I Hate The Oscars: Best Supporting Actor Nods

Remember, we live in a world where Joe Pesci has won an Oscar

The ceremony is pompous! People dress up! We act like this really matters!

Here's your rundown of gentlemen who would have been leading men pending one more rewrite.

Matt Damon, Invictus

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: The Academy feels obligated to throw Clint Eastwood some sort of yearly bone lest he gun them all down and drink their blood. I suppose his performance in The Informant! wasn't enough to get Damon a big boy nomination?

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty good. Apparently Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon have the gravitas to carry a movie. Who knew?

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't seen this one yet, although I did take an obvious jab at the trailer when I saw it during 2012 (see my notes at the end of the review).

WILL HE WIN?: Is he Christoph Waltz? No? Sorry, Matt.

Woody Harrelson, The Messenger

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Apparently everyone's favorite zombie-killing bartender displays some serious acting chops in this little-seen drama about a team of Marines that inform families about soldiers that were killed in action.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Every aspect of the film received high marks from the critical community, especially Harrelson's performance.

IHYFM RESPONSE: This was one of those small dramas I regrettably missed in the theaters this past year, although I had read several interviews with Harrelson and was very intrigued. I'll be catching this one as soon as I can.

WILL HE WIN?: The film's limited release may be Woody's biggest setback.

Christopher Plummer, The Last Station

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: He's playing Tolstoy, and he's Christopher Plummer.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: So-so. The film is said to be carried by Helen Mirren's performance.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Yet another offering of 2009 I haven't seen. Kind of like Christopher Mintz-Plasse in Role Models on Coca Cola, I like the idea of it more than I think I'd actually like it.

WILL HE WIN?: Meh.

Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: I have no fucking idea.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Piss-poor. At 33%, it's about 5 times as good as "Old Dogs"!

IHYFM RESPONSE: People. I'm a snob. I usually avoid movies in the 70% range on RT.

WILL HE WIN?: If he does, it'll probably be because everything else he does is so good. I've read that this role isn't so much acting for Tucci as it is wearing glasses and frowning.

Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Because he was an amazing supporting actor.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Waltz in particular was cited as being one of the movie's strongest points.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really liked the movie (moreso than this review would lead you to believe), and also thought Waltz was superb.

WILL HE WIN?: Is his name Christoph Waltz? It is? Then probably.

MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- Tom Hollander, the bumbling minister from the potent satire In The Loop

- Aaron Wolf, the soon-to-be-Mitzvah'd son in A Serious Man

- Anthony Mackie, a soldier scared of his commanding officer in The Hurt Locker

Sweet, sweet syndication

A quick update, dear readers - now you can read my writing syndicated at The Junior Varsity, an entertainment and culture blog started by one of my film school buddies.

Not only will you find these reviews as well as other cultural musings of mine, you'll be privy to some astute criticism from some very sharp people with whom I had the pleasure of watching Buster Keaton shorts in college.

Already posted there is our collective thoughts on NBC's Conan-Leno fiasco and Ke$ha deconstructed. Coming soon: our thoughts on how to improve the Oscars. I don't think Billy Crystal perpetually hosting is the answer, by the way.

"Shutter Island": Leo's two-hour scowl

I can feel it. I'm going to kick up some shit with this review.

Let me first say, I am a film snob, ergo, I love Martin Scorsese. He was one of the bold filmmakers of the 70's that revived the American cinema, and several of his films are both critical darlings and popular favorites (see: Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull).

He's the original Tarantino, the difference being that while both are students of film history and take influences from films of the past, Scorsese pays homage while Tarantino blatantly replicates, specifically from Scorsese. Too bad the conversation detailing this from Swingers isn't to be found on Youtube. Sigh.

Point being, I expect a lot from Scorsese. Even though some of his more recent works haven't had the punch of his best, they've still had that touch. Sure, The Aviator is flawed, but there is fantastic camera work and an unflinching look at Howard Hughes. It feels like a Scorsese picture.

I suppose that was my biggest disappointment with Shutter Island - aside from a dream sequence and the on-screen depictions of a migraine (which, by the way, screams light bulbs from The Aviator) - is that it doesn't really feel like a movie Scorsese directed.

