Mulder, Scully, Superman, and Me

Tis the season. Christmas is coming, and with it the first trailers for some of next summer's biggest movies, including "Star Trek: Into Darkness," Guillermo Del Toro's "Pacific Rim," and the new Superman movie, "Man of Steel." It's "Man of Steel" that's been on my mind lately. The recently released teaser posters have provoked a storm of discussion, and I've been faced with a familiar dilemma.

One part of me, the skeptic, the cynic, the Dana Scully in me, wants to reject the hype. Zack Snyder has directing duties, and I consider his work pretty shaky at best. Writer David S. Goyer isn't much better, responsible for some of the best recent comic book adaptations and some I'd rather forget about. I'm not against Warners making another attempt to launch a "Superman" franchise after the underperformance of "Superman Returns," but I'm not sure that this is the right creative team to do it with. The involvement of Christopher Nolan as a producer has been touted as a plus, but I'm not convinced that the darker and grittier sensibilities he brought to his Batman movie would translate well to a more idealistic, more fantastic superhero like Superman.

But then there's the Fox Mulder part of me, who wants so very badly to believe. I loved Richard Donner's 1978 "Superman" film as a kid, and was always a little disappointed that nobody got him right since, not in the cartoons, not in the television shows, and not in the modern movies. I look at that new teaser poster, and the possibility of "Man of Steel" being the Superman film I've been waiting for gets me terribly excited. Looking at the cast list, I'm not too familiar with Henry Cavill, the new man in the cape, but Amy Adams should make a great Lois Lane, and Michael Shannon is resurrecting one of the most entertaining villains from the older movies – General Zod. Remember General Zod? If the rumors about the return of Khan Noonien Singh to the "Star Trek" universe turn out to be false, we're still going to be getting some prime sci-fi villain ham next summer.

Then again, the choice of Zod seems a little desperate. It's worth nothing that "Man of Steel" wasn't greenlit because someone had a brilliant new take on the Superman mythos that roused Warners to action. No, it was a court case decided in 2009, the one that gave Superman creator Jerry Siegel's heirs the rights to Superman's characters and origins. The decision stated that if Warners didn't begin production on a Superman film by 2011, they could be sued for lost revenue on an unproduced film. That was the impetus for the new reboot, and it's not one that inspires much confidence. Considering all the false starts and dead ends over the years, Superman has proven to be a tough character to modernize. People are still passing around those awful costume test photos from the scrapped Tim Burton "Superman Lives" that would have starred Nicolas Cage.

But I did like that first teaser trailer that played with "The Dark Knight Rises," showing Clark Kent travelling the world and seeking answers. I liked that it looked different from any other take on Superman I've seen in a long time, and that the filmmakers are clearly not afraid to strike out in a new direction. And maybe getting a little darker and more serious wouldn't hurt, considering that the last time Warners tried to do something lighter and more fantasy-oriented with one of their superheroes, we ended up with "The Green Lantern." The trailer did show off some great visuals, and if the studios can reign in Zack Snyder's worst impulses and bad habits, we could get something really interesting.

Of course that's a big if, and Warners has had a lot more failures than successes lately with its DC superhero franchises that aren't about Batman. They're so far behind the Marvel films, it's no contest.

Considering how much Warners has riding on the film, though, including a potential future "Justice League" franchise, I'm sure they'll spare no expense and take all necessary steps to ensure success.

But Russell Crowe is playing Jor-El. We're not too keen on Russell Crowe.

But Laurence Fishburne is playing Perry White. We like Laurence Fishburne!

So here I sit, debating back and forth with myself, and instead of an angel and devil, I have a pair of FBI agents from "The X-files" sitting on my shoulders, and both of them are somehow film nerds who have read too many film articles and comic-book geek discussions. And I haven't decided yet if I'm anticipating "Man of Steel" or if I'm dreading it, if I'm rooting for its success or hoping for minimal embarrassment.

