"The Hurt Locker": the best picture (and Best Picture) of 2009

I am pleased to report that last night, the Academy got it right.

Kathryn Bigelow became the first female director to be awarded Best Director. The smallest-grossing Oscar-nominated film of all time beat the highest-grossing juggernaut in movie history for the prize of Best Picture.

I've been a vocal supporter of this movie since seeing it in theaters last summer and multiple times these past few months. It's gratifying to see my snobbery, at least once, was paralleled in the sentiments of the Academy.

Is the film perfect? No. It has its share of Hollywood implausibilities, and it's almost an anti-plot movie.

Is the film, in the words of Richard Corliss' spoiler-addled review, "near-perfect"? Absolutely.

The premise is simple. With hardly a month left in their rotation, bomb-squad members Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) are put under the command of William James (Jeremy Renner). James is an adrenaline junkie who plays by his own rules, and Sanborn and Eldridge begin to wonder if they'll make it home alive.

What makes the film so distinct from all other recent war movies, Iraq-based or otherwise, is Bigelow's careful handling of our central characters. Most war movies have your archetypes: the gutsy leader, the scrawny kid that delivers in the end, the cocky loud-mouth who's the first casualty.

The Hurt Locker avoids these cliches. James is an anti-hero who takes things too far, but he is not a villain. Sanborn is a by-the-books soldier, but he's not uncomplicated or foolish. Eldridge is young, but not a coward or brash. These characters feel like real people, so they are perhaps not easy to understand, but easy to care about.

The other major cliche not to found in The Hurt Locker is editorializing on combat. We're not given any lectures on what war is or the politics behind our involvement in Iraq; the only thing coming close is a very brief reflection by one of our soldiers on how uncertain their day-to-day job is.

The Hurt Locker doesn't tell us what we should think about everything occurring on screen. It presents the action for what it is, and gives us the credit of being intelligent enough to form our own opinions. This is perhaps best exemplified in a scene where Eldridge sees James with his shirt off and sees what looks like frag scars on his side. James says it's damage from when his mother dropped him when he was a baby. It is dismissed immediately, and never again referred to, but we're given an extra dimension of who James is with, literally, six seconds of screen time.

The film is visceral to the point of being exhausting. In every action set-piece, from bomb dismantlings to a desert shootout, there are dozens of red-herrings and unresolved interactions with locals who may or may not be combatants. When other critics have referred to this movie as realistic, that is what they are speaking to - the constant stress of urban combat where you don't know what to expect and danger can come from any source. Despite the inaccuracies, such as the soldiers' uniforms, or implausibilities, such as the aforementioned desert shootout, The Hurt Locker finds a higher truth through its fiction: that combat is unrelentingly dangerous and unpredictable, but for some, it is the only in the constant face of death that they know how to really live. It does this better than any other war film I have personally seen.

The craftsmanship behind The Hurt Locker, from Bigelow's directing, to the cast's performances, to the cinematography, is all superb. It's a challenging film, but thankfully, it gained some well-deserved recognition last evening.

The Hurt Locker was the best-made film of 2009. Oddly, on Hollywood's biggest night, it was recognized as such.

Don't take my word for it.

TOO MUCH: The side plot with the boy, and the ending of the scene in the desert, could have each been trimmed by a half-minute.

COULD HAVE USED MORE: Cameos from great actors.

FILM SNOB NOTE: The film was shot in Jordan, right next to Iraq, and on multiple occasions during filming the crew was fired upon.

IHYFM RATING: FIVE out of FIVE MEHS. The film is, in every aspect of its execution, excellent.

IF YOU SAID THIS WAS YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE, I'D THINK: You're the first person I'd want to see a movie with, and the last I'd want to help defuse a bomb.

Enjoy the Oscars, everybody

Well, here we are: the biggest night of the year for movies is upon us. The 82nd Annual Academy Awards.

As you spend your last few hours frantically adjusting your Oscar pool picks, please feel free to browse all of my almost-certainly misleading Academy Awards commentary; also, take a look at The Junior Varsity's modest proposals for improving the awards.

Oscar may shine on any number of films tonight, some deserving, and some, in the eyes of this critic, not. Regardless of who is awarded the hardware, enjoy viewing tonight's ceremony.

