on 3-D

Before I start, yes.  I saw Avatar.  The 3-D rocked the ceiling off, I know.

Generally speaking, however, I hate 3-D.  I have seen Up, Clash of the Titans, and Alice in Wonderland in the past year.  With the gross exception of Avatar, each one could have done without, and my pocket could have used the extra change.  Hence my number one reason:

1. Too. Freaking. Expensive!  Two of the aforementioned films I saw in Tahiti, and movies in Tahiti are already ridiculously expensive (about 840 francs for a matinee only, which is about 10 US dollars).  3-D costs 1400 francs.  Roughly $16.  Seriously?
2. It gives me a head ache.  I know, I sound like an old man but one can only take too many things flying at you arbitrarily.
3. Have you been hearing about the germs being spread through re-usable glasses lately?
4. For those that wear glasses on a daily basis – how fun is it to wear two pairs of glasses at once?  I normally sport contacts but sometimes I choose glasses for style or off-days.  I went to a 3-D movie with some friends on one such day.  Yeah.  Way comfortable.
5. It distorts the color.
6. It’s extremely distracting.  Why listen to what the characters are saying when I can look at the giant moon rock floating towards me!
7. Limited genres.  Citizen Kane in 3-D? I think not.
8. Except (of course) films such as Avatar – it’s extremely unnecessary, and detracts from the film experience.

Is this the new frontier?  It certainly seems like it.  As I stated earlier, I think it distracts from the creation.  Take Alice.  I saw this in French, and had a really difficult time understanding – there are too many words like “curiouser” and “Mad Hatter” for complete comprehension for someone with a limited vocabulary.  But I wanted to see it anyway despite some negative reviews.  (I’m always gung-ho for anything Tim Burton).  Unfortunately, I had an unpleasant experience.  I do not think Alice was a bad movie (though my opinion is seriously handicapped).  I do think and know, however, that i didn’t find what I was looking for: to be immersed in the world of Burton.  The 3-D was too distracting.  If 3-D prevents total escape then really.  What’s it doing here?  I never thought I would say I was more excited to see a movie on DVD than in the theater.

Again.  Avatar was the shiz.  But that was James Cameron’s plan from the beginning.  He is a brilliant cinematographer and everything was carefully planned according to his ideas using 3-D technology.  When it’s forced on movies as a last-minute decision they are motivated by box-office results only.  It works, to be sure.  But it’s terribly sad.  When the next Avatar comes along, I’ll check out the 3-D.  But forgive me if I prefer Toy Story 3 in 2-D.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) AND (1956)

I watched both versions of Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much recently (1934, and the 1956 remake).  The remake I have seen numerous times, but this was a first viewing experience for the 1934 version.  There are noteable differences between the two, but the most important element remains: Arthur Benjamin’s Storm Clouds Cantata.  Could anything be more effective for an assassination?  And next time you watch the DVD, be sure to turn the subtitles on.  The lyrics are hilarious: “Finding RELEASE!”

British version: Starring Leslie Banks, Edna Best, Peter Lorre, and Neva Pilbeam.  While vacationing in Switzerland, Mr. and Mrs. British couple (Banks and Best) get mixed up in a plot for assassination, and their daughter (Pilbeam) is kidnapped to keep them quiet.  I could say this a thousand times… but these movies would be so much better with subtitles and better sound!  Especially when I found out that this was Peter Lorre’s first English-speaking picture and much of his script was learned phonetically.  That being said, he was the best part – he made a fantastic villain.  In many ways, this film was a significant milestone in Hitch’s career.  From here on out, he only gets better.  The cinematography was superb.  The story is fast-paced, witty, and intense.  Anyway, all in all this version was excellent.  I can see why many prefer this to the new one.

