Writing Documentaries

Is it just me that thinks it's weird when a documentary has writing credits? They're stories built on interviews and facts. What is a screenwriter going to be doing here? Flesh the story out? If that was the case then the documentary at its core would be diluted and lose credibility (considering people were to find out. Here's looking to you James Frey!).

Now, at this point I have to look at nonfiction as a literary category. Look at journalism, for example. The majority of articles written for a paper are built in the same way that a filmmaker would make a documentary. They conduct interviews to get closer to the truth through different perspectives. They take the time to think about how all the pieces fit together and at the end the reader is given a fully formed story. And under the title we'll see "written by." Somebody took the time to compile of the documentation and molded into a ingestable story. They deserve the credit for sifting and writing the story.

If a journalist deserves the credit then why wouldn't a documentary deserve a writer? The director of the film would be the issue. If a documentary has a writer, then where does the director fit in? The man behind the camera is the one spending the time sifting through the information to make a solid story. The writer makes me think there is an amount of deceit involved in the film when I see that credit.

I'm not a documentary filmmaker, so I would like to know if I'm completely off on this? Is there a bigger job that I'm not seeing here? Let me know!

Does James Franco Hate Me?

Does James Franco hate me? Like, has he come to this blog and read of the entries? Did he get so offended by my fake article about him curing AIDS that he decided the only way to get all the aggression out was to make a Bukowski movie? I mean, we already have a great documentary exploring Bukowski's life, so what's the point, really? Did he read my bit about he should keep his ignorant, grubby hands off As I Lay Dying and realize he'd be really good at adapting Cormac McCarthy's Child of God? Was "Don't make this movie," translated to, "Hey, make this this other movie because you're SSSOOOOO GGRREEEEAAATTT!" I mean, I think it's pretty clear why I hate him. 

But why does he hate me so much?

On top of that, I thought he was pretty good in This is the End. Why can't he throw me a bone, and maybe, you know, stick to what he's good at and not fuck up the books I like. Why can't he just enjoy books for being books and movies for being movies. 

He acts like he's this high minded literary scholar, but then decides to take these pieces of writing that are--for the most part--unfilmable and tries to film them. Franco thinks so highly of himself that he believes he's doing the whole world a favor. 

I'd also like to point our that Franco went to school for Creative Writing (in one of the problems he's been through). So why doesn't he try to create something, opposed to shitting all over Faulkner and Bukowski? Just a thought.

Does he know who I am? And, again, why does he hate me so much?

Best Death Scenes

A well executed death scene can pack the final emotional punch for a movie. It can legitimize an ending and bring the audience to tears. It can bring a cheer from the crowd when the we see the antagonist finally gets their long-awaited end. Or it can open the window for a lot of ridicule and embarrassment due to poor direction, writing, or acting. While it may not ruin the movie as a whole, it will stick out as a negative dip in an otherwise good movie. 

Here are my favorites. 

WARNING: SPOILERS COMING AT YOU

It would be easy to pick Obi-Wan Kenobi. His death in Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope has a lot going for it. It is sacrificial, for one. He looks over at Luke, and knows that for Skywalker to start the journey to being a Jedi he needs to die. And since it happens in the first movie when the audience doesn't have a lot of information, the death is shrouded in mystery. Why did Kenobi deactivate his saber and let Vader strike him down? And why did he disappear? The enigmatic elements behind the death is also the downfall for why I didn't pick this as my favorite death. While we know Ben Kenobi is a benevolent character, we don't really get to grow attached to him. He's there as a mentor, and then he's gone. He had a high stature, and because of that the death means something, but we're not emotionally attached enough to know how much it means. 

