Frequently Asked Movie Reviewing Questions

I'm approaching my fourth year reviewing, which is, well, kind of weird, and I'm still not quite sure what to even think about that. But I do know I have my readers to thank for hanging with me for so long. In honor of that I've decided to do something a little different and pull back the curtain. With the decade in movies coming to a close this seemed as good a time as any to take a breather and talk about my approach and feelings on reviewing. I tried to answer the following questions as honestly as I could, which wasn't too hard since I came up with all of them myself, but hopefully you'll be surprised by at least some of the answers.

When and why did you start reviewing movies?
I always loved writing and enjoyed watching movies but it never really occurred to me to combine the two. While on vacation in '06 I was stuck in a hotel room with a cold and while watching a couple of movies got the idea to just scribble down a couple of reviews on a piece of paper out of pure boredom. Then I started posting online. What's so funny is I never had any intention or desire to write reviews. I'm still not exactly sure how it happened and part of me thinks I'm doing it just because I'm addicted. But there's that other part that thinks I'm lucky to have a hobby I actually enjoy.

Ever think about stopping?
I always think every review is my last, and treat it like it is. And after 2008 I really thought I was done because that was just a miserable year for movies that sucked nearly everything out of me. But the great thing is whenever I seem to lose interest some movie always seems to comes along or I read something on movies that completely reignites my passion for doing it.

How do you choose which movies to review?
More selectively than I did in the past that's for sure. Before, I tried to review as much as I could regardless of whether I wanted to see it or not. That was problematic for a number of reasons, chief of which it drained my enthusiasm. Now I realize quality is more important than quantity and I review movies I want to see or I think will make an interesting review. As you can tell though, I try to hit all the major releases releases and stay clear of movies no one's ever heard of (with a few exceptions). I do this primarily for me, but make no mistake about it, I care a lot about whether people and read and enjoy the reviews. If I didn't, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

Does reviewing the movies sometimes hurt your enjoyment as a fan?
Absolutely it can, but that really depends on the film. I like to think there's a "Critic" mode and a "Fan" mode and I can shut either on or off at will, but the reality is they often uncomfortably overlap.

Are you against reading other reviews before you watch or review a film?
No, not at all. The only reason I'd ever stay clear from a review before I see a film is if it gives away key plot details I don't want to know about or for some reason I want to go in fresh. Most of the time though I find it just further informs my review to read others' takes on it and think it's a joke that anyone would think I'm just reacting to others' reactions of the movie.

I think the public's response to a movie is INCREDIBLY RELEVANT, especially if it forces you to look closer at certain aspects of the film. How could I possibly talk about Juno without bringing up the backlash against it? Or review Knowing without analyzing how Roger Ebert could have given it four stars? I could, but there would be a giant pink elephant in the room and the reviews wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I'm of the belief that reading and considering other viewpoints, whether to agree or shoot them down, can only make the piece more interesting.

Which critics (if any) do you read?
Roger Ebert is a big one and while many have accused him of slipping in recent years I still think his passion and insight is unmatched. Kim Morgan, who's actually more of an essayist, which isn't to say she's not an awesome critic and probably one of the most knowledgeable and passionate writers out there. I also read James Berardinelli, whose opinions I almost always disagree with and name I always misspell, but I appreciate his no-nonsense, analytical approach. I read too many bloggers to name without forgetting anyone, many of whom are better than the "professionals." Those are my favorites but usually I try to read as many reviews on a film as I can if I'm interested in it.

How do you feel about print criticism being essentially left for dead?
I feel bad for people who work at magazines and newspapers losing their jobs. The bottom line is that times have changed and film criticism in general just isn't as relevant to the public as it once was, which is a shame. Anyone can go online and write something, which sucks for people who made their living doing that. Then again, on the bright side...anyone can go online and write something.

How do you feel about Facebook, MySpace and Twitter?
I started reviewing movies on MySpace in 2006 and then when all the action moved to Facebook I followed it because it was the smart thing to do. It's still growing on me but I'm at least grateful it's brought (slightly) more traffic to the site. I actually like the concept of Twitter much more because it enables you to follow things, people and topics that interest you at a relatively quick pace.

What are your favorite movie genres?
Longtime readers and probably even more newer ones already know the answer to this one. My favorites are sci-fi, coming-of-age films, mystery/suspense, bio-pics, romantic comedies (surprisingly) and even though it's more of a sub-genre, dysfunctional suburban dramas (like The Ice Storm or American Beauty) People tend to think I'm a huge fan of horror but that's not completely true as I can usually only take it in small doses and find that the genre is full of too much junk to be ranked as a favorite of mine. I probably like analyzing those films more than actually watching them, which could be said of the superhero genre as well. That said, both have really grown on me since I've started doing this.

Least Favorite Genres?
Genres I'm less inclined to like are mob/gangster pictures, war/espionage films, musicals, fantasy films (with wizards, goblins, elves and such) and sports movies. That's not saying it's impossible for me to like any of those films or I intentionally avoid them, just that they have a much rougher road to travel to gain my favor. I find when reviewing it's better to honestly embrace my predisposed bias or personal preference and just work with it. We all have them. I like to think that I'm very fair and if a movie's good enough it should have no problem overcoming the odds. Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Karate Kid and more recently, but to lesser extent, The Hurt Locker, We Are Marshall and Across The Universe were all able to. I couldn't have been any less interested in seeing Atonement but was surprised just how much I liked it.

Which movie(s) did you most enjoy reviewing?
Southland Tales would really have to be up there. A perfect storm converged with that one. My favorite genre, a dream cast and an opportunity to passionately defend a movie I thought was unfairly maligned. It's rare when the experience of watching a film and reviewing it become one in the same but that's what happened there. I also enjoyed reviewing The Dark Knight probably more than I enjoyed watching it. I'm Not There was a blast to write on as well since it was a biopic (if you could even call it that) on a subject I was actually deeply interested in. Not to mention it was completely insane so it was even more up my alley. And even though it's a TV series, I loved writing about Veronica Mars. It's unusual that I dip into TV for a review so that I did for that (and all three seasons to boot) should give you an idea how much I enjoyed it. I'd put it up there in quality with the best in any medium, be it film or television. With all of these I felt as if the review was finished in my mind before I even touched the keyboard.

Which movie(s) did you hate reviewing?
The Good Shepherd While I did find it a chore to sit through, I didn't despise the movie and even gave it a near-miss score of two and a half stars. The real torture was when I had to sit down and write a review of a three hour movie I had nothing to say about. I stared at a blank screen for so long I thought my eyes would start bleeding.

Which movie disappointed you most?
As strange as this sounds, probably The Dark Knight. I do think it's more a testament to all the hype than the movie's actual quality, but the fact remains that it fell short of expectations, as out of control as they may have been. And it was still the best film of '08 and maybe one of the best of the decade so it's frightening to think how good it COULD HAVE BEEN.

How do you feel about star ratings?
I hate them. I wish I were confident enough in my own writing to abandon it and believe people would still read the reviews but I'm not. My concern is always that the number of stars will inform the review when it should always be the other way around. But as someone who reads a lot of reviews I have to admit most of the time I like seeing some kind of a quantitative assessment attached. But many reviewers don't use it, nor do they need them. It really all depends on personal preference I guess. There was only one case where I refused to assign one. The whole idea of it is damaging, but I can never bring myself to abandon it.

In retrospect, ever feel like you've given any movies the wrong star ratings?
When haven't I? Not to keep beating the same drum on 2008, but I felt I gave many, many movies released that year the wrong star rating. When this happens I usually have to force myself not to adjust it later by remembering:

a) The star rating MEANS nothing in the broad scheme of things.
b) It reflected my thoughts AT THE TIME.
c) It's the actual review that counts
d) It takes two viewings to really SEE a movie.

Usually when I do my year-end list all my thoughts get ironed out and the problem takes care of itself. The good news is that I never felt I gave something the WRONG REVIEW entirely. I can barely recall more than three instances I underrated a movie but can name dozens of times where I felt I overpraised one. I like to think the star rating problem keeps lessens over time because the more movies I watch the more sure I seem to become of my opinions.

