE actor to have a hope of saving the final product.  Not only did Twilight serve up a steaming pile of crap story, but it did so with a cardboard actress whose main source of emotion seems to be raking her hands through her hair.

How would I have saved Twilight?  Could Twilight be saved? (Probably not.)  But a step in the right direction would have been...

I'm torn, actually.  Both of these girls could have pulled off the role with a modicum of charisma:

Amber Tamblyn and Emma Roberts both have a wonderful acerbic wit that would have made Bella passingly tolerable.  I feel like, if the directors had let them, they both could have brought a much harder edge to the character and made her slightly less of a pathetic mess.  But maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.  And they both at least know how to smile for pictures on the red carpet.

I think I come down slightly in favor of Roberts here, but mostly I come down on "Why did this movie ever get made in the first place?"

Ben Kingsley: BloodRayne, Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time, Tuck Everlasting, The Love Guru

BEN.  YOU WERE GHANDI.  YOU HAVE AWARDS AND AN OSCAR.  STOP IT.

Sorry, that last one is more of a first-class actor in bad movies, rather than in wrong roles.  But I needed to get it off my chest.

Got one I missed?  Let me know in the comments!

Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me wrong

I enjoy reading Entertainment Weekly.  I find it a good microcosm of the things that are happening in the entertainment world.  Yes, they occasionally over-saturate with the flavor of the week (I find their non-stop coverage of Twilight and Hunger Games exceedingly tedious, for example), they can get away with it because they ARE producing a magazine every week.  I also enjoy spending time on their website, although I may spend too much time (and take the results too personally) in the comments sections of movie reviews.

Today an article by movie reviewer Owen Gleiberman popped up on my Twitter feed that I found extremely fascinating.  But what was more interesting to me were the comments - people who had missed Gleiberman's point, or who were arguing for the sake of arguing, or who were just taking the opportunity to slam Transformers 2. 

(The article, in case you were wondering, discussed the tendency of critics to latch on to one movie altogether and across-the-board pan it, usually unfairly and because they are trying to make a point about the evil nature of the "Hollywood machine."  The example he gave was Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, a film which Gleiberman gave a B in his review two summers ago, and which he stands by.  I give him a lot of credit for continuing to support his opinion, which brings me back to what I want to talk to you about.)

There is a strong urge for movie fans to treat their opinion about a movie as definitive fact.  It's never, "I thought this movie was bad," but rather "This is a bad movie."  Gleiberman's article was followed by a slew of comments in this vein; some choice ones include "... it wasn’t enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination," "Groupthink was thinking that the first one was any good in the first place," " It's anyone with a radar for decent entertainment [that thought Revenge of the Fallen was bad]," and perhaps my favorite, "Michael Bay is an untalented hack with zero ability to create a mediocre—let alone coherent—film."  What all of these have in common is not only the assumption but the demand that people agree with them - and if you do not, as I don't, you are not only wrong but probably stupid for thinking so.

When did it become a crime to enjoy a movie?  No, I didn't think Revenge of the Fallen delivered on what the first Transformers promised, but I certainly had fun watching it and have every intent to watch it again.  I like a lot of movies that many people consider to be bad (see a list of 50 of them here), but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid than the opinions of those who DON'T like them.  Film is art, and like all art, it's subjective - and I have long said that there's an audience, no matter how big, for every film. 

I agree with Gleiberman, by the way.  I do think that many critics and audience members panned Revenge of the Fallen across the board in part because they were expected to.  The movie was the second highest grossing film in 2009, after Avatar.  And it wasn't in 3D, so you can't accuse Bay of grubbing for dollars with a jacked up ticket price.  Someday we as a media culture will stop thinking of summer films as being "lesser" than those offered in the fall, but until then, I'm going to stop being ashamed of liking the movies that I do.  And I'm certainly going to try to stop thinking less of people who disagree with me.