When I said Saving Private Ryan Emily countered with, "That whole movie is a death scene." I can't really disagree, but the scene I have in mind involves the medic, Wade. They are moving across an open field to take down a few Germans. We run through the smoke--a close third perspective from Upham--ducking down because of the gunfire. The German soldiers are overtaken, but that's when we hear people calling for a medic. We run to the cries, seeing our medic, Wade, laying flat on his back trying to direct his fellow soldiers in helping him with his wounds. They tear his shirt open and there are numerous bullet holes, all seeping dark crimson. The men pour water on his torso and wipe the blood away, but the holes keep producing more and more blood. They just won't stop. There is even a moment when all the men put their hands on the gaping wounds, trying to stop the bleeding with pressure, but it's not enough. They guide his hand to one bullet hole and when he feels his liver he knows there is no hope. This scene shows how underrated Giovanni Ribisi is. When he asks for more morphine--enough to overdose on, we can be happy as an audience because he's not going to be in pain anymore, but he was the moral character. In many respects Wade was their compass. But now, they're on their own. This death is handled so well, but it is not my #1 pick. Partly because every death in Saving Private Ryan is packed full of emotional turmoil and Wade's is one of the first. The story doesn't hinge on him, so while it lets the audience connect with the movie on a deeper level, it doesn't let us have that overlying epiphany I'm looking for. 

My pick for the best death scene is Stephen Bloom from The Brothers Bloom. Stephen spends the entire movie claiming he's trying to help his younger brother obtain the life he wants. It's all for Bloom, but we continually suspect Stephen only uses his brother because Bloom holds the skill sets that are needed to complete the cons. He never seems selfless; instead every action Stephen takes is for his own personal gain, even if he is saying otherwise. There is a scene early in the movie when they talk about the fake blood staying the vibrant red even after it has dried on their clothes. At the end of the movie the brothers are involved in a shootout with their arch nemesis Diamond Dog's henchmen. Bloom scares the men away and runs up to his brother. There is a vivid red seeping into his white dress shirt. Stephen laughs, and tells Bloom that it's all part of the con. He tell his young brother to grab the girl and get going, he'd catch up. Bloom asks about the blood and we hear the echo of fake blood. He hugs his brother like he's never hugged him before. The reign of the brothers bloom was going to continue on. We cut to Bloom waking up in the car, his cuff hanging in front of his face. The blood has dried to an ugly brown. The car is pulled over and Bloom stumbles into a field, tears streaming down his face. The movie cuts back to Stephen sitting down on a chair, looking up at the spotlights, allowing life to leave his body. All Bloom wanted was to live an unscripted life, and with Stephen's death the wish is granted. It was the first time we were able to see Stephen act in a selfless manner for his brother. 

And I cry every time. 

So there are mine. What are yours?

Am I Wrong About R.I.P.D.?

by Joe

We went and saw R.I.P.D. the other night and loved it. The movie was strange, but not over the top. It was hilarious, but all the jokes had a point. The plot was fairly simple, and I think that worked to its benefit. I'm sick of big budget blockbusters using convoluted plots to try and make the movies sophisticated (see: Pirates of the Caribbean 2 & 3, Oceans 12). From my perspective R.I.P.D. did not do that. Like Pacific Rim they knew what kind of movie they wanted to make. They knew the kind of audience they wanted to see it and they catered it to them. Yet, it is getting destroyed from the critics. As of now, it has a 10% on Rottentomatoes.com.

Am I wrong about this movie? Was Jeff Bridges not downright hilarious? I've read some of the tidbit reviews on the RT website, and not once was I bored or annoyed. The sentimental scenes between Ryan Reynolds (as a Chinese man) and his wife were touching and effective. Or so I thought. I mean, I feel like one of the Americans who loves all of Adam Sandler's new movies. Is this who I am, or are all the critics looking too far into a movie that is in the same category as Men in Black?

Can someone help me out here?

Adult Movies for Children

by Joe

I watched a lot of things I shouldn't have watched when I was little. It wasn't that I went around my parents rules and found movies that were forbidden, but I had a fairly free reign on the types of entertainment and art I could ingest. When I was in elementary school I watched Kids, American History X, A Perfect World, Boogie Nights, Sleepers, and the list goes on.

It's not so much that I saw horrific images--because it seems like a lot of kids will stumble upon images and stories that are too gruesome for their age--but rather, I was expected as a viewer to understand the themes and motivations of the characters. And like acclimating to language, I eventually started to pick up on what things meant. The directors and actors don't think about an eight-year-old sitting cross legged in front of the TV screen. Their main concern (as it should be) is putting an authentic story on the screen. The concern is to make something that matters. A true portrait of the human condition.

