Why TV Dramas Fall Apart

I just finished The Wire...the epic rise and tragic collapse of the show's artistry matches that of the crime bosses it features.

We can summarize the 5 seasons as follows:
1. Cops and Robbers - Set the scene - this show is going to get good
2. Dock Workers - At home with a contract - this show is good
3. City Hall and Stringer Bell - Narrative perfection; oppressive tone - this show is damn good
4. Educational Excursion - Job-dropping collapse - this show is too good for you and must lecture you
5. Newspaper Farce - this show has nowhere else to go but from the tragic to the absurd

Personally, I prefer season 2 - season 3 is almost unending dread. Anyway, this pattern is played out in various other shows. Most peak early...if anything it's a shock that The Wire lasted 3 good seasons. Meanwhile, comedies usually have long runs where they get better. Why?

Comedy develops with familiarity. This is why your idiot friends seem funny to you and no one else. This is why Anchorman keeps getting funnier the more you watch it. The first time Al Bundy comes home and complains about a fat woman waddling into a shoe store, it's new. The tenth time, you know it's going to be funning as soon as he walks in. A good comedy never really has to go anywhere. The narrative is minimal and has no carry-over (except Arrested Development - more on that later) so you can jump in wherever knowing the characters and more and more ready to laugh.

Drama doesn't work this way. Let's enumerate a few key reasons dramas fall apart, starting with the problems and then moving on to the problems created by the solutions to the original problems.

The Original Problems:
1. Familiarity breeds boredom. Think about it - the more you're around your friends, the funnier they seem to you, but the more tired you get of their b.s. Give me one season of Tony Soprano bitching about his mother and I'm there with the guy...seven seasons though, well after she's dead? Get over it...to quote the Godfather, "YOU CAN ACT LIKE A MAN!"
2. The first season is an enclosed circle. No one can expect a show to run more than a season given how competitive the world of tv air time is. So the first season is designed as a complete narrative...compelling, tight, and packaged. Further seasons are more open-ended - will the show sustain its popularity? Will the network re-up? Cancel? How many more seasons do we have to work with?
3. Success breeds editorial freedom. The first season of a show has to get noticed and renewed. It has to generate an audience. Therefore, the show has to be easier to access; it has to be interesting to a general audience. It also has to be good enough to leap out amongst a pile of scripts. The first season is often the sum total of a writer's brilliance. Once the show succeeds, the writer's off the hook. It's the same reason the Genius Grant program has been a flop - success breeds complacency. Writer's get lazy and grow unconcerned with their audience. They indulge their own petty jealousies and interests. Thus, the Sopranos bores us with dream episodes and The Wire leads us into lectures on education policy and the ex-journalist writer's pent up rage at his former employer. The network indulges these flights of fancy because they want to keep the writer doing the show and because ultimately, the viewership is locked-in and less demanding.
4) Critical Acclaim mounts expectations for intellectual content. The Sopranos becomes the focus of psychology papers, creating a feedback loop of Sopranos episodes reflecting psychological research. The Wire falls in love with its headlines as a gritty look at urban decay instead of a good cops and robbers show. The acclaim becomes the purpose of the show and drives the narrative off-track, at least in terms of actual artistic content and viewer interest.

As a result, several new problems arise:
1) The writer runs out of ideas. This happens to all of us, especially writers on a deadline. Sometimes, the best of what a writer has comes together in one work. Once, the door is opened to more, there may be a few moments of the old magic, but the rest is a grind for a paycheck.
2) Too many characters and storylines to track. At a certain point, when a show keeps adding new things to keep it fresh, if it doesn't give up on the old, you just end up with too much. Each episode becomes a scattershot, advancing several plotlines incrementally. With so much ground to cover, the opportunity for artistic focus gets stretched thing and snaps.
3) Too many cooks in the kitchen. One common solution is to start having guest writers and guest directors to make up for a disinterested creator. This works great in comedy, where you're just playing with the same formula in new ways. But in drama, the narrative is totally lost. The guest sections get interspliced with the portions that HAVE to be there to advance the season long plot, and again, the episode by episode tone and theme becomes a hodgepodge of styles, mostly bland punctuated by a few bright moments.
4) Lecture not story...this was The Wire's biggest failing, but it's a common problem - having addressed the interesting emotional and interpersonal content, the show seeks to remain intellectually respected by defaulting to social relevance. Thus, more and more, the viewer gets lectured instead of getting entertained. What made The Wire great were real people - the cops didn't always win, all of the characters had flaws and strengths, no one was always right and no one always won. All of that was wiped away in favor of a ludicrous docudrama series on education policy in which all of the teachers were dedicated and noble, held down by the system.

It's kind of strange to reflect that this was ultimately what did Arrested Development in. The show got progressively funnier as it went along, but as a drama with a narrative, it got progressively harder to follow. In retrospect, watching on DVD, it's fantastic. As an episodic drama, it's a bit much to try to keep it all together.

So is there a solution? Sure - know when to quit.

World Leaders Check Out Booty

So this is my new favorite picture. I've developed a theory, which is that the moment in which a man checks out a woman's rear end provides a window into his soul. Not only that, but it shows us a nation's soul.