All I know is that next year, whether it's a success or a failure, it's going to be big.
---

Read More

The First Five of "The Wire"

After this post, I'll be writing about "The Wire" with posts divided up by seasons, but I thought it would be good to start out with an introductory entry on the first five episodes. HBO's "The Wire" is one of the most acclaimed television series ever made, though it never received much until the end of its five-year run. As someone who has watched a lot of police procedurals over the years, I think it's easier to talk about what "The Wire" isn't. It's not the show that sticks to the usual formula of the heroic cops solving the case of the week, and moving on to something entirely different in each episode. It's not the show that paints the cops as the good guys and the drug dealers and gang members as the baddies. And it's definitely not the show that presents an idealized version of how law enforcement and judicial systems are meant to function.

The first season of "The Wire" is focused on an investigation of a string of murders linked to Baltimore drug kingpin Avon Barksdale (Wood Harris). The investigation is triggered by Detective Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West), who presents his concerns about the handling of several of the murders to Judge Phelan (Peter Gerety), who in turn leans on the Baltimore Police Department. McNulty and Detective Kima Greggs (Sonja Sohn), under the command of Lieutenant Cedric Daniels (Lance Reddick), lead the resulting investigation. They're hampered at every turn by department politics, lack of resources, and institutional dysfunction. Because the investigation is largely intended as a face-saving measure, and has little support from the department, the team gets stuck with several officers who are apathetic or just incompetent.

"The Wire" also tells the story of the investigation from the POV of Avon Barksdale's nephew D'Angelo (Larry Gilliard, Jr.) and his crew, who handle some of the most visible drug-dealing operations. D'Angelo reports to Stringer Bell (Idris Elba), Avon's second-in-command. It's through the interactions between the two, and various scenes of D'Angelo's managing his turf, that we learn that these are intelligent, capable individuals who are just as compelling as the police officers working to bring them down. Other characters in the mix include Bubbles (Andre Royo), an addict who works with Detective Greggs as an informant, and the famous Omar Little (Michael K. Williams), who shows up in the third episode to rob D'Angelo's crew, and is currently something of a neutral third party. Perhaps he won't be for long.

I can't stress enough how rare it is to see a show as realistic in its approach as "The Wire." The cast is predominantly African-American. The primary settings are run-down neighborhoods, stricken with poverty. The goal of the investigation is not identifying the perpetrators or solving a mystery, but finding enough evidence to build a case that will stick, in an environment where witnesses are easily intimidated and the majority of police officers don't want to stick their necks out. McNulty, with his strong morals and habit of speaking out, is often treated by those around him as a more problematic figure than the show's dirty cops, and it seems like everyone is constantly advising him to keep his mouth shut. The use of "the wire" of the show's title requires a mountain of paperwork and proof that the police have exhausted all other options. The storyline is complicated, but compelling and insightful. All the characters are painted in shades of gray.

The moment that sold me on "The Wire" happens at the end of the second episode. Three officers who have been assigned to the investigation, including trigger-happy "Prez" Pryzbylewski (Jim True-Frost), who Lt. Daniels has spent a good chunk of the hour trying to get rid of, are involved in a drunken, late night altercation in the neighborhood they're supposed to be surveilling. Prez puts a minor in the hospital, triggering a potential scandal. In a network police procedural like "Law & Order," Prez would be punished and never be heard from again so the show's regulars could start the next episode with a fresh slate. In a more serialized cable drama like " The Shield," Prez would stick around, but be labeled as an obvious bad guy, to be defeated or redeemed within the specific context of his police career. In "The Wire," Prez is at the beginning of a very different character arc (which I know about thanks to a few spoilers).

Other individual scenes are just as impressive. McNulty and his partner Bunk Williams (Wendell Pierce), revisit an old crime scene in a great sequence where they piece together what happened in almost total silence, expect for the exchange of punctuating expletives. D'Angelo teaches his underlings how to play chess, relating each piece to a position in the drug operations. Bubbles provides advice to an undercover officer on how to look like a more convincing junkie. The character study elements are currently less pronounced, as the plot is being driven by the investigation, but from the moments we've gotten so far, I suspect they're going to become increasingly important as time goes on.