This could ruin some young minds. When you're young you're supposed to have complete faith in humanity. Supposed to. I can't condone showing these movies to children, but I like to think this over indulgence in mature-themed movies helped shape the person I am today. I learned empathy from being able to watch these movies with all of myself invested in the characters. Kids are easy targets to follow the good and avoid the bad, and that allowed me to fully envelop my feelings into the protagonists.

Now, there is a slight disconnect. I still watch a plethora of movies, and this has unintentionally created a hunt for a movie that will make me learn more about being a human who cares about others, regardless of the walk they find themselves in life. I've read and seen enough to know that I have a lot to learn. Because of the content I watched when I was young it makes me want to seek it out.

So I continue watching the new and the old because I think watching everything I did when I was young helped mold me into I am today.

Cross Promotion

I guess this video is fine. It's got some good celebs in it. It's kind of funny. But didn't we get enough of this with Skyfall? I mean, I know this has been happening for decades (like why did one of the characters get thrown through a Coke billboard?), and then you have the Coke commercials with the Keaton Batman in the batcave. I don't know, maybe I just need to bitch today. I'm also curious to know how much money Man of Steel got from companies for promotion. I hope there is a scene where he spends five minutes trying to shave, then some heroic Nickelback comes on and he sees a Gillette razor.

The Place Beyond the Pines: A Review

Follow the link for my review in this week's Pacific NW Inlander:

http://www.inlander.com/spokane/article-19312-to-the-pines.html

Room 237: A Review (link)

Hello internet,

Follow this link for the review I wrote for Room 237 at The Pacific NW Inlander.

http://www.inlander.com/spokane/article-19254-the-overlookrss-maze.html

Thanks!

Joe

A Chat about Zach Braff and Kickstarter

Earlier in the day I had been complaining about the new project Zach Braff is trying to fund through Kickstarter (even though he previously had financial backing). I said that Braff is an asshole because of this, and Jeff (being the life-long fan he is) jumped in to defend the actor/writer/director. Hours later, I got a text from Jeff:

Jeff: Apparently Zach Braff put some of his own money into the Kickstarter. Apologize to him.

Joe: No.

Jeff: Yes! You were wrong.

Joe: He's a prick.

Jeff: You're such a hater. Did you even read the dang article?

Joe: No.

Jeff: He put his money and help from others so that way he had complete creative control without a studio telling him to change stuff.

Joe: He's a dickbag.

Jeff: You're a dickbag and you're wrong.

Joe: Real mature, Jeff. Are we adults? Are we?

Jeff: Well one of us is, the other is a giant man child who can't admit he's wrong. (I'm the man child).

Joe: So you do think Zach Braff is a prick.

Jeff: No, I don't think it's okay that he made a kickstarter when he could probably afford it, but I understand the sentiment.

Joe: Go to Videogum.com and read their article.

Jeff: This is a super biased article.

Joe: Because they state an opinion? Get over yourself, media!

Jeff: Hahah I thought journalists were supposed to report the facts without giving their own opinions.

Joe: Who said bloggers are journalists?

Jeff: Makes sense then.

Joe: And why shouldn't journalists speak their mind? It'd be a hell of a lot more refreshing than them burying their agendas. Just be honest.

Jeff: I don't think journalists should speak their minds because I think human beings are already stupid and if they listen to opinions of other's thinking it's then the "correct" opinion, and then people will be even more misinformed than they already are.

Joe: That's fair. But isn't that what's already happening? Look at Fox and CNN.

Jeff: I don't watch Fox due to their Republican agenda, don't watch CNN. I usually read USA Today and that's it. About Kickstarter, these celebrities are using Kickstarter and taking fan's money.

Joe: Oh, yeah. Veronica Mars has opened a Pandora's Box.

Jeff: I have a feeling it could become big name companies to use Kickstarter to be like, "HELP FUND THE NEW...ZOMBIES VS CHEETAHS FILM."

Joe: It's not good. Kickstarter was started so people like us could have potential financial backing. Not so successful entertainers can make dream projects.