I probably won't be.

I Hate The Oscars: Best Director Nods

This man obviously owes nothing to the Jewish Hollywood Elite

Someone take away my keyboard! I can't stop this insanity!

Here's a list of four directors that made movies and a fifth that likes computers!

Lee Daniels, Precious

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: He successfully makes a story of a KFC-spewing AIDS-afflicted teenage mother uplifting.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. See above.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I'm so ashamed to write, for the fourth time, that I haven't seen it. I'm going to make it my beeswax to see it soon.

WILL HE WIN?: My gut says 'no', but if the votes for the other four nominees get split, Daniels could have a very good evening.

Jason Reitman, Up In The Air

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: His third feature, like the previous two, is intelligently and precisely crafted. It's a very, very well-made movie.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Excellent. That is, before the backlash saying it was overrated. Also, after the backlash to the backlash that said it was overrated.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I enjoyed it. It's a smart and timely drama that doesn't dumb itself down for the audience (cough, cough, Avatar).

WILL HE WIN?: Possibly, but he'll probably end up as Academy carnage left from the Bigelow-Cameron showdown.

Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: He made audiences remember Mike Meyers is, on occasion, fun to watch.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty decent. Not everyone loved it, but it is undeniably well-crafted.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really liked this movie. It's grown on me quite a bit since initially seeing it, and I love how Tarantino uses the film to ridicule our notion of what a war movie is supposed to be.

WILL HE WIN?: Only if the vote is split between the last two nominees on this list.

Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: Contrary to Tarantino's war movie, she directed basically the only Iraq war movie that comes close to capturing the uncertainty and tension of what a day in Baghdad might hold for American soldiers.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Excellent. It's one hell of a movie.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I've said it more than once around here, but in my humble (and generally correct) opinion, this is undoubtedly one of the best movies of 2009.

WILL SHE WIN?: I certainly hope so.

James Cameron, Avatar

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Who doesn't love lolcats in space?

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Sadly, really good. Style won over substance for most critics.

IHYFM RESPONSE: One of my friends said it very simply: "I love how much you despise Avatar." Sure, the graphics are good, but so far as the story goes, there's not a whole lot there.

WILL HE WIN?: If he does, it's because of pretty pictures. If he does, the Academy, in my opinion, will put the last nail in its coffin of meaninglessness.

MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- Robert Siegel, Big Fan

- Peter Docter, Up

- Joel and Ethan Coen, A Serious Man

I Hate The Oscars: Best Actor Nods

Oscar-winner (really!) Nic Cage as Oscar, via the superlative Nic Cage As Everyone

The Olympics are over! We need something else to watch on Sunday night instead of Al Michaels reminding us he was at Lake Placid in 1980! Why not the Oscars?

What else are you going to do? Watch The Cleveland Show? SHUT UP AND GET READY TO ENJOY THE ACADEMY AWARDS.

Here we go: mostly-familiar faces who were in motion pictures since last February!

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Jeff Bridges lives in the skin of what you'd get if you crossed The Dude with Travis Tritt with grampa during the holidays.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty good. Critics agreed that even if it's not the most compelling story, Bridges makes it very watchable.

IHYFM RESPONSE: So-so. I saw it a few weeks ago and thought it was okay, although I'd agree Bridges is in top form.

WILL HE WIN?: He's been cleaning up everywhere else, so he's the favorite for Oscar night.

George Clooney, Up In The Air

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: George plays a 'management consultant' that you would have out-and-out despised were he played by anyone else.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Every element of the film received high marks from critics, from the screenplay to the directing to the performances of the entire cast.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Very good as well. I thought it was a very intelligently told tale, par for the course from nominated-director Jason Reitman. I thought the core cast, all of whom are curiously nominated for acting awards, were top-notch. I think one of the highest compliments came from comedian and former Simpsons writer Dana Gould on a recent edition of Doug Benson's "I Love Movies" podcast, namely, Up In The Air never treats you like an idiot.

WILL HE WIN?: Unlikely. Bridges is the favorite, and there is more overall steam for The Hurt Locker, which gives an edge to Clooney's competitor Jeremy Renner.