50 Contentious Titles

I really wanted to do a Trailer Talk for the new international Water for Elephants trailer, but due to work and paper writing I haven't had time. But! Here are two lists you might find interesting (or enraging, whatev). I’ve based these on ratings found at IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and the popular opinions of my friends. It’s a very technical system. (No it’s not.) I also ganked the idea from my friend Adam, author of Cinematically Yours (also my banner!).

25 Movies I Liked that No One Else Does
1. Hidalgo
2. The Golden Compass
3. King Arthur
4. Wanted
5. Contact
6. Final Destination
7. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen
8. Saw
9. National Treasure
10. Elektra
11. Jennifer’s Body
12. Gone in 60 Seconds
13. Night at the Museum
14. 50 First Dates
15. The Fast and the Furious (1-3)
16. The Thief and the Cobbler
17. What Dreams May Come
18. Superman Returns
19. Deep Blue Sea
20. The Quick and the Dead (1995)
21. X-Men: The Last Stand
22. Waiting
23. Speed Racer (2008)
24. Iron Man 2
25. The Wolfman (2010)

25 Movies The Rest of the World Likes and I Don't
1. Sin City
2. Crash
3. Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (Swedish)
4. Mystic River
5. Million Dollar Baby
6. Little Miss Sunshine
7. Adaptation
8. The Wizard of Oz
9. When Harry Met Sally
10. The Empire Strikes Back
11. Lust/Caution
12. Paprika
13. Junebug
14. Crank
15. The Triplets of Belleville
16. Waking Life
17. Memento
18. Donnie Darko
19. Corpse Bride
20. Sweeney Todd (2007)
21. Pretty Woman
22. Cloverfield
23. Blade Runner
24. Munich
25. 21 Grams

A Letter to the Academy, or, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID

I was working on an in-depth look at my top ten films from 2010, but really, there aren't any surprises on my list - I tried really hard to include The Wolfman, Daybreakers, and Kick-Ass, but in the end it boiled down to:

10. The Other Guys
9. Easy A
8. Scott Pilgrim v. The World
7. The Runaways
6. Toy Story 3
5. Inception
4. The Fighter
3. The King's Speech
2. How to Train Your Dragon
1. The Social Network

Then I planned this impassioned defense of why things like True Grit and Black Swan and Winter's Bone aren't on here, but let's be real, we all know a few things about me: a. I love kid's movies; b. I love dragons, c. I didn't like True Grit, and d. I sweat Jesse Eisenberg and Christian Bale. All of which really explains just about everything up there.

But I'm a procrastinator, and I lost my window to make that discussion relevant. Luckily for me, new things are happening in film media all the time, and I have been hand-served a topic rife with controversy just this morning.

So let's talk about the Academy Awards.

It's hard for me to explain my devotion to the Oscars. I've watched the entire telecast, front to back, including the red carpet show, every year since I was 14 (Fellowship of the Ring had a lot to do with that). I love the spectacle, true, but as I've learned more about film and become more able to view it critically and, most importantly, discuss it intelligently, I've been able to watch the Oscars critically as well. Especially because the more often I watch the awards, the more "awards fodder" I take the time to watch. It's a feedback loop - I enjoy movies, so I watch the Oscars; I watch the Oscars, so I see awards-bait to put them in context.

My boyfriend laughs at me because I take film too seriously (which I do, no doubt), but...there's something to being able to watch the ceremony on an informed basis. I like being able to see the nominations and say, "Well, I agree with this this and this, but this is clearly my pick for the win, because of this." The more I know about the nominees, the more fun it is.

What happened today is appalling. For the most part, I was neither surprised nor displeased with the nomination results - I may not like True Grit, but the rest of Hollywood does. The Social Network, The King's Speech, these have always been the front runners. Sure, there were a few (pleasant) surprises in the acting categories, but not many, and none I actively disagreed with. I'm sure at this point you all know where I'm headed with this, but I'm plowing onward anyway.