Consider our President versus that of the French President. Both are clearly checking out the booty. You'll notice, though, a difference. Our president is sitting there thinking to himself, "Damn...that is a booty." It's a democratic moment when the leader of the free world can pause and just be another American, being made aware of a derriere. The moment is there, and it's gone, time for more business.

The French president is clearly more of a connoisseur. He is pleased, no doubt, but he appears to be studying the booty as if he were attending an art gallery and would be forced to comment on the matter later to impress his friends. He seems to be thinking, "Hmmm...there is something about this booty that reminds me of spring in Lyon."

Annual 2009 Oscars Preview

Best Picture
NOMINEES:
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I.E. Forrest Gump Meets Joe Black. Incidentally, if you find yourself in a fairly serious Brad Pitt movie, watch out while crossing the street. Someone is getting hit by a car.
- Frost/Nixon. I.E. We're supposed to hate Richard Nixon but he's kind of fascinating. He's like the A-Rod of US presidents.
- Milk. I.E. Obligatory LGBT nomination.
- The Reader. I.E. Obligatory Nazi/Holocaust nomination
- Slumdog Millionaire. I.E. Indian Rudy Rom-Com
WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire
SHOULD WIN: The Dark Knight.
BIGGEST SNUBS: The Dark Knight, Doubt, Mongol, Wall-E, Gran Torino
COMMENT: This may be the first year where you could have 5 other movies and probably have a stronger bunch. This borders on making the Oscars irrelevant. At least The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is about something (death and aging). Honestly - The Reader? Woof.

BEST ACTOR:
- Richard Jenkins is not Leonardo DiCaprio and the Academy really wants it clear they don't like him so they nominated this whodat from a movie no one saw.
- Frank Langella is a likeable Richard Nixon.
- Sean Penn is gay.
- Brad Pitt is a guy who ages backwards. Hard to tell - best actor or best makeup?
- Mickey Rourke is the Ultimate Warrior version of himself.
WILL WIN: Mickey Rourke. Sean Penn already has one.
SHOULD WIN: Frank Langella - Is there some reason this guy had no work between being the bad guy in Dave and a more sympathetic version of the same thing in Frost / Nixon?
BIGGEST SNUBS: Clint Eastwood, the dude who played Genghis Khan, Leonardo

BEST ACTRESS:
- Anne Hathway is the obligatory ‘hottie plays damaged drug addict’ nomination
- Angelina Jolie is an angry mom with adoption issues (this is acting) but more literally - lecherous voters hope she shows in a hot dress” nomination
- Melissa Leo is in a movie no one saw but that was effectively marketed for nominations.
- Meryl Streep demands that all mortals cower before her (and forget Mamma Mia!) She's headed for Daniel Day Lewis "We should name this award after her" territory.
- Kate Winslet is nominated so that it is absolutely clear the we don't like Leo.
WILL WIN: Kate Winslet
SHOULD WIN: Meryl Streep
BIGGEST SNUB: Megan Fox for whatever she was in this year. If all you're going to do is nominate hotties, the only reason I see not nominating Ms. Fox is this unfortunate Brian Austin Green episode. Honestly, I'd respect her more if it was Ian Zehring. Or the guy who played Bill S. Preston, Esq.
COMMENT: Given this plus the nominees for best supporting actress, the lecherous old man factor really weighed heavily on this year's voting.

SUPPORTING ACTOR:
- Josh Brolin plays W. killing a gay guy
- Robert Downey Jr. plays Philip Seymour Hoffman playing a black guy for laughs.
- Philip Seymour Hoffman appeared in a film of his own this year.
- Heath Ledger plays a terrifying, unforgettable Joker in what was by far the best film this year.
- Michael Shannon plays a guy in a Leonardo DiCaprio Oscar-vehicle movie, just so it's clear that no one likes Leo.
WILL WIN: Heath Ledger.
SHOULD WIN: Heath Ledger. When I first found out he was going to play Joker, I balked. He hadn't impressed me thus far. I was wrong. RIP. Here's hoping whoever gets tabbed for the third film can match - these movies are only as good as their bad guy.
SNUBS: Russell Brand for owning Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading
COMMENT: What did Leo do? Deny the Holocaust? Vote Republican? Somebody sign him up for a UN ambassadorship, stat!

SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
- Amy Adams plays Amy Adams in a nun's outfit. You may not have noticed but she actually leaves for about half the film.
- Penelope Cruz made out with Scarlett Johanssen and lecherous voters hope she shows in a hot dress...and makes out with Scarlett Johanssen
- Viola Davis is a troubled black woman in an impossible situation.
- Taraji Henson is a sassy black woman in a pleasant, passably intellectual film
- Marissa Tomei plays herself if she hadn't resuscitated her career after it inexplicably didn't happen...in her birthday suit
WILL WIN: Viola Davis
SHOULD WIN: Marissa Tomei, just for laughs. Too bad Jack Palance is dead.
SNUBS: The girl from Transporter 3. Hahahaha!
COMMENT: Funny story about me going to see The Wrestler - the first time Marissa Tomei gets naked (I assume it happens many times) someone pulled the fire alarm and I couldn't see the rest of the movie. I can't decide whether I like the 'someone overheated' theory or the 'someone was religious' theory. Or maybe it was a rogue Lex Luger fan outraged at the thought of him at a strip club.

