Are Pixar's Best Picture Odd's Looking "Up?"

The movie has received a 96% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes.com. It was the first animated film chosen to open the prestige Cannes Film Festival. Critics are calling it a revolutionary film. Roger Ebert loves it. It will likely open at number 1 this weekend and stay in the top five for months. Chances are it's already won the Best Animated Feature Oscar (though the competition in that category is looking more tough then it has in recent years). So now we ask the ultimate question: Will "Up" be the Pixar film that finally break into the Best Picture category? Boy I would love to think so. I loved the movie. I think it's excellent. This would easily be a Best Picture contender for any other film. But I'm going to go on a limb and say, no, it's not happening. Now I'm not saying I throw in the towel. I'm putting that title under my Best Picture Predix and I'll leave it there til the end of the year.

I think it's time the Academy stop mucking around and recognize that Pixar makes classics and it's nonsense that they haven't cracked the top category by now. The only reason I'm not fully backing this idea is simple: "Wall-E." If "Wall-E" couldn't crack the top category then I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason this one will. Is it THAT much better then "Wall-E." No. It's more of less of the same quality. But despite a lackluster year where we're considering an apocalyptic film that's based on a highly overrated book as a frontrunner for Best Picture shows just how much the Academy goes out of their way to keep animation out of the top category. It will get multiple nominations but will likely only walk home with Best Animated Feature. And really, if that happens again, that category is going to feel like such a shallow victory. I mean, more so then it already does.

Ebert Weighs In On Oscar Nominees

Roger Ebert concluded his annual Oscar predictions this week with a complete run through of the important categories. Very few surprises to be found. He does predict the Academy picking Viola Davis in "Doubt" for Best Supporting Actress as opposed to Penelope Cruz for "Vicky Christina Barcelona," and he boldly picks Sean Penn the winner for Best Actor in "Milk" as opposed to Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler." Otherwise though it's all routine:

Best Picture - "Slumdog Millionaire"
Best Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger
Best Animated Film - "Wall-E"

The biggest thing he questions is the Best Adapted Screenplay category, where he writes:

Simon Beaufoy for "Slumdog Millionaire." It took enormous research and energy to create this story spanning 20 years and parallel narrative strands, and employ traditional narrative formulas in a film that seemed so wholly original. The other contender may be Eric Roth, for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." But if he wins, there may be the rare possibility of actual booing from the audience. Too many now realize that what Roth adapted was not so much the F. Scott Fitzgerald story, but his own screenplay for "Forrest Gump." Some half a million users saw a funny YouTube "trailer" comparing scene-by-scene parallels in the two films, before Paramount's complaints forced the site to take it down. Cynics say Roth has already won an Oscar for this material.

You can view said trailer on this very site. If the legal whores have taken it down though then a simple Google search should suffice. Just type in "The Curious Case of Forrest Gump."

Ben Lyons Is Ruining 'At The Movie'

Well folks, I've waited long enough before writing this, but I feel enough time has gone by that I now have the right to complain about something. See, as you all know from reading my sites and listening to my podcasts (new episode coming soon - I promise) you'll know that I'm a huge fan of "At The Movies," and Siskel and Ebert were personal heroes of mine. Well, both those men aren't on the show anymore (one due to death and the other illness), replaced with Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. Now Mankiweicz I don't have too much of a problem with. Sure, he's wrong about the Oscar potential of "The Dark Knight" and "Slumdog Millionaire," and he put "Rachel Getting Married" on his Top Ten Worst list at number two (I put it on my best list at...number two), but overall he's not too bad. This is a guy who works for actual newspapers, gets to show off his knowledge on Turner Classic Movies (my favorite channel now that Cartoon Network has gone to the dogs), and can defend his opinion well.

So no matter how much I disagree with him at least he's a critic, however small that may be. No, my main problem is with Ben Lyons, the quote-grabbing whore who makes poor desisions and couldn't back up his opinion to save his life. This is a guy who said "I Am Legend" was "One of the greatest movies ever made!" I know that because it was a major selling point in the ads, and it's hard to look at someone with a straight face when they put that movie in the same category as "Casablanca," "Gone With The Wind," and "The Godfather." His major complaint with "Max Pain" (and, trust me, I'm NOT defending this movie) was that he didn't care about the story or characters, he just wanted to see things blow up, and was worried that "The Dark Knight" had set a bad trend in summer movies by inspiring story. Yes, Ben, let's all rally against "The Dark Knight" for it's complicated characters, deep story, and grand directional scope.