Dear Academy,

Why, oh why, didn't Christopher Nolan get nominated for Best Director? Why nominate Inception AT ALL if you're not going to recognize that Nolan was the reason it was so great? You know as well as I do that in less capable hands, Inception would have been a confusing, stuttering mess. Nolan was able to take a handful of psychology, some talented but disjointed actors, and an exposition-heavy script and turn it into a visual, thrilling masterpiece. The script itself is not enough to elevate this film to its exceptional levels; even the (admittedly stunning) visuals by themselves didn't make it great. Nolan did.

This is also not the first time that Nolan has taken an ensemble cast and a fabulous backdrop and produced something amazing. I understand why The Dark Knight didn't get much love from you - I didn't agree with the decision, but I know summer blockbusters, even when they are exceptional films, aren't really part of the Academy image. Which begs the question: why nominate Inception, which was just as much of a big-budget spectacle as TDK, at all unless it's partly an apology to Nolan for not recognizing his work last year? And if you're going to take that step, why the directorial snub? Your choices make no sense.

Nolan deserves that statuette, Academy. Not just the nomination he was so clearly robbed of, but the win as well. The Social Network will clearly win the Best Picture award, and I'm fine with that. But please, please start giving credit where credit is due. TSN is Best Picture material because of outstanding acting, a phenomenal script, and handling such topical material with deft panache. Inception is Best Picture material because of Nolan. And not recognizing that just makes you blind.

God help you if Nolan produces a hat trick of greatness with The Dark Knight Rises, and you continue to sit on your red velvet pedestal and look down your nose at a man who not only makes entertainment, but great entertainment.

The Last Airbender, and why I didn't totally hate it

I didn't totally hate The Last Airbender.

I expected to. As my boyfriend can tell you, I'm occasionally too receptive to outside influence when it comes to movies, especially ones that garner strong reactions either positively or negatively. That's why I don't read reviews of movies I'm REALLY interested in - I want to make sure that when I see it, how I feel isn't influenced by other people's opinions.

In the case of The Last Airbender, it was impossible NOT to hear about what other people thought. Usually it involved visiting mortal harm on M. Night Shyamalan. And I don't disagree with them - he did some things with a franchise I'm extremely fond of that he should be ashamed of - but I also thought the film had some really beautiful moments. When our heroes enter the Southern Water Tribe city, for instance: it's impossible to watch that great, majestic glacier and not think of the White City of Gondor. And the choreography for the benders was lovely to watch, a combination of dance, tai chi, and martial arts.

The effects for the bending itself were interesting, but revealed one of three incredibly major problems I had with the film: the color palette is so muted and dark. Even when the fire benders are fighting, the flames aren't as bright or fearsome as they should be. The television show is so vibrant, and color is SO thematically important, that Shyamalan really did the property a disservice by making it so dim. There's an overabundance of blues and muted grays and whites that's just depressing, which leads me to my next problem...

It's so JOYLESS. The show had such a sense of humor, more so than just Sokka's comedic relief - Aang was a clown, and Momo and Appa where jokesters, and one of the show's real strengths was its ability to handle really serious situations and balance them with light-hearted moments. The film is so, unrelentingly somber, although Jackson Rathbone gets a couple of good moments (plus his line delivery is pretty excellent). Actually, that's a good segue for the BIGGEST problem I had with the movie...

Nicola Peltz is a TERRIBLE actress.

No, really. I know a lot of people had big problems with Noah Ringer as Aang, but he's not so bad. Humorless, like I was talking about earlier, but that's Shyamalan's shoddy directing and not the kid. He was fine. The problem was that Peltz ruined every single scene she was in, even when she didn't say anything: flat line delivery, bizarre and over-enthusiastic facial expressions when she was in the background (she reminded me of a kid doing a school play, actually), and some kind of energy-sucking awfulness that made all her scenes a chore. Ringer is actually quite likable in the scenes without Peltz, especially when he has a real actor like Dev Patel to bounce off of.