Shutter Island, based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, follows a US Marshall (DiCaprio) and his partner (Mark Ruffalo, whom I always enjoy) investigating a missing prisoner from a Massachusetts-bay mental institution. In charge of the facility are two doctors, Ben Kingsly and Max von Sydow, who are not making it easy for their investigation to proceed. I would hate to give more away, but if you've seen the trailer, you already know, and if you haven't, you'll have it figured out in the first 30 minutes of the movie. Suffice it to say that not everything is what it seems.

I read a version of the script back in 2005 that left the ending much more open-ended that what we're given in the final product. My complaint with that script is the same with the film - it's a whole lot of work for very little payoff. Shutter Island clocks in at over two hours, and despite a few solid scenes, specifically an extended nightmare sequence and DiCaprio's last couple of lines, the film really feels slow. Had it been about thirty minutes shorter, which wouldn't be too much of a task, Shutter Island would feel like a decent thriller instead of a bloated noir piece trying to be more than it is.

TOO MUCH: Leo grimacing, flashbacks to his days in the service liberating a Nazi death camp which didn't add much to his character

COULD HAVE USED MORE: Suspicion between DiCaprio and Ruffalo.

FILM SNOB NOTE: The aforementioned migraine scene featured a lot of overexposure of the frame, similar to Scorsese's technique in The Aviator in the premiere scene, and Hitchcock's Rear Window. I'm relieved I'm not the only one that wasn't blown away by Shutter Island, or noticed that Leo did a LOT of squinting throughout: Slate's Dana Stevens didn't care for it much, either.

IHYFM RATING: THREE out of FIVE MEHS. I didn't hate it by any means, I just didn't love it. A legendary director and amazing A-list cast from top to bottom can't make a decent script great.

IF YOU SAID THIS WAS YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE, I'D THINK: We're going to go out to the light house and have a little talk.

I Hate the Oscars: Best Supporting Actress Nods

On Oscar night, ANYTHING can happen.

It's Oscar season! It's referred to by advertisers as "the Super Bowl for women"! I'm a film snob so the results usually just piss me off!

Let's take a look at the women nominated for almost starring in movies this past year.

Before you accuse me of being sexist, I fully intend using that joke for the upcoming Best Supporting Actor write-up, so suck on it (male and female) bitches.

Penelope Cruz, "Nine"

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: I haven't seen this, so I have no idea. Gams?

CRITICAL RESPONSE: "Nine" has a whopping 37% on RT.

IHYFM RESPONSE: The only movie I saw with "9" in the title was "District 9". Nothing nearly as pretty as Penelope Cruz was in that film. The trailer, however, looked like a Baz Luhrmann wet dream.

WILL SHE WIN?: Doubtful. There's a lot more buzz around the other nominees for far-better reviewed films.

Vera Farmiga, "Up In The Air"

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: It's a fascinating, and very 3-dimensional character, played well by Farmiga.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: The film was well-received initially (before the backlash, the backlash to the backlash, and the follow up backlash after the backlash to the backlash). Farmiga's performance was one of many that helped elevate the film.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I enjoyed the film, and thought that all the major players in the cast held their own. One of my favorite moments with Farmiga was an early one with Clooney when they compare their corporate credit cards.

WILL SHE WIN?: This critic thinks she's one of the fore-runners in this five-member race.

Maggie Gyllenhaal, "Crazy Heart"

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: More or less, because she's Maggie Gyllenhaal. Not to knock her, but her role in "Crazy Heart" could have been carried by more or less anyone.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: The consensus within the critical community is that Bridges' performance is what carries an otherwise run-of-the-mill redemption story.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I thought the movie was fine, Bridges was good, and Maggie was fine. She's been better in other projects, and I actually think her better performance of 2009 was in "Away We Go".

WILL SHE WIN?: How many friends does she have that are voting members in the academy?

Anna Kendrick, "Up In The Air"

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: Her character in "Up In The Air" is the catalyst for Clooney's self-actualization (and Farmiga is the gut check), and as a spunky recent college grad that is too big for her britches, she's great.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: See above. Kendrick also got high marks from the critics.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I thought Kendrick was very good - especially a scene where she has too much to drink, and her last moment in the film.

WILL SHE WIN?: She has a decent shot. Farmiga might have an edge over her, but make no mistake, her performance was solid.

