Larry Ratliff

Has Oscar gone nuts?

Looking for a pretty certain bar bet to pick up a little extra cash?

Try this one:  How many Best Picture nominees are there at the Academy Awards?

Savvy moviephiles are likely to say 10, since Oscar upped the ante two years ago from five to 10.

And they would be ... WRONG!

Tuesday night the decision makers at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences apparently decided to add new math to their arts and sciences manifest.

Beginning next year, the number of Best Picture nominees will be somewhere between five and 10.  Or just five, or maybe 10 again, but probably six, seven, eight or nine.

It'll depend on the nomination process.

So the correct answer for the bar bet of the day is "Who the heck knows?"

It appears the only certainty regarding the Oscars these days is that the telecast itself will continue to drag unless someone can lure Billy Crystal back as host.

(Oscar statuette photo courtesy:  sassyisconvenient.blogspot.com.)

Rocks, hard places and a thumping wabbit

 

James Franco, rock star, in "127 Hours."   (Courtesy:  Fox Searchlight)

It's appropriate that the recently Blu-rayed version of "Bambi," the 1942 Disney animated classic, hits DVD shelves this week.

I thought I was sitting next to Thumper-reincarnated at a movie screening the other night.  A guy -- and not a petite guy, either -- kept thumping his right foot throughout an otherwise forgettable flick.

All I, and methinks everyone on my press row, could think about was, "When will this stop?"  Not the movie, the annoying subconscious (I think.  I hope.) one-stepping in the dark.

Come to think of it, I was wondering when the film would run out of celluloid redundency as well.

When you grab "Bambi" for the kids (and confess, you might just want to revisit the classic tale along with the little ones), you'll notice that Danny Boyle's how-did-I-get-into-this-mess adventure "127 Hours" has also become available this week.

You know "127 Hours."  That's the sad, stilted tale where James Franco gets stuck hosting the Academy Awards and must cut off his arm to get away in time for graduate classes at Yale and his "General Hospital" soap opera gig.

Just kidding (sort of).  Franco, who slipped into Oliver Stone's bizarre 200-yard stare more than once during Sunday night's telecast, actually earned a Best Actor Oscar nomination for portraying hiker/adventurer Aron Ralston in "127 Hours."

It's not as good as "Bambi."  But at least Franco doesn't pat his foot throughout "127 Hours."

Also appearing on a DVD shelf near you this week:

"Burlesque," in which Christina Aguilera sings her heart out and appears to remember all the words.  (Click here for my review.)

"Love and Other Drugs" teams Anne Hathaway (Franco's Oscar co-host, who oozed too much perkiness) and Jake Gyllenhaal, and ...

"Faster," an action-thriller pairing Dwayne Johnson, who used to wrestle a little, and Billy Bob Thornton, who used to appear in better flicks.

("Bambi" photo courtesy:  Disney.)

Ramblings from my Oscar after-party

 

Christian Bale struggles through his "Thank yous" at the 2011 Oscar ceremonies.   (Courtesy:  Oscar.com)

Sibi, Christian (Bale).  That's your wife's name.

Remember?  It was Sandra, but the former model you met at one of Winona Ryder's barbecues (according to published reports) and married and had a child with calls herself Sibi these days.

Congrats on winning the Supporting Actor Oscar for a terrific portrayal of a cocaine-addled former boxer in "The Fighter."

But Bale's hesitation, then lack of ability to come up with his spouse's name at the podium will live in Academy Award infamy.  It'll rank right up there with Sally Field's "You like me.  You really like me!" (1985) and David Niven's cool brush off of a streaker at the 1974 Oscar ceremonies.

"Isn't it fascinating that probably the only laugh that man will get in his life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings," Niven said.   

You're a dandy actor, Mr. Bale.  But unless you're a glutton for punishment, you might not want to tune into the late night talk shows tonight.

Saved by the Billy ... almost

About halfway into the 83rd Academy Awards, after co-hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco had been struggling for a long time, an old familiar face showed up quite unexpectedly.