Let's talk about Patel; and Shaun Toub, and Cliff Curtis, and how the ENTIRE Fire Nation was awesomely badass and clearly the single best part of this film. Patel smolders with rage at the father who betrayed him and the family that despises him, while Toub protects him with a paternal fierceness that's incredible to watch. Say what you want about Shyamalan's casting, but I will go to my grave defending these people and the complexity they brought to a mostly flat landscape.

I would like to watch The Last Airbender again on a non-airplane screen, mainly to see what a real screen does for the color and also the sound quality. I can't really comment on the sound because of how AWFUL the speakers on the plane were, but I don't think there was anything obviously wrong with it. I honestly do hope the other two films planned for this franchise get made, because I think there's good stuff there - Shyamalan just needs to get over himself and let someone with talent direct it.

Fanboys (and why Roger Ebert is so, so wrong)

Today I want to talk about the criminally underrated, nearly-ignored, and almost uniformly poorly-reviewed Fanboys. Directed by Kyle Newman and starring Sam Huntington, Jay Baruchel, Kristen Bell, and Dan Fogler, this film has been called “…a celebration of an idiotic lifestyle,” (Roger Ebert), and “mildly cute, mildly drooly, [and] majorly too-late spoof/homage” (Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly). They’re both wrong.

Ebert’s biggest error comes from the fact that, apparently, he has never been a fan of anything in his life. Right at the outset of his review, he makes it clear that he simply doesn’t get it: “A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself. It's all about them. They have mastered the "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" universes or whatever, but their objects of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion. Anyone who would camp out in a tent on the sidewalk for weeks in order to be first in line for a movie is more into camping on the sidewalk than movies.” If this was true, then the subject matter itself wouldn’t matter. Of course it does, it’s the only thing that matters. Ebert never stops to ask why people are fans of Star Wars, he assumes that that’s beside the point. And as the heroes of Fanboys can tell you, there are scores of reasons why Star Wars has captured the hearts and imaginations of movie-goers for over 30 years, and not just for the sake of fandom itself.

Fanboys is about a group of geeks that head across the country to break into George Lucas’ Skywalker Ranch, the goal of which is to see the rough cut of Episode I before anyone else. It’s a fairly typical road trip movie that’s also about knowing when to grow up and what’s important to take with you when you do. It is also about the unifying power of a cultural phenomenon that Windows, Hutch, Linus and Botts (our titular fanboys) have celebrated together since they were children – something made more poignant by the fact that Linus is dying of cancer (in a subplot which was the topic of a flaming internet debate, and which I’m glad ultimately stayed in the film. It keeps our boys from being parodies.), and won’t be around to share in their joy when Episode I is released in theaters.

At its heart, Fanboys is about that shared cultural experience. What Ebert so cynically calls “a security blanket for the socially inept, who use its extreme structure as a substitute for social skills,” is actually a celebration of a universal connection: when a bully shows up at the premier of Episode I and gives our heroes a good-natured high-five, they are justifiably confused…until he smiles jovially and says simply, “It’s the Wars, bro.” The angry pimp that terrorizes Windows and Hutch in Las Vegas has half-sleeve tattoos on both his arms (right side for Light Side, natch), and they are saved when he gets distracted defending the honor of Han Solo. It shows us, unapologetically, that we're all fans of something; the topic of the movie is Star Wars, but the devotion is a relate-able experience that everyone feels for something. Devotion for Star Wars (or anything else) is not an isolated phenomenon, and it’s certainly not reserved for the most hardcore – Fanboys shows us that, underneath, every one of us is a fanboy.

Except Roger Ebert.

(As a side note, Ebert has also apparently never heard of girl nerds. About Kristen Bell, thoroughly charming as Zoe, the estrogen antidote to all the testosterone on this trip, he sarcastically says “She’s almost better than the date who turns into a pizza and a six-pack when the deed is done.” This is, of course, in reference to the fact that she’s not only totally hot, but also a Star Wars geek. Hello, Mr. Ebert. My name is Martha, I’m totally cute, and I’m a complete nerd. And what’s more? I’m not the only one. Girl nerds are NOT A MYTH.

