My Top 10 Films of 2007

*Note: The following is part of the continuing "10 FOR 10" series in celebration of ten years of "Jeremy The Critic," in which my choices for the top 10 films of each year from 2006-2015 are revealed. 2006 can be viewed here. This installment will be focusing on 2007.  

                                                                            2007

How great a year was this? It was so great that, for change, I actually did compile a belated Top 10 List for it in 2008. But we'll just have to throw that out the window because a lot can change. The biggest leap of faith in tackling this project was trusting that enough time has passed that I'd "just know" what my top 10 films of each year are. That understanding is seriously tested with '07, the strongest movie year of the entire decade and the cinematic fuel that kept me going to the point we've arrived at now.

Surprisingly, when it came down to the much anticipated Zodiac vs. Southland Tales vs. Into The Wild vs. There Will Be Blood showdown, I knew. You try out a couple of films in that top spot and it just feels wrong. It's a testament to the staying power of David Fincher's Zodiac that this is the closest this obsessive procedural has come to getting that spot and when Paul Thomas Anderson's masterpiece, There Will Be Blood is coming in at number four, you know it's a formidable field like no other. He'll have another shot later, as will Fincher.

Given the current events, Southland Tales seems more prescient than ever, and remains one of my favorites regardless of contrary popular opinion, which seems to have shifted toward my side of late. It's so unusual that honoring it with a best of the year honor feels almost like an insult as it defies labels of any sort. It's simply something else entirely. After an initially lukewarm reaction, I've come around on No Country, which in hindsight stands as one of the strongest Best Picture winners of the modern era, despite its controversially wide open ending. Michael Clayton is such a well-oiled machine, the idea of seeing it in the number one spot is far from absurd, as it boasts what's easily the best performance of Clooney's career.

To the likely delight of anyone who's seen it, The King of Kong becomes not only the first documentary to place, but my first unreviewed pick, forcing me to come up with a quote that somehow, at least partially, does it justice. I'm Not There, The Assassination of Jesse James and Atonement all held strong, whereas inclusions from the last list like the poorly aging Juno, Ratatouille and Bridge to Terabithia got knocked off, with only Terabithia earning runner-up status alongside Superbad, The Lookout, Alpha Dog, Once, American Gangster, The Mist and Gone Baby Gone.

This leaves us with Sean Penn's Into The Wild, an experience that only seems to grow richer with each passing year and rewatch. Techically undervalued and emotionally transcendent (who can forget that scene on the street with William Hurt or any featuring Hal Holbrook?), it's still the film from that year I get the most out of and best connect with. But the real winners were moviegoers and critics spoiled by all these quality titles in a loaded 2007.  


10. Atonement

"I’d call it a 'twist ending' but that would be inaccurate since the beauty of it is in how it follows the narrative course set from the beginning. We just never bothered to notice. It causes you to go back to reevaluate every scene and word spoken in the film and view it in a completely different context. At the beginning I nearly giggled at how much the script expected me to care about these young lovers and the seemingly contrived situation they found themselves in. By the end, it's no laughing matter." - 3/30/08


9. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

"(Ford's) obsession with James also causes him great embarrassment and humiliation at the expense of his brother and his peers who view him as nothing more than a pathetic, whiny little boy who would do anything for his hero. They're right, and Ford's resentment over the situation builds slowly , leading him down a moral path he didn't think himself ever capable of traveling." - 2/14/08


8. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

"When creepy, mullet-haired Donkey Kong champion Billy Mitchell appears to be physically stalking earnest challenger and potential successor to his throne, Steve Wiebe, at the arcade, we realize that within the framework of a non-fiction documentary, director Seth Gordon has managed to create a good vs. evil dynamic surpassing any superhero movie. And it all actually happened. The phrase, 'You can't make this stuff up' has never seemed more applicable."