I'm getting very excited about where "The Wire" is going. Stay tuned.
---

Read More

Let's Talk About Critics' Circles

Yesterday the New York Film Critics Circle (NYFCC) officially got awards season off to a start by handing their top kudos to Katherine Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty." This is the same organization who got everyone so worked up last year when they announced their winners at the end of November, before several would-be contenders had a chance to screen. However, their choice proved to be prescient. "The Artist" was chosen as best film, and went on to win the Best Picture Oscar a few weeks later.

The NYFCC is considered one of the most important preliminaries to the Oscars, because it's one of the earliest competitive awards given out in the season. The various critics' circles awards may not have much prestige individually, but they are extremely influential, as they reflect the choices of various film critics across the country. Contrary to popular belief, movie reviewers have absolutely no say in the Academy Awards, because the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences is essentially a trade organization. You actually have to be in the movie business as an actor, director, producer, or be in a related movie trade in order to be considered for membership. The biggest percentage of the Academy is composed of actors, which is why one of the strongest predictors of who will prevail at the Oscars is actually the Screen Actors Guild Awards, and to a lesser extent the guild awards for directors and producers and so on.

The critics' groups are far more low key. There are dozens of them, mostly based around geographical areas with membership limited to those writing for certain publications. We've also seen a spate of online critics' groups forming in recent years as the print publications have grown less influential. The more prominent circles include Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and Washington D.C., mirroring the country's major newspapers. New York is the oldest of them, having given its first prize to John Ford's "The Informer," all the way back in 1936. Their roster has included such iconic names as Bosley Crowther, Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, and Judith Crist over the years. However, even in aggregate, the critics' awards hardly register in the consciousness of the general public. Compare the NYFCC with the considerably less celebrated Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), the organization that puts on the Golden Globes. In Hollywood, it's still the spectacle that sells.

And yet, the critics' circles will often have a major impact on the awards race because their awards are coming from people widely recognized as having informed opinions. The job of people in Hollywood is to make movies. The job of the critics is to evaluate them. So the only people at the start of the awards season who have plausibly seen all the movies in contention for the big awards are the critics. They've also proven to be reliably hype-proof, and willing to champion smaller films that might slip under the radar otherwise. 2012 is a pretty crowded year, and there's a wealth of potential nominees, so every little bit of validation helps. The NYFCC choice I'm the most pleased about is Rachel Weisz winning Best Actress for "The Deep Blue Sea," a heavy British drama that came out very early in the year, was extremely underseen, and in significant danger of being overlooked. And then there's the Supporting Actor nod for Matthew McConaughey, for his work in "Magic Mike" and "Bernie," more small films without much buzz behind them so far.

I admit that when you get down to the basic mechanics, the critics' circles appeal to me more than the bigger awards. They're usually just a few dozen film writers who get together once a year to argue and vote on their favorite movies. Poke around online and it's easy to find casual write-ups on how the winners were chosen in certain groups. There's plenty of open discussion on the balloting procedures and the close-calls and the surprises. A couple of NYFCC members even provided Twitter updates as they voted this year (Hi Dana Stevens!) You never get this kind of transparency from the Academy, who are all serious business and have their ballots sent to an accounting firm to be tabulated. Of course, due to the nature of the Oscars the formality is a necessity, but reading over the NYFCC post-mortems this morning (Hi J. Hoberman!), the critics take themselves just as seriously, but still seem to have more fun.

No indication yet as to whether the NYFCC's choices are going to be reflected by the Academy, but as for me, "Zero Dark Thirty" is getting priority as Christmas viewing this year over "Django Unchained" and "Les Misérables." I have serious doubts that "Zero Dark Thirty" has cinematography comparable to "Life of Pi" or "The Master," so I'll have to take a look and see for myself.
---

Read More

"Guardians" Glitters But Is Not Gold

It's been a very good year for American animation, and maybe if it had been a worse one, I would be feeling more charitable toward Dreamworks' "Rise of the Guardians." Five years ago I'd have given it a pass for at least being something original and staying away from pop-culture references and dance numbers. However, Dreamworks has made some great movies recently, and its competitors keep raising the bar too. And so it's become disappointing to walk into an animated holiday film and discover that it's perfectly suitable and entertaining for small children, but has no greater ambitions. "Guardians" is an absolutely gorgeous picture, has a very good idea at its core, and is executed with no shortage of enthusiasm and creativity. The potential for a very good film is here, but in the end it's only average.