How much does a theater experience effect your opinion of the film?
Greatly, as The Dark Knight proved. That was one of the worst theater experiences I've ever had where an unpleasant environment magnified that movie's weaknesses while hiding its strengths. Repeated DVD viewings have been much, much kinder to it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Australia was really a complete mess of a movie but the theater experience was so memorably bizarre and the crowd so insane that it probably made the movie play better than it actually was. It was fun watching their energy level slowly drain as the movie just kept going...and going...and going. I'm convinced those people are still in there right now watching it. I know I'm committing a film critic sin by saying this but I actually far prefer watching movies on DVD at home than in a theater. It's cheaper, more comfortable, I can go to the bathroom or get a snack without missing anything. There are just less distractions.

How long does a review take?
I've never actually timed it but I can tell you I never do it in one sit-in. I'm the kind of person who always has to be moving around and have difficulties staying in front of the computer too long. So I might write part of it and then go back to it later or the next day depending on my mood. Unfortunately most of it is written really late at night though so sleep is lost and I sometimes wake up the next morning having not recognized what I wrote (which might be a good thing).

What's your least favorite part of writing a review?
Recapping the plot...by far. It's a pain. I wish I could just skip it and get right to what I liked and didn't.

How much do you weigh blogs views in choosing what films or topics you choose to write about?
I look at them that's for sure. I do primarily write for me but if I come up with a piece that's just not connecting with readers at all and I put a lot into it I can pretty much guarantee you won't see anything like it again. The best (worst) example of this was when I did the "Fantasy Casting" pieces. I thought it was a great idea and loved doing it. But it was like a tree falling in the forest as far as its reception and blog views. One of the worst ever. So I can't justify doing it again.The same thing tends to happen when I review older films. Those do very poorly, but when they're are incorporated into a list of some sort it always does well. I tend not to solicit too much feedback on this issue because I find people to be understandably reluctant to tell me that an idea sucks. Blog views can't lie.

Which review of yours got the harshest response?
I remember everyone unanimously, and rather passionately, disagreed with my take on Death Sentence. I couldn't believe how worked up everyone got over it and was so thrilled that no one held back in letting me know it. Sometimes it can be boring when everyone agrees with you all the time. That's a movie that will have strong reactions either way but I just thought it was two hours of gratuitous violence masquerading as grief exploration with Kevin Bacon killing everyone in sight. And this coming from someone whose all-time favorite films include A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club.

Any movie(s) you think you may have gone too hard on?
Miami Vice, Superman Returns and Birth. Especially that last one. This rarely happens so it's a big compliment to those three that, despite what I considered to be their failings, they still stuck with me enough that I'd be open to going back and giving them another look.

Do you have a review or reviews you're most proud of?
This is going to sound awful but it would be tough to name something specifically. I might have a fleeting moment where I'm really proud of something I've written but then I'm quickly brought back down to Earth after I go to reread it and find about 50 things I didn't like about it. Then I might go and read other reviews and that just about kills it for me right there. Plus I'm usually so focused on the next review that I don't like to look back. But the best answer to this question is to look above at the ones I enjoyed reviewing the most. Those are the ones I feel best about.

What bad reviewing habits do you think you have or try to avoid?
Trying to say more in fewer words than with many. Whenever I edit a review it's always to take things out and never add, which is a good sign I guess. The key to good editing is to change enough so it's more readable but not so much that it changes the message. I try to stay away from using the same adjectives or phrases over and over again, not only in a single review, but throughout all of them. I also try to steer clear of comparing the movie I'm reviewing to other other ones unless it's completely relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Ever get writer's bl0ck?
No, never. Kidding. All the time. What I usually do is just leave the computer. If I'm not feeling it, I'm not feeling it. There's no sense just sitting there frustrated when most writing is done in your head when you're away from the keyboard anyway. When I'm stuck I do find it helpful to remind myself of Ebert's advice:

"Did you like the movie? Why or why not?"

It sounds so dumb and simple but you'd be surprised how well it works. Most of the time writers block stems from just thinking too hard or over-analyzing. I find that question helps with the problem.

Ever think of doing more with the site or more to get your reviews out there?
I have but I'm not exactly the most web savvy person in the world and am far more consumed with focusing on the actual work. Believe me I'm under no illusion that I'm anything other than a needle in a haystack online. That said, I should be doing much more in that area and plan to. Of course, I've said that before and haven't done anything.

How many movies do you see a week?
Usually only one or two. No more than your average, everyday moviegoer with the difference being I've written reviews on them. I think the max I've ever seen in a week was three or four, but that rarely happens. I only REALLY started getting into movies when I started doing this and am willing to bet a lot of my readers probably have me beat on classic film knowledge still feel like I'm learning as I go along.

What's your DVD collection look like?
Embarrassingly small. I never counted but it's barely two shelves worth. I think that's a testament to just how few movies hold up on repeated viewings or are worth owning for me. Most of the movies I have bought have been used and a lot of the time I resell or exchange them. As far as what I review, aside from theatrical releases, this whole time I've basically just been renting them for a dollar from a Redbox or DVD Xpress kiosk system in the supermarket. The amount of money I've saved on buying DVDs in the past few years is probably more than five times the salary of any paid reviewer.

Do you use NetFlix?
Not right now. About a year ago I tried it briefly and didn't like it. I found the wait for new releases to be unbearably long and by the time it came I practically lost interest in watching them. I also found updating and keeping track of movies in the queue to be a thankless task. I'm giving it another chance soon (probably by the time you read this) since the titles in the dollar machines are now pretty much exclusively Direct-to-DVD junk due to legal trouble with the studios who are losing money on it. There also tons of of older movie titles I want to see as well as seasons of TV series' I can't get because I lost HBO and Showtime. There's really no choice at this point.

Have a Blu-Ray Player?
Nope. I realize I must be coming off as the cheapest movie critic on Earth right now but I just don't see the point in investing in something that could disappear in a couple of years. I learned my lesson with laserdisc years ago and considering I don't purchase many DVDs it just isn't worth it for me when my player suits me just fine for my purposes. The only thing that really bothers me is that the Blu-Ray discs contain special features the regular DVDs don't. Knowing me I'll probably cave eventually but for right now I'm fine.

How long do you let a movie sit in your head before reviewing it?
It depends on the film. Obviously some require more time for thought and reflection than others. I usually write the first couple of paragraphs right after though, while it's still fresh in my mind. The other details take a little longer to come into focus and with some it can really take a while. You don't want to jump the gun, yet you can't wait so long that you don't care anymore.

What do you think it takes to review movies?
1. A genuine passion for movies
2. The ability to express that in writing
3. Being sure of your opinion, but admitting when you're not.
4. Having a knowledge of a wide variety of topics and reading and keeping up with what's going on in the world so you can incorporate that insight into the reviews (my weakest area but I'm improving).

Have any desire to write or direct?
I know no one's gonna believe me when I say this, but no. I did take a screenwriting course years ago and found I was more interested in analyzing the study films and talking about what goes into writing a good screenplay than actually writing one. When it came to sit down at the keyboard, I discovered I had no ear when it came to dialogue. I didn't enjoy the experience and wanted to just keep analyzing the study films instead. As far as directing, no way. The technical aspects that go into making a film doesn't play to my strengths and there are too many elements that could spiral out of control. And I can't stand not being in control. It looks like a big headache that could potentially kill me from stress. Of course this should be taken with a grain of salt since I've never tried it, but I can't envision that I ever would.

While I feel writing and directing are out of my grasp, I do think I'd make a better producer, casting director or agent than many of these studio executives being paid to tell us what we want. You may have noticed during my reviews I often pause and examine how a movie was (mis) marketed or what steps could have been taken in the production stages to make it better. But I'm certainly not "paying my dues" in an industry where I feel most of the decision makers are clueless or hold views that clash entirely with mine. I love movies and want to keep it that way.

How much does personal experience effect how you view a movie?
It's everything. I think we all see a different movie because of the experiences we bring into it. I recently re-watched a film for consideration on my decade-end list and it personally spoke to me like it never did before. It couldn't have carried the impact it did now even just a few years ago just because of where I was at in my life. Sounds silly, but it's totally true.