Did I just blow your mind?)

REALLY the 50 Worst Movies? Are You Sure?

I was directed to Empire Online's list of The 50 Worst Movies Ever recently, and I have to say, if I was making this list it would have turned out a little differently. I understand that there are some occasions when I am a little more forgiving of quality because I am entertained, but I think that's the point - a Worst Movie Ever should have NO redeeming features, and entertainment is pretty much the prescribed purpose of cinema. Why SHOULDN'T I enjoy a movie that, despite a cheesy script or dubious acting, makes me want to watch it again because it's fun? And at fifty slots, I am POSITIVE I could come up with enough vacant, mindless piles of dribble to fill it.

Here are, specifically, the ones I disagree with:

41. Van Helsing (2004)

Yes, the Dracula in this film bares little to no resemblance to Stoker's creature of nightmares, but Hugh Jackman and David Wenham made a charming pair with some good banter. Jackman is a pretty awesome Action Hero, but he also has the acting chops to bring some meat to what could have been an empty-headed muscle man; his Van Helsing was intriguing and likable. Kate Beckinsale struck the right notes of over-the-top and sympathetic, in her leather corset and take-no-shit-from-these-vampire-hookers attitude. Plus the visual effect is gothic and interesting.

30. Scary Movie (2000)

Anna Faris alone makes this one worth watching (or at least, makes me pause for a scene or two whenever it's on Comedy Central). I will always defend the Scary Movie franchise because there are nuggets of actual, belly-laughing humor in there. I don't disagree that this film is bad, just that there are worse films (with no comedic value whatsoever) that should have been called out before this one. If the list went to 100, then maybe. Otherwise I'd advise you to enjoy watching Faris stretch her comedy legs.

28. The Sweetest Thing (2002)

I genuinely thought this film was sweet and enjoyable, with a solid cast and just the right ending (my dad owns it because he likes it so much). In a world where Cameron Diaz only makes something worth seeing every fifth movie or so, I thought the harmless rom-com environment of this film (you know how it ends, and frankly that's ok with me, because one watches this sort of film for the predictable ending) was good for her. She got to be awkward and unsure and I believed her. It's a feel-good movie that does its job, and I don't fault it for that.

25. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

While it did not deliver in the same grand way that its predecessor did, Fallen still made good on all that it promised: big fucking robots fighting each other and destroying large chunks of the landscape. Director Michael Bay could have used more restraint in the number of bots and the visual effects needed to be more streamlined (can I PLEASE get a slow-mo of someone transforming? It looks SO cool but I just can't SEE), and every scene with the two idiot twins could have seen them replaced with Sideswipe and Ironhide, but this film never pretends to be anything other than what it is. And what THAT is, is a two-hour roller coaster that leaves you energized and rooting for Optimus Prime as well as that (already in production) third film.

And finally, let it be said that I am not arguing Batman & Robin's place on this list, but surely it should not be #1? Bloodrayne (2006) didn't even MAKE this list, and that's arguably the worst film I've ever seen. Other notable "snubs" (in my humble opinion):

Anything Uwe Boll has ever done, ever

Manos: Hands of Fate (1966) - You know, pretty much anything that is improved by being MST3K'ed.

Dead Alive (1992) - In my opinion, this doesn't even qualify for "so-bad-it's-good" status.

Cabin Fever (2002) - Dear Eli Roth: Grow up a little. Then you can make REAL movies.

Freddy vs. Jason (2003) - SO much potential.

Aeon Flux (2005) - Although they did get Ultraviolet (2006) at #33

AVPR: Requiem (2007) - The first AVP (2004) was at least fun to watch. This one, when you could actually SEE what was going on (only about 25% of the time due to poor lighting and effects) was so boring I almost injured myself.

Balls of Fury (2007) - Ping pong as a gladiatorial event. About as exciting as that sounds.