However, my preference still lies with the 1956 version for one reason: James Stewart. My second celebrity crush ever (next to Cary Grant) - I can't help but love him in anything. As I mentioned earlier, there are significant differences. For one, Nova Pilbeam is now a boy! (Christopher Olsen). Hitchcock himself thought this to be superior, and I must admit it has a "finished product" feel. In fast, there is an actual REASON the man knows too much. In fact, Monsieur Louis Bernard was looking for a couple just like them. Too bad the other couple got to their son first... I'm also a fan of the interesting red herring scene at the taxidermist's (Norman Bates anyone?) I'm not always a fan of Doris Day, but she does some of her best acting here. Is her "Que Sera, Sera" a little over the top? Yes. (It's more like QUEEEEEEEHHHHH sera, seraaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!) But it works for the film. Heck, it won the Oscar for Best Song that year. 

Anyway, both are top-notch thrillers. But only one has Jimmy. 8/10 and 9/10

macGuffins

…A story about two men in a train. One man says “What’s that package up there in the baggage rack?”, and the other answers “Oh that’s a McGuffin.” The first one asks “What’s a McGuffin?”. “Well”, the other man says, “It’s an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.” The first man says “But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands”, and the other one answers “Well, then that’s no McGuffin!” (from Wikipedia, taken from Hitchock’s interview with Francois Truffaut)

“So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all.” Hitchcock elaborates.  The McGuffin was a common plot device in many of Hitchocock’s films, most notably in North by Northwest. (What the crap are those government secrets?)  While the term and technique was popularized by Hitchcock, McGuffins are used in many other films as well as different media-types.  See here’s the story.  So I was browsing through Hithcock’s Wikipedia page and I came across the link for McGuffins while reading about themes Hitchcock regularly used.  This page listed several examples of McGuffins in pop culture today.  One item particularly stood out to me: The island on Lost.

*Minor spoilers ahead for those who haven’t yet seen the series finale of Lost.

Obviously the series ended a few weeks ago already.  It was a pretty big deal, you know, I felt like my dear friend was dying.  It’s always an adventure to get Lost to work for me in Tahiti.  See, nifty websites like Hulu and ABC.com don’t work over here because of regional restrictions.  Soo I have to get creative.  I have 2 websites that will generally work, though one will kick me off after 75 minutes and makes me wait an additional hour before resuming (a big issue when the finale was 2 1/2 hours long…) Long story short, I didn’t get to start watching until about midnight.  But I wasn’t about to wait until morning, no sir.

This is just going to sounds like old news now, I know.  But in regards to “The End” I was emotionally satisfied.  Many haters, however, think that’s a bunch of bull.  Someone said that it was a battle between the poets and the scientists.  The poets loved the character redemption and happy-endings to people we’ve grown attached to.  The scientists wanted more answers.  I’ve always been a character-oriented person.  Sawyer, Jack, Juliet, Ben, Desmond, Locke, Sun, Richard, and Hurley will always be like my friends and I wanted to see them find happiness and redemption.  I loved that they found their “constant” (especially that Sawyer and Juliet finally found one another), and I’d like to believe that their “after-life” will continue as a happy existence with the people they love.  I also lurve the Hurley/Ben duo.  You could not get a better protector than Hurley, dude.

I’ll admit, though, I was a little confused at first.  So I also understood complaints about the unanswered questions, particularly: “What is the ISLAND??”

Well.

The Island is a freaking McGuffin!  It makes perfect sense!  Think of it in comparison to North by Northwest.  All of these government officials are going nutso over these “secrets.”  What are these secrets?  Why turn your lives upside-down?  Is there really any significance? Well then, ladies and gentlemen, whyyyyyy does crazy mother Allison Janney force her no-name son to stay on the island?  Why does kid-in-black kill mother?  Why does Jacob then decide to create “rules” for his brother MIB and himself?  What are they protecting?  Why does the island still need a protector?  Why, why, why??  Well why, again, is everyone freaking out about some seemingly insignificant government secrets?  The island is a McGuffin.  And once again, everything in the world comes back to Alfred Hitchcock.