Would you ever judge someone by which movies they like or don't like (be honest)?
No. They're still just movies. Having said that, I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think a person's list of their all-time favorite films told me at least something about them. And if it didn't, it's likely not a list I'd be interested in reading.

Greatest director of all-time?
Kubrick. There's no other name I would mention as even coming close even though I know some would say Hitchcock, but he only worked in one genre. I don't think for a second he could do what Kubrick did whereas I have no doubt that Kubrick could not only step in and direct one of Hitch's films, but probably make it even more interesting. Spielberg is great, but I don't think he belongs in the discussion.

Favorite Director(s) working now?
No surprises here. My three favorites are David Fincher, Richard Kelly and Paul Thomas Anderson. Right now, they're making the types of movies I enjoy watching most.

Most overrated director?
Spike Lee. Never got with him at all.

Favorite Actors/Actresses
Too many to list but here are the big ones. As far as actors I'm a fan of Michael Douglas, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey Jr., Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ben Foster, Emile Hirsch, Sean Penn, DiCaprio, Bill Murray, Jeff Bridges, Brad Pitt, Ed Norton, Josh Brolin and Patrick Wilson. Surprisingly, also Tom Cruise, who I think has always been underrated as an acting talent. As far as actresses, you can sign me up anytime Jennifer Connelly, Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman (possibly my favorite), Naomi Watts, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Kristen Bell or Zooey Deschanel are in anything. Clooney and Jolie are two actors I was previously never a fan of but lately they've really been earning their stripes and I've come around.

Least Favorite Actors/Actresses?
Almost Famous notwithstanding, Kate Hudson has given one awful performance after another in some dreadful films. But I only complain about her so much because I know she's capable of better. Don't care for Dane Cooke or Jessica Alba as actors, but that almost seems too easy. I've completely given up on Kate Beckinsale who would be the blandest, most wooden actress working today if Jennifer Aniston weren't around. Everyone else would just fit into the "overrated" category for me. Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson have surprisingly little to show for themselves despite being surrounded by a ton of hype and I never understood all the praise for Johnny Depp, who hasn't proven to me yet he can effectively play anything other than misfits and freaks.

Actors/Actresses you're most disappointed in?
Hudson obviously tops the list, followed closely by Nicolas Cage. I'd say Sandra Bullock also but after The Blind Side I guess the joke's on me. She's probably busy rolling around in a giant pile of cash right now.

What famous classic or famous movies would people be surprised you haven't seen?
I still haven't made it all the way through Gone With the Wind (not a knock on the film, just time constraints always got in the way). Haven't seen the Godfather Parts II and III, although I hear I'm not missing much with that last one. Never saw Terminator 2: Judgment Day either, or the Harry Potter films and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, both of which I have very little interest in (see "least favorite genres"). I've also never seen any of the Bourne films.

Any movies you refuse to see?
The Blind Side. Just kidding (kind of). "Refuse" is a little strong but...the Twilight "saga." This is actually a much bigger insult than it seems because, despite preferring certain types of movies, I'm usually willing to see ANYTHING.

What trends in the movie industry today do you hate?
Every movie released these days being aimed at the tween demographic (see above). Inflated ticket prices. Double and triple dipping on DVD releases. Movies being advertised as something they're not [i.e. Slumdog Millionaire as a Bollywood Musical, (500) Days of Summer as a whimsical "date movie"]. Certain films being shoved down my throat by the media. Movies with political agendas. Only movies released in the last month of the year getting Academy Award consideration. That last one pisses me off the most. Besides being criminally unfair, I actually think that's the major reason no one bothers watching the Oscars.

Worst Oscar snub in history?
It's impossible to pick just one and this will seem completely random but for some reason two that really stick out for me are A Christmas Story (1984) and Back to the Future (1985) being overlooked for Best Picture nominations. If I could give any two "correction" Oscars out it would be to those two films which, over time, have proven just how worthy they are. There just so few pictures released that families can enjoy together through the decades regardless of age and also be effective as perfect mainstream entertainment. When I think of the template for the perfect nominee or winner I immediately get an image of those two movies in my head. The Academy has gotten it wrong many times, but that they snubbed those two make me sick to my stomach.

Do you read the novel before seeing the film?
No. Never. Shamefully, I don't read as much as I'd like in general. I really do feel guilty about that because I know it would make me a better writer but between watching and reviewing movies and other stuff I just don't have the time. But I don't like to read a novel before watching the movie it's based on (especially if it's something I know I'll be reviewing) because I find it taints the experience and don't want to turn into one of those people whining about how "the book was better." And usually, if I've seen the movie first and like it enough to read the novel, I tend not to because I felt the movie got the job done for me.

The Ten Best Films of 2007

I’m not among the many who believe 2007 was an “INCREDIBLE YEAR” for movies. Still, it was pretty damn good and a definite step up from the past couple of years (especially the dreadful 2005), I found the big problem though was that it filled with films that were brilliant technically but failed to make that extra connection. And those that did make that extra connection tended to fall just short technically. I actually think there’s a HUGE GAP between the first couple of films on my list and the rest. It’s always a blurry line between “BEST” and “FAVORITE” but I’ve always had a theory that once you get to the top of any list like this that line starts to fade.

When compiling what I felt were the best films of the year I look for movies that excite me as a fan AND a critic, which is more difficult than you might imagine. When I could only find one that was able to do both equally my top choice became crystal clear. I should want to go running down the streets screaming to the world how much I love my top film and be able re-watch it multiple times, discovering something new with each viewing. It should be able to stand the test of time, with me being unable to look back and ask, “What the hell was I thinking?” when I made the choice. There’s no foolproof guard against that other than going with your gut, yet it must work because somehow I’ve yet to make a selection in any past year that I’ve regretted later.

It’s funny the tricks that time plays on your perception of certain films. I was certain that movies from earlier in the year like Grindhouse and The Lookout would make the list. They didn’t. Going in I was 100 percent sure that The Mist, which I loved and actually re-watched in preparation to do this, had a spot locked up. It didn’t. I’m still not sure what happened there but it can't speak too well for the horror genre when the best executed horror movie in years can’t even crack my top 10. Looking back, of the two Westerns released this year, I can’t believe I actually thought at one time 3:10 To Yuma was a superior to The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford. Jesse James ended up staying with me long after the final credits rolled. Yuma did not. And what was I thinking giving 4 stars to Shoot Em’ Up? Talk about over-praising a film.

I guess it’s to the Academy’s credit that four out of the five Best Picture nominees made my list, but unfortunately the one that didn’t ended up winning. Oh well. If anyone had told me a year ago that a period costume drama, 2 (!) family films and vehicles starring George Clooney and Justin Timberlake would make my list I’d tell them they were crazy. As much as I tried to avoid it happening, a film I didn’t review made it, but given the sheer glut of movies released within a calendar year that possibility was almost inevitable. I also didn’t want to declare any ties, but that happened too. When I asked myself whether I could sleep the next night without both of them making it and the answer was “no” the decision became a no-brainer.

Only two out of the ten films ended up going the distance from very early in the year to hold on and make cut. Two of our greatest living directors, David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson, both contributed very strong efforts but neither was able grab the top spot. It was a strange year…at least for me. As I waited until I saw everything to do this it was my secret hope that my list wouldn’t look exactly like everyone else’s, but if it did I’d be fine with it so long as the right choices were made. For the most part it does look like everyone else’s, with one very glaring exception. The list counts down from the bottom up and following it is an "honorable mention" category. Enjoy.

10. (TIE) Bridge To Terabithia (Director- Gabor Csupo)
I saw this one very early in the year and regrettably didn’t block out the time in advance to review it. That I didn’t should tell you how bias I am against most “family” films and that I put it on here should let you know how special I think it is. The most mismarketed film of 2007 was pitched to audiences as a Chronicles of Narnia rip-off with fancy CGI and wondrous creatures. That's such a small part of this. In truth, it’s a touching story of friendship and loss that echoes My Girl and Little Manhattan with a touch of Pan’s Labyrinth, except maybe better than all those. Had they advertised it as it was, however, it’s possible no one would have gone to see it, which would have been beyond a shame.