Morgan Freeman, Invictus

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Not only is he Morgan Freeman, he's playing Nelson Mandela. Even if he was terrible in the movie he would've been nominated.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Good. Another movie that makes up for its dramatic elements with excellent performances.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Still haven't seen this flick. I realize this puts my ass at a severe risk of being kicked by Clint Eastwood.

WILL HE WIN?: That's a big maybe - don't be surprised if the Academy awards him this statue as a career-recognition award.

Colin Firth, A Single Man

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: The Academy has an unrequited crush left over from Bridget Jones's Diary.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty good. Firth's performance is said to be stunning.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't seen it - I found the trailer about as compelling as pushing a grandfather clock down a flight of stairs.

WILL HE WIN?: Probably not - the release was too limited for Firth to gain a lot of buzz.

Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

WHY HE'S NOMINATED: He was a great actor in a solid movie.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Excellent. The Hurt Locker was almost unilaterally referred to as one of the best movies of the year, thanks in part to the work of the cast.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I thought this was among the best movies of 2009, and Renner's performance as an adrenaline junkie that doesn't know when or how to quit, was very compelling.

WILL HE WIN?: For the sake of The Hurt Locker's chances at Best Picture, I really hope so. Logic says this will be Bridges' night, though.

MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- Michael Stuhlbarg, the sucker-punched physicist in A Serious Man

- Ed Asner, the grumpy aviator in Up

- Peter Capaldi, the obscenity-spewing director of communications in the satire In The Loop

- Patton Oswalt, the Giants fanatic in Big Fan

- Matt Damon, the pudgy corn executive in The Informant!

- Sam Rockwell, the lonely astronaut in Moon

I Hate The Oscars: Best Actress Nods

Basically, tragic characters are smiled upon on Oscar night, be they transgender murder victims or paralyzed tomboys.

Can you feel it? That numb tingling in the back of your brain? You're not practicing auto-erotic asphyxiation, you're just getting a bad case of Oscar fever!

Here we go: women who excelled in acting this past year who may or may not be Meryl Streep!

Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: She's Meryl Streep. It's the Oscars. The two go hand-in-hand, like peas and carrots, burgers and fries, or alcohol and making an ass of yourself.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty good. It's based on a true story and features strong performances from Streep, Amy Adams, and Stanley Tucci.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't seen it. My parents liked it though.

WILL SHE WIN?: With Gabourey Sidibe in the mix, Streep stands a good chance of an upset but will probably go home empty handed, with nothing but her mountains of other awards and Oscars to comfort her.

Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: She traveled outside her acting comfort zone, ie, romantic comedies with Hugh Grant, and displayed some chops in a more dramatic role.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Decent. Yet another true story, the critical community admired Bullock's performance but panned the drama as a little too easy.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Unreviewed. I do like football and brunettes, though, so I guess I'd like it at least a little bit.

WILL SHE WIN?: Unlikely. Precious has a lot more momentum. Bullock winning would be akin to Marissa Tomei's My Cousin Vinny upset.

Carey Mulligan, An Education

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: She's young and delivered a hell of a performance.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Excellent, thanks in no small part to Mulligan's acting.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Wait for it... I haven't seen this yet. My buddy saw it on a plane to Europe and thought it was pretty good. He does have a man-crush on Peter Sarsgaard, though (NOTE: that may or may not be true).

WILL SHE WIN?: As a newcomer, she may stand the best overall chance of upsetting the Precious powerhouse.

Helen Mirren, The Last Station

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: Celebrated actresses playing figures from history usually fare pretty well.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Mirren, Christopher Plummer, and Jimmy McAvoy are all supposed to be at their very best on screen.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Why break a perfect streak? I haven't seen this either.

WILL SHE WIN?: Clearly, I don't have much of a frame of reference, but I'm going to say 'nay'.

Gabourey Sidibe, Precious

WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: Who doesn't love watching poverty-stricken girls vomit force-fed KFC?

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. The story is sufficiently depressing and ultimately uplifting, and the cast is, I've heard, good at acting.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I. Still. Have. Not. Seen. This. Movie.

WILL SHE WIN?: For argument's sake, let's just say yes.

MISSING FROM THE LIST?

When I haven't seen one of the performances actually nominated, I feel this section is perhaps a bit moot. I did like Alison Lohman in Drag Me To Hell, but that's not really Academy fare.