WORST NOMINATION NOMINEES:
1. The Reader
2. Milk
3. Richard Jenkins
4. Melissa Leo
5. Amy Adams
WINNER IS: The Reader. Inexcusable waste of our time.

TOP 10 INADVERTANT PORN TITLES OF THE YEAR:
1. The Foot Fist Way
2. The Wackness
3. What Just Happened
4. Seven Pounds
5. Over Her Dead Body
6. Tropic Thunder
7. The Express / Pineapple Express
8. Nights in Rodanthe
9. Drillbit Taylor
10. Iron Man

Movies I Wish I'd Seen:
1. Pineapple Express / Zack and Miri Make a Porno / Role Models - Guys...slow down. This is like 5 of these things in one year.
2. Kung Fu Panda
3. Revolutionary Road
4. Yes Man
5. Man on Wire

Biggest Disappointments:
1. Quantum of Solace (see archives for lengthy disappointment)
2. The Forbidden Kingdom - I had the idea for a Jet Li / Jackie Chan 2-hour kung fu spectacular a long time ago. It would be the Heat of martial arts movies. Unfortunately, after the monkey king issue, the kung fu being boiled down to one stale 10 minute fight, and the rampant cribbing from better kung fu movies, this was instead the The Righteous Kill of martial arts movies.
3. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - I'm on to Spielberg. This we know. Don't think you can dodge me! That's the only reason this isn't #2. I knew it would be bad.
4. Burn After Reading - I think the Coen Bros. titled this movie appropriately. You're slacking. Don't make me put you on my Spielberg list!
5. Appaloosa - Western w/ Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen...this could be good. It's just not.
6. Tropic Thunder - Besides a few good moments and Robert Downey Jr., this movie is actually not funny.
7. You Don't Mess W/ The Zohan - This is a funny movie but more just ridiculous. I'm beginning to worry that Sandler's too lazy to ever deliver again.

SURPRISINGLY WATCHABLE FILMS
1. Anything with Jason Statham in it. The guy brings his A-game every time. The Bank Job is fun. Transporter 3 is almost self-consciously silly. The actress is so bad you'd think she was trying and characters audibly point out plot holes. So what? So they get killed by the bad guy for doing so. Touche.
2. The Incredible Hulk 2. It didn't totally suck. Also, good to see Tim Roth working.
3. Wanted. The hole 'weaver' thing was so lame that they had to kill everyone at the end so that it could never happen again. So the plot was sequel-bad but the stunts were awesome.
4. Leatherheads - Sue me, this was what I thought it would be. Rene Zellwegger seems to be trying to hit every decade. Am I wrong to think Jennifer Anniston should be getting more of her roles?

TOP 10 MOVIES REGARDLESS OF GENRE:
1. The Dark Knight
2. Mongol
3. Frost / Nixon
4. Iron Man
5. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
6. Doubt
7. Gran Torino
8. Slumdog Millionaire
9. Wall-E
10. In Bruges
HONORABLE MENTIONS: Hancock, Rock-n-Rolla, Wanted, Leatherheads, Semi-Pro, The Bank Job

TOP TEN STATE FLAGS:

10. Arizona - A stately and appropriate flag which is docked somewhat for it’s vague similarity to the Japanese rising sun flag. Thankfully, Arizona is where the sun sets.

9. Pennsylvania - An old school flag done right and well-drawn






8. Oklahoma - A hat-tip to history plus a peace pipe. Well done.





7. Alaska - For all the awful flags from the Midwest that look like the gubner’s daughter doodled them for arts & crafts, Alaska actually did let the school kids come up with the design and it turned out pretty well - subdued and appropriate.


6. Nevada - Nevada shied away from the butt-ugly drawing and decided to rock the awesome slogan “Battle Born”. The lack of an iconic graphic and the way in which history has taken Nevada in another direction docks it a few points. In retrospect, perhaps the original design was better.

5. New Mexico - Again, it just hits the spot. What better could you do with New Mexico to start with?


4. Virginia - This flag just rocks. It’s liberty stomping on a de-crowned king declaring, “Ever thus to tyrants”. My complaint is that this phrase isn’t prominent enough. But take note lame Vermont flag - you’re sitting on “Live Free or Die”. Think about it.




3. Texas - The lone star is an undeniable icon. But taken in general, it’s kind of plain.



2. California - I’m a homer. I love this flag. I’d like to get it as a sheet set.






1. Ohio - A surprising winner for sure, but the sleek shape, great aesthetic, subtle O, and vague resemblance to an Ohio State Buckeye helmet make this the best in show.

Ranking the State Flags

Much like all states aren't worthy of comment, all state flags aren't either. Without further ado, we start from the worst, note some highlights in the middle, and then get to the best.

Bottom Ten:
50.
Mississippi - Purely aesthetically, it's actually quite pleasing. However, Confederate flag PLUS sideways French flag equals instant fail. For shame sirs.