In conveying the importance of tolerance, creativity, hard work, loyalty and imagination without ever once piling on the clichés or preaching, it features two of the best children’s performances I’ve ever seen from Josh Hutcherson and AnnaSophia Robb. The smaller adult roles are treated with just as much care as Robert Patrick is for once in his career given an unlikable character to play with real depth and it’s the rare film that actually seems to know the gift it’s been given with the presence of Zooey Deschanel and doesn’t squander it.

Those reasons above would be enough for it to make this list even if everything else in the picture were garbage, but it’s far from it. It could have coasted along, smiling and skipping its way to the finish line ignoring Kathleen Paterson’s 1977 Newberry Award winning source material and still have been a very good film. But credit Disney and Walden Media for realizing that by staying true to the absolutely horrifying third act there was a chance to do something GREATER. At first I was angry at the dark twist the story took, but it wore off quickly when I saw the intelligence and dignity with which Csupo and screenwriter David Paterson (the author’s son, whose childhood experience influenced the novel) handled it. Assuming they’re of the appropriate age (and not being a parent I wouldn’t dare speculate on what that is) I’m willing to bet children will leave this picture feeling more inspired than traumatized. I’d even go so far as to say it could invoke a positive change in their lives.

I’ve yet to meet anyone of any age or gender who saw it and wasn’t fighting back the tears as it reached its conclusion. Only one other movie moved me more this year and that one’s near the top of this list. A great film is a great film regardless of whether it’s considered a “kid’s movie.” If you ask me, adults probably have more to learn from it since kids can often be smarter than we give them credit for. There’s so much more to talk about but I can’t at the risk of giving too much away. Everyone underestimated the difficulty of what this movie had to pull off. It’s the best family film in decades and and recalls an era when seeing the Disney logo on a project actually meant something.

10. (TIE) Ratatouille (Director-Brad Bird)
Is there any movie this year (other than Juno) that had a worse premise on paper? A rat travels to Paris to become a gourmet chef. The idea of rats in the kitchen isn’t exactly appetizing nor is it likely to have small kids begging their parents to see a film tackling the subject. I saw this when it was first released in theaters and an interesting thing happened. The adults were laughing and transfixed by what was happening on screen while most of the children were restless and bored. Despite the film being rated “G” a lot of the humor is for adults and I think some of it may have flown over young audience’s heads. But like the other Disney film that shares its spot on this list, assuming they’re the right age, they’ll love it and find a lot to extract from its message of tolerance and cooperation without being hit over the head with it.

It’s a huge step up to the highest level for director Brad Bird (who previously helmed The Incredibles and the criminally underrated The Iron Giant) and a landmark release for Pixar. You’ve never seen animation look this beautiful and crisp and if you visited Paris yourself I’m guessing it probably wouldn’t look half as good as it does here. It boasts peerless voice work from Patton Oswalt, Ian Holm and Peter O’ Toole and is also one of the few animated films to deservedly earn a Best Original Screenplay Oscar nomination. There’s a speech toward the end of the film (delivered by O’Toole’s evil food critic) that’s among the best dialogue written for any film this year, animated or otherwise. It was so deep and multi-faceted it’s almost impossible to believe an animated character is delivering it.

At the beginning of the film we’re told that “Anyone Can Cook” and Bird takes that relatively simple notion and expands it to mean so much more than that and in the process give us a family classic that can be revisited time and time again. There were a lot of technical achievements in film this year and this could be grouped among them but where it breaks from the pack is in taking that extra step to reach out and do more. One of the year’s most magical filmgoing experiences.

9. The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (Director-Andrew Dominick)

“Yes, the title's too long. And yes, so is the film. And it isn't even the best Western released in 2007.”

That ridiculous statement was written by none other than myself when I reviewed The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford back in February. There was a lot of shifting and feeling out as to what deserves to make this list and what doesn’t, especially at the bottom. It was amazing how films I hadn’t previously given the time of day to held up really well and those I loved months aged poorly on second viewing. A “so what” feeling even accompanied many of them I re-watched. I still found them somewhat great, but so what? They were just great and entertaining. There was nothing else there and I couldn’t justify including them.

There’s no “so what” with this. After watching Jesse James again I now more fully understand my initial, less than stellar impression of the film and why I reacted the way I did. It isn’t the kind of movie that provides instant gratification and on a first viewing all you’re doing is concentrating on how long and slow it is. It isn’t “knock your socks off” action/adventure Western like 3:10 To Yuma. But when Yuma ends, it’s over. This film never ends as certain scenes constantly play over again in your mind . It just sits there ingrained in your consciousness just waiting for the opportunity to be viewed again. And when it is a different result emerges. It isn’t too long or too slow. You realize there’s simply no other way for a story like this to be told effectively. It engulfs you in its dream-like atmosphere.

The haunting narration and cinematographer Roger Deakins’ unforgettable visual rendering of the Old West (which should have won the Oscar) make this less a film than a work of art, a novel captured on film. It’s a no-brainer that this is the most beautifully shot film of the year so let me go a step further and say it’s probably the best shot Western ever made. And with apologies to screenwriting guru Robert McKee, isn’t it about time we finally admit that voice-over narration (employed by no less than three other films on this list) can, if executed well, enhance a film tremendously?

Maybe I approached it all wrong in assuming that the film was actually about James and the wussy man-child Ford (brought to wimpy, pathetic life perfectly in an Oscar nominated performance by Casey Affleck) who worships him. It’s less about the legend and more about us, our celebrity obsessed culture. That should make the casting of Brad Pitt as James a stunt but the actor transcends that notion by delivering what’s hands down the best performance of his career. Rarely has an actor manipulated his own image to such successful effect as Pitt does here.

You’re on pins and needles and in a constant state of discomfort wondering what the unpredictable, wildly inconsistent Jesse James will do next. He doesn’t even know what he’ll do next. And when he’s gone we’re forced to reevaluate everything we initially thought of him and the film itself. In the final half hour when we expect the dust to be settling and the film to start crawling, Dominick makes it come alive in the most dazzling way, reversing our expectations and proving just how important it is to finish strong. 2007 was truly the year of the throwback film but classifying it as just that denies how timely (and timeless) it really is. It may not be for everyone, but try naming 10 better films released in the past year.

8. Juno (Director- Jason Reitman)
Rather than talk about the actual film (since we all know the last thing it needs is more exposure) I’ll use this space to go on a rant instead. There was a time not too long ago when a movie like Juno could have actually meant something. Expectations would have been lowered and it would have been worth rooting for. Unfortunately, Fox Searchlight and the media took it upon themselves to shove it so far down our throats that we were choking. The victim of an epidemic that’s reached alarming proportions in recent years: The over-aggressive Oscar campaign. Normally that wouldn’t bother me but it does here because I actually thought the movie was excellent.

If I had one wish though it would be that screenwriter Diablo Cody held back a little in the first 10 pages of the script with all the hipster dialogue (the only minor flaw in an otherwise superb script) so the haters wouldn’t have all that ammunition. Oh, by the way, did you hear that she used to be a stripper? Argue all you want about the quality of her script, but you can’t tell me Jason Reitman and his cast didn’t handle it as well as humanly possible and mine everything they could from it.

I think everyone knew going in Ellen Page would be perfect (and she was), but what about Jason Bateman? Am I crazy or would we have had a far worse movie if another actor were playing that part? Juno is neither as good or as bad as everyone has said it is and at its worst it’s still better than many of the films released in 2007 (what that says about the year is open for interpretation). And whatever you think of it I’m sure we can all universally agree that between the hype, the backlash to the hype and the backlash to the backlash to the hype, the whole thing was a nightmare that hopefully will never be repeated again.

And here’s something you may not have heard about Juno and why I think it works. Reitman and Cody took the most thankless topic imaginable (teen pregnancy) and did something unique and memorable with it. No other film on this list had more problematic material to work with and accomplished so much with it. We’re all about to find out just how talented Reitman, Cody and Page really are because their careers may have been permanently damaged by all the nonsense surrounding this film. It looks like they (and us) have a huge challenge ahead in recovering from all this chronic overexposure.

