What my dream Oscars would look like...

We all do it: Compile a list -- in our minds or on paper -- of our favourite films of the year and decide which movies and performances we'd like to see nominated at the Academy Awards.

Overall, 2012 wasn't my favourite year for film (Will any of the 2000's ever be as good as 2007?). However, there were some notable films and beautiful performances -- many of them recognized by the Academy, others sadly overlooked.

Here's how my Oscars would have played out (based on what I've seen)...

Best Picture
Amour
A Royal Affair
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Life of Pi
The Master
Moonrise Kingdom
Zero Dark Thirty

Best Director
Paul Thomas Anderson for The Master
Kathryn Bigelow for Zero Dark Thirty
Michael Haneke for Amour
Ang Lee for Life of Pi
Quentin Tarantino for Django Unchained
Who I'd choose: Ang Lee

Best Actor
Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln
John Hawkes for The Sessions
Dwight Henry for Beasts of the Southern Wild
Joaquin Phoenix for The Master
Jean-Louis Trintignant for Amour
Who I'd choose: Joaquin Phoenix

Best Actress
Jessica Chastain for Zero Dark Thirty
Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook
Emmanuelle Riva for Amour
Quvenzhane Wallis for Beasts of the Southern Wild 
Rachel Weisz for The Deep Blue Sea
Who I'd choose: Emmanuelle Riva

Best Supporting Actor
Mikkel Boe Folsgaard for A Royal Affair 
Samuel L. Jackson for Django Unchained
Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln
Philip Seymour Hoffman for The Master
Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained
Who I'd choose: Mikkel Boe Folsgaard

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams for The Master
Sally Field for Lincoln
Kara Hayward for Moonrise Kingdom
Helen Hunt for The Sessions
Isabelle Huppert for Amour
Who I'd choose: Helen Hunt

Movie Rant: The debate over the Oscar nominations

Every year, film critics and fans around the world get a severe case of amnesia and forget how the Academy Awards often leave us disappointed and bewildered. Every year we come back for more, only to relive disappointment all over again. I think we all keep coming back for more because, deep down, we are waiting for the year when the Oscars do something right -- and start taking risks for once.

I know most people brush off the Oscars as trivial -- and they are, essentially! However, the movie fan in me would just love it if it would actually become what it proclaims to be: a place where true artists are recognized for their body of work. Alas, it's all about gaining viewership and nominating movies and actors that either buy their way in or get nominated purely on popularity and monetary value. So, each year, we go through this cycle again -- wondering why we even bother watching in the first place.

For a full list of this years nominees, click HERE.

The Oscars had the chance to take some risks this year -- we all know they are long overdue, especially since 2011 was such a wonderful year for smaller films like Shame, Take Shelter, Martha Marcy May Marlene and Midnight in Paris, among others. All are worthy contenders, yet only Woody Allen's hit was recognized by the Academy. When I wrote about my disappointment over the SAG Award nominations last month I still held out hope that the Oscars would correct some of their mistakes -- mainly in their decision to not nominate Michael Fassbender, Elizabeth Olsen, Michael Shannon and Andy Serkis. I was mistaken and should have known better.

There are nine Best Picture nominees this year -- they just couldn't make it an even 10 and give the last spot to Shame, eh? They just had to snub what is arguably the best film of the year simply because of its explicit rating? But, I guess no one ever said the Academy wasn't comprised of a bunch of old, backward prudes anyway.

Oddly enough, the best category this year is Best Director (with the exception of Alexander Payne for The Descendants, whose spot should have gone to Steve McQueen for Shame). But it is wonderful to see Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist), Martin Scorsese (Hugo), Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris) and Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life) all in the running.

On a lighter note, it's lovely to see Canada get a couple of shout-outs with Philippe Falardeau's Monsieur Lazhar receiving a Best Foreign Language Film nomination and Christopher Plummer's well-deserved nomination for Best Supporting Actor for Beginners. It's also nice to see a lot of love for The Artist, Hugo, The Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris and Moneyball (with the awkward exception of Jonah Hill being nominated ...A-BUH?!).