"Rise of the Guardians" presents the appealing idea that Santa Claus (Alec Baldwin), the Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman), the Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), and the Sandman, who speaks only through pantomime, are members of a group of Guardians, charged with protecting the children of the world. They owe their powers and very existence to children's wonder and belief in the imaginary. The dreaded return of the boogeyman Pitch Black (Jude Law), prompts our heroes to ready themselves for battle. However, they need the help of a newly appointed Guardian, Jack Frost (Chris Pine), a childlike sprite who came into existence about two hundred years ago with no memory and lacking in purpose and direction. None of the children believe in him the way they do in the others, so nobody can see him. Jack's not keen on becoming a Guardian, but is convinced to come along on the adventure to perhaps learn a little more about himself.

"Guardians" features some inspired worldbuilding. Director Peter Ramsey and the Dreamworks animators do a fine job of translating William Joyce's more rough-and-tumble versions of these familiar characters from the "Guardians of Childhood" book series. Here Santa Claus is a jovial Russian giant who wields a pair of swords, the Easter Bunny is a grumpy Australian beast with tribal markings, and the Tooth Fairy resembles a jewel-like hummingbird, who collects baby teeth because they contain memories of childhood. The best character is the most underused one, the Sandman, whose ability to manipulate golden dream sand provides some of the film's most arresting images. Jack Frost is a classic brat, but not too much of a brat to win over our sympathies. The Guardians all have their own special powers, and three of them rule over fantastic realms and command hordes of helpers. This all looks wonderful on the screen, and there seems to be no end to inventive visuals - Santa's bustling workshop, Bunny's subterranean realm, and the Tooth Fairy's swarms of tooth-collectors, miniature versions of herself.

The film runs into problems, however, trying to tell a coherent story in this universe. Focusing on Jack Frost brings up all these questions about the fundamental nature of these characters that the filmmakers have trouble addressing. If no one believes in Jack Frost, how do people even know his name? If seeing is believing, shouldn't letting more kids see the Guardians solve the belief deficit that threatens their powers? Furthermore, Jack's clearly been in existential crisis for a long while, so why hasn't he asked his fellow fantasy beings for some of the most basic answers about his situation before now? At the beginning of the movie he's clearly aware of all the other Guardians and has some understanding of how they operate. And why on earth does a film with such a strong winter theme seem to take place mostly around Easter? It's common for there to be logic gaps in kids' films, especially ones with these elaborate fantasy concepts, so some suspension of disbelief is expected. "Rise of the Guardians," however, has a universe with such poorly defined rules, badly established mythology, and glaring inconsistencies, they're a major stumbling block. The film spends a lot of time trying to explain things, but offers few answers. Also, it doesn't help that Jack Frost's story arc hits so many conventional beats, with nearly all the biggest hurdles coming down to basic failures in communication.

I'm convinced that there's a better movie in here somewhere. There are some nice vocal performances, particularly from Hugh Jackman and Jude Law. The ideas are intriguing enough that I want to see them fleshed out more. If "Rise of the Guardians" is akin to a junior version of "The Avengers," as some have claimed, then the absence of the lead-up origin stories is sorely missed. I reiterate that the movie is a perfectly decent distraction for children, and has enough big set-pieces and shiny spectacle to keep most adults moderately amused for ninety minutes. However, it's not on the level of "Brave" or "Wreck-it Ralph" or "Paranorman," or even Dreamworks' own "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted." And that's a real shame.
---

Read More

Late to the "Moonrise"

There's a substantial possibility that Wes Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" will make a showing in the major Oscar categories this year, so though my review is extremely late, it may still have some relevance.

Not having written about any of his previous films, I feel I should first say a bit about the director, who is one of the more polarizing figures in current American cinema. He has cultivated a very particular visual aesthetic that hasn't changed much over the last decade, which some viewers have heartily embraced and others have rejected as overly indulgent and repetitive. Anderson's rigid composition, penchant for long shots, retro stylings, and fetishization of objects has been well documented, analyzed, and parodied. The term "hipster" comes up a lot. However, Anderson has found new variations on these common elements, with an animated film in "Fantastic Mr. Fox," and an exotic travelogue in "The Darjeeling Limited." Some have worked better than others, but I can't help feeling that Anderson has been steadily heading downhill since the high of "The Royal Tenenbaums" back in 2001.