7. Atonement (Director- Joe Wright)
Hell has officially frozen over. A period piece starring Keira Knightley is on my list of the year’s best. There wasn’t a movie in existence this year I had LESS interest in seeing than this one, but thank God I did. Another film that plays with perceptions. You think it’s going somewhere but then takes a detour into entirely unexpected territory giving the film an added emotional kick. That problem I mentioned about certain films being brilliant technically but missing that extra special something? Not an issue here. Besides being a technical marvel (witness the now infamous 5-minute long Dunkirk tracking shot) it contains a twist ending that would make M. Night Shyamalan turn green with envy.

Nearly all of its emotional power is contained in the final minutes with a sucker punch to the gut that reveals the story was far more powerful than we originally suspected. I prepared myself for a sappy romance, but instead was handed a deep meditation on the power of storytelling that’s impact only increases in repeated viewings. The performances from James McAvoy, Knightley and Oscar-nominated Saoirse Ronan are all flawless, but I though the best one came from the criminally overlooked Romola Garai, who carries the most difficult part of the picture.

I never fully realized until viewing Atonement that, as much as I made fun of them in the past, how important it is to have big sweeping epics during Awards season (like 1996's The English Patient), and how much I’ve missed them. They used to be nominated all the time but it seems lately the Academy has been on this kick of trying to become edgy and cool by going with offbeat, smaller films. The result of which has been the unfortunate near-extinction of nominated movies like this, which make the little movies actually mean more. Without them smaller, supposedly “underdog” films (like you know what) can pick up too much steam and become overrated. That’s why this, despite earning a Best Picture nod, was actually UNDERRATED, if that makes sense at all.

6. Michael Clayton (Director-Tony Gilroy)
Another screw-up on my part. I first found Bourne trilogy screenwriter Tony Gilroy’s directorial debut barely recommendable and spent most of that review mocking star George Clooney and making fun of legal thrillers. While that was fun at the time I happened to see it again (and again after that) and realized something. It isn’t a legal thriller at all. It’s a gripping character study…and it’s perfect. Each time I watch it it just gets better. The movie Michael Clayton can best be described as the girl you meet at the party who doesn’t impress you all that much at first, but then the more time you spend with her, the more you start to discover things about her you really like. I changed my rating for this movie twice and looked like a major tool as a result of it. Except, those changes were justified. I was wrong.

Gilroy’s script is completely airtight, an unheard of achievement in the legal drama genre. There wasn’t a single event that occurred in this script was unbelievable or even stretched credibility in the slightest, which is miraculous given the plot. It starts with the most memorable dialogue-free scene of the year and then returns much later in the film. How we get back to it is a wild trip and the scene means that much more that second time.

Like Jesse James, it's a throwback, but this time to the intelligent, character-driven thrillers of the '70's like The Parallax View and The Conversation and at its center is work from Clooney that qualifies as both a great movie star and great acting performance. If Daniel Day-Lewis wasn’t in the race he would have won and deserved it. The supporting turns from Tom Wilkinson and Oscar winner Tilda Swinton are just as good if not better. The film also features one of the most emotionless, workman-like murders I’ve seen depicted on screen in a long time as well as a climax that will have you jumping out of your seat, pulse racing and cheering.

5. Zodiac (Director- David Fincher)
A David Fincher movie coming in at number 5 almost qualifies as an off year for him. Think about that for second. Even though Zodiac isn’t his best career effort he still made the top 5 with ease. That’s scary. I’d rank this way above Seven and (especially) Panic Room but below The Game and Fight Club. It could almost be considered the anti-Juno of 2007 because I’m convinced had it been released in December and not the Oscar dead zone of March it would have earned nominations for Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, Adapted Screenplay and Supporting Actor (Robert Downey Jr.) Why it wasn’t we’ll never know but its release date does nothing to dilute the power of Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt’s gripping cinematic adaptation of Robert Graysmith’s non-fiction books Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked.

Part police procedural and part character study it manages to keep us at a terrifying arms length from the killer while at the same time bringing us closer to him than we’ve ever been before for nearly 3 gripping hours. Downey is typically amazing as the troubled San Francisco Chronicle reporter who befriends the paper's curious and later obsessively compulsive cartoonist Graysmith (played with reluctant precision by Jake Gyllenhaal).

It’s All The President’s Men for a new generation as Fincher and his cinematographer Harris Savides brilliantly realize late 70’s San Francisco at the height of the Zodiac killing spree. Years pass but we feel his legacy grow along with Graysmith’s obsession. Character actor John Caroll Lynch as Arthur Leigh Allen (the man who may or may not be the killer) in just one heart stopping interrogation scene, brings to frightening life our worst fears of what he may be. Credit him and Fincher for exceeding those wildest expectations. One of the most underrated and overlooked films of 2007.

4. There Will Be Blood (Director-Paul Thomas Anderson)
If I were going by which film “technically” was the most impressive of the year this would win hands down. The mitigating factors necessary for this to be considered the absolute best may not be present but everything else is. Anderson is a filmmaker known for taking huge risks but he may have taken his biggest risk yet by reversing all of our expectations in making a period epic and playing it mostly straight. Looking at his other previous work it would appear he’d be way over his head and out of his comfort zone here but you’d never know it watching the film.

Almost Kubrikian in its execution, Anderson uses Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil! as his basis to tell the story of prospector Daniel Plainview whose greed during the turn-of-the-century oil boom destroys everything and everyone around him. Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis is every bit as incredible as you heard he was and of all the Best Picture nominees this year, this is the one that should have won, not No Country For Old Men. You could mention it alongside such classics as Lawrence of Arabia and not be too far off the mark. It really is that good. Of the films on this list, this wins as most likely to enter the American Film Institute's Top 100.

Between Robert Elswit’s sweeping cinematography, Johnny Greenwood’s loud, pulsating score and a final 20 minutes that’s just about the darkest and most depressing thing you could ever imagine seeing on screen, this is a new classic. The American dream is built up, then dragged straight to hell kicking and screaming. Despite what the media tells you, it’s not a film about just milkshakes and catchphrases. It will never go down as my favorite P.T. Anderson picture (see Boogie Nights for that), but it’s probably the one I have the most respect for.

3. I’m Not There (Director-Todd Haynes)
Bob Dylan finally has a movie as bizarre, inaccessible and polarizing as he is. And for fans of his this is a dream come true. Haynes uses six different actors playing seven different versions of the legend at various stages of his career and life. Each one brings something different and special with none of them ruining the enigmatic aura that’s always surrounded him. A big fuss has been made about Cate Blanchett’s Oscar nominated turn as the egotistical jerk Bob Dylan from the Blonde on Blonde era we’re all so familiar with. There’s no doubt it’s impressive and dead-on in its accuracy, but I was more interested in the others. Like Christian Bale’s bizarre and compelling take on Dylan’s religious conversion, Richard Gere’s underrated interpretation of his reclusive later years, and most unsettling of all, Heath Ledger’s troubled movie star with the rocky marriage.

You could ask a dozen different people and probably get a dozen different answers as to what it all means or what it says about Dylan, or if it really even says anything at all. There are so many different things going on at once it’s impossible not to be transfixed (even if you hate it) and while everyone will have certain sections of the film and performances they favor over others, Haynes never stays with one long enough that you’d get antsy. With certain sections filmed in good old black and white it’s also one of the most interestingly shot movies of the year and the only one other than my number one pick that I feel showed me something I've never seen before.

2. Into The Wild (Director- Sean Penn)
When most films reach their conclusion I’m left thinking about the direction, the performances, or maybe the script. Not here. When Into The Wild ended all I was thinking about was THE MEANING OF LIFE. That’s how deep it cuts. In telling the story of Christopher McCandliss, who abandoned his family and worldly possessions to head off into the Alaskan wilderness, many accused Sean Penn of glorifying the journey. Well…what was he supposed to do? Penn told this story exactly how it should have been and he doesn’t, despite popular opinion, ignore the fact that this kid’s actions were misguided and selfish. We’re not supposed to necessarily like him, just come to some kind of understanding why he felt compelled to take the actions he did. Emile Hirsch, quite simply, gives the performance of his life while Eddie Vedder’s music plays just as an important role in telling the story as any line of dialogue in the script.