Billy Crystal, who has hosted the Oscar back-patting party eight times and killed each time, strolled out, let the applause die down and said, "Wow.  Where was I?"

That's exactly what I was wondering.  Hathaway and Franco, good actors both, were flops as co-hosts aimed at attracting a younger demographic.

Pulling it off as host of the Academy Awards requires that rare individual who's funny, at ease on his or her feet before a huge live audience (not to mention a billion or so folks around the world) and extremely quick with a quip.

Now that Bob Hope, who hosted the event with ease 18 times, is gone, Academy officials should just send Crystal a blank check and say, "Whatever it takes, please do our show."  When Crystal is too "pooped," as he says, Steve Martin could fill in admirably from time to time.

What were they thinking?

It was great, at first, to see Kirk Douglas shuffle to center-stage to a standing ovation from his peers and fans at the Kodak Theater.

But the moment turned into a seemingly endless showcase of either lousy planning or total lack of control as Douglas, now 94 and miraculaously recovering from a stroke, struggled with attempted comic patter and an embarrassing game of one-upmanship over his cane with a stage helper.

A better way to do that would have been to have Douglas and son Michael, who's recovering from throat cancer, walk out together.  No words would have been necessary.   They could have soaked in well-deserved applause, then exited with a roomful of respect and their dignity intact.

My favorite acceptance speech

Hands down, it came from 67-year-old Randy Newman.

Newman's second win in 20 tries came for the song "We Belong Together" from "Toy Story 3."

Looking really touched by his win, Newman rambled up to the microphone and talked to the movie-loving world like we were all sharing drinks at the neighborhood bar:

"I’ve been on this show any number of times and I’ve slowed it down almost every time. No wonder they only nominate 4 songs, what about cinematography. So there’s 5. They could find a fifth song from someone. But hell with it. Think it might have beat me," Newman mused.

For the record

It was a big night for "The King's Speech," winning Best Picture, Actor (Colin Firth), Director (Tom Hooper) and Screenwriter (David Seidler).  Click here for a complete list of the winners.

I had a good night, too, as it turned out.  My picks in the six major categories of Picture, Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor and Director were right on the money this year. 

See my blog of Feb. 24.

I can feel the applause subsiding, so I'd like to thank my wife, Suellen, my muse, my inspiration, my rock, the one who supports me through good times and bad.

That's how you do it, Christian.

Next time maybe you should jot your wife's name down on your hand, Sarah Palin style. 

(Billy Crystal's photo, top right, and Randy Newman's photo, bottom right, courtesy:  Oscar.com.)

Oscar picks and other ad nauseums

 

The British, including Colin Firth, might be coming for Oscars Sunday night.

(Courtesy:  The Weinstein Company)

I'm feeling dizzy, a little disoriented and weak in the knees.  My head is spinning and, frankly, I'm getting a little nauseated.

That's because I can't put off my Academy Award predictions any longer.

Why does such a seemingly simple task push grown men and women to the brink of a breakdown at this time every year?

I'll tell you why.  Taxes!

Just kidding.  It's fear of FAILURE, although many of us who have chosen a niche career path less-traveled (unless you toss in casual fan-boy/fan-girl critics, which I do not) have grown quite familiar with the term.

But enough about film critics who scribble notes in the dark and stare at bright walls with moving pictures for a living (You call this a ... oh, never mind). 

So, for the 31st time, here's who I think will win Oscars (Sunday night on ABC) and who, in my semi-humble opinion, should win.

Maestro, strike up the band!  And the Oscar goes to ...

Supporting Actress

The only thing we can count on happening quickly at the 83rd running of the golden statuettes is that either the Supporting Actress winner or the Supporting Actor victor will shuffle to the podium early in the tedious and overly long telecast.

I like Amy Adams as Mark Wahlberg's spunky girlfriend in "The Fighter."  Melissa Leo, who portrays Wahlberg's mom, has a string of victories in this category already this year.  But Leo has also purchased some silly, glamour-shot photo ads in the trades that could hurt her chances.

Young Hailee Steinfeld (tremendous in "True Grit") should be in the Best Actress