And so we come to "Moonrise Kingdom," which is a tale of young love told in the style of a fantastic children's story. Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward), a pair of glum prepubescent loners, conspire to run away together. While Sam is on an outing with his Khaki Scout troop on the picturesque island of New Penzance, off the coast of New England, he secretly meets up with Suzy, who he had met the previous summer, and the two make their escape into the wilderness. The adults responsible for them, Scout Master Randy Ward (Edward Norton), Suzy's parents (Bill Murray, Frances McDormand), and local Police Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), must find the children before an impending hurricane arrives. Jason Schwartzman, Tilda Swinton, Bob Balaban, and Harvey Keitel also appear in smaller roles, but the film largely belongs to the two young leads as they explore the island together.

Wes Anderson fans and detractors will be quick to point out the whimsical production design, the precisely framed shots, and the slightly peculiar speech patterns of the characters – all typical of Anderson. And even though the director's favorite Futura font has been abandoned in favor of more whimsical calligraphic lettering, there's no getting around how familiar the whole film feels. Here are the lonely heroes, acting out in alarming ways because nobody really understands how they feel. Here are the dysfunctional families that need to be shaken up in order to come together more strongly. Here are the silly visual gags, delivered with a straight face. Here are a few minutes of charming animation. Here is Bob Balaban as your narrator, dressed like a jovial lawn gnome. Just 'cause.

In short, if you like Anderson's other films, and you like his style of storytelling, this film should work for you. If you find him insufferable, you may still want to give this a chance. The new variation this time around is the use of the kids' POV. Yes, it's the same Anderson story at its core, but filtered through the kids, the edges are softer, and the conceits are easier to cut through. Suddenly the stylized designs make sense, as they help the film achieve the look and feel of one of the fantasy books that the young heroine carries around with her. And where many Anderson heroes were men and women in arrested development, here the youngsters are pleasantly mature for their age. The story is also full excitement, with lots of camping and hiking and kayaking. Oh, and there's a hurricane, of course. And just when you think the kids are all sweet and innocent, we get a firm reminder that this is not a Hollywood film, and it's not rated PG-13 just for the smoking and fisticuffs. Twelve-year olds in this movie have hormones and act on them.

The younger actors prove capable at carrying the film, but that's not to say that the grown-ups don't pull their weight. The committed Scout Master is probably my favorite Edward Norton performance in years. Bruce Willis gives Captain Sharp some real heart, and he looks livelier than he has in most of the action films he's been in lately. I wish we got to see this side of Willis more often. Frances McDormand doesn't get enough screen time at all, but makes the most of it, and Bill Murray gets even less, but I'm not inclined to complain when he genuinely appears to be enjoying himself.

"Moonrise Kingdom" feels awfully derivative at times, and I don't think it hits the highs of "The Royal Tenenbaums" or "Rushmore," but it is the first Wes Anderson film I've felt so positive about in a long time. I'm not sure where Anderson is going to go from here, but I think he's proven that his formula or his template or whatever you want to call it, has proven very adaptable. And I'm very curious to find out where his inventories and his French pop songs and his zooms and overhead shots are going to pop up next.
---

Read More

My Third Annual Holiday Wishlist

Dear Hollywood,

This year for Christmas, I want:

For Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity" to find a release date quickly, and for a much shorter gap between this film and Cuaron's next one. I wasn't too convinced by that big screed that David Denby wrote a few months ago about Hollywood destroying the movies, but I heartily agree on at least one point, which is that some of our best directors are spending far too much time courting financiers and dealing with studio politics, and not enough time actually making their movies. A seven year gap between "Children of Men" and "Gravity" is just unacceptable.