Jeff: Yeah, I agree. It's understandable Zach Braff wants to maintain creative control, but it's not fair to expect his fans to help pay for a movie they are later going to pay to see.

Joe: Agreed. And really, how much more creative control can he get? After Garden State I have a hard time believing anyone would want to get in his way that much.

Jeff: You could talk about this with Mark and do a new JOE TALKS MOVIES update.

Joe: Haha. I don't think so. Maybe I'll just transcribe this and put it on the blog?

Jeff: And then talk about it ON AIR [TearJerker Podcast].

Joe: No way.

That's the discussion. Sorry it kind of meta towards the end there, but I thought I'd go ahead and plug the podcast I started doing with Mark. You can find it on iTunes and Podomatic, or find us on Facebook: Mark and Joe Tearjerkers.

What do you think about Zach "I'm a prick" Braff and Kickstarter?

Cool Trailer!: R.I.P.D

First, take a look at the trailer:

We can all agree that this looks exactly like Men in Black. Even if it's based on different source material (that I haven't read, so I'm not sure if that's the specific novel the movie is taking from), the movie looks just like the creature feature with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. But everyone liked Men in Black because it was new and different and fun!


Now, a big difference between MiB and R.I.P.D. is that the comedic force is coming primarily the mentor instead of the apprentice. I think this small change will be the key to a much funnier action/creature feature. On top of that, Bridges is basically just playing Rooster Cogburn from True Grit. He's an old cowboy and he's teaching the new guy the ropes in the most hilarious ways possible. Instead of getting hip jokes from a young guy, we're getting these ridiculous pieces of advice from a crazy old man.

Also: I realize it's a lazy joke, but I really loved that Bridges is a smoking hot girl and Reynolds is an old Asian man. It killed me.

What do you guys think?

Can We Talk About Evil Dead?

by Joe

The new Evil Dead movie is coming out in less than a week. I've heard things ranging from "Oh my god! I can't for that movie!" to "Oh my god! That movie looks fucking terrible!" I fall more into the camp of the former. A lot of my friends are on the other end of it, and at this point I feel like I need to defend the new movie.

Step One: What It's Doing

This movie is taking elements from the first two Evil Dead movies (I'm basing this entirely off the trailers I've seen. I generally avoid looking too far into movies until I've seen them first). We've got tree raping, cutting possessed hands off, beheading of a woman, the cabin (the fucking cabin! We've seen this thing all over the place. See: The Cabin in the Woods), demons in the cellar, and the skin-bound book that awakens evil. That's quite the list of goodies.

What we do not have: Ash.

This is a big letdown for people because Bruce Campbell carries the original movies along. We have the low budget effects and the paper thin story, but then we add the Chin and we've got ourselves a goddamn movie! He is iconic with his boomstick, chainsaw arm, and spot-on one liners. This is the kind of perfection that you don't want to mess with. Pyscho is a prime example of a bar set too high. The original movie is a masterpiece, while the Van Sant's remake is a trainwreck. The producers of the new Evil Dead (Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell. What?! Oh, would you look at that!) knew that Ash was something too holy to recreate on screen, so they've taken the smarter path of avoidance. There is a new protagonist and a new set of characters. Maybe we'll see more depth in the supporting players (whereas we saw nothing from them in the past), and that can only help the movie. Having fully rounded characters will only elevate the movie as a whole, making it better and scarier.

Not putting Ash in: Great idea. Good job, producers.

So they've made an Evil Dead movie without a big part of the originals. But based on the trailers, they've still been able to harness that element of gore and grittiness. We're still going into the theatre and we're going to see trees getting frisky, blood pouring out of walls, and demons shouting from the basement. People will say that it is missing that slap-stick comedy from the second movie (I'm the one saying this), but you need to look past number two and go back to the first one. The first one is missing those comedic elements, too. I think we can all agree that Evil Dead isn't really that scary of a movie. There are some creepy demon elements, but overall it's a hokey, low budget, gore flick (and I love it, don't get me wrong). Raimi was doing his best to make a fucking scary movie, but it just wasn't quite there. The new Evil Dead is almost like his second shot at making a truly scary movie, and not just a starting point for Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness.