All along I refused to believe that I had “wasted” six years of my life on “just another show.”  Although this McGuffin business is nothing concrete (a McGuffin is, after all, nothing) I find myself quite satisfied with “The End.”  And really, Lost will always be a part of me.  Why else would I STILL be thinking about it 20 days after the fact?

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

It’s movies like this that remind me how great it is sometimes to be stuck and secluded on a tropical island.  I talked with several people who disliked Where the Wild Things Are because of all the “hipster-hype” – skinny-jeaned, indie music-lovin’ people obsessing over a film that they could “identify” with.  (Frankly, I’m a nerdy, indie-music lovin’, skinny jeaned person myself but seeing as, again, I’m one in a million on this island with such characteristics, that has nothing to do with it).  All that to say, I’m really gonna miss watching a popular movie without that added over-eager endorsement from peers at school or work.  The luxury of being able to objectively watch something will be sorely missed.

The movie is an adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s Caldecott Award-winning children’s book of the same name about a boy named Max who is sent to his room without supper, travels to “where the wild things are” through his imagination and becomes their king. I grew up on this story and have always loved the illustrations and creativity.

As far as the film goes… my objectivity served me well – I loved it.  In many ways I hardly know why I loved it.  Spike Jonze’s creation is nothing like I was expecting but I was fascinated with what I saw nonetheless.  I felt real child-like emotion and true earnestness.  What truly amazed me was the spontaneity protrayed through the creatures and Max.  They yell and fight and play and cry and are happy, then sad and don’t want to share and throw tantrums – all in five minutes.  Is that not like every child between the ages of 6 and 10?  The extremes may seem exaggerated but in all honesty its exaggeration was nothing but realistic.  The monsters were surprisingly complex (“Will you keep out the sadness?”) and had an honest feel to them.  I love the fresh feel of the Jim Henson-style puppet creations (Labyrinth!), rather than the usual overdose of CGI junk.

Many spoke of the feeling of hopelessness and sadness.  I agree to an extent though this didn’t bother me until several hours later.  While watching the movie I was nothing but entranced, fascinated, emotionally invested, and in awe of the visually stunning creation I was viewing.  The music also added immensely to the tone, and brought life to the story – plus I’m a Yeah Yeah Yeah’s fan.

If I could change one thing, I would change the ending.  In the book, Max returns from his adventure to find his supper waiting for him, as though everything were better.  The film ends differently, and I find it a shame.  I think that ending it the same way the book did would eliminate any remaining feeling of depression.  My opinion.

I should also credit Max Records.  He was excellent and terribly imaginative, as was the supporting cast (Catherine Keener, James Gandolfini, Catherine O’Hara, Forest Whitaker, and even Mark Ruffalo).  But this review has gone on long enough, however, the best part about this WHOLE ordeal is the trailer.  The Arcade Fire music rocks.  So, here’s the trailer in case you missed it:

In the words of KW “I could eat it up, I love it so.” 8/10

Sabotage (1936)

Not to be confused with Hitchcock’s 1942 film Saboteur… this 1936 picture (Hitchcock as well) is also quite excellent.  My fav of Hitch’s old period is without a doubt The Lady Vanishes, however this is definitely a rising fav of the bunch.

Starring Sylvia Sidney, Oskar Homolka, and John Loder, this movie was ironically adapted from Joseph Conrad’s novel The Secret Agent but the title, however, was not used since Hitchcock’s Secret Agent was already in production. Mr. Verloc (Homolka) owns a local theater with his wife (Sidney).  When the power goes out throughout the town, Mr. Verloc suspiciously returns from an unknown journey yet lies to his wife at having ever left his bedroom.  Other characters include Sylvia’s younger brother, Stevie (Desmond Tester), and the Scotland Yard detective disguised as the grocer next door (Loder).  As we observe Mr. Verloc’s activity and we find him more and more connected with plans for sabotage, his devoted wife suspects nothing.  That is until her brother gets blown up into a bajillion pieces…  The scene that follows between husband and wife was so masterfully suspensful – I tensed up as much as if it were Psycho.