For "Breaking Bad" to stick its landing. I never thought I'd be looking forward to a television show more than any upcoming film, but it's happened. The last eight episodes of "Breaking Bad" are scheduled to air over next summer, and I'm going to be glued to my television/and or computer screen for them. Other returning shows I'm anticipating include the first half of the "Storm of Swords" being adapted for "A Game of Thrones," and the penultimate season of "Mad Men." Oh, and of course the return of "Community" too.

For Hulu to fix the browsing functions in their Criterion section. The navigation is practically unusable since their last upgrade about three months ago, and since I use Hulu Plus primarily for the Criterions, I see no point in subscribing to their service again until it's fixed. This has thrown off my entire schedule of rotating between the various streaming and DVD-by-mail services too, so maybe it's time to try something else for a while. It's been a few years since I've used Greencine, or I could cash in some coupons and throw Blockbuster a bone.

For the continuing health of MoviePass and Netflix, a pair of movie-related services that I've heard lots of skepticism about, but could change the way we consume our media. Netflix will be taking the plunge with original content starting in February. MoviePass, the subscription movie theater plan, is only in the early stages of full-scale rollout, and still has to prove it can make money. I've held back from trying out MoviePass so far because the commitment is a little too big for my tastes - the subscription period is an entire year - but if it does well, we'll see.

For movie trailers to get more creative, following the lead of films like "Prometheus." Too many big movies are following the same formula of showing too much, and trailers have gone from being something enjoyable to something to avoid at all costs. "Prometheus" had a pretty spoiler-heavy trailer itself, but it also released a few shorts that were composed entirely of new footage created especially for the marketing campaign. You'd think that with so much more emphasis being placed on marketing campaigns we would see a little more creativity at work.

For a little more breathing room in our franchises. I'm pretty well resigned to the supremacy of the franchise in mainstream studio films at the moment, but I hate the latest trend of seeing talented directors bow out of repeat performances because the studios demand that new sequels be churned out so quickly. Last year we saw Rupert Wyatt leave the "Planet of the Apes" series and Matthew Vaughn quit "X-men" simply because they were unwilling to commit to making sequels by the dates that the studio had already staked out for them.

For more variety in iTunes and Amazon offerings. I've been renting more recent films online from the iTunes and Amazon pay-per-view services lately, especially when I can't find certain titles anywhere else, but I'm not happy about their selection. They're good about most of the limited releases, but there are far too few foreign language films, documentaries, and festival titles that I'd be happiest to give a revenue boost to. These are the films that could benefit the most from digital distribution, and I know the demand is there.

For HBO to figure out some way of going a la carte. Frankly, I'm tired of mooching off of friends when I want to watch "Game of Thrones" and I hope that HBO and the other premium channels can work out some way of offering their programming outside of the rigid, and probably doomed, tiered cable pricing system that has a stranglehold on it now. I'm planning to dive into "The Wire" next year, and I probably would have seen it a lot sooner if HBO's programming were more accessible. Turning HBO Go into a separate streaming service would be my vote right now.

For "Doctor Who" to have a smooth transition to the new Companion played by Jenna-Louise Coleman. I'm rooting for you kid!

For someone to stop the madness with this "Fifty Shades of Grey" movie before my mother starts asking embarrassing questions.

And for Peter Jackson to not screw up "The Hobbit."

Happy holidays!
---

Read More

The January-June Bizarro Oscars

I've never really understood the point of mid-year movie best-of lists, because we all know that a significant majority of quality films show up in the final three months of the year. However, I suppose they do help to spur awareness of smaller titles that were released earlier in the year, that are too often overlooked at awards time. But then, why release those lists at the beginning of July, in the middle of the blockbuster season, when the only thing anybody's interested in is counting up the returns at the summer box office? Nope. By my reckoning, a mid-year list makes the most sense closer to the end of it. I'm traditionally months and months late with all my other best-of lists anyway. So here are my picks for Academy Award nominees, based solely on films released during the first six months of 2012.