Good Luck Chuck (2007) - Oh Dane Cook. Please go back to stand-up comedy. At least there, you're actually FUNNY instead of painfully awkward.

Dragon Wars (2007) - Scratch the Bloodrayne comment. This is the worst film EVER made.

Unnecessary Sequels

It is no mystery that Hollywood is obsessed with sequels, and as much as it (sometimes) annoys me, I totally get it. Cinema is, like everything else, first and foremost a business. People who work in film, whether they are actors, producers, set people, studio monkeys, whatever, are just trying to make a buck. So I don't begrudge them the desire to make money off a sure thing. If a movie is successful there's a good chance a sequel will be coming out, because if the first one was a hit, a second one is more likely to make money than a totally new idea (see also: remakes).

But there are some things that really, shouldn't be touched. Like this.

First of all, based on my above analysis, I'm not entirely sure that making a sequel to Watchmen even makes fiscal sense. It only recovered its cost of filming after international sales, and it got pretty reamed in the reviews. I liked it, actually quite a bit (I also love the comic, before you even ask), but I know I'm in the minority. What part of that makes sense to make another one?

In the article I linked to above, Snyder AND the actors agree with me: this is a Bad Idea. DC, why do you want so hard to sabotage your film studio? As Malin Ackerman, an actress I don't even LIKE, says, "... I don’t really know how [a sequel] would ever be possible. Because ‘Watchmen’ is ‘Watchmen,’ and we covered pretty much the whole novel."

DC is hardly short of good superhero material. As long as they keep making Batman movies, I will keep seeing Batman movies (I ALSO wish that Brandon Routh would reprise his delicious turn as Superman, but unfortunately, his contract ran out and there hasn't even been a whisper of a rumor of that being renewed). So please, leave well enough alone. Let those of us who enjoyed the movie keep watching it, and rejoice that you made the comic more accessible to more people. This sequel would just cost you time, money, and credibility.

Impending Oscars

The Oscars, which are coming up very soon, are quite an event in my house. Since the first year a Lord of the Rings movie was a player, myself and my family have watched the whole telecast, start to finish. (My sister and I really get into it and watch all the red carpet lead-in too, but that's because we're slaves to fashion.) I confess, I usually only actually see a handful of the nominees, because frankly summer is my movie season and the fall/winter is Oscar season. If I was in charge of the Academy, District 9 would win Best Picture, Spike Jonze would win Best Director (for Where the Wild Things Are), and Eli Roth wouldn't be allowed to come (although his turn in Inglourious Basterds was better by far than any of his directorial offers, that hack).

That said, here are my Will Win/Should Win for the Big Six:

Best Supporting Actor
Will win/Should Win: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Why this film has become the darling of the critics, I don't really get - I finally saw it recently, and I thought it had some fun moments but was nothing to write home about. That said, Waltz is absolutely terrifying as the quadri-lingual "Jew Hunter," delivering line after line in a blood chilling, cheerful manner while he's shooting renegade Jewish families in the back. His recognition at the Globes and the love for this film has pretty much sealed the deal for his first Oscar.

Best Supporting Actress
Will Win: Vera Farmiga, Up In The Air
Should Win: Either Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air, or Mo'Nique, Precious

Yes, Mo'Nique got the Globe, and no, I haven't seen this film, but the clips I've seen of her are pretty much one of the best dramatic performances all year. I'm torn on my should-win vote because of that; I think Kendrick is the best thing to happen to young actresses in a long time, but it's her inexperience and possibility for nomination in the future that's going to keep her out of the winner's seat. Up In The Air is an awards show breeding ground, and rightfully so, and I'm surprised that it didn't show better at the Globes - but I think Farmiga's bitterly charming turn in the film will be too much for the Academy to resist.