Mo'Nique, "Precious"

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: She's the "punch" of the "Precious" sucker punch.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very favorable. The press thinks enough of her performance to give her a pass on the whole not-shaving-her-legs thing.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I still haven't been able to bring myself to see it. I have no doubt it's good, but I have yet to find myself in the mood to see it.

WILL SHE WIN?: There's a solid chance the hairiest legs to grace the stage this year won't belong to Robin Williams.

IHYFM UPDATE: I forgot to mention a few performances I thought were missing from the list.

MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- Lorna Raver as Sylvia Ganush, the curse-dealing gypsy from Drag Me To Hell

- Marcia Jean Kurtz as Paul's Mom, the condiment-hording, call-in show interrupting mom of the ultimate loser/Giants fan in Big Fan

- Sari Lennick as Judith Gopnik, the get-seeking wife in A Serious Man

- Melanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus, the Nazi-burning cinema owner in Inglourious Basterds

An evening with Mr. Wiseau

A day and a half later, I am still hoarse, and my brain aches. It's been assaulted by fermented hops and the romantic ramblings of a mad man.

The mad man, as previously mentioned, is Tommy Wiseau, the enigmatic auteur that wrote, directed, produced, financed, and starred in "The Room". This past Friday evening, he made his first appearance in Chicago to host two screenings of "The Room" at the Music Box Theater on Southport.

The line for the midnight show snaked up the sidewalk, fans of both film and camp stepped over half-melted snow banks left over from the weeks' storms. People made sure they had a solid inventory of spoons (I came with 100, which was grossly insufficient), sipped illicit beers, and occasionally ducked into adjacent alleys to relieve themselves.

Despite the cold, and the crowd's obviously high level of inebriation, there was a palpable camaraderie. The bond we shared was the common knowledge that it didn't matter if this was the first or fifth viewing we were individually about to embark upon, that we were all in for a bewildering journey into the depths of indescribable ineptitude, which tonight, would be potentially explained by its creator.

No such luck. If you've ever read or seen an interview with Tommy Wiseau, it quickly becomes clear that the incomprehensible piece of work he produced was not a fluke for this man - it is the only way he could possibly make a film. His trains of thought are nearly impossible to follow, made all the more difficult by his peculiar manner of speaking. Being on the tail-end of a power hour on a mostly-empty stomach doesn't help matters.

On our way in to the theater, we caught a glimpse of Tommy outside - shaking hands, wearing the same sunglasses from the film, and generally looking like a guy waiting to get invited to a coke party.

Before the screening began, Tommy took the stage to make a few remarks and answer a few questions. I didn't get a chance to ask mine, which would have been to query his Valentine's Day plans and ask if he thought, with the wild underground success of "The Room", it would be possible for him to be struck by lightning twice. I did, however, furiously type notes into my iPod to make sure I didn't forget what he said, which I certainly would have otherwise.

Tommy began by reciting Shakespeare's sonnet #116, a fitting choice given the film he made. When asked what his favorite band was, he replied, without hesitation, U2. Then, Tommy gave us some parting thoughts before the lights dimmed. It was so important to him, he said it twice.

My notes: "Yoyx can laugh you can cruvplrase Sony hurt each other."

Tommy's plea: "You can laugh, you can cry, but please, don't hurt each other."

I don't think he meant to be careful when playing tuxedo football with your friends.

"The Room" is truly something to behold. When you go, and you should, bring buddies, spoons, and a suspension of disbelief.

IHYFM BONUS PHOTOS TAKEN BY DAN:

I mug for the camera while Paul plans his next attack on my backside. This is par for the course with us, power hour or not. I'm wearing a tie because dammit, you dress up for special occasions.

Steph (middle), Dan's better half, put together our power hour mix before her first-ever viewing of "The Room". She's smiling because she has no idea what she's in for. If she did, she'd be crying.

Ray Charles serenades Otter and Ryan.

Paul and I brought 3D glasses and road beers. The former did not improve the sex scenes, whereas the latter did.

Dan takes a photo of a motley crew (from left to right): Paul, Ryan, myself, Velk, and Otter.