Best Picture

Chronicle
Damsels in Distress
The Deep Blue Sea
Moonrise Kingdom
Safety Not Guaranteed
Your Sister's Sister
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Magic Mike
Ted
Take This Waltz

This is still weighted heavily toward May and June releases because I disqualified all the titles that qualified for the previous year's Oscars. That means "Coriolanus," "We Need to Talk About Kevin," "Rampart," "The Kid With the Bike," and "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia" have to sit this out, even though they didn't get proper releases until January and February. "Beasts of the Southern Wild" and "Moonrise Kingdom" would be the favorites, simply based on the fact that they're the only films that still have awards buzz six months later. I expect "Moonrise Kingdom" would win based on the fact that it's more accessible. I feel this is a pretty good mix of innovative mainstream crowd-pleasers like "Chronicle," "Magic Mike," and "Ted," with auteur-driven projects like "Moonrise," "Beasts," and Whit Stilman's "Damsels in Distress," plus a couple of ensemble-driven pieces, "The Deep Blue Sea," "Take This Waltz," "Your Sister's Sister," and a scrappy underdog in "Safety Not Guaranteed." Other potential contenders I thought about were "Jeff, Who Lives at Home" and "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen."

Best Director

Whit Stillman - Damsels in Distress
Terence Davies - The Deep Blue Sea
Wes Anderson - Moonrise Kingdom
Benh Zeitlin - Beasts of the Southern Wild
Steven Soderbergh - Magic Mike

This is really just whittling things down to reflect the most likely winners among the Best Picture contenders. Wes Anderson would take it, of course. These would also be the films I'd pick for any Best Writing category, which I decided to leave out of this post because I'm not keen on dealing with the complicated Adapted/Original distinctions.

Best Actor

Channing Tatum - Magic Mike
Denzel Washington - Safe House
Liam Neeson - The Grey
Aksel Hennie - Headhunters
Mark Wahlberg - Ted

This was the toughest category to come up with nominees for, because there was a serious dearth of good, male-driven dramas. I had to fudge things a little and categorize Denzel as a lead actor instead of supporting, and I nearly put Seann William Scott for "Goon" in here until I looked at the foreign options and remembered how much I liked Aksel Hennie. I think Liam Neeson would end up taking it because of the challenging nature of the role and the fact that he was the only thing in "The Grey" worth remembering.

Best Actress

Rachel Weisz - The Deep Blue Sea
Michelle Williams - Take This Waltz
Aubrey Plaza - Safety Not Guaranteed
Greta Gerwig - Damsels in Distress
Quvenzhané Wallis - Beasts of the Southern Wild

A much stronger field to work with here. Emily Blunt would also be a strong possibility based on her work in "Your Sister's Sister" or "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen." Based on the ones I picked, I think Rachel Weisz would take the statuette easily as the driving force behind "The Deep Blue Sea," which was sadly overlooked during its brief run in March. I don't think she has enough buzz behind her to get the Oscar-watchers' attention this season. Quvenzhané Wallis delivered a real knockout child performance though, so I wouldn't count her out yet.

Best Supporting Actor

Tom Hiddleston - The Deep Blue Sea
Simon Russell Beale - The Deep Blue Sea
Amr Waked - Salmon Fishing in the Yemen
Michael Fassbender - Prometheus
Edward Norton - Moonrise Kingdom

Not sure how both Mark Duplass and Jake Johnson from "Safety Not Guaranteed" failed to make the grade, but there was a wealth of possible choices here. Also thought about Live Schreiber from "Goon," Dwight Henry from "Beasts of the Southern Wild," and Matthew McConaughey for "Magic Mike," but Fassbender's performance in "Prometheus" was so much better than the film it appeared in, I had to give him the nod. I don't have a favorite here, so let's call it a toss-up.

Best Supporting Actress

Rosemarie DeWitt - Your Sister's Sister
Judy Greer - Jeff Who Lives at Home
Mila Kunis - Ted
Sarah Silverman - Take This Waltz
Maggie Smith - The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

I wasn't too taken with "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel," but the movie was so popular that Maggie Smith's appearance in this category would be inevitable. Briefly considered Eva Green from "Dark Shadows," Susan Sarandon from "Jeff, Who Lives a Home," and a few of the ladies from "Damsels in Distress," but this feels about right. I'd hand the statuette to the terribly overlooked Judy Greer, though I think Mila Kunis would be able to work up a lot of momentum behind her.
---

Read More