Best Actor
Will Win: Collin Firth, A Single Man
Should Win: Liam Neeson, Taken

God, how can you NOT have loved Neeson in Taken? He's got this calm, collected British accent that lulls you into a sense of security while he's kicking ass and taking names. He terrified me and made me want to comfort him all at the same time. Plus, I thought that A Single Man was kinda overrated to begin with, even if Firth was pretty persuasive (also I just kind of love him). But COME ON. TERRORISTS. And LIAM NEESON. The man has played a ninja, a lion who is also Jesus, a convincing step-dad, and now a counter-terrorist. Give him the credit he deserves.

(As a side note, I'm thinking more and more that the Globes are a much more accurate portrayal of current cinema - I think their split between Drama and Comedy/Musical is a little contrived, but really, The Hangover was the funniest thing I saw all year, and I think that popular film deserves more recognition than it gets. After all, people wouldn't and haven't paid to see the truly steaming piles of shit, so why can't we trust the popular vote a little more? And yes, I begrudgingly admit that Avatar gets encompassed by this, too. It simply would not have made as much money as it did if people didn't want to see it, and people do not want to see [generally] crap film.)

Best Actress
Will Win: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Should Win: Carey Mulligan, An Education

You know who should NOT win this? Or even be nominated for it? Julia Roberts. HFPA, what were you THINKING? Duplicity was a terrible movie.

Continuing: it took me about ten minutes of wavering between Bullock and Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia, because we all know how much the Academy loves biopic portrayals and c'mon, it's MERYL STREEP, but I think they're more likely to pick a serious biopic than a light-hearted family affair. I think that An Education was criminally underseen, and Mulligan's charm and believability turned what could have been an unbearably saccharine and naive character into someone you want to buy a soda and let them know it's all going to be ok, everyone makes mistakes. I hope she makes more films.

Best Director
Will Win: James Cameron, Avatar
Should Win: Spike Jonze, Where The Wild Things Are

Is there anyone left on the planet that doesn't believe Cameron's going to get another turn in the winner's chair? Whether you liked Avatar or not, what Cameron did in terms of world-building was monumentous. And, like it or not, Avatar is going to change the way that movies are made, and I don't mean that story quality will be thrown over for special effects. Film is a visual media and I applaud those who push the boundaries of that media in a significant way. Avatar is also the first non-stop motion film to utilize 3D technology in a way that struck me as integral to the visual structure of the film, rather than a gimmick (I include Up in that, because really Pixar, I couldn't tell the difference). Cameron took an archetypal story and used that pretty simple vehicle for a lavish world, and honestly, I think that if the story had been more complicated, it would have gotten muddled in the immensely complex and visually intricate scenery. So no, I don't begrudge Cameron for using a story we've heard before and telling it will.

Speaking of risk taking, though Jonze's Wild Things was emotionally raw, stunningly sparse, and utilized an untrained child actor to fabulous results. Visually, it's pretty much the polar opposite of Avatar, and as an adaptation, it is nothing short of brilliant. Jonze kept the spirit of Sendak's original twelve lines while making it a full-fledged fable, that was both childishly romantic and breathtakingly nostalgic.

Best Picture
Will Win: Avatar
Should Win: District 9

Hasn't it been a fabulous year for science fiction film? Whatever you feel about Avatar, it in combination with District 9 and Star Trek (and the little-talked about Moon) has shoved sci-fi film permanently out of the B-movie realm and into the critically acclaimed mainstream. These three films in one year did for the genre what Lord of the Rings did for fantasy film over the course of three years. At this point in the awards season, Avatar is pretty much the already announced winner for Best Picture, although The Hurt Locker could surprise us all (although I don't think it's likely).

Let me tell you about the tragedy of District 9: it was a summer release. If Peter Jackson could have held on to his producer's perogative for just a few more months, D9 would have been TOTAL Oscar bait. In any other year, Avatar could have been a summer popcorn blockbuster - but timing is everything in cinema, and there is an undeniable bias towards films released after September as far as the Academy is concerned. Which means a powerful, harrowing, meaningful film that left me shaken in my seat won't get any nominations past effect-driven ones. And that's a true tragedy.