So, what do you think? What do you like or dislike about this years nominations?

Movie Rant: Why I'm Happy Billy Crystal is the Oscar Host

Back in September I blogged about how I was less than thrilled to hear the news about Eddie Murphy receiving the hosting gig for this years Oscars ceremony. With his pal Brett Ratner no longer at the helm as producer of the telecast after his ignorant comments on the Howard Stern Show, Murphy has resigned (who still actually thinks it's a good idea to be interviewed by Stern anyway? I mean, really? When has that ever ended well?).

I was definitely no fan of Ratner's beforehand (he makes mediocre blockbusters, hardly someone I'd call worthy of one of the most prestigious jobs in movie biz), but now I most certainly dislike him even more. As for Murphy, he was funny once. I can vaguely recall laughing at his earlier films and old reruns of his stint on Saturday Night Live but that was, what? -- 20 years ago now?

Needless to say, after all the drama with Ratner and Murphy leaving the Oscars (good riddance, anyway) I was crossing my fingers that Billy Crystal would be the go-to guy as his replacement (don't even get me started on the silly Muppets for Oscars Host campaign on Twitter ...sure, they are funny and I love them, but hosting the whole telecast? No.).

When Brian Grazer was announced as the new producer for the 2012 Oscars yesterday I knew that the Academy had come to their senses and hired someone who would make sure the ceremony remained a classy affair that was, first and foremost, a celebration of film. I totally understand their initial desire to hire someone young like Ratner to bring in a new generation of fans but, really, the audience they wanted to bring in to boost their ratings likely wouldn't have seen the majority of the nominated films anyway, so why bother?

I remember when the Oscars used to actually mean something. Sure, there have always been some controversy over who deserved to win what and when, but, for the most part, the right person was deserving of his or her victory. That hasn't been the case of late -- with far too many Best Picture nominees and too many actors nominated for average performances -- the Oscars have become more like the Golden Globes.

Not that the hiring of Brian Grazer or Billy Crystal will fix these problems. But I guess I'm just a little nostalgic for the days when I was a kid -- when really great films were nominated and the ceremony was filled with beautiful montages featuring vintage film clips.

I adore Billy Crystal. Always have. I'm so happy he'll be hosting the Oscars again and I have no doubt he will charm the socks off of everyone. He's hilarious, classy and knows his film.

I know some will likely thumb their nose at the news about Billy Crystal, but he'll do the show justice. While it may not fix the problems with the Oscars -- or bring it back to a time when it was relevant -- at the very least, Crystal will remind us of what it was once like during the epic ceremonies of the past.

What are your thoughts on the whole Oscar controversy this year?

Movie Rant: Why Andy Serkis Should Get an Oscar Nomination

Andy Serkis as Caesar

According to multiple sources, English actor Andy Serkis has signed on for the sequel to this summers monster hit, Rise of the Planet of the Apes. 

As the brilliant chimpanzee Caesar, Serkis was covered in motion capture technology and CGI -- but not, by any means, buried beyond recognition. Thanks to his powerful performance, the character of Caesar shines through all the computer graphics, resulting in one of the finest performances of the year to date.

Serkis, who got his big break as the emotionally tortured Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, has perfected the art of giving wonderfully heartfelt performances while physically obscured by technology. It will likely be years before anyone else comes close to his ability to emote through the motion capture censors.

Fox recently announced that they would be launching an Oscar campaign for Serkis (no word yet on whether or not it will be for Best Actor or Supporting Actor, although he may have a better shot in the latter category).

The potential dilemma? The Academy, and even some filmgoers, may be reluctant to nominate an actor who performed under motion capture technology.

Over the years there has been a lot of discussion about the idea of nominating someone who appears as an animated character on screen. There are some, like myself, who believe it's requires the same talent and dedication as any other type of performance, while others may deem it as something that doesn't quite feel legitimate.