I’m glad I’m not a voting member of the Academy because it would have been impossible for me to put objectivity aside and cast a vote for Javier Bardem as Best Supporting Actor. With not much more than 10 minutes of screen time acting legend Hal Holbrook gives one of the most heartbreaking supporting turns in years as the aging retiree forever changed by McCandliss' journey. Everyone knows how this one ends, but that doesn’t make it go down any easier. Quite possibly Sean Penn's most important and unselfish contribution to cinema, either as an actor or director.

I should point out that the reason this movie is not in the number one position has nothing to do with any shortcomings on its part. It’s flawless and actually better than many of the films I’ve picked as my top choice in previous years. I even tried this out in the top spot but it just didn't work. And believe me I really, really tried. It just didn’t FEEL RIGHT. I knew what film was the best of 2007...

1. Southland Tales (Director- Richard Kelly)
Maybe the most ambitious and self-indulgent brilliant mess of a movie I've ever seen. With the pressure to follow-up his 2001 cult classic Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly was given (you could argue unjustifiably) the budget and free rein to do whatever he wanted for his sophomore effort. And THIS was his response. If you think about it, that’s pretty funny. When I first heard about this film a couple of years ago and found out who was behind it and the actors attached to star, I couldn’t wait. That enthusiasm started to diminish when the release date started to constantly be pushed back and word leaked of disastrous early screenings (like the infamous one at Cannes). If you had told me a year ago that this film would be sitting at the top of this mountain I would have jumped through the roof, but I started having serious doubts, not only that it could be as good as I hoped, but that it could be any good at all. I also know whenever a filmmaker tackles a project with this ambitious the potential for disaster is enormous. But it ended up not only being as great as I wished it could be, but a million times better than that.

In my review of this a couple of months ago I compared it to Dr. Strangelove and Brazil and that wasn’t hyperbole. I’d put it right up there with those, which is appropriate considering both weren’t received well at all by most critics and audiences upon their release. They later came to be appreciated as cult classics and after that took their place as being genuinely respected as important, groundbreaking films. All I can do is just wait and cross my fingers but if it doesn’t pan out that way it’s okay. The public’s perception can do nothing to diminish my love for this film. There are a lot of fantastic movies on this list but all of them (with the exception of maybe number 3) are great in ways that could be duplicated in the future. This can’t. Even those who think the film failed (and I know there are many) would admit it did so more interestingly than many others succeeded in 2007 and could only have been made by a true visionary.

Every time I watch it (four times and counting by the way) I notice details I never saw before and the second it ends I have this burning desire to just start over and see it again. I think that’s because the story twists in so many different directions that you could come at it from any angle you choose. If you wanted to just watch it as a slapstick comedy you could. It works equally as well as an action/adventure film. You can shut your brain off and choose to not even bother following the plot (which does eventually reveal itself as a brilliant construction that holds together perfectly) or you can attempt to put the pieces together as you go along. Unfortunately, most chose to view it the one way they probably shouldn’t: Literally. As if it were trying to make some deep, important thematic point. IT’S A SATIRE. It knew how to have fun, which is something too many of the year’s films completely forgot how to do.

In creating an alternate 2008 Richard Kelly came closer to depicting the world we live in now than any of the serious dramas released in 2007. It actually comes way closer than people are ever likely to admit and is only cinematic effort this year to incorporate politics and the Iraq War into its story successfully. It can also boasts an awesome score from Moby, mind-boggling visuals and one of the most memorable musical numbers ever committed to celluloid. In short, this is one for the time capsule.

It would be tough for me to claim that it’s filled with our generation’s greatest actors, but I can argue they’re among our most entertaining celebrities and all deliver terrific performances, pushed and challenged like they’ve never been before in roles no one imagined they could play. Kelly was smart enough to know a film this insane warranted casting choices that were equally crazy. Just get a load of this:

-Dwayne Johnson as an amnesiac movie star with ties to the Republican party.

-Mandy Moore as his bitchy, slutty wife

-Sarah Michelle Gellar as a porn star and aspiring reality talk show host

-Justin Timberlake as a wounded Iraq war veteran

-Seann William Scott as kidnapped twins

-Jon Lovitz as a psychotic cop

-Midgets (in S.W.A.T uniforms!)

Special mention should be made of Johnson, Gellar and Scott who deliver performances way beyond what anyone thought they were capable of. Especially Johnson, who I’ll never refer to as “The Rock” again after witnessing what he pulls off here. Most filmmakers would consider themselves lucky if they accidentally made one cult classic in their career. Kelly wrote and directed two…intentionally! As a human drama Darko wins, but as a work of science fiction it’s got nothing on this. I feel with Southland Tales Kelly made the kind of film I always secretly wanted to see, whether I was consciously aware of it or not. And I suspect it's infuriated so many because it challenges the perceptions of what we feel movies are capable of and what they can do. It's a misunderstood masterpiece.

Honorable Mention (in no particular order):
The Lookout (Scott Frank)
The Mist (Frank Darabont)
Superbad (Greg Motttola)
Grindhouse (Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez)
No Country For Old Men (Joel and Ethan Coen)
Gone Baby Gone (Ben Affleck)
American Gangster (Ridley Scott)
3:10 To Yuma (James Mangold)
Margot At The Wedding (Noah Baumbach)
Rescue Dawn (Werner Herzog)
Live Free Or Die Hard (Len Wiseman)
Alpha Dog (Nick Cassavettes)

Oscar Predictions and Analysis

I'm usually pretty good at these Oscar predictions or at least I thought I was until last year when I missed nearly everything (including Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor). That was my first full year of reviewing films so maybe I was a little too close to the situation and overanalyzed. This year I've taken a step back and I'm just going with my instinct, which has served me moderately well in the past. Keep in mind these are who I THINK will win not necessarily who I WANT to win, since I haven't yet seen all the nominated films. I have seen some though and will chime in with an opinion when I can.

It should be said that as negative as I get sometimes and how I bitch and complain about the Academy at least they (unlike something like the Grammys) do honor works of genuine quality and get more people to see what could have been overlooked films. I was surprised these past two weeks when I finally got to see some of the nominated films and performances that they really were Oscar-worthy. So despite my relatively minor complaints on certain exclusions I'm really looking forward to tomorrow's show. I should be back with my thoughts on the show on Monday.

Best Actor
George Clooney, "Michael Clayton"
Daniel Day-Lewis, "There Will Be Blood"
Johnny Depp, "Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street"
Tommy Lee Jones, "In the Valley of Elah"
Viggo Mortensen, "Eastern Promises"

Who's Gonna Win? Daniel Day-Lewis
Analysis:
It's a miracle Tommy Lee Jones was even nominated for a movie few people saw and even fewer liked. I heard he was outstanding in it so good for him. Depp has an Oscar coming his way eventually but not this year. He could have won if you know who wasn't in the running. Mortensen deserves to be here but Eastern Promises wasn't enthusiastically received enough and isn't in the forefront of Oscar voters' minds. This leaves us with Clooney and Lewis. It just isn't Clooney's time yet, but if there's a dark horse in the race it's him since he's picking up incredible speed in the final leg and the Academy loves him. It would be JUST LIKE THEM to do something as ridiculous as giving it to Clooney. But Lewis taking is about as close to a lock as you can get.

Best Supporting Actor
Casey Affleck, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"
Javier Bardem, "No Country for Old Men"
Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Charlie Wilson's War"
Hal Holbrook, "Into the Wild"
Tom Wilkinson, "Michael Clayton"

Who's gonna win? Javier Bardem
Analysis:
THIS IS A LOCK and you can fill out your ballot with a permanent magic marker. No one else in this category even has a chance against Bardem who has the awards momentum of a runaway train at this point for his sadistic turn in No Country For Old Men. Affleck's turn is too subdued and nuanced for the Academy. And how many could actually sit through the film? Holbrook has the best chance here for an upset just out of sentimentality but it won't happen. Wilkinson has the unfortunate luck of giving this performance the same year as Bardem's. It shows how much the Academy loves Hoffman that he was even nominated for Charlie Wilson's War but just about everyone in the Kodak Theater has a better chance of taking home gold on Oscar night than he does.