7. I'm Not There

"...while most films have only one method of entry, this has seven, with a new way to get in each time. Any way you approach it, you end up knowing no more about Bob Dylan the person than you did before, and that’s okay. He remains exactly as he should be: An enigma. And in telling us nothing about him, Haynes somehow reveals so much more than we could have hoped." - 5/9/08


6. No Country For Old Men

"The film, set in 1980, finds a way to remain very much of that time period while still telling a story that’s just as relevant now. The Vietnam wounds are still fresh in these characters’ minds and there’s a new kind of evil emerging. It’s an evil Sheriff Bell and even his father’s generation before him couldn’t have possibly prepared for. It’s encapsulated in Anton Chigurh and Bell wants no part of it. With time passing him by and retirement on the horizon, he’s just going through the motions and would likely prefer not to come face-to-face with this monster. If he does, he’s through." - 5/13/08


5. Michael Clayton

"There isn't a single twist or turn in the film that's revelatory and the plot is one we've seen before. It moves methodically toward its predestined conclusion. And yet, it succeeds by executing its premise with laser-like precision and uncommon intelligence. Gilroy knows what he has to do and does it expertly, not getting bogged down in silly sub-plots or unrealistic situations. It also features the best performance of George Clooney's career, as well as two more supporting performances of nearly equal value." - 2/20/08


4. There Will Be Blood

"Some have criticized Day-Lewis' performance as being hammy and over-the-top and it sort of is, but what's so remarkable is how he turns those qualities into attributes that deepen the story's psychology. On a first viewing it may not be entirely noticeable, but on repeated ones it comes clearly into focus. And surprisingly, that only makes Plainview's downfall scarier and that much more desperate. Even while hating him with a passion, we still care deeply about his fate." - 4/11/08


3. Southland Tales

" It helps that Kelly is an equal opportunity offender, hilariously taking swipes at both sides. It works as a hysterical spoof of everything from YouTube to cable news channels to celebrity culture. Maybe it’s just my weird sense of humor, but I laughed harder during this than any mainstream comedy in years. Labeling this a masterpiece is false advertising if only because it’s just such a beautifully flawed mess. Perfect in its imperfection."- 3/24/08


2. Zodiac

"Of the many cryptic notes sent from the Zodiac, one left the most lasting impression. It reads: 'I am waiting for a good movie about me.' He gets a great one. But you can't fight the uneasy feeling that maybe he's still out there and knows it. If that's not enough to send chills down anyone's spine, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, by making such a brilliant film about one of our country's greatest unsolved cases, Fincher may have also given this deranged killer exactly what he wished for all along." - 7/30/07


1. Into The Wild

"You’re not sure whether to be angry at or feel sorry for this admittedly selfish protagonist and Penn wisely doesn’t force us to make such a determination. He’s not asking us to like McCandliss or condone his decision to abandon his life and family, but only to understand what he was doing made sense to him. Foolish as it may seem to us and those he encountered in his travels, he left this Earth on his terms. The degree of empathy you feel for him or his family may vary, but your heart will break for the people whose lives he touched along the way." - 3/7/08

Top 10 Films of 2007
1. Into The Wild (dir. Sean Penn)
2. Zodiac (dir. David Fincher)
3. Southland Tales (dir. Richard Kelly)
4. There Will Be Blood (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)
5. Michael Clayton (dir. Tony Gilroy) 
6. No Country For Old Men (dir. Joel and Ethan Coen)
7. I'm Not There (dir., Todd Haynes)
8.  The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (dir. Seth Gordon)
9.  The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (dir., Andrew Dominik)
10. Atonement (dir. Joe Wright)

How Movies Age

The other day I woke up to a startling realization: I was considerably less annoyed that No Country For Old Men won the Best Picture Oscar than I was just a couple of months ago. Of course, such a statement would lead someone to make a number of incorrect assumptions. Those would be:

1. That I originally hated No Country For Old Men (I actually gave it three and a half stars and it made my runners-up list for the best films of 2007)

2. That I’m admitting I was somehow “wrong” about the film (there’s no such thing as being “right” or “wrong” about a movie. It’s a subjective opinion).