The first time I can remember this "debate" coming up was in 2003 when there was talk that Ellen DeGeneres could potentially earn a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her voice work as Dory in Pixar's Finding Nemo. In the end, there was no nomination but it was, arguably, the first time an animated performance was seriously considered an Oscar contender.

With the advances in motion capture technology, the game changed. It was no longer simply "voice work" -- it had evolved into a complete and physical performance by an actor. The actor behind the technology interacts with his or her fellow cast members, performing alongside them as equals. To brush off the amount of work Serkis put into his role as Caesar would be a mistake -- the Academy already did it to him once before by snubbing him outright when he should have been considered a major contender for his performance in The Lord of the Rings.

Zoe Saldana in Avatar

With the 2009 release of Avatar it was next to impossible to listen to Oscar talk without hearing the name Zoe Saldana thrown around in the mix for the Best Actress category. I was relieved when she was passed over for  a nomination -- not only was the performance aggravatingly over-the-top, but it didn't feel right to have a film like Avatar heralded as the first to have an actor nominated for a motion capture performance. I kept thinking that, once Peter Jackson got around to directing The Hobbit, Serkis would have another shot at a nomination. I didn't anticipate the success of Rise of the Planet of the Apes or the critical accolades Serkis earned in the role.

Serkis paved the way for actors who dare to venture into the physically demanding world of motion capture performance. It takes a certain level of talent to convey subtle nuances through a CGI mask. For his groundbreaking work as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings (and the upcoming Hobbit films) and his motion capture performances in King Kong, Rise of the Planet of the Apes and the upcoming The Adventures of TinTin, Serkis has become, without a doubt, the go-to guy for this type of challenge. 

As Serkis himself said in a recent interview with Britain's The Telegraph: "I am a bit evangelical, I know, but performance-capture is still misunderstood. Ten years down the line people say, 'Oh, so you did the voice for Gollum?' Or people go, 'You did the movements for Kong?' It's frustrating because I play Gollum and I play Kong. It is acting."

The Academy Awards need to get with the times -- and, should there still be enough open nomination spots come the February telecast, there's no better time to start than now with Serkis' performance in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Movie Rant: Eddie Murphy, Oscar Host

It was officially announced earlier today that Eddie Murphy has been named as the host of the 2012 Academy Awards. How did that happen, you ask? Well, with his friend Brett Ratner at the helm as producer of this years telecast, Murphy was practically a shoo-in. How convenient.

For the most part, the revelation seems to be receiving mixed reactions from film critics and movie fans: in one corner are die-hard Murphy fans who have remained loyal to the comedian despite the crappy movies he's made them suffer through and, in the other corner, ...is everyone else.

Murphy was hilarious on Saturday Night Live and, through the years, he's had his moments to shine -- it's just that they are too few and far between. I mean, here is a man who is mainly still remembered for The Nutty Professor, Norbit and Daddy Day Care more than anything else. Not exactly a film resume to brag about.

Film critic Patrick Goldstein wrote a piece for the Los Angeles Times about why he's less than enthused about the choice (you can read it here). He makes a few good points, specifically when he references the 2006 Oscars where Murphy threw a tantrum and left the ceremony halfway through when he lost the Best Supporting Actor Oscar to Alan Arkin (for Little Miss Sunshine). As Goldstein wrote: "Murphy, who is infamous in Hollywood for his half-hearted work ethic and sense of entitlement, managed to embarrass himself when he left the Oscar ceremony in a huff ...he didn't even have the class to stick around and watch his Dreamgirls co-star Jennifer Hudson win an Oscar of her own." 

He left while the ceremony was still getting underway, yet he's now been invited back as a host. The fact that he was still given the honour in the first place is confusing, to say the least.

From here on in I'll just look at the whole situation as a wait-and-see type of thing and remind myself that, at the very least, it couldn't possibly be worse than last years dreadful Oscars with James Franco and Anne Hathaway hosting. Right? Right?!

What are your thoughts on Murphy as the new Oscar host?