Another very well-filmed moment was the Hitchcockian way in which the camera zoomed and held its picture on the reel of film, a technique seen in so many others (the glass of milk in Suspicion, the briefcase in Topaz to name a few).  I could watch this film several more times, it is full of masterfully created moments.  Overall I thought it had excellent cinematography, a good cast (particularly Sylvia Sidney), and a suspensful plot.  Worth the watch to all Hitch lovers.   8/10

p.s. Be sure to take note of the birds in this film… another Hitch trademark.

am i excited? oh, i'm excited.

Profanity aside, the MTV Movie Awards provided us with one joyful thing… a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I trailer (set for release November 19, 2010). This is coming from a true Potter-nerd, here. In fact I just re-read the series this past January, then watched the 6 movies a few weeks ago… and I already want to read them again. This, however, is another post for another time.  I’ll just watch this trailer a couple thousand times for now… View below:

17 Again (2009)

Zac Efron is probably the best of his High School Musical counterparts, yet still nothing more than a teen celeb.  However, my guilty pleasure Hairspraytold me that Efron wasn’t a terrible actor, he actually contributed something to the film as Link Larkin.  17 Again is not a great movie, though its weak points are not attributed to Efron’s acting, surprisingly enough.  Its weaknesses lie in the simple truth that this movie was made for thirteen-year-olds.  The plot is nothing new, (think Freaky Friday, Back to the Future, or Big) 30-year-old Mike (Matthew Perry) is stuck in 17-year-old Mike’s (Efron) body.  He has the chance to help his two teenage kids and redeem himself to his wife.

As far as teen movies go, it is certainly not the worst.  Frankly I could have used a bit more of Matthew Perry.  I dug Thomas Lennon’s character and his geekiness.  Leslie Mann was also quite good.  Obviously I didn’t watch it for the “cinematic experience”, but for the mindless entertainment.  Mindless entertainment I got, and although I won’t be rushing to see it again – I enjoyed it in spite of myself. 6/10

*post edit: This movie only gets better with age. It's actually way funny. And the tables have turned, I totally love Zac Efron. Perhaps 22-year-old Lauren is, in fact, LESS mature than 18-year-old Lauren. But it's whatever. 7/10

Murder! (1930)

Finally! A Hitchcock that's kinda like Hitchcock!

First of all, when was the last time you saw a picture titled “Murder!”, exclamation point included? I don’t think it’s too forward, do you?

I enjoyed this movie, although I wish I could have understood it better.  It’s a shame that these crummy DVD adaptations don’t included subtitles, I could really use them!  The plot is (surprisingly) about a murder and the girl convicted.  A jury member has doubts and decides to figure out the truth before it’s too late.  Now, I don’t REALLY think that a juryman can conduct his own investigation but we’ll pretend.  There are some excellently photographed scenes, though. It’s fun to see an early work of his that actually looks like he made it. 6/10

The Farmer's Wife (1928)

Juno, step aside.  You’ve been replaced.

I’m making great progress in my Hitchcock-a-thon.  I’m glad I got this one out of the way…

I have a confession.  This silent was moving so slowly and the music was nothing but distracting that I put it on fast-forward.  I didn’t even need to pause to read the titles.  I don’t feel bad.

This movie was weird.  A man searches for a new wife (strangely unaffected by the death of his late wife..) when really she was there all along.  I dunno.  Maybe some will think of it as a clever old rom-com but I thought it was ridiculous.  The main character was anything but likable, and I have a problem when the characters aren’t relatable. 2/10

The Young Victoria (2009)

Two of my favorite “fun” movies are Dan in Real Life and Devil Wears Prada.  This is greatly due to actress Emily Blunt.  She has just a small part in Dan yet still manages to steal the show as Pig-faced Ruthie Draper. Her one scene takes the audience for an hilarious fifteen minute ride (plus, her American accent is pretty fantastic). Prada, too, would not be the same without Anne Hathaway’s carb-hating, Miranda-worshipping nemesis, Emily, with too many one-liners to count. I am anxious for movies such as The Adjustment Bureau, coming in September, and basically anything else featuring her.