Step Two: What It's Going to Do

Army of Darkness II !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even if Evil Dead sucks and I'm left depressed and let down, it will all be worth it to see Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi back in the throes of deadites. I haven't read that there is any correlation between the new Evil Dead and Army of Darkness II, but come on--they announced that Raimi will start writing it right before Evil Dead premiered at SXSW. The timing is too perfect. If anything, this flick is bringing a new generation on board for the franchise. And because of this we'll get to see a lot more.

Check out the trailer for the new movie:

3/16 is Michael Keaton Day!

I want everyone to know that this coming Saturday is now Michael Keaton Day (I've decided).

You know what this means! Go out and get ice cream with nuts on Saturday, March 16th to celebrate the first annual Michael Keaton Day! No one throws an ice cream party like a Michael Keaton Party! Rocky Road! Peanut Butter Parfait! Vanilla Ice Cream with Peanuts Sprinkled on Top! Let's make this a memorable one!

Take a picture of you and your ice cream and hashtag it with #michaelkeatonday

Happy ice cream eating!

Oz the Great and Powerful: A Review

I watched Oz the Great and Powerful last week, and while I wouldn't call the movie terrible, I'm certainly not going to call it good. I wouldn't even recommend it for someone who's bored. It's definitely a movie, and there are some good bits, but mostly there are bits where James Franco is just James Franco.

Let's take a look.

The things I liked: I thought Zach Braff did a good job. Even though the monkey effects weren't amazing, I thought the character was interesting. He is a driving force in changing Oz's ways from being a selfish son of a bitch to the kind-hearted fraud (a supposed good thing). He's got heart and humor, and then mysteriously disappears from any key moments as soon as Glinda is introduced. I was disappointed because the slave/master-friend/friend dynamic was a lot more interesting than the "I think this girl is pretty and I hope I can impress her" one.

As far as effects go, they were shitty. But the porcelain girl looked great. There was a nice tactile quality to the character and Joey King was a fantastic voice actor, bringing the character full circle. We need to get this thirteen-year-old more work! She destroyed Franco in the acting realm! (Not that it's hard). Monkey and Porcelain Girl were the two best parts of this movie, and without them the entire thing would have been a complete bust (even with Rachel Wiesz, but more on this later).

Every twenty minutes or so we'd get a little taste of the Raimi charm. He'd toss in a signature shot with a skewed filter on the lens, or a quick camera movement to disorient the audience. Every strange shot he was able to put in made me yell, "Raimi!" I just wish Disney would have let him put more of himself into this movie.

The black and white 4X3 segment at the beginning was well done. I liked the way they used this to move us into the story and mythology of Oz. It was a highlight, getting my hopes up for the inevitable  letdown of a movie that followed.

 (Interesting note: Warner Bros. actually owns most of the iconic elements from the 1939 picture, which made tying this film in with the other story a bit more difficult. They were not able to use the ruby red slippers or the specific green for the Wicked Witch.)

Now, what I didn't like: James Franco, of course. I'd like to make something clear, though. I don't think Franco is a terrible actor (even if he can be at times). I liked him in 127 Hours and Pineapple Express. What I think Franco is terrible at is being a human being. He's arrogant, fake, and unprofessional. Sadly, shitty qualities like these can bleed onto the screen when he's trying to act. When you watch a movie like Oz you can understand why his professor gave him a D. There's no disputing the fairness of this grade when you have evidence like Oz the Great and Powerful. We don't have Franco in Milk here, rather we have another Rise of the Planet of the Apes (AKA: the worst). It's unfortunate considering there are two extremely talented actresses. Rachel Wiesz and Michelle Williams do what they do best: act the shit out of their roles. The problem is because of the good job they're doing, we can see how bad of a job Franco and Mila Kunis are doing. The conflict in quality leads each scene to be weighted unevenly, thus making it obvious to the audience that we are just watching a movie. There isn't any magic to pull us in emotionally, and in the end, this is the major flaw to the picture.