And, finally, Otter and Ryan managed to corner Wiseau in the lobby while the rest of us were grabbing seats. Ryan got a photo op by saying he came all the way from Scotland for this show, which since he is actually in grad school in Scotland, is not a lie. Otter says that the fist-bump was Wiseau's idea, and the only way he would do the photos. These two were more than happy to comply.

Ryan later re-encountered Wiseau in the lobby on a popcorn run. Wiseau was so taken aback by Ryan's question of which city is his favorite to show the film in, Wiseau assumed he was a journalist. Buying popcorn. At 1 in the morning.

Otter, on this photo: "One of the top 6 moments of my life."

TONIGHT: "The Room" hosted by Tommy Wiseau

They say once you've entered "The Room", you'll be forever changed.

As I said in my initial review, that is painfully true. But tonight, my dear readers, Tommy Wiseau will once again have a chance to touch me. This time, physically.

Coming soon - a report from the Music Box midnight screening of "The Room", hosted by its star, writer, director, and executive producer, Mr. Tommy Wiseau.

The movie gods have smiled upon us. If you have a question you'd like me to try to ask, shoot it to my Twitter @ihateyourfavmov. My spoons are at the ready.

I Hate The Oscars: Best Picture Nods

Brokeback Mountain losing Best Picture to Crash didn't keep Gyllenhaal from enjoying himself, or from ruining Ang Lee's pictures.

The nominees are in.

With a 10-picture dog race for the Best Picture Oscar, the 82nd Annual Academy Awards promises to be twice as long and at least twice as political.

While keeping in mind that "the Oscars are bullshit and we hate them", let's take a quick look at the nominees for Best Picture.

"Avatar"

SYNOPSIS: A crippled Marine regains the use of his legs in a fantastical tale of redemption. No, it's not the Gary Sinise side-plot from "Forrest Gump", it's a lackluster cliche that is inexplicably the highest-grossing film of modern times. Modern moviegoers like bright shiny things, apparently. Like cats with laser pointers. Cats and lasers take up a lot of screen time in Avatar.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Most critics heralded the graphics and visual experience, most refined critics also pointed out the story left a lot to be desired.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I didn't care for it.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Money talks.

WILL IT WIN?: The surprising win for Avatar at the Golden Globes could bode well or poor for Cameron's sci-fi epic. With a list of nominees as long as it is this year, Avatar could sneak in from behind to win if voters split over the other films (most likely The Hurt Locker, Precious, and Inglourious Basterds). Also, it could win outright because, let's face it, there's a lot of uncultured morons working in show business who get to vote.

"The Blind Side"

SYNOPSIS: Based on the true story of Michael Oher, a child who escaped poverty because he excelled at playing left tackle (at some levels), arguably one of the most important positions on the football field.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty decent. It has 70% on Rotten Tomatoes, with the consensus that Sandra Bullock's performance and the 'based-on-a-true-story' make up for a drama that is at times too easy.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I didn't see it - even though I heard the book it was based on was good, I didn't feel compelled to catch it until it's on Netflix Watch It Now.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Based on a true story. Good performance from a veteran actress who moved beyond her typical fare.

WILL IT WIN?: In a field of five, The Blind Side might have stood a chance. With so many other pics up, though, I doubt it.

"District 9"

SYNOPSIS: Holy Apartheid allegory, Batman! Aliens in Johannesburg are about to be forcibly removed from their impromptu refugee camp, but things get complicated when the buffoon in charge of the ground operation falls severely ill. Exploding limbs ensue.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very favorable. Critics appreciated both the allegorical element and the visceral graphics.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I thought it was okay, but didn't really resolve all the interesting issues it brought up, and instead turned into a typical chase/action movie half way through. My initial review may have been a little harsh, but I stand by my assertion that it's not a classic.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: The way director Neill Blomkamp integrates CGI is impressive, and it was a big crowd pleaser. Perhaps the Academy was trying to atone for the sin of nominating Avatar by recognizing a sci-fi film that did try to have a 'plot' and 'characters'.

WILL IT WIN?: Not too likely. The voting members of the Academy generally shy away from sci fi, and if a CGI-heavy epic walks away with the Oscar, I hate to say it, but it'll likely be Avatar.

"An Education"

SYNOPSIS: A young British schoolgirl (Carey Mulligan) plays hooky from her academic schedule to get an education of another kind. The kind you get from Peter Sarsgaard. Le dreamy sigh.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Overwhelmingly positive. Most critics point to rookie Mulligan's performance as the stuff long film careers are made of (see: Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver").