3. That I’m “giving in” to popular opinion on the film and letting it influence my opinion.

I suppose it’s a testament to just how well that movie was received critically that my mostly positive, almost four-star review of it could be misconstrued as being negative. I was having a conversation with a friend a little over a month ago about the film and they happened to be among the many who thought it was hands down the best of the year. Despite our mutual respect for one another’s opinions on film and other matters, I braced myself for a little squabble.

He knew I liked the film but was also one of those viewers who felt “cheated” and let down by the ending. Much to my surprise, he said he could see where I was coming from and rather than argue he just asked me to read this Chicago Sun Times letter to the editor. He said it was from a guy writing how the film basically changed his outlook on not just how he views, but life in general. I thought, “What a load of crap, the guy who wrote it is probably some old man” But I checked it out anyway.
I figured the author would have some heavy lifting to do in explaining how this well-made but mostly sterile and emotionally empty exercise touched him in any meaningful way. When I was done reading what was not only a beautifully written piece, but a passionate cinematic deconstruction of a film that clearly meant a lot to this man I was left pretty much speechless. Whether or not every piece of his analysis of the picture was exactly on point was irrelevant. Only the Coen Brothers could answer that, and judging from their Oscar acceptance speech, you probably wouldn’t get a lot out of them.

I was just impressed the film could even be analyzed so deeply because I never saw that much there. The letter just couldn’t leave my mind so I decided to give the film another watch, which would be my third. I have to say it was by far the best viewing which isn’t a huge surprise since the second was just really to prove to myself I was right in thinking it was overrated.

I still think There Will Be Blood is better and more deserving of the Best Picture Oscar but the gap isn’t nearly as wide now than it was a couple of months ago. If I were to review No Country For Old Men again now I wouldn’t go as hard on it for the ending. I still say it’s overrated and didn’t move me enough emotionally, but I can now at least understand why many would disagree. I definitely don’t expect any kind of pat on the back for revisiting or re-evaluating my opinion of a film but sometimes I think it sure would be nice to not be ridiculed for it.

You’d be shocked how many people are insulted if my opinion of a film evolves in any way over time for whatever reason. I’m willing to see any movie (even one I didn’t particularly care for) twice or more if it means there’s even the slightest chance I’ll take anything out of it I didn’t get the viewing before. So is my opinion “influenced?” I damn sure hope it is. When my mind closes and I’m not willing to hear alternate viewpoints on a film or consider new possibilities when I re-watch them then I may as well hang it up.
My recent re-evaluation of that film got me thinking about a much larger, directly related issue that’s been on my mind a lot lately: How movies age. As months and years go by perceptions of certain films tend to change and evolve and it can happen due to any number of factors. In my case, with the nauseating Oscar hype behind me, I was able to step back and consider a new viewpoint on the film and go in with a more level head. Now more than ever in this DVD age, multiple viewings play a huge role in our perceptions of films over time. No Country For Old Men is a meager example since it was released only last year but that my opinion of it is significantly higher now than it was months ago probably bodes well for its long-term future (at least in my eyes). Still, it’s too early.

When I reviewed There Will Be Blood I remarked that it’s more than likely to show up on the next American Film Institute List of the 100 Greatest Films. But I could be completely wrong. In a couple of years everyone could be going around referring to it as “that milkshake movie starring that guy with the funny voice.” I know, highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened. I always used to think all-time lists like theirs and those of Sight & Sound Magazine (both of which are updated every 10 years) showed a clear bias toward much older titles. They do, but part of me can’t blame them since it seems a lot of time and distance is required to properly judge a film’s place in history. But sorry, I still say it’s kind of ridiculous to claim that no film since 1941 has been better than Citizen Kane.