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 21

Day 21: BEST OSCAR SPEECH


I don't have many favourite Oscar speeches -- I find that they tend to go on for too long and sometimes seem a little forced. Or, maybe it has more to do with the fact that, come Oscar night, we already know who is going to win. That didn't used to be the case but now the mystery of who will win has been stolen from the Oscars by the slew of pre-Oscar awards shows (most notably the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild awards). The Oscars have never been more dull, predictable and overrated than they have been these last couple of years. But, back in the day, there were some great moments.

In 1972, after years of exile, Chaplin was welcomed back into the United States to receive his Honourary Oscar at the 44th Academy Awards. I wasn't born in when this happened but, as a big Chaplin fan, I saw this clip years ago when doing research on his life for a film essay. The clip of Chaplin stepping onto the stage of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, where the Oscars were once held, was memorable for a variety of reasons.

1) It was Chaplin's first public appearance in the United States in 20 years.
2) His appearance received the longest standing ovation in Oscar history, lasting for 12 full minutes.
3) Most importantly, Chaplin is genuinely humbled. The joy is evident on his face. Here's a man who likely had no idea how he'd be received by the audience when he stepped on the stage and his reaction is one of the most sincere I've ever seen at the Oscars.

Without ego, Chaplin steps up to the mike and say's one of the shortest thank-you speeches in Oscar history -- but it also happens to be one of its greatest ...because it's so genuine. Short and sweet, just like Chaplin.

"This is such an emotional moment for me. And words seem so futile, so feeble. I can only say, thank you for the honour of inviting me here. Oh, you're wonderful, sweet people. Thank you." 


The embedding is disabled on YouTube, but you can WATCH IT HERE.

What is your favourite Oscar speech?

My Own Oscar Picks

Every year I do my own personal Oscar picks, just for fun. One of those "I would love to be in charge of the Oscars" type of things.

There are a few films I wanted to see before tomorrow's Academy Awards but wasn't able to get to them on time; therefore I can't include Javier Bardem for Biutiful or Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole even though I have a feeling I would have loved both performances and would have included them in my list.

BEST PICTURE
127 Hours
Barney's Version
Black Swan
The King's Speech
Toy Story 3
*My Pick: The King's Speech

BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky - Black Swan
Danny Boyle - 127 Hours
David Fincher - The Social Network
Tom Hooper - The King's Speech
David O. Russell - The Fighter
*My Pick: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)

BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges - True Grit
Colin Firth - The King's Speech
James Franco - 127 Hours
Paul Giamatti - Barney's Version
Ryan Gosling - Blue Valentine
*My Pick: Colin Firth (The King's Speech)

BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening - The Kids Are All Right
Julianne Moore - The Kids Are All Right
Natalie Portman - Black Swan
Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit
Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine
*My Pick: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale - The Fighter
Matt Damon - True Grit
Andrew Garfield - Never Let Me Go
Mark Ruffalo - The Kids Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush - The King's Speech
*My Pick: Christian Bale (The Fighter)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams - The Fighter
Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech
Elle Fanning - Somewhere
Melissa Leo - The Fighter
Rosamund Pike - Barney's Version
*My Pick: Amy Adams (The Fighter)

Classic Film Review: All About Eve

ALL ABOUT EVE (1950, Best Picture)
DIRECTED BY: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
STARRING: Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, George Sanders, Hugh Marlowe, Celeste Holm and Marilyn Monroe

"If nothing else, there's applause...like waves of love pouring over the footlights." ~Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter)~

The corruption that comes with wealth and fame, and the desire to be publicly adored, has been a recurring theme in Hollywood cinema for as long as we can remember. 1950, in particular, was a big year in terms of films dealing with fame and how fleeting and unforgiving it can be. Sunset Blvd. came out the same year as All About Eve and each film boasts wonderful lead performances from their actresses, Gloria Swanson and Bette Davis, respectively. While Sunset Blvd. addresses the perils of aging and being forgotten in Hollywood, All About Eve tackles another dark side to fame: ambition and, ultimately, betrayal.