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

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

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!

"Big Fan": who said sports movies need sports?

Earlier this year, Face of the Alternative Comedy Movement, Patton Oswalt, was a guest on the superlative podcast "I Love Movies" with Doug Benson. The conversation took a brief detour from waxing philosophical about which episodes of MASH suck and whether Pacino has given himself brain damage with hair product to Patton's current projects, which included a highly-anticipated indie venture written and directed by "The Wrestler" scribe Robert Siegel.

The movie was "Big Fan". Reviews were favorable. It had recently been announced that the Academy was expanding the best picture category to ten nominees, in an effort to both call back to the glory days of Hollywood and make the awards ceremony last longer than the NBA playoffs. It was suggested, only half-jokingly, that "Big Fan" might be a dark horse contender for the Academy's biggest prize.

I checked out the trailer. As I mentioned in previous posts, I'm a huge Patton Oswalt fan. I'm a sucker for indie drama/black comedies. I could not wait for this movie to come out.

It was going to play for one night in Chicago, at the Music Box theater. Robert Siegel and Patton Oswalt were going to be there for the screening and a Q&A.

I was out of town.

If ever you want to make a film snob experience heartbreak, this is not a bad way to go.

It seemed as though I would have to wait for the DVD to come out, but as fortune would have it, I received an offer to get a screener thanks to a previous sports-related stomping ground of mine.

If ever you want to make a film snob experience elation, this too is not a bad way to go.

On the eve of the DVD release of "Big Fan", my ISF co-editor and I sat down with a screener. My anticipation for the movie had been building for months, not unlike waiting for the Super Bowl to learn what the Neon was. Unlike that disappointing revelation, however, "Big Fan" delivered the goods.

The movie follows Patton Oswalt as Paul Aufiero, a Staten Island loser with a dead-end job as a parking lot attendant. The only thing that interests him in life is the New York Football Giants, and their star linebacker, Quantrell Bishop. His mother, whom he still lives with, wishes he would take after his sister or lawyer brother instead of spending his evenings calling into the local sports talk radio show to sputter out scripted rants and raves intended to deflate the tauntings of caller Philadelphia Phil (Michael Rapaport).

When Paul and his buddy Sal (Kevin Corrigan, the disgruntled house-party host in "Superbad") spot Bishop outside a local pizza joint, they follow him around New York in the hopes of meeting him and saying 'hi'. The meeting does not go quite as planned - Paul ends up in the hospital, and Bishop is suspended until a police investigation of their meeting is complete. Paul decides he can't remember what happened at the club in the hopes Bishop can retake the field and push the G-Men into the playoffs.

"Big Fan" is a focused character study that is simultaneously heartbreaking and bleakly hysterical. Paul is not only an outsider when it comes to his hero, he's an outcast in his own family, and he even struggles to fit in with his fellow Giants fans. He spends game days awkwardly trolling tailgates at the Meadowlands before watching the game in the parking lot with Sal. He's so ostracized from the only thing he loves, we don't even see a single snap of pigskin the duration of the taught 87-minute runtime; instead, we get to watch Oswalt's expressions as he feels the pain and joy of his team's up and downs.

As a character study, we're able to both sympathize and pity Oswalt's Paul. His single-minded fanaticism is oddly admirable, but also tragically pathetic as he really has nothing else in his life, and doesn't seem capable of much more even if he wanted it (perhaps best illustrated by his grimly amusing efforts to conduct legal research on Google). The lengths Paul goes to for his team, and the passion painted (literally and figuratively) on his face for the Giants' last game of the regular season, questions the dark places frenzied sports fans can sink to, whether it's booing Santa Claus or tearing off the testicles of a rival team's supporter.

Siegel's directorial debut is refreshingly focused and restrained, both a taught thriller and dark comedy, driven by Oswalt's bold performance. With the Oscar pool wide open for 10 nods, there's a definite chance it will sneak into the running, and if it does, a Best Actor nomination could be in the works for Patton Oswalt, "Big Fan"'s ironically short and fat star.*

"Big Fan" comes out on DVD this Tuesday.