49. Michigan - There's a lot not to like here. First of all, there's the cartoon non-matching deer. (See Pennsylvania's black stallions for the right way.) Then, there's a weird guy waving hello in the middle. To top it all off, there's WAY too much latin lettering. This is probably to distract you from the extreme lameness of what's written on the bottom, "If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you." Just in case you didn't know where to find a pleasant peninsula.


48. Colorado - I'm confused as to whether this is a state flag or a failed Cubs marketing gig. I can just see the Wrigley company dumping 4,000 of these on Colorado in exchange for what's left of Pedro Astacio.

47. Alabama - Alabama's state flag says, "No you can't." I like that Florida's flag is the same thing plus the state seal with Seminoles and the beach. It's like "Yeah, we'd be Alabama if not for all the cool stuff."

46. New York - Marketing capital of the world...cartoonish drawings? Pastels? The only thing that redeems this totally incongruous wreck is the phrase 'excelsior' - ever upward. Nothing else fits. Back to the drawingboard.



45/44. Delaware/Maine It's a tie for worst Brokeback factor. Delaware guys are checking each other out. Maine guys appear to be two versions of Captain Feathersword from the Wiggles. West Virginia and Wisconsin are just two dudes. New York and New Jersey sport two ladies...hmmmm. In fact, only Idaho has a guy and a girl.

43. Louisiana - Hey Mississippi, if you're ever inspired to drop the stars and bars, allow me to refer you to Louisiana for what not to do, which was to phase it out in favor of a pelican tearing flesh from its breast to feed its young. It also kind of suggests that Louisiana is the welfare state. Also amusing is union (from a slave state), justice (from America's most corrupt state), and...confidence? Here's a clue - a music note. Does that work for everyone?

42. South Dakota - I tried blowing this flag up but it's just as incomprehensible. The state seal appears to be a hand drawing of a grainy photo of a mountain. either that or someone used an etch-a-sketch to draw it.


41. Minnesota - Something about the heartland tells your local state legislature (I'm thinking of you too Illinois and Kansas), "Hey, let's have the governor's daughter draw the state flag in felt pen." I feel like these flags should be on that website where the guy makes fun of children'sdrawings. Minnesota wins out for the yellow fringe border...on three sides of the flag. It's like the kid forgot to color the other part.

SPECIAL AWARDS SECTION:

Idaho - “Best Dig at Another State’s Flag” Remember that goofy Michigan deer? The one on the left? Haha! He’s back.









North Dakota - “Strangest Prop” 1007...1008...1009. Oh, I'm sorry, I was just flexing and sculpting my talons. It's boring but it's part of my life.






Utah - “Most Incongruous Single Word Addition” - Industry? Industry! What is this? Borat's Kazakhstan. I vote that the state flag be changed to this girl’s shirt.





South Carolina - “Poorest Foresight” - Post-Confederacy, SC adopted their local uniform symbol, the crescent moon. Whoops - that symbol of Islam thing must have been a blind-side. That palmetto isn't lessening the imagery.

Wyoming - “Best representation of species depopulation” - You might wonder what went on in Wyoming. There used to be a lot of buffalo. Then they got killed and branded with the state seal!

Maryland - “Miss Congeniality” - Maryland wins hands down at your local state flag jousting contest.

What's Wrong With Bond

Casino Royale was the best Bond movie ever. The idea was "Bond Begins", but in an updated world - no more goophy gadgets, no more ACME villains, no Ms. Moneypenny, and most importantly, replacing an English gentleman Bond for the other side of English society - the new Bond, the blonde Bond, a rugged English street urchin, the sort of brute who starts bar fights, but adopted by the state and adapted for its ends. His womanizing is cruel, and rather than a slinky spy, he is a Bourne-esque action hero. It did what every good Bond movie does - Bond actually cared about the girl and then she betrayed him...and then she died. Best of all, the first movie was alive with possibility - theater-goers sat thinking, "Is this the last Bond ever?" as Bond put in his retirement. Perhaps we should have left it at that.

It always takes 24-hours to figure out why a film with good action still wasn't that good. The action is definitely good...too much so. The first 45 minutes of the film are 3 almost uninterrupted chase sequences. The movie then settles in for the exposition, but is so intent on weaving the political backdrop and tossing in opulent settings that, ultimately, there's no time for what made Casino Royale so good - Bond. Creating a character. Giving him lines. Bond has almost nothing to say in this film - there's nothing that matches the scene where Bond first meets Vesper or where he picks up Caterina Murino. In fact, that's just my problem - it's 24-hours later and I struggle to remember a single line. I still can't figure out why it's called Quantum of Solace either. Daniel Craig says the word, 'quantum' at some point...I just can't remember why. I knew I should have been suspicious when the title was so bad...call it the "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" rule.

This gaffe, the absence of non-action scenes of worth, shove problems upon the film's pace - there's none of the tension of the card game and few moments of levity. Artistically, even the non-action scenes are cut as action scenes, ruining the iconic images that make a Bond film - the director has dreamed up a few such images, such as a woman killed and covered in oil, but barely leaves this image on the screen long enough for it to register before it's wisked away by the mandatory 6-seconds-or-less cuts of modern film making. The settings are so gorgeous, truly the film's strong point, that this is a great disservice - I'd love to have far more moments with the stills drawn out...it would help slowdown the frenetic pace of the action if nothing else.