Young Victoria brings out a more serious and deeper side of Blunt as she portrays the young Queen of England.  I was not disappointed, she has proved her versitality.  She is the show. The life of a princess is not always a fairy tale, and the role of a queen is no walk in the park.  She allows us to feel her struggle, we see her goodness and her naïveté, her fear of being controlled and her desire to serve her people.

The romance and marriage between Albert and Victoria was believable, thanks again to the acting of Blunt as well as Rupert Friend, who was as good as the former. The supporting cast is also quite solid: Paul Bettany, Miranda Richardson, Jim Broadbent… The other highlight is, without question, the costume design which won an Oscar. Magnifique.

I wasn’t terribly impressed by the overall editing of the film, particularly towards the end.  It had a choppy feel that simply wasn’t my style.  However, disregarding a few nit-picky things, I was swept by the film. I enjoyed it and count me in for anything Emily Blunt. 7/10

The Ring (1927)

I’m sick today. I’ve been sick for a few days actually… but not all is lost. I just get to watch a few more movies than usual. 

I’ve actually been compiling over 20 different “blah blah blah movies to see before you die” lists including those from  Empire Magazine, AFI, Yahoo, Roger Ebert and also all the Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor/Actress and Director Oscar winners. That alone includes over 1000 movies. I look at such lists and I find that I KNOW 95% of the movies just from my film knowledge but I’ve seen only about 15%. This frustrates me at first… but then I remember that I’m only 18. I’ve got lots of time to catch up.

I’ve been continuing to watch more old Hitchcock movies. For some reason I have this issue of keeping separate the main male characters. Me: “Wait, is that the husband or the lover?” My mom: “It’s the husband, he’s the BALD one…” I’m finding, however, that they are worth the time for historical purposes if nothing else. Many of these “comedies” are so unlike the Master of Suspense’s later work that it’s delightful to catch small glimpses of certain Hitchcockesque filming angles or other such qualities and techniques.

You’ve got your Rockys, your Raging Bulls and your Cinderella Storys… but go much earlier than 1947′s Body and Soul and you won’t find many movies centered around boxing. As I watched this movie, I thought how few films about boxing could have been made before 1930, so a silent dramedy about boxing in 1927 would have been something new to the British screen. That in and of itself is commendable. Since watching I have done a bit of research and found films such as the 1926 Buster Keaton movie Battling Butler or The Champ in 1931, neither of which I have seen. I remain, however, that The Ring was daring for its time.

The film itself was interesting, though not necessarily worth watching twice. The plot centers around a love triangle and the two lead men fighting (literally) for her (undeserving) heart. There were very few title cards, but the plot was predictable enough with them. I was especially impressed with the fight scenes, which were cinematically awesome for 1927, and I enjoyed one particular scene in which the two opposing men are dancing back-to-back in front of the camera while searching for one another. It was some very clever camera work.

I can’t say I enjoyed this film. I would say that I appreciated it. But I’d still take Rocky. 4/10

The Blind Side (2009)

Folks, I finally saw The Blind Side. To cut to the chase, I enjoyed it. I really did. But it’s not my favorite movie.6/10 possibly. I even watched it twice. So here’s the quick facts.

LIKE:

• They used real-life coaches. Although I’m terribly under-educated on the goings-on of college football, my mom kept me informed so that was fun.
• Sandra Bullock was, indeed, good in the role of Leigh Anne Tuohy. She knows how to chew someone out.
• Quinton Aaron as Michael Oher was (surprisingly) pretty good.
• All of his rugby striped shirts. Especially the only that looked like Gryffindor.
• It gave me that warm fuzzy feeling. The world had a beautiful pink Mary Richards bow around it. (Don’t worry if you don’t get it).
• It was fast-paced, there were funny moments, a moving story, kept my attention etc.