Damn that movie for actually raising the bar for summers movies just a "little" bit higher then it has been in previous years. No, Ben is not a real critic. He's not even half a critic. He's a faux-critic for the "Digital Age," a pretty face who's there to hype of movies with flashy graphics and cool catch phrases. Yeah, I know that the day of watching film critics discuss movies has drastically changed since Siskel and Ebert came onto the scene, and "At The Movies" was feeling a little stale in comparison to the E! channel shows (of which Ben comes from), but there's a proper way to do flashy, legitimate film critism and be taken seriously. Like compare Spill.com's review of "Bedtime Stories" with the same review on "At The Movies:"

See, Spill.com may just be a bunch of under thirty year olds talking about movies in cartoon form, but take a closer look: They actually DISCUSS the films! They point out it's good points, it's bad points, they help you understand their opinion, and they have an actual debate about the film. Now compare that to Ben's review of the film and it's laughably bad. Not only is he calling this a comedy classic for kids (up there with "Home Alone" and "A Christmas Story" I assume), but he doesn't actually review the film. He uses phrases like "the kids will love it," "perfect family film," and "another classic Sandler film" (Editor's Note: The quotes may vary, but the general idea is the same). This isn't a review, this is some guy hoping to get quoted on the commericials. Which, speaking about, it looks like he was beaten to the punch by Rachel Smith...

...whoever that is. The bottom line is I know that times are changing, and the ways people get recommendations on movies they watch is rapidly changing. A percentage number on Rotten Tomatoes is more likely to garner interest then a single review. But TV shows that specialize in movie reviews shouldn't deliberatly dumb down film critism. Esspecially when you are producing the longest running show about film critism out there. Oh, and as for Roger Ebert...

...he doesn't strike me as too pleased with the new critic sitting in Gene's chair.

Ebert Oscar Roundup

Just to get this out of the way; no, Ebert has not posted his yearly look at the Oscars. That won't start until the nominations are announced. What he has done is written some reviews for Oscar potential films. He gives "Valkyrie," Tom Cruises big "comeback" three stars. Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino" gets a healthy three and a half stars. The much mangled (but Globe nominated) "The Reader" gets three and a half stars. "The Wrestler," Mickey Rourkes big comeback, gets the full four stars. And "The Curious Case of Benjiman Button," one of this years front-runners gets...two and a half stars? Wow, I have to say I didn't see that coming. I won't quote the whole review here, but here's a particularly savage excert from his review:

The movie's premise devalues any relationship, makes futile any friendship or romance, and spits, not into the face of destiny, but backward into the maw of time.

Rarely is a two and a half star review shredded so badly. His review for the latest Adam Sandler movie is kinder (and "Marley & Me," the movie about the dog, gets a passing grade with three stars). Ebert's been wrong on Oscar movies before (he gave bad reviews to "Unforgiven" and "Gladiator"), but it is nice to see a high profile critic dislike a movie that's been so widely praised before release. I doubt this will hurt Benjiman's Oscar chances, but it sure is interesting none-the-less.

P.S. On a side note, my fears about Frank Miller's adaptation of "The Spirit" might be warrented; Ebert gave it one measly star.

Ebert Loves 'Women'

Far be it from me to judge the great Roger Ebert (who has long been an inspiration) but I have to wonder what it is he was thinking when he gave a three star review to the new Meg Ryan fiasco "The Women." He points out that the movie is not great, but then how could it be? There are too many characters to get involved with. Most of the review is simply a checkoff of who the characters are, what they do, and what they could have done more of. And the movie is still three stars. That's a recommendation. I've been reading Ebert reviews for a long time, and this review sounds like a one and a half or two star film. I'd be interested to see why the movie ended up at three, especially now that the movie has received a low 10% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's just ten points up from what "Disaster Movie" got.