The music-video action overload would be fine if the political backdrop spliced in were enough...but it's not. The politics are the standard Hollywood world evinced in the gamut of good to bad movies (Iron Man to The Shooter) - the bad guys are corporations backed by America, this time with a cute environmental twist. The 'blunt instrument' Bond of the first film is now a snide commentator on US policy in Latin America. Salt in a crude parable of the recent election, and voila, you've wasted 30 minutes of what should have been a better film.

This effort undermines the film in a variety of ways. First of all, it takes Bond completely out of character - Bond has always been a patriot and an imperialist, so this turn is unexplained and off-key. When did Bond get this way and why? The reason there isn't an answer is probably simple enough - it's the writer/director talking through his character; the mark of an amateur.

Worse, as is always the case when a film mistakes politics for depth, no matter how subtlely-laid out the political web is, it's still only a few minutes here and there of throwing in the standard 'non-standard' thought of our time. It merely confuses the audience that came for the action whereas those who know something about foreign policy sit in the audience rolling their eyes at yet another trite, flesh-toned if not pinko rant.

The political turn might have worked better if it had done what Dark Knight did - which is to address the headlines rather than the international news on page A6. Blonde Bond is certainly current but remains irrelevant. This Bond was trotted all over the globe working Europe, Central and South America, Russia, Africa...yet the Middle East and Islamic extremism remains a bridge too far. Ian Fleming's Bond worked on the Cold War because that's what was going on. Apparently the modern Bond hasn't graduated to working the important issues yet.

In this, the writer has made the classic Lethal Weapon PC cop-out. For those who forget, four Lethal Weapons got made about the drug business in Los Angeles in the 80's and 90's and yet not a single one involved a Latino or African-American gang as the ultimate villain. White guys in suits were running everything. This involves a certain racist animus - is it not a little insulting to suggest that inevitably white people run everything? At a certain point, this strains credulity. So how long is Bond going to remain on the B Team? Is Bond and his coterie of Bond girls too sexy for the modern Middle East or the filmmakers too craven?

The real problem, though, with all the political narrative is that it gets us away from what this Bond should have been about - Bond. The Bond at the end of the last film was deeply wounded. All of the build-up to this film suggested it was about that damaged Bond. Perhaps it is - I wouldn't know because he has about as many lines as Bill Paxton in Twister. There's almost nothing to Bond's relationship with the curiously half-Russian Bolivian girl, who ends up sitting in as little more than accented eye candy. Compared to the previous film, which had two far richer and more interesting females, the whole range of possiblities involving Bond and trust issues and the rumored 'dark, vengeance seeking' Bond are absent. Characters carried over from the previous film, like Felix Lighter, become wildly different characters with almost nothing to act as the bridge. A revenge scene drops upon us at the end and we're quits.

So what we get is a series of action sequences of varying quality plus a couple of babes and a few good lines. It's just like the old, mediocre Bond...plus better action but minus all the stuff that used to make it Bond. So, in the end, it's just another action movie. Viewed from that lens, it's nice enough, but the first movie raised so many possibilities. Would this film reintroduce darker versions of Bond staples? No. Would this film delve deeper into who Bond is, how he got that way, or how he becomes a more recognizable Bond? Not really. Plot-wise, it builds seemlessly on the previous film - in tone, artistry, and character development is adds a squirt of cheese-in-a-can.

For all the talk that the narrative of Quantum of Solace suggests a trilogy, this film feels more like the recent underwhelming 3rd films of other notable trilogies (Star Wars, Pirates of the Carribean, Spider Man) - overloaded with expensive action and drawn out exposition, empty of the charm that made the previous film(s) better.

Here's hoping that any 'trilogy' film takes the series in some other direction than backwards.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

2008 Oscars Preview

Best Picture
Nominees:
1. Tedious English War/Romance Book Adaptation Mangled Into Unrecognizable Slop (Atonement)
2. Quirky, Socially Relevant Indy Comedy (Juno)
3. Hollywood Royalty Vehicle/Corporate Greed-Crusading Lawyer (Michael Clayton)
4. Daniel Day Lewis Decides to Act Instead of Cobbling Shoes, All Mortals Tremble At His Talents (There Will Be Blood)
5. Coen Brothers Stay Inside the Lines (No Country For Old Men)
-Will Win: No Country For Old Men
-Should Win: Juno
-Essentially what the competition is: Keira Knightly Does the English Patient vs. Better Little Miss Sunshine vs. George Clooney Obligatory Nomination does A Civil Action vs. Gangs of New York Minus Pointless Non-DDL Scenes vs. a dark Fargo set in the desert.
Commentary: This year is pretty open - Atonement has no business being here as it is a complete muddle; Michael Clayton has little business being here except that apparently Hollywood grovels at George Clooney's feet. Michael Clayton is a solid, unspectacular film. That leaves us with three viable candidates - Daniel Day Lewis in an ok drama to me just isn't enough to win 'best picture' when he should win his own prize, if not have it re-named after him. Old Country is impressive, but truth be told, I think the Coens have made better films. Ultimately, Juno was great, if flawed by the at-times overly cavalier lines of the lead. It was positive, well-paced, well-written, created memorable images, had a great soundtrack, never preached, and never took sides.
- Biggest Snubs: (Again realistic snubs only) American Gangster, Charlie Wilson's War, Sweeney Todd. Though none of these should win, they're all better than Michael Clayton and Atonement.