I give this movie a C-

The Hangover: Part III Trailer

Let's check it out:

I don't know what happened, but it seemed like everyone has turned on this trilogy. When you hear The Hangover come up in conversation it's usually for people to say, "The first one was pretty funny, but the second one was just dumb. So I'm not excited for the third."

I'll go ahead and say that the first one was very funny, the second was reached a second tier of funny with being somewhat meta. I mean, they did a remake of the first movie with a near scene-by-scene, beat-for-beat flick. And because they recycled the first movie, I was rolling with laughter. I knew that movie was going to make millions more than the first, and all the people were paying for something they'd already seen.

Now, the third one is different. I'm not sure the direction they taken this one, but I can tell you that one of the destinations is FunnyTown. I think that was John Goodman? Playing the bad guy? Can anyone confirm this? I'm too lazy to go to IMDB right now (note: it is him. I decided to go to IMDB). People also seem to be getting tired of Melissa McCarthy, but again, I'm not. I think she's hysterical and even the small roles she gets (see: This is 40) she seems to kill it. 

Even if you hate these movies, you have to admit that they were great for Zach Galifinakis's career. Without the first Hangover, who knows how much of these joyous man we would get. And also, it's a movie about the day after binge drinking, so you know, you can't be too harsh. Just enjoy it. 

Leo DiCaprio's Jack Nicholson Face

I know it's only Thursday. We still have an entire day before we hit the weekend. But more importantly is the great Jack Nicholson face Leonardo DiCaprio can do.

I think we should all take a moment from our day, and spend it appreciating the great feat that has been reached today. The world is now a better place. Thank you, Jack. Thank you, Leo.

James Franco's Cure for AIDS

As the cure for AIDS spreads across the globe the praise for James Franco skyrockets. Franco (of the Spider-Man trilogy [the ones with Tobey Maguire]) has lent his doctorate degrees in microbiology and chemistry to helping the less fortunate around him. He has broken the equation that held the cure for the AIDS virus.

Franco, who was self-diagnosed in the spring of 2015, said it just felt like the right thing to do. He struggled with the disease for a year while he completed his post-graduate degrees. During that time he said he became an amateur medical doctor, claiming that since he didn’t put the time into the school he didn’t want to over-emphasize all the home studying he did. “No degree equals no professional title,” he joked.

He contracted the disease while participating in an unsimulated sex scene for Get Sexy, a deep and painful story of a sex addict trying to have sexual encounters in every country on earth. The film ends with the protagonist succumbing to the AIDS virus. Franco—who wrote, directed, produced, acted, and scored the film—wanted an actor that actually had the AIDS virus for realism purposes. He admits that it was a risk he didn’t fully come to realize until it was too late, but lucky for the thirty-five million people suffering from the virus, they finally got Franco to help them out.

“You see guys like Steve McQueen and Von Trier putting out movies like Shame and Nymphomaniac. I saw these movies and was so under whelmed by them. You know? I asked myself, ‘how would Kerouac re-imagine this story? And then I wrote Get Sexy.”

It was soon after shooting wrapped that Franco felt that deep pit in his stomach. During one of his two hour meditations he came to the realization that he was ill. He did the tests at home in his state of the art laboratory, and when his suspicions were correct he set himself to work. He was accepted into Yale University almost immediately, tearing his way through the curriculum because of his now looming deadline.

He didn’t let the load of schoolwork get in the way of his professional life. He was able to release a book of short stories, One Broken Cement Stair at a Time, along with a gripping novel, Horizon, (a finalist for the National Book Award, but failed to take home the prize against the likes of Jonathan Safran Foer). His ego didn’t need to worry, the Academy Awards still called his name over and over for Get Sexy. He took home the statues for producing, acting, and directing.

“It was a bittersweet year, that’s for sure. But I’m proud to say this will be an even better year. I mean, being accepted as part of this artist community that I’ve admired so much over the years is a dream come true. But being able to pass on the gift of life to millions of people is even more rewarding. I didn’t think anything would be more awarding than winning an Oscar, but I think I found it.”