DISLIKE:

• It’s a freaking Hallmark movie. I can’t believe people are buying into its simplistic and superficial plot. Do you honestly believe that the ENTIRE Tuohy family just welcomed Michael in with open arms including a teenage DAUGHTER? And no one was even pissed that Michael nearly killed their son in a car accident? Who taught him to drive anyway?
• To go along with being too simplistic, they could have delved into soooo many interesting facets of Michael’s story including his challenges and struggles, his character growth, his background, how he dealt with becoming a charity project… etc.
• Instead, Michael is pushed to a supporting character IN HIS OWN STORY! The movie tells us about what a saint Leigh Anne is, how wonderfully Christian Leigh Anne is, how kind and charitable she was to save this poor good-for-nothing black boy and teach him to be something out of the goodness of her heart. Wtf.
• I’m sorry, but, it was pretty racist too.
• This may seem paradoxical, since I did say that Sandra Bullock was good but I honestly thought she was over-the-top. The whole don’t-mess-with-sexy-mommy attitude taken so far that a gang of young, fit black kids are actually scared? Not buying it. She’s bossy. To everyone.

If we’re talking sports movies, give me Hoosiers or Remember the Titans any day. But on the whole it was enjoyable. (Sure, what I dislike outweighs what I like, but there is something to be said for enjoyability). It may have been a little too perfect, but I liked it. I have my issues with it, but I would recommend it to someone.

Is it anywhere NEAR Oscar material? Heck no! Not everyone may have liked Julie & Julia, but I honestly find it to be a far superior movie to Blind Side – and Meryl Streep SHOULD have won. (I can honestly say that with NO reservations now). I mean, it wasn’t even like they were nominating her just because she’s elite and she’s “Meryl Streep.” She was good in that role, just watch footage of the real Julia Child and you’ll see what I mean. Count your blessings, Sandra, that America loves you so much.

Ten years down the road? People will look back at this and say “What WAS the Academy thinking!” You heard it here first.

master of suspense

If you know me AT ALL, you would know that I have a slight obsession with director Alfred Hitchcock.

(Think screeching violins if you don’t know who he is).

I love everything Hitchcock. Someday, maybe, I’ll post up a top ten list or something.  We have a few box sets of some of his super old stuff and my mom keeps saying “if you were a true Hitchcock fan you’d be watching some of these…” and I realized: she was right.

So I took the plunge. I watched a bunch of Hitchcocks over the weekend. I’m nowhere near finished but I made a good dent. Of his old British ones I watched these:

2+2=4. Heavy Irish accents+horrible sound=necessity for subtitles. (Which were absent). Moral of the story? This film should be reserved for Hitchcock students only. I had a really hard time following and it wouldn’t have been worth my time were it not for fulfilling my OCD requirement of watching and paying attention to all Hitchcocks. So I watched. Sara Algood plays Juno, a struggling housewife with a drunkard for a husband (Edward Chapman, “The Paycock”) during the Irish revolution. I tuned out during quite a bit of it… ha. But I read a synopsis afterwards and really the plot isn’t as boring as I thought. It’s unfortunate that this adaptation of Sean O’Casey’s play is so… old. It’s one of the first talkies, yo. But it was interesting. And now I can say I watched it. Yes!

On the other side of the spectrum… I found this to be a hidden gem that I had somehow never seen. It’s very similar to The 39 Steps – convicted innocent man inlists help of resilient woman and they fall in love and solve the mystery. Oops I think I gave away the ending. But I was impressed with some innovative and unique camera work, good solid characters/acting (Nova Pilbeam and Derrick de Marney) and a good musical score. Worth watching.