Whenever I assign a film with a star rating I’m doing it with a pencil since the very notion of star ratings is ridiculous in itself. It’s just a false attempt to hand out quantitative verdicts to something that’s anything but objective or quantitative. I try my best not to adjust a rating after I’ve given it because that just gives the whole system more credence than it deserves but it has happened on a few occasions. With most of my reviews there’s no need to look back but if there is a change in my opinion I’d far prefer to review the film again or express it in pieces like this rather than just adding or subtracting a star.

Lately, I’ve found myself in the strange position of defending 2006’s Miami Vice. I say strange because I bashed it very hard in my review but now when I talk with people about it I have problems naming anything I didn’t like. I've even caught myself calling it the "most beautifully shot movie of 2006" and complaining that Gong Li was overlooked for a Best Supporting Actress nomination. All this for a film I gave 2 stars to. Stuff like this doesn't happen often with me but it does happen. Maybe the proliferation of far worse big screen TV show adaptations has softened my stance or it could be it’s just one of those movies that needs to linger in the mind for a while (highly unusual for an action film).
Looking back I can now respect that Michael Mann didn’t treat the material as a joke and was serious about putting a real cinematic spin on the elements from his show. Did it all work? Of course not, but at least the project had artistic ambitions of some sort. Even if you think he failed, he at least did so with dignity, making the right creative decisions. It isn’t The Dukes of Hazzard or Bewitched. I’ve yet to re-watch it but it sure feels like I have because the movie's been playing in a continuous loop in my mind since. There's little doubt that when I do eventually re-watch it it'll look a whole lot better to me than it did the first time.

In the midst of all the internet controversy surrounding M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening I read many critics and viewers reminiscing about better days in the writer/director’s career and all the potential that’s been wasted. They were reminded of the one time he was able to deliver a true masterpiece bursting with originality and creative energy. Except they weren't talking about The Sixth Sense. They were referring to Unbreakable, Shyamalan’s 2000 follow-up that flopped at the box office.

To say the film’s reception was lukewarm when it was released would be a massive understatement. Now it’s looked at as one our most original comic book movies and everyone’s begging for a sequel. So before Shyamalan goes back to Philly and hangs his head he can at least console himself with the fact that time has reversed Unbreakable’s failure and now it’s as respected as he’d hoped. I always thought I was the only person alive who liked the film so it's great to see it has so many fans.

This happens a lot with “cult classics,” which critics in general have always been awful at predicting. Of course they would be because the movies aren’t made for them. In this case critics really need serious from audiences because movie fans see something in those films that they can’t. Critics can sometimes get too close and become too caught up in objectively analyzing their script, direction and performances.
The cult classics slip through a little space in between those elements and connect with their intended audience in a special way. 90’s era cult teen films like Empire Records and Can’t Hardly Wait are good examples of this. Neither boast great performances or a brilliant script and flopped in every way when they first came out. But the critics couldn’t see what a relatively small segment of the moviegoing population could and what a few extra years would reveal: That both films nailed that time period and age group down perfectly.

Anyone that age or who grew during that period could relate to the characters and each were made with so much heart and sincerity that you couldn’t help but feel an attachment. It probably helped the nostalgia factor that some of the actors from those films went on to become big stars. The same can be said for the similarly themed teen comedies, Fast Times At Ridgemont High and 10 Things I Hate About You, both of which later gained a sizable cult following.

When you consider the number of movies released every year from all the studios the cult classic club is actually very small and exclusive. I know if I were a filmmaker and my picture won an Academy Award I’d be incredibly honored, but if I ever made a movie that became a cult classic you'd probably have to scrape me off the floor.

To have your movie acknowledged in critical circles is nice but there's something really special about knowing you skipped that step and headed straight to the average moviegoer's soul. It’s one thing to win an Oscar, but it’s another to have fans throwing conventions for your film once a year. There’s a reason you don’t see lines stretching for blocks with people dressed as Gandhi or Forrest Gump. They’re dressed as The Dude. Some movies are made for critics and others are made for fans. Really special ones are made for both.