Aspiring actress Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) closely scrutinizes every performance and real-life drama of her Broadway idol, Margo Channing (Bette Davis) to the point of obsession. Quiet, polite, although obviously a little unhinged, Eve goes out of her way to integrate herself into Margo's elite inner social circle; quickly rising up the ladder to success as she goes from shy and awkward assistant to close friend and confidante to the star. Right from the start, everyone loves Eve. Playwright Lloyd Richards (Hugh Marlowe) and his wife, Karen (Celeste Holm), are beyond smitten with the young ingenue. Director Bill Sampson (Gary Merrill), who also happens to be Margo's younger beau, is intrigued by the odd young woman who has suddenly entered their lives. Even arrogant British theatre critic, Addison DeWitt (George Sanders), has the urge to learn more about the enigma that is Eve Harrington. However, all winds up going horribly wrong as Eve shows her true colours through her driving ambition to be famous and the backstabbing betrayal of her former idol, and new nemesis, Margo Channing.

Like Sunset Blvd., All About Eve has a sharp, witty and clever script. The dialogue is rife with astute Hollywood references and inside jokes. One particular interesting decision was casting Marilyn Monroe in the role of rising ingenue, Miss Casswell. She shows up on the arm of more than one famous beau and, while at a party, is encouraged by her agent to mingle and flirt with the variety of directors, playwrights and producers in attendance. Monroe's own career was undoubtedly built in a similar fashion. Being young and beautiful in Hollywood or on Broadway can go a long way towards making one famous.They'd need to be on standby to replace the aging Margo Channing's of the world.

Despite the fact that it was released well over 50 years ago, its story and themes are still relevant today. It takes a bleak approach to the gritty and cheap actions done behind the scenes by people who thrive in the limelight and also fear it when it starts to falter and dim. Margo Channing is 40 years old. She knows she can't play a 25 year old on stage anymore. Eve Harrington is 24 years old and talented and everyone on Broadway knows it. Eve wants nothing more than to be Margo Channing from 15 years ago.

As superstar Margo Channing, Bette Davis is a revelation. Always one of Hollywood's leading ladies, Davis steals the show, as usual, with her spot-on portrayal of an aging actress who is aware of her own mortality and the fact that fame can be fleeting. Ever confident and overly boastful by nature, Margo never felt her talent was under threat until the appearance of Eve Harrington. When faced with a pretty, young talent, Margo becomes all too aware that her reign as the queen of the stage may have reached its final curtain. Davis instills Margo with a fiery temperament and determination to prevail. It's fascinating watching her confidence in herself waver at the hands of a younger rival. Despite her diva-like ways, Margo is likeable and sympathetic and this is all thanks to Davis' wonderful performance. As a viewer you root for her success and want nothing more than for this 40 year old woman to remain the stage's leading lady.

As Eve Harrington, Anne Baxter is appropriately eerie and unlikeable. Initially, her fascination with Margo Channing is chilling in its quiet and penetrating stillness. She allegedly has a tragic past, involving a husband who didn't return from the Second World War. In gaining sympathy, (including from Margo, who cries when Eve tells her sad tale) Eve becomes a fixture in Margo's camp. As the film progresses, Eve further and further alienates the viewer as she flirts and laughs her way to the top. Baxter makes Eve a fascinating and unsettling study of non-violent aggression and behind-the-scenes backstabbing ambition.

Ironically enough, when the 1950 Academy Award nominations were announced, Anne Baxter fought to have herself in the Best Actress category alongside Bette Davis, as opposed to Best Supporting Actress. Baxter obviously saw her role as equal to that of Davis in terms of both screen time and talent. It's likely the reason why Davis didn't win a much-deserved Best Actress that year, as the fact that both actresses were nominated for lead performances likely split the vote.

Ah, when life imitates art.

All About Eve is a classic film that should still be talked about amongst movie fans and critics alike and dissected in film courses. Like a fine wine, this film has aged incredibly well.

FINAL GRADE: A