Best Director:
- Nominees
1. Julian Schneibel directs something about human suffering that no one saw
2. Jason Reitman rocks it out with Juno
3. George Clooney rolled out of bed
4. The Coen Brothers played nice
5. Paul Thomas Anderson was graced by DDL's presence
Will Win: Coens
Should Win: Coens
I mark this as a lifetime achievement award.

Best Actor:
- Nominees - Quick comment - is anyone here other than Viggo Mortensen really playing someone that far off from their real personality?
1. George Clooney as a conflicted crusading lawyer, including a great ending gotcha scene in which Clooney drinks Tilda Swinton's milk shake, followed by an inexplicable portrayal of a cab ride. Since you haven't seen this movie, I'll just tell you - after the climactic scene, George Clooney takes a cab, and you watch him smile smugly for 5 minutes while the credits role. It's like...hey, I'm f-ing George Clooney. I made this f-ing movie. I ride in a cab and you watch it. (Michael Clayton)
2. Daniel Day Lewis as a sociopath oil wildcatter. DDL outdoes Clooney's gotcha scene with the incredible 'bastard in a box' and 'I drank your milkshake' combo. Game-set-match. (TWBB)
3. Johnny Depp as a singing demon barber/murderer. Really, is he acting? (Sweeney Todd)
4. Tommie Lee Jones is chagrined by the Iraq war (In the Valley of Elah)
5. Viggo Mortensen is a Russian mobster/spy who spends a surprising amount of this movie naked. (sorry for the spoiler. Kevin Spacey is Kaiser Soze. Get over it.) (Eastern Promises)
Will Win: DDL
Should Win: DDL. Landslide. Honorable mention to Viggo Mortensen for actually creating a character.
Biggest Snub: Tom Hanks - Charlie Wilson's War, Tommie Lee Jones in a vastly superior movie to In the Valley of Elah

Best Actress:
COMMENT: Notice that all of the men were in somewhat relevant movies whereas almost none of the women are. What is with women's roles and female stars that every year this category is essentially meaningless? Is it the writers? The producers? Or us?
Nominees:
1. Cate Blanchett plays Queen Elizabeth AGAIN!!! Can we get Helen Mirren back and they can just play the Queen of England every year for the rest of their lives and have a permanent nomination?
2. Julie Christie is old and hasn't got an Oscar yet.
3. Whodat in a movie no one saw (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE)
4. Laura Linney in The Savages
5. Ellen Page in Juno
I haven't seen The Savages so I can't really fairly appraise Laura Linney. My guess, however, is that as always she plays Laura Linney, which, if you haven't seen her, is like an American version of Julianne Moore playing Julianne Moore.
Will Win: Julie Christie (for being old)
Should Win: Ellen Page (carries a teenage part)
Biggest Snubs: Helena Bonham Carter outshines Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd, Angelina Jolie does an accent in A Mighty Heart. Honestly, why on earth would you diss two good performances by your biggest stars in favor of Marion Cotillard (Aforementioned Whodat playing a French singer raised in a brothel)? You risk Angelina skipping the walk-in when half of America is only waiting to see who she'll make out with this year. It can't possible be Brad...I'm betting on the Cambodian kid.

Best Supporting Actor:
1. Casey Affleck as a pezzonovante who shoots Brad Pitt. (Impossible to judge this performance as there is an unbelievably poor voiceover. Think of Jerrod the Subway guy reading you a cowboy outlaw script-on-tape and giving away you every character motivation, stage direction and the latest on Brangelina. Ruined the movie.)
2. Javier Bardem is the scariest movie serial killer ever.
3. Philip Seymour Hoffman hams it up in a role that acts itself in Charlie Wilson's War
4. Whodat in a film no one watched
5. Tom Wilkinson is an off-meds lawyer in George Clooney's annual nomination filler. (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE)
Will Win: Javier Bardem
Should Win: Javier Bardem
Biggest Snub: Russell Crowe outacting Denzel in American Gangster. (Surprise of the year)

Best Supporting Actress:
1. Cate Blanchett plays Bob Dylan in the same movie as like 10 dudes...and is better than all of them because she looks JUST LIKE HIM.
2. Ruby Dee is the year's token black nominee, and perhaps has 10 lines concentrated in 3 scenes in the course of the whole film (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE)
3. Soarise Ronan in Atonement - a kid can't be a Whodat. Besides, her name is like a lost commandment.
4. Whodat in a movie no one saw
5. Tilda Swinton does a great job in Michael Clayton
Will Win: Cate Blanchett (Law of averages)
Should Win: Torn, but I'll go with Swinton, just to be ornery.
Biggest Snub: Jennifer Garner, who should have won for a terrific turn in Juno.