No Country For Old Men

Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, Kelly MacDonald, Garrett Dillahunt, Tess Harper, Stephen Root, Beth Grant
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: R
***1/2 (out of ****)

SPOILER WARNING!!! I GIVE AWAY THE ENDING

Here’s something you may not have heard about 2007’s Academy Award winner for Best Picture No Country For Old Men: It’s absolutely terrifying. It’s also darkly humorous and gripping in the best way possible. But it’s not a masterpiece. It may not even be the Coen brothers’ best film, as I’d argue Fargo still holds that title. Like Fargo, this also deals with a stolen suitcase full of cash, but the setting and circumstances are far different. Joel and Ethan Coen have long been known for their quirky, risk-taking style as filmmakers, and while they stretch out of their comfort zone quite a bit here, this proves to be no exception. Their dedication to finding the humor in the most dire circumstances has been their calling card but has also proven to be their biggest hindrance in gaining mainstream acceptance. But here there’s no winking and it’s their most serious, dramatic effort to date, and it’s technically close to flawless. I may not think it’s as great as everyone else (or The Academy) does, but at worst, it still ranks among the year’s best efforts.

Controversy has swirled around the ending and looking at the star rating above you could probably guess where I stand on it. I understand why the Coens made the decisions they did in the final act and give them credit for making them, even if I don’t fully agree. If you’re one of the few who haven’t seen this movie yet, it’s time to be honest and admit the big reason to: Javier Bardem. I don’t think this film will be one of those Best Picture winners that have a lasting cultural impact or will even necessarily play as well on repeated viewings, as I’ve discovered already. It’ll be remembered for Bardem, who creates a character who deserves to join Darth Vader and Hannibal Lector in the pantheon of our greatest screen villains. His performance powers the film, and at times, even overpowers it.

When retired welder and Vietnam vet Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) happens to stumble upon a drug deal gone bad while hunting in the Texas desert. He discovers some dead bodies and a suitcase containing $2 million in cash, which he impulsively decides to take off with, despite the danger this poses to he and his wife, Carla Jean (Kelly MacDonald). Hot on his trail is a cold, heartless killer named Anton Chigurh (Bardem) and at times you wonder whether he’s even all that concerned about the money itself, or just the thrill of physically and psychologically intimidating anyone in his way to getting it. With his Beatles era bowl haircut and inventive cattle air gun murder weapon, he needs just a single coin flip to determine the fate of anyone he encounters. Every moment he’s onscreen and every single word Bardem emotionlessly delivers is pure terror.

He has a talk with a store clerk and you almost hope the old man doesn’t live through it so he isn’t burdened with the memory of actually having a conversation (if you can call it that) with this twisted psychopath. It’s arguably the most tension-filled scene in the entire film. Nearing retirement, seasoned Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) has uncovered this sicko’s trail of terror and is determined to reach Llewelyn and the cash before Chigurh does. So is bounty hunter Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) who’s hired to track down the money by a businessman who had invested interest in the botched drug deal. Wells is the only man with prior knowledge of just how dangerous Chigurh is, even though he uses his witty sarcasm to downplay it. There’s edge of your seat suspense as this monster closes in on Llewelyn and although its never explicitly stated in the film you get the impression this war vet is giving Chigurh the only real fight he’s ever had.

As we head at a breakneck pace toward the big showdown the Coen brothers pull the rug out and make a brave (some would say stupid) decision to deprive us of it. Llewelyn is discarded literally and figuratively as we head toward the film’s polarizing final 20 minutes. There’s a shift to the less interesting character of Tommy Lee Jones’ Sheriff Bell. The film, set in 1980, finds a way to remain very much of that time period while still telling a story that’s just as relevant now. The Vietnam wounds are still fresh in these characters’ minds and there’s a new kind of evil emerging. It’s an evil Sheriff Bell and even his father’s generation before him couldn’t have possibly prepared for. It’s encapsulated in Anton Chigurh and Bell wants no part of it. With time passing him by and retirement on the horizon, he’s just going through the motions and would likely prefer not to come face-to-face with this monster. If he does, he’s done.