Joe's Oscar Predictions: (I'm usually terrible at this)

Do you want to win a DVD prize? Go ahead and post in the comment section what you think is going to win and the commenter with the most correct choices will win a DVD prize of my choosing! It’s that easy. There is no reason you should not try.

Now, what do I think will win?

Here’s what I think! Tell me I’m a dummy, if you want. Or you could agree with me.

Best Picture:

Amour

Argo

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Django Unchained

Les Miserables

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty

I haven’t seen Lincoln yet. I know, I know, I know. How could I pick this to win when I haven’t seen it? Well, I’ve seen everything else (except Amour. But that’s a foreign flick. It’s like when Toy Story 3 got nominated for Best Picture, and all it did was cement a win in the Animated category). Basically, this year seems really weak to me. I liked all the movies above, but none of them really wowed me, or stood out. Personally, I think Argo deserves the win, but with the lack of a director nod I can’t see it beating a flick that is essentially made to win awards. With Steven Spielberg, one of the most beloved directors of all time. So, you know, Lincoln.

Best Director:

Michael Haneke

Ang Lee

David O. Russell

Steven Spielberg

Benh Zeitlin

This is my heart talking. Spielberg is probably going to add another Oscar statue to his mantel, but I really think Ang Lee deserves this. He made a movie that was previously deemed unfilmable (four other directors tried to make this flick and failed) and he brought us an emotional, exciting, and engaging movie. There wasn’t even a notable star, and yet it was a success. I couldn’t see that happening without this man in the director’s chair.

Best Actor:

Bradley Cooper

Daniel Day-Lewis

Hugh Jackman

Joaquin Phoenix

Denzel Washington

There is no way he can’t win. I mean, I really want Joaquin Phoenix to win because he blew me away in The Master. It was, hands down, the best performance I saw all year. But Phoenix had to shit talk the academy and now has basically alienated himself from winning the award. Instead, we have a crazy method actor portraying an American hero. This one is kind of a no-brainer.

Best Actress:

Jessica Chastain

Jennifer Lawrence

Emmanuelle River

Quvenzhane Wallis

Naomi Watts

There are two choices for this category: Chastain or Lawrence. Emmanuelle isn’t well known enough. Quvenzhane is too young. It doesn’t seem like many people saw or cared about The Impossible. Jennifer Lawrence did a great job, but she is too young. Chastain carried a three hour movie about in the ins and outs of political bureaucracy. It ends in a twenty-five realistic raid on bin Laden’s home. I mean, this isn’t really an easy movie to sit through. But Jessica Chastain was able to pull it off, without even wavering.

Best Supporting Actor:

Alan Arkin

Robert De Niro

Philip Seymour Hoffman

Tommy Lee Jones

Christoph Waltz

I heard Tommy Lee Jones was really good. That’s it. I heard somewhere that TLJ was going to win, so I pretty much had my mind made up. Also, I really love him! De Niro could win, and I think he would be a great winner. His work in Silver Linings Playbook is some of his best in years. I would venture to say it is his best since the early nineties. But for some reason, I still have a hunch TLJ is going to take it.

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams

Sally Field

Anne Hathaway

Helen Hunt

Jacki Weaver

Anne Hathaway is the only notable performance from this category. Helen Hunt has the same issues as Naomi Watts—it doesn’t seem like anyone saw The Sessions. Jacki Weaver barely did anything in SLP. Amy Adams was great in The Master, but like Weaver, didn’t do a lot compared to Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix. Sally Field is Sally Field, so who cares. Anne Hathaway was easily the best part of Les Miserables and she was in it for the smallest portion of time. Tip your hats to the next William Hurt (A History of Violence), ladies and gentlemen.

Best Original Screenplay:

Amour

Django Unchained

Flight

Moonrise Kingdom

Zero Dark Thirty

Mark Boal basically wrote a news article in the form of a movie. It is debatable how accurate the story is, but that aside, the movie is expansive and takes a close look at the man hunt for Osama bin Laden. I give him added points for not making a political movie out of this political issue. It is a difficult task to make this movie and keep it fairly unbiased.