Best Actress
Cate Blanchett, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age"
Julie Christie, "Away from Her"
Marion Cotillard, "La Vie en Rose"
Laura Linney, "The Savages"
Ellen Page, "Juno"

Who's Gonna Win? Julie Christie
Analysis:
Marion…who? In what? I'm sure it's a great performance but I doubt enough voters saw it. Laura Linney is one of the very best actresses working today but The Savages made a meager showing at the box office and didn't exactly clean up during awards season. Blanchett is taking home gold but not in this category. That she was nominated for such a terribly reviewed film (a sequel no less!) proves one thing…that she's Cate Blanchett. This race is actually VERY close between Page and Christie. Page should have already won an Oscar last year for her incredible performance in Hard Candy, but Academy sentiment rests with Julie Christie for her emotional portrayal of an Alzheimer's sufferer in Away From Her. With Page I expect voters to fall back on their silly reasoning that she's "YOUNG AND STILL HAS PLENTY OF TIME." We see how well that worked out for Peter O' Toole. Let's hope the only time we see her at the podium isn't accepting an honorary Oscar when she's 80. But if Juno doesn't win Best Picture voters may want to reward its star and the temptation of the precocious Page giving an acceptance speech may be too much for them to resist. I'm marking down Julie Christie, but using a pencil.

Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett, "I'm Not There"
Ruby Dee, "American Gangster"
Saoirse Ronan, "Atonement"
Amy Ryan, "Gone Baby Gone"
Tilda Swinton, "Michael Clayton"

Who's Gonna Win? Cate Blanchett
Analysis:
Ruby Dee was in American Gangster for 30 seconds. That nomination is a joke. The term "It's a thrill just to be nominated" really does apply to Atonement's Saoirse Ronan. Amy Ryan has a chance in a category famous for upsets but I don't think voters will grasp just how good that performance was in one viewing. And who's to say they even saw any of these films once, much less twice? Tilda Swinton has a very good chance here, but the Academy is in love with Blanchett. She could just stand there and read the phone book and they'd give her an Oscar. It's hard to take this win seriously if it happens though because you know even if she just merely mimicked Dylan poorly (which I heard she didn't) the Academy would still fall all over themselves praising her brilliance.

Best Director:
Julian Schnabel, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
Jason Reitman, "Juno"
Tony Gilroy, "Michael Clayton"
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "No Country for Old Men"
Paul Thomas Anderson, "There Will Be Blood"

Who's Gonna Win: Joel and Ethan Coen
Analysis:
As fun as it is to say Julian Schnabel's last name out loud there's no way he'll be announced as the winner since his film isn't nominated for Best Picture. Most are surprised Reitman was nominated and probably even more so with Gilroy. With Anderson the Academy is probably thinking (or not thinking) once again that he's "YOUNG AND STILL HAS PLENTY OF TIME." The Best Director and Picture winners usually but not always match so if the Coens somehow lose in this category it could be open season for Best Picture. That's something to look out for during the show.

Best Picture
"Atonement"
"Juno"
"Michael Clayton"
"No Country for Old Men"
"There Will Be Blood"

What Will Win? No Country For Old Men
Analysis:
Atonement's director, Joe Wright wasn't even nominated so that's out. As for Michael Clayton, when was the last time a legal thriller won Best Picture? I've yet to see it but everyone keeps telling There Will Be Blood is pretty much one of the best motion pictures they've seen in their lifetime. You have to wonder, then, if years later its defeat in this category at the hands of No Country For Old Men will be viewed as one of the great Oscar injustices. Juno benefits from being the lightest and most accessible film here and if voters are in an uplifting mood there could be an upset. Not likely though since backlash against the film has reached a fever pitch lately. No Country takes it.

Best Original Screenplay
Diablo Cody, "Juno"
Nancy Oliver, "Lars and the Real Girl"
Tony Gilroy, "Michael Clayton"
Brad Bird, "Ratatouille"
Tamara Jenkins, "The Savages"

Who's Gonna Win? Diablo Cody
Analysis:
When I reviewed Ratatouille I said I really hoped it gets an original screenplay nomination. Shockingly it did so thank you Academy. An animated film would never win in this category though. Lars and the Real Girl and The Savages have underperformed and are under the radar. Tony Gilroy's workmanlike script for Michael Clayton has the second best chance, but this is the one sure bet for Juno. If her interviews are any indication Cody is the leading candidate to give the most entertaining acceptance speech of the night. Everyone should be prepared to wake up to a very angry internet Monday morning.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Christopher Hampton, "Atonement"
Sarah Polley, "Away From Her"
Ronald Harwood, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, "No Country For Old Men"
Paul Thomas Anderson, "There Will Be Blood"

Who's Gonna Win? Joel and Ethan Coen
Analysis:
Some impressive literary adaptations here but handicapping the winner is easy if you just go in descending order as far as their chances for also winning Best Picture, for which Away From Her and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly aren't even nominated. Their screenplays therefore can't compete against the three heavy-hitters. The Coen Brothers' adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's crackling novel is the frontrunner but PTA's There Will Be Blood isn't far behind. If Anderson takes this No Country has to watch its back for the rest of the night. Let me say though that even though the film was shut out of every single category I can't believe the Academy didn't AT LEAST nominate James Vanderbilt's script for Zodiac. I can kind of come to terms with it being overlooked in huge categories because it was a packed year but that they couldn't just throw it a bone here or in the cinematography category for Harris Savides' incredible work is an outrage.

The Other Categories:
Best Animated Film: "Ratatouille"
Best Art direction: "Atonement"
Best Cinematography: "No Country For Old Men"
Best Costume Design: "Sweeney Todd"
Best Documentary Feature: "No End In Sight"
Best Documentary Short Subject: "Sari's Mother"
Best Film Editing: "No Country For Old Men"
Best Foreign Language Film: "The Counterfeiters"
Best Makeup: "La Vie En Rose"
Best Original Score: "Atonement"
Best Original Song: "Falling Slowly" ("Once")
Best Animated Short Film: "I Met The Walrus"
Best Live Action Short Film: "The Mozart of Pickpockets"
Best Sound Editing: "No Country For Old Men"
Best Sound Mixing: "No Country For Old Men"
Best Visual Effects: "Transformers

Juno

Director: Jason Reitman
Starring: Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Allison Janey, J.K. Simmons, Olivia Thirlby
Running Time: 91 minutes
Rating: R

***1/2 (out of ****)

I see a lot of movies. So many in fact that it’s virtually impossible to review all of them. Every once in a while I’ll have to skip writing about a couple which usually occurs with little damage done and no looking back. Occasionally though, films I didn’t have time to review have a way of rearing their heads later and making me second guess whether I made the right call. Two of those lesser-seen films were Jason Reitman’s 2005 directorial debut Thank You For Smoking and 2006's jolting drama Hard Candy. I thought the first was a clever, biting film that I all but forgot about five minutes after it ended. I can’t say the same for Hard Candy, a certifiable masterpiece that featured an unforgettable powerhouse performance from Ellen Page as a disturbed young girl who entraps a pedophile that should have earned her an Academy Award.

Little did I know at the time that the director of one of those films and the star of the other would team up for Juno, one of the most critically acclaimed and over-hyped movies of 2007. Nor did I know that I wouldn’t be able to turn on the television without hearing their names or the personal story of the film’s screenwriter, Diablo Cody. Logging into any web site these past couple of months without seeing that ubiquitous orange stripe and the title character’s baby bump became impossible, with the media saturation of Juno reaching unrelenting heights. If everyone’s rooting for the underdog, can it really even be considered the underdog? I do wish I had gotten in on the ground level and saw it months ago because I don’t think I fully realized just how sick I was of hearing about the film until I actually entered the theater to watch it and the opening credits rolled. I asked myself why I was there and the movie answered me, erasing all my doubts for the next hour and a half.

Hype or not, any film lives or dies by its own merits and while Juno isn’t completely perfect, it’s pretty damn close and supercedes in what it’s trying to do. It takes the thankless topic of pregnancy, which was already butchered in two brain-dead films this past year, and invests it with warmth and intelligence, a small miracle considering how meager the premise is on paper. Looking beyond the quirky and sometimes unconventionally ridiculous dialogue it’s a movie that gets the little details of real life just right and features some of the best supporting performances of the year. But make no mistake about it the movie belongs to Ellen Page for her Oscar nominated turn as a pregnant teenager who the movie doesn’t ask us to necessarily like or even tolerate, but just understand. That’s an important distinction many of the film’s growing detractors have failed to recognize. But by the end of the movie Page’s performance gives us little choice but to like her, whether we want to or not. And believe me, I went in dead set against it.