Llewelyn is also a victim, but of greed and temptation. His character is also a casualty of the changing guard and comes to represent concepts Sheriff Bell can’t really get a handle on. Everything now seems determined by fate and forces he can’t control. It’s just a matter of timing and chance that Chirgurh never does catch up with Llewelyn and even more so that Sheriff Bell narrowly avoids an encounter with Chirgurh himself that most certainly would have ended in his death. That this madman is never apprehended and walks away at the end of the film is supremely important. This psychopathic monster will live to see another day and for that the future looks bleaker than ever. The final scene of the film with Bell sitting at the table with his wife (Tess Harper) and explaining the dream he had about his father seem meant to echo the themes of fate and change that permeate through the entire film. And it ends very abruptly with the screen fading to black in almost mid-sentence.

The decision to take the story in that unconventional, anti-crowd pleasing direction makes sense given both the title of the film and the hints given by Jones’ narration at the beginning, but it can’t help but feel a little anti-climactic since we had so much invested in the two major characters and their potential face-off. I haven’t read Cormac McCarthy’s novel from which this film is based but supposedly it stays slavishly faithful to it straight up to and including the ending. If so, this may be the first case of filmmakers actually being criticized for staying too true to the source material.

While I understand the reasoning behind it and commend the Coens for refusing to give us an easy, comfortable ending, I couldn’t ignore the sinking feeling that the wind was taken out of the sails of the film a little. The rest of the movie crackles with so much suspense and intensity the shift toward the end left me a little cold. Not necessarily disappointed, but more unfulfilled. I realize that was the intention behind it but in a year full of powerful finales in motion pictures, often the last thing on a viewer’s mind after they’ve seen a film is those final minutes. And even the film’s diehard supporters couldn’t argue that the last 20 minutes leave a lasting, impactful impression. It isn’t a major problem, but it is something that prevented the film from reaching the highest plateau possible for me. Everything else is perfect, especially Roger Deakins’ typically brilliant cinematography and near absence of a musical score. We’re left with only the sounds, which, in the context of this story, create a menacing horror and suspense.

Josh Brolin, capping off an incredible year, delivers a subdued performance in the classic mold of rugged screen legends like McQueen and Eastwood. His work is so quiet and pitch-perfect that amidst all the hype surrounding the movie and Bardem he kind of got lost in the shuffle, which was unfair. He makes you feel for a man who admittedly made a very selfish, stupid decision. Jones is also strong in a smaller role that grows in importance as the film wears on. He’s kind of the eyes and ears for the viewers and the moral centerpiece of the story. Scottish actress Kelly MacDonald disappears into the role of Llewelyn’s confused and naïve wife with a dead-on Southern accent while Woody Harrelson reminds us just how much more effective he is when given the right role, no matter what its size.

But the movie really belongs to Bardem, who gives a performance that has to be considered one of the strongest Academy Award winning supporting turns in years. Part of me wonders if the movie has garnered the praise it has primarily for Bardem’s performance and the big scenes that accompany it. Everyone loves an entertaining bad guy and it’s been a while since one as entertaining and as scary as Chirgurh has hit the screen. Just the opening scene alone, in which he strangles an officer to death with his handcuffs, is enough to give you nightmares for weeks. That’s not to say the film offers nothing else, but I do think everything else it offers would mean nothing if Bardem weren’t a part of it.

With No Country For Old Men The Coen brothers have finally gained well-deserved mainstream acceptance, but while doing so still managed to make a film that’s as inaccessible and challenging as anything else they’ve ever done. Continuously finding new ways to frustrate us and confound our expectations just may stand as their biggest accomplishment.

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