IHYFM RESPONSE: Unreviewed. I like my British films chock full of Simon Pegg or Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant. Alfred Molina, who plays the father, has yet to disappoint me, though, and I've also enjoyed the majority of performances Sarsgaard has delivered, so missing this was more of a time issue than utter lack of interest - there's just plenty of other films I'd like to see first prior to catching this one.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: It's foreign-ish and apparently mildly sexy, which the Academy likes to recognize so they can pretend to be discerning.

WILL IT WIN?: Pretty unlikely - regardless of how good the movie actually is, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of momentum behind it.

"The Hurt Locker"

SYNOPSIS: In the wake of tragedy, a bomb-demolition squad in 2004 Baghdad is taken over by an adrenaline-junky, and in the waning days of the company's rotation, his squad begins to question whether they'll make it out alive.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Almost unilaterally positive. The cast, Kathryn Bigelow's directing, and Mark Boal's script all received exemplary marks from the critical community, and despite the surprising snub at the Globes, The Hurt Locker has been picking up various awards.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Although I have yet to write a formal review, I think this is a fantastic movie. It breaks the mold of your typical "war drama" and despite some leaps in logic, it feels like the most realistic depiction of war since the infamous Normandy scene of Saving Private Ryan, and unlike that film, it avoids war movie cliches in both the plot and the characters.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: It's a solid movie from top to bottom, and Kathryn Bigelow is one of those directors that's been around for a long time but hasn't gotten due recognition from the Academy (see: Martin Scorsese).

WILL IT WIN?: It stands a chance, especially if there's a Hollywood backlash against Avatar winning the Globe.

"Ingourious Basterds"

SYNOPSIS: In Nazi-occupied France, there's a group of head-bashing badasses in town to let Hitler know the Americans have his number. Most of the movie, however, focuses on the owner of a Parisian movie theater who was hunted by a ruthless SS officer earlier in her life.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very positive. Some have called it Tarantino's best movie yet, almost all trumpet Austrian actor Christoph Waltz's Oscar-nominated performance as the SS Colonel in charge of finding Jews in hiding.

IHYFM RESPONSE: My initial review (of both this movie and for this site) reads a little lukewarm, but the more I've reflected on the picture, and watched it a few more times since its release on DVD, the more I enjoy it. Aside from the Hitchcockian way that QT ratchets up the tension, it serves as a treatise on what's wrong with war movies, namely, how we have this perception that a war movie is only as good as its historical accuracy and protracted and grisly battle scenes.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Tarantino is a controversial director, for sure, but for all the criticism you can level at him for plagiarizing other directors and films, you can't deny his skill at making everything his own. Basterds is a really well-made flick with some great performances.

WILL IT WIN?: There's an outside chance, but the Academy generally goes towards more serious fare. Conventional wisdom says this is the strongest dark horse candidate inasmuch it was so popular.

"Precious"

SYNOPSIS: It was perhaps said best on a recent edition of the "I Love Movies" podcast with host Doug Benson and guests Sarah Silverman and Steve Agee - when the fact you have AIDS is an afterthought on the list of everything wrong with your life, that's pretty shitty.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Although it's overwhelmingly grim, it's an ultimately uplifting tale brought to life by great performances.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't been able to get myself to the theater for this one yet - even though I like dramas, I can only handle the really heavy ones a few times a year.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Performances by Mo'Nique and Gabourey Sidibe.

WILL IT WIN?: Hard-hitting dramas with decent box office returns always have a chance.

"A Serious Man"

SYNOPSIS: The biblical story of Job, told as a dark comedy about a Jewish family man in 1960's-era Minnesota. It's a comedy only the Coen Brothers could do.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very positive. It received high marks for being very well-written, bitingly dark, and a simultaneously personal film for the Coens but also thought-provoking.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really loved this movie. It had me thinking about big-picture issues but had me laughing almost throughout the duration of the film.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Joel and Ethan Coen have long been respected as among the best American filmmakers, and "A Serious Man" ranks among the best of their pictures.