Best Animated Film:
Ratatouille is going to win even though it wasn't THAT good. My question is this - there are 3 nominated films, whereas several animated films were NOT nominated. Is there a maximum of 3 possible nominees? If not, why is Surf's Up here and not Bee Movie? They're not going to win, but honestly, if I'm Seinfeld, I'm asking myself, 'What's the deal with that?'

Art/Visuals:
I didn't see Golden Compass, but the polar bears looked cool so they get my vote. Incidentally, no one who saw Pirates 3 (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE) can take this one seriously...the part with the giant Calypso was laughably bad. It looked like something from the 80's. I think I saw a giant ant scrambling around the tiny-town models. Anyway, the big question is WHERE IS THE 300? This movie revolutionized film art/visuals. I don't care if it's a comic book and a transparently pro-war one at that. Incredible work.

Cinematography:
I'll go with The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford. Obviously the voice over obliterated the movie by treating its audience like it was 7 years-old, but if you turn off the sound, it is a gorgeously filmed movie, really a clinic in image creation.

Adapted Screenplay:
I think the Coens should bag this one, but they really didn't change much. TWBB conversely totally changed the book, for the better, since Upton Sinclair is a tedious socialist blowhard. Something tells me, thought, that without DDL, that's kind of what TWBB would be. Atonement was a complete mess, an abysmal adaptation (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE). I'd be OK with one of the 2 no one watched winning.

Original Screenplay:
Have to go with Juno - bursting with originality and love of language. Michael Clayton is tightly written and Ratatouille is apparently richly researched and steeped in culinary culture. But if Juno doesn't win here, it would be the biggest travesty possible at these Oscars.

THIS YEAR'S NOT SO SNUB-ISH SNUBS:
We're very short on snubs that you would usually expect of the academy...American Gangster should have been better, so I can't even tell if it's a snub. There is one glaring exception:
ALL ANTI-WAR FILMS!!! Wow, they got hosed at the box office, panned by the critics, and ignored by the academy. I don't even know what to make of this. Maybe Hollywood got the point - it's irrelevant. They can lighten up a little.

WORST NOMINATION OF THE YEAR:
Nominees:
1. Female actress who is not Angelina Jolie or Helena Bonham Carter, thereby risking that they don't show up
2. Tom Wilkinson in a role that simply isn't believable; he always comes across as acting and kind of pulls the movie apart.
3. Ruby Dee, as an afterthought token nomination with almost no actual part.
4. Pirates 3 visuals, for the ludicrous giant Calypso gaffe
5. Atonement's adapted script, which butchers what I'm told is a decent book. (I don't do fiction).
WINNER: Tom Wilkson. Ruby Dee was merely barely present and Pirates 3 had one CGI error, perhaps lost amidst it's copious scripting errors. Tom Wilkinson pulled down an otherwise tight, if forgettable film so he gets the nod.

THIS YEAR'S UNINTENTIONAL BEST PORN MOVIE TITLE:
NOMINEES (Black Snake Moan was disqualified for already being borderline porn, Daddy's Little Girls was disqualified because it's just wrong. Seriously, what's wrong with you?):
1. Hot Fuzz
2. There Will Be Blood
3. No Country For Old Men
4. Breach
5. Amazing Grace
6. Once
7. Because I Said So
8. Hannibal Rising
9. The Ultimate Gift
10. Reign Over Me
11. Are We Done Yet?
12. I Am Legend
13. Perfect Stranger
14. Live Free Or Die Hard
15. No End In Sight

An impressive list. Even here No Country and Blood are competing. Hard not to go with There Will Be Blood.

10 BEST FILMS OF THE YEAR REGARDLESS OF GENRE AND/OR RELEVANCE:
This was a strong year for stupid comedies. Honorable Mentions go to Ocean's 13 and Michael Clayton.
10 Superbad
9. Charlie Wilson's War
8. The Bourne Ultimatum
7. Live Free or Die Hard
6. There Will Be Blood
5. No Country For Old Men
4. Once
3. Knocked Up
2. Juno
1. Hot Fuzz