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Argo

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

I don’t know, it’s just, Lincoln. I haven’t voted enough for this movie. I think it’s going to win more than I want it to. So, while I think Argo might win this as a consolation prize. I’m sticking with Lincoln because the movie did take a man’s life and whittle it down to an accessible (probably?) three hour movie.

Best Animated Feature:

Brave

Frankenweenie

ParaNorman

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

Wreck-It Ralph

I want any one of these movies to beat Brave. Mostly, I want ParaNorman to win because I loved that movie so so so so so much. It was like a classic kid gang movie from the nineties. Sadly, it seems like when Pixar makes a halfway decent movie it gets locked this category. So, Brave, that pile of shit.

Best Foreign Language Film:

Amour

War Witch

No

A Royal Affair

Kon-Tiki

Amour is nominated for best picture. If you don’t mark this as the winner for Foreign then you’re a dingus.

Best Cinematography:

Anna Karenina

Django Unchained

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Skyfall

Life of Pi looked beautiful. It was shot for 3D, so that's just another element to think about during the production. And on top of that, the 3D wasn’t heinous like it normally is. The movie relied heavily on the visuals to carry the story and you need compelling composition to obtain that challenge. They did it!

Best Editing:

Argo

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty

Again, I feel like I need to give Argo something. So, here you go, Affleck. Enjoy the editing award.

Best Production Design:

Anna Karenina

The Hobbit: An Expectedly Long Journey

Les Miserables

Life of Pi

Lincoln

A movie based on a stage play made to look like a stage play. Simple as that.

Best Costume Design:

Anna Karenina

Les Miserables

Lincoln

Mirror Mirror

Snow White and the Huntsman

I need to vote for Lincoln more. That’s about it. You always need to pick a period piece for this category. That puts Mirror Mirror and Snow White out of the running. Anna Karenina seemed too obscure, if that makes any sense? Like, it wasn’t grounded enough, but wasn’t over the top enough. I don’t really know, I’m basing that idea off the two minute trailer. Les Miserables is close, but Lincoln is based on a real man’s life, one that’s in an era that lends itself to an array of costumes.

Best Make-Up and Hairstyling:

Hitchcock

The Hobbit: An Expectedly Long Journey

Les Miserables

Did everyone see how great Anthony Hopkins looked as Hitchcock?

Best Original Score:

Anna Karenina

Argo

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Skyfall

The score in this movie was the only one I really thought about afterwards. It had all the emotional qualities you need for a good score, but was still unique in the setting.

Best Original Song:

Chasing Ice

Les Miserables

Life of Pi

Skyfall

Ted

I’m probably going to lose this one. I figured Les Miserables was the musical, so it had to win. Everyone has told me that I’m dumb. I should have picked Adele.

Best Sound Mixing:

Argo

Les Miserables

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Skyfall

I usually pick the loudest movie of the bunch. I probably should have picked Skyfall, but Life of Pi had that cool storm/ship sinking scene.

Best Sound Editing:

Argo

Django Unchained

Life of Pi

Skyfall

Zero Dark Thirty

^ See above. ^

Best Visual Effects:

The Avengers

The Hobbit

Life of Pi

Prometheus

Snow White and the Huntsman

Did you know the tiger was mostly configured with CGI? There weren’t any scenes shot with Suraj Sharma and the tiger together. But they interact for the majority of the movie!That is incredible to me. This is Benjamin Button good.

Best Documentary:

5 Broken Cameras

The Gatekeepers

How to Survive a Plague

The Invisible War

Searching for Sugar Man

This is the only documentary I watched, so I fail. But it was great! Depressing as shit, but great.

Best Short Documentary:

Inocente

Kings Point

Mondays at Racine

Open Heart

Redemption

I had no idea. This was a complete guess.

Best Short Animated:

Adam and Dog

Fresh Guacamole

Head Over Heels

Paperman

The Simpsons: The Longest Daycare

Paperman is such a touching short. I loved it. I really did. Watch it on youtube.

Best Short Live:

Asad

Buzkashi Boys

Curfew

Death of a Shadow

Henry

I like the name Henry?

There you go. I'm usually terrible at guessing who will win the Oscar, but you could copy me if you want. Or, if you want to win that DVD prize, make your own guesses below.