You’re probably wondering why I even write this junk up, right? I would wonder too. It’s for myself. Why publish it on the internet? Because on the internet there is always the off chance that someone will, you know, read it which forces me to edit, and learn more about what I’m writing. So yes. You don’t have to read my lame movie reviews. I like to keep track of the movies that I watch, and this is the best way.

kbye.

lazy movie weekend

Last week we had a few hectic things happen and by the end of the week we had EARNED a vacation. My dad was on another island (like usual) and my mom and I decided to play it lazy and watch some movies. The best part was we weren’t even completely lazy. We even got some cleaning/organizing done at home too! Go us.

I was automatically drawn to this by stars Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson – but I didn’t realize just how endearing and magical this movie would be. The plot is nothing to go wild about (reforming man meets lonely woman blah blah) but there’s a real-life quality to the nonsense. The beauty of story telling is that it isn’t always about who’s the most innovative or the most risky. Sometimes it is the same plot over and over again, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth the watch. (Yes. Avatar is Pocahontas. But Avatar demonstrates something that Pocahontas, obviously, doesn’t).

I’d recommend this movie. See it for the leading couple. See it for London scenery. There are a few painful moments, it’s a little sad, but it ends well. And it’s Dustin Hoffman. Seriously.

My mom as always talked of this as her favorite James Dean movie. (you know… one of his THREE..) I watched it for the first time this weekend and loved it. Like, seriously. WHAT AN AMAZING PERFORMANCE. Adapted from John Steinbeck's novel this Elia Kazan adaptation brings this tragic story to life. It’s really sad to think of what James Dean could done with his career had he not died. He’s so spontaneous and believable. He shows raw emotion. And let's not forget Jo Van Fleet in her Oscar-winning performance. It's so good. New favorite movie? probably.

Okay. This is pretty much all I have to talk about right now. Peace.

82nd Oscar Picks and Predictions

Welcome to the 2010 Let’s-See-How-Predictable-We-Can-Be-Movie-Awards. AKA the Oscars. It’s not even fun anymore! You walk in and EVERYONE knows EXACTLY what is going to win. There is zero fun in that. Zero. Okay, maybe a little for the ones who win. But what’s life without a little surprise, huh? Not only is that totally messed up… but this year they eliminated song performances, they ALREADY presented the honorary awards, and don’t get me STARTED on ten nominees for Best Picture.. They’re messing with sacred stuff, here.

Here is what I would REALLY like to happen Sunday night…

1. Meryl Streep wins. Definitely number 1. She’s been nominated SIXTEEN times. For real. And she’s only won twice? That’s ridiculous. She should have won last year. She should have won for Out of Africa or Silkwood. She should win THIS YEAR! Sandra? Why the heck are you even nominated? You’re cool and all but… get out.

2. Up… wins Best Picture. Out of the blue. Up rocked. It should just win best picture. Beating Avatar… and Up in the Air… and all those others. Realistically? I’m pulling Up in the Air.

3. Kathryn Bigelow wins Best Director. This one actually could happen. She is the favorite lately. First woman director to win, that’d be the shiz.

4. Best Actor? Okay, so Jeff Bridges is going to win. Which is cool. He’s cool. Morgan Freeman rocks. And we all know that I love George Clooney… But honestly? I’m pulling for Colin Firth! It’s his first nomination. He’s incredibly underrated.

5. Harry Potter wins Best Cinematography. For kicks and giggles.

6. Stanley Tucci wins. Because he’s awesome, and I hope he wins someday, and I really liked him in Devil Wears Prada and Julie & Julia.

I’m sure Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin will be hilarious. I like hilarious people. Too bad I can’t watch it huh?

For the record though. Here are my official (and not very original) predictions.

Best Picture: The Hurt Locker

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Best Actor: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Best Actress: Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia (I have FAITH!)

Okay. Maybe Sandra Bullock.

Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique - Precious

Best Animated – Up
Best Adapted Screenplay – Up in the Air
Best Original Screenplay – The Hurt Locker
Best Score – Up
Best Original Song – The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)
Best Makeup – Star Trek
Best Visual Effects – Avatar
Best Art Direction – Avatar
Best Sound Editing – Avatar
Best Sound Mixing – Avatar