Bourne III: Return of the Clones Report

1) Return of the Kings Factor for extreme length - a solid 2 hour movie but it rarely drags. 3.
2) World' End Factor For Excess Exposition - Well, there are hints to excess exposition, but they merely rely on knowledge of current events and an implicit political outlook. Those who disapprove can easily ignore a line here and there and enjoy the action. 3.
3) Nice Neat Package Rating: A little too much trying to catch up with the headlines to be 'relevant' but the film successfully attacks its foes (white men), giving them stern media justice. 5.
4) X-Men X Factor for Clear Openings for Future Films: Nobody of consequence dies, the movie outright cheats to pretend they're actually going to wrap things up for about 6 seconds. I almost got mad sitting there for those 6 seconds thinking, "They want me to think he's dead. Come on, no way they have the balls to kill him. Money matters too..." but apparently I'm too verbose and it was clear he was alive before I could finish my rant. 9.
5) Harried Writer Syndrome - Not so much. Some legit action sequences and plenty of globe trotting. Not wildly original, and clearly straining to give Julia Stiles something to do, but the other female character was interesting and "we'd be having this conversation face-to-face" was a legit all-time level line. 3.
6) Bored Writer Syndrome - ripping from the headlines is a clear sign of either unoriginality or boredom. I decided to spread the writing points out. Deal. Anyways, "Look at what they make you give?" I hate when a well-placed speech moves people who don't care what gets said. Hollywood once again trades potential depth for a chintzy moral. 4.
7) Kirsten Dunst Syndrome for Bad Original Casting - Damon and the nameless senior CIA female are good casting. The Julia Stiles problem is elegantly avoided by giving her as few lines as possible. Well-played sirs. 2.
8) Johnny Depp Syndrome (Bored Original Casting) - I don't think Matt Damon is deep enough to get bored with a role and I don't think anyone else who is a recurring figure in these films has enough going for them to worry about their only meal ticket. 0.
9) Ewok Syndrome for Shameless Marketing - I don't think there are any Bourne action figures or bourne video games. But this movie was laden with conspicuous product placement. For an adult movie, it was pretty blunt. 4.
10) George Lucas Disease - The Bourne films are all good but they don't get pretentious. They're always better than you think they'll be and you remember them being. Low expectations plus strong films equals a clean bill of sale here. Except for the 'relevant' turn. 2.

Return of the Clones factor:
35 - Displaying elements of sequel fatigue, but not burdened by anything more than its own triteness. If anything, in the hands of a great writer, this series could be everything that DeNiro albatross wasn't.

Incidentally, watch the American Gangster preview. Finally the movie Denzell was meant to be in. Haven't had expectations for a movie like this ever. Honestly. I'm expecting the Godfather.

Return of the Clones Standings w/ 1 movie left to go:
1. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 - 66
2. Shrek 3 - 59
3. Spiderman 3 - 53
4. Generic Pasty-Guy Almighty -52
5. Fantastic 42 - 42.5
6. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 42
7. Bourne 3 - 35
8. Ocean's 13 - 28
9. Die Hard 4 - 19

The world waits with breathless anticipation: where will Rush Hour 3 end up?

Harry Potter V: Return of the Clones Report

Having not read the books, I have to say that I just don't have any emotional attachment to this series. Every movie is the same...fairly interesting, nice artistic flourishes, watchable, occasionally funny, but critically flawed (more later).

1) Return of the Kings Factor for extreme length: Well, it's clear that there's WAAAYYY more in the book that just gets sprinkled in to the movie purely for fan interests. But it's for kids and it can't be too long. 4.
2) World's End Factor for Excess Exposition: See above. They do their best, but they have to race for the sake of the kids' bladders. 8.
3) Nice Neat Package Rating: Since this is truly a series, and based on a book, the school year format is largely eschewed in favor of what has clearly become a series building to a finale. 3.
4) X-Men X Factor for Clear Openings for Future Sequels: There's already a book. I can't give it a hard time. 6.
5) Harried Writer Syndrome - This is probably more of a book review, but I don't much care for making the book/film socially relevant. But maybe it helps frame the world the kids are coming into. 5.
6) Bored Writer Syndrome - I don't think this is at all the case. I think the writer very much likes the characters and enjoys writing these books. 1.
7) Kirsten Dunst Syndrome for bad original casting - My ambivalence couldn't be deeper here. The professional adults are all perfectly cast. Honestly, brilliant performances abound in this and the other films. But the kids...so uneven. Most of the second-tier kids are pretty good, although Harry Potter's girlfriend ought to be a lot hotter to be commanding all that attention. The basic problem is that Harry Potter and Hermione are just not that good. They're not terrible, but they're just not commanding attention, respect, or sympathy. 5.
8) Johnny Depp Syndrome (Bored Original Casting) - I think everyone likes the film series well enough. Harry Potter decided to get naked with a horse before jumping back into the breech. Apparently that commands respect in England? It worked for Elizabeth Berkeley. 1.
9) Ewok syndrome for shameless marketing - They're already selling Hermione Granger diamond wands...on my freaking credit card insert. I can only imagine how many Luna Lovegood neck charms are being snapped up. At least the owl purchasing is probably at an end. Still, I don't think it's shameless. I think it's a response to real demand, not wholly ewok-esque. 6.
10) George Lucas Disease - I don't bring huge expectations to the series and the movie was exactly what I thought it should be. I just can't rate this film the way a fan would. 3.

Return of the Clones Factor: 42. A solidly average sequel to a non-fan such as myself. I'm left with a dilemma - how to break the tie between Harry Potter and Fantastic Four? I think that the film with the longer title should be the bigger disappointment. Unfortunately, both have verbose titles of nearly equal length, depending largely on how one adds articles and spells out numbers. I'm going to give the nod to FF4:RotSS over HPatOotP, mostly because Potter is just a better movie.

The standings:
1. Pirates of the Caribean 3 - 66
2. Shrek 3 - 59
3. Spiderman 3 - 53
4. Generic Pasty-Guy Almighty - 52
5. The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - 42.5
6. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 42
7. Ocean's 13 - 28
8. Die Hard 4 - 19