After a pretty cool opening credit sequence the film has an off-putting start with quasi-hipster dialogue being sprayed all over the place that’s tough to make heads or tails of. So much so that it doesn’t even sound like the characters are speaking the English language and it takes a good ten minutes to adjust to their manner of speech because at first it sounds unlike anything you’ve heard before, either in life or in a movie. I’m suspecting that’s a major reason why Cody’s script has been attracting so much positive and negative attention, even though that really shouldn’t be what’s primarily focused on (despite how endlessly quotable and hilarious most of the quirky dialogue is). Most of these zingers are delivered by wise-cracking 16-year-old Juno MacGuff (Page) who’s gotten herself into a little bit of a “pickle,” as it’s referred to throughout the film, after sleeping with her best friend, the shy and nerdy school track team member Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera).

A few EPT tests later she discovers she’s pregnant and at the urging of her best friend Leah (a scene-stealing Olivia Thirlby) comes clean to her maintenance man dad (J.K. Simmons) and dog-loving step-mom (Allison Janey). They’re reaction to the news is surprising and not at all what I expected and I think the reason why is because they actually reacted how real parents would. The scene is both hysterical and touching, as well as the first true sign that underneath all that showy verbiage is a story with genuine substance. A lot of credit can also go to Simmons and Janey who play their roles with pitch-perfect precision. They seem real, which is high praise considering most movie parents seem like overprotective cartoons.

After a briefly flirting with the idea of abortion and a scary clinic visit, Juno decides she’s going to give the baby up for adoption. The lucky couple (found through a PennySaver ad) is Mark and Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner), a pair of rich yuppies who look like they just stepped out of Town and Country magazine. Mark is a commercial jingle composer who dreams of rock stardom and seems more interested in hanging around the house watching low budget horror movies than being a dad. The uptight Vanessa’s whole world literally revolves around adopting a child. You could categorize them as stereotypes, but really, aren’t all yuppies stereotypes?

Cody’s script takes those stereotypes and somehow finds a way to present them as fresh, while at the same time investing them with considerable depth. The relationship between Mark and Vanessa just may be the most complex in the film and the turns they both take during the course of the story is surprising (or at least would have been had every media outlet not taken the liberty of spoiling it for me). Neither is exactly what they seem to be or how we perceive them at first. Nearly every relationship in this film means something and contributes to the story. The major one is obviously between Juno and Paulie but that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of how deep everything goes.

The real skill of the movie is how it depicts the little details between the cracks. Like how the popular cheerleader is best friends with an oddball like Juno. Or how that same best friend has a hysterically unhealthy attachment to her teacher. Or how no one can believe Bleeker is capable of getting anyone pregnant. It’s tough to explain but every scene contains a little surprise or two you don’t expect, and what’s most amazing is that everything seems to look so effortless and flow so well. We see Paulie’s track team running in their ridiculous attire throughout the film indicating the passing of the seasons as we get closer to the due date. Reitman overdoes it a little with the music (provided by indie singer/songwriter Kimya Dawson) at times but no one could say it doesn’t perfectly fit Juno’s quirky sensibilities or the film’s tone. The ending is sappy and sentimental, but this is a story that actually earns it for a change. Going in I expected this to be a writer’s film more than a director’s but it’s actually Reitman’s assured handling of the material and tight control over the story that reigns in a lot of Cody’s over-the-top and occasionally self-indulgent dialogue, especially in the beginning.

It’s often forgotten that the job of a screenwriter is two-fold. The first is the actual writing of the dialogue and construction of the story, but the second tougher underlying job is making that story actually mean something. Some movies contain brilliant, snappy dialogue but behind it is no substance because we don’t care about the characters. I don’t necessarily have to believe that real people talk this way, but rather that these people would and I did for every minute of the picture.

Everyone does speak pretentiously but it doesn’t ring false because they use it as a defense mechanism against dealing with the uncomfortable situation with which they’ve been presented. That’s most true with Juno and what makes Page’s performance so special is not her ability to so naturally deliver all that quirky dialogue (although that is a huge accomplishment) but what she hints at beneath it. Yes, this girl made a stupid mistake but the movie and the characters acknowledge just how idiotic it was and deal with it. Even her.

Juno’s witty sarcasm is just her way of coping with a disaster she knows was her own doing. Saying the movie fails because the dialogue is “too clever” is completely missing the point and doesn’t take into account the bigger picture. I don’t care so much about the dialogue as much as the context it’s presented in and the purpose behind it. Page’s performance here isn’t at the level of her work in Hard Candy but considering few female performances I’ve ever seen are that’s not such a bad thing. It’s a tricky, tightrope walk that couldn’t have been executed nearly as well by any other actress and it would have been a different, far lesser film without her in the lead. If she took home the gold Oscar night you wouldn’t hear any complaints from me.

So you think the executives at Fox television have suffered enough yet for their mistreatment of Arrested Development? Have they learned their lesson? Previously known only for starring in a brilliant, but ratings-challenged show, it seems almost ironic now that Jason Bateman and Michael Cera (who don’t share a single scene together in this) are in one of the most profitable movies of the year that’s up for four Academy Awards. For anyone who watched that show this isn’t a surprise at all. What was surprising to me was how big and important a role Bateman had in the film. As I was exiting the theater I overheard an elderly couple raving about how great a job they thought Bateman did in the film. I thought the exact same thing and it just may be the great, overlooked performance of the movie that should have generated Oscar buzz of it’s own.

At times it carries the movie and the friendship that develops between his Mark and Juno is really interesting. You’re never exactly sure how the movie will handle it and a lot of that credit goes to Bateman who plays him both as a really cool guy, but someone who’s dealing with some big issues of his own as well. This is the best film work of his career so far. Cera actually doesn’t have as much screen time as you may think, but the role is invaluable and I actually thought Reitman found a way to dial his awkwardness down a notch and he gives a quietly effective, intelligent performance. Jennifer Garner doesn’t fair nearly as well as everyone else and could be considered the one weak acting link in the film. At times she seems almost a little too mannered and stilted.

The recent backlash against this film has been some of the strongest I’ve ever seen. It’s been downright scary to read the internet venom spewed, specifically at Diablo Cody. Eli Roth must be thrilled to have a couple of months off as movie buffs have channeled all their hatred toward her of late. It’s both uplifting and depressing that a script written by a ex-stripper/blogger during her lunch breaks at Target gets optioned and she’s hits the jackpot. Uplifting because it proves anything’s possible, yet depressing because it means there may be other brilliant undiscovered spec scripts hiding out there that may never see the light of day because Hollywood is too busy greenlighting Norbit 2. Considering how many aspiring screenwriters there are out there I can’t help but think that some of the anger directed at her is just pure jealousy.

The big question is whether Juno really is as good as everyone’s been saying it is. In the midst of all the hype surrounding it it’s impossible for me to answer that question right now. Time will tell whether this holds up really well or not. Its Oscar trajectory has been compared a lot recently to another small film that could, last year’s Little Miss Sunshine (also released by Fox Searchlight). That was nominated for Best Picture, shoved down our throats by the press, yet now the film seems almost trite and insignificant (and it’s only been a year). There’s no telling if the same fate will await this but as much as it pains me to say it I can’t name any more than a few films in ’07 that I thought were better than it…so far.

While part of me wonders if the film seems so good because its ambitions are so modest, there is something undeniably special and unique in feel about it and it’s hard to put a finger on exactly what. It has an original voice and at its center is a strong female character, something we’re not given nearly enough of in mainstream movies these days. I can’t say I’ll be rooting hard for it on Oscar night but that’s the media fault, not the film’s. If Reitman, Cody and Page are normal people like I suspect they are they’re probably as burnt out and as sick of talking about the movie as we are hearing about it. I’m sure they’re ready to move on to the next thing and I know I’ve had my fill of pregnancy movies. Any more and I’ll probably go into labor myself. But at the end of the day, the fact that Juno is a very good film is tough to ignore. And that’s all that should matter.