WILL IT WIN?: There's only a slim chance: as satisfying as the movie is, the Coens have recently won the Best Picture nod for No Country For Old Men, and this movie did not make a big splash with audiences.

"Up"

SYNOPSIS: An old man makes his house into an improvised dirigible to fulfill the childhood dreams of him and his departed wife. A young boy accidentally comes along for the ride.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Great. This was the first animated movie to ever open the Cannes film festival, and it received a standing ovation on its completion - which never happens.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really love this movie. It's whimsical, moving, imaginative, and although unconventional, a very satisfying film.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: It's a moving, well-made film from top to bottom, and the infamous opening montage could move even the most hardened person to tears.

WILL IT WIN?: Of all the movies in this category that were made with a LOT of computers, this is hands-down the most deserving, and its overwhelming popularity means it stands a chance.

"Up In The Air"

SYNOPSIS: George Clooney plays a management consultant that performs firings for a living. When a hot-shot college grad makes suggestions that will restructure his entire firm, he starts to have doubts about whether his 'no luggage' lifestyle is really all he needs.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very positive. Again, a well-written script, solid directing, and some great performances by Clooney and company

IHYFM RESPONSE: I enjoyed the movie, thought that it was funny, thought-provoking, and overall enjoyable.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Jason Reitman, director of Thank You For Smoking and Juno, has yet to make a dud. The cast is great, and the script is solid.

WILL IT WIN?: There's been quite the backlash from the filmgoing community over this pic, saying it's overrated and dull. That doesn't help its chances.

MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- The intense character study from the scribe of The Wrestler, Big Fan.

- The sharpest satire in years, In The Loop.

- A delightfully bizarre true-story pic from Steven Soderbergh, The Informant!

"Roger Dodger": people that work in advertising are lonely a-holes

Are you ready for an obscenely obvious observation? Relationships, they say, aren't easy. If they were, we would lose the basis for most music, books, plays, movies, television, and Dr. Phil.

If only we all had someone that knew the ins and outs of relating to one another, and that was willing to impart their hard-earned knowledge on us. We'd have certainly have a leg up on navigating the tables of the high school cafeteria, that's for damn sure.

That, in a nutshell, is the premise of writer-director Dylan Kidd's debut film, 2002's "Roger Dodger". Jesse Eisenberg, in his breakout role, plays Nick, a high schooler that can't for the life of him figure out how to talk to the ladies. He seeks out the advice of his uncle Roger, played by veteran character actor, and George C. Scott's son, Campbell Scott. Roger is a copywriter in New York City that has the uncanny ability to shake things down to their essence. This ability not only makes him a keen observer of human behavior, and thus adept at smooth-talking, but the relish with which he breaks people down is his Achilles' Heel.

Regardless of whether his skills ultimately get Roger what he wants (namely, a romantic partner out of his boss, the wonderful Isabella Rossellini, perhaps best known to you as Jack Donaghey's ex-wife on "30 Rock"), he has a lot of simple tips that would seem like splitting the atom to a high school kid. Take, for example, his first tirade of advice he imparts on his nephew (sadly, I'm unable to embed the video).

As their wild night on the town continues, Roger takes more and more drastic measures to teach Nick how to 'get' with women. It becomes increasingly apparent that for all his powers of observation, Roger is just as inept at figuring out human relationships as is anyone else.

"Roger Dodger" is a day in the life of a Lothario that is one hell of a lot of fun to hate. It's fast-paced, intelligently told, and well-acted; it's perhaps the only movie you'll ever see where you'll root for the awkward teen hero to fail.

TOO MUCH: Xylophone in the electro-rock soundtrack. Mild pedophilia from costars Elizabeth Berkley and Jennifer Beals, although to their credit, they make it not entirely disturbing.

COULD HAVE USED MORE: Tripods - this movie was handheld years before the Bourne sequels brought the Blair Witch look back into vogue. The counter argument to this is that it would rob the only non-handheld shot in the NY portion of the film of its emotional impact.

FILM SNOB NOTE: Ben Shenkman, "Donovan", makes appearances in various David Wain projects.

IHYFM RATING: FOUR out of FIVE MEHS. It's smart, funny, and well-made, but it's just a little too long.

IF YOU SAID THIS WAS YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE, I'D THINK: If you're a guy, you'd make a great wingman, and probably a lousy husband.