TOO MUCH: the movie was 87 minutes - unless Andy Warhol is directing, that's not a lot of time for fluff

COULD HAVE USED MORE: one more scene like the one wherein Corrigan tries to wean Oswalt off of Mountain Dew

FILM SNOB NOTE: Jonathan Hamm, who plays Quantrell Bishop, is not to be confused with Jon Hamm, who plays Don Draper on "Mad Men". Helen Reddy's "Delta Dawn" and John Prine's "Sweet Revenge" both serve as great black-comedy punchlines.

IHYFM RATING: FOUR AND A HALF out of FIVE MEHS. It's a small-scale story that doesn't try to be more than it is; effective filmmaking that is terrifically entertaining.

IF YOU SAID THIS WAS YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE, I'D THINK: Whatever your team is, that's my team too.

*I almost made it without making that pun. I am a total hack.

Still waiting for the "Avatar" backlash

From AvatarSucks.com

I thought I knew the internet. I thought that it would be only a matter of time before message boards, blogs, and Youtubes were flooded with masses of disgruntled film fans blasting Cameron for the silly "Dances With Wolves" plot, terrible characters and dialogue, and worse-than-high-school-drama-club acting (don't believe me? Go to 2:48).

The internet has, along with the rest of the world, let me down. "Avatar" has grossed almost $400 million to date domestically, and when those numbers are added to the international box office returns, "Avatar" shoots to over $1 billion dollars earned. For the time being, it doesn't show any signs of slowing.

Collectively, we're about as artistically discerning as an infant being taunted with a dangling set of car keys.

What worries me the most about the success of "Avatar" isn't that people are going to see it - in its theatrical run roughly the same amount of domestic viewers saw "Transformers 2" - it's that the movie-going public seems to be hailing it as one of the best movies ever, and that the Hollywood establishment, in their infinite wisdom, will undoubtedly try to recapture financial lightning in the bottle with motion-capture CGI epics that don't pay much attention to story or characters but are still advertised as high art.

As I said in my original review, "Avatar" is pretty to look at, and the 3D experience is impressive, but it is ultimately a very shiny package for an empty box. The characters are of the most simplistic background and motivations, the plot is tired, predictable, and lacking in any substantial depth or emotional relevance.

Compare "Avatar" to Cameron's 1989 underwater epic "The Abyss". There are a lot of similarities - military aggression versus scientific research, alien species under threat of annihilation, and yes, unprecedented computer technology was used to bring the film to the screen. The difference between the two films is that the story and characters of "The Abyss" drive the movie. No, the characters are not richly developed, but they are certainly more fleshed-out than the absolute cookie-cutter stars of "Avatar". So far is the plot is concerned, there's a lot more going on in "The Abyss", especially in the excessively long yet superior director's cut. Even though both films have bleeding-heart messages (and both start with the letter "A"!), "The Abyss" works because it's focused on the two main characters repairing their marriage and in turn saving the world in the manner of Sodom. The story and characters of "Avatar" pale in comparison. Just as infuriatingly, "The Abyss" occasionally has a sense of humor about itself, whereas "Avatar" takes itself more seriously than does a teenage poet.

The other significant worry about the momentum of "Avatar" is this year's Academy Awards, where there will be ten contenders for the prestigious - and meaningless - award for Best Picture. There is a distinct possibility that "Avatar" and Cameron will be up against the fantastic "The Hurt Locker", directed by ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow (Cameron, though, has been a vocal supporter of Bigelow's drama all year). I am afraid there's a real chance that big-budget CGI will triumph over low-budget visceral character-driven action and drama when it comes time for the Oscars. This discussion has been ongoing this week at Slate's Movie Club, and as Roger Ebert stated, "should Avatar snatch that Oscar away, it will be because it grossed zillions of millions, not because it's better".

That is what is at the core of my curmudgeonly objections to "Avatar". Film is, as is the case with any art-form, subjective. I have long since come to terms with the fact that I am an unapologetic snob, and not everything that I appreciate will be accepted by the masses, and likewise what pleases the masses will not necessarily impress me. In this case, though, I feel like the case against the film is so clear, so obvious, yet the masses have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the incessant marketing and glimmering visuals, and are hailing this as one of the best movies ever made.

I've seen the emperor's new clothes for what they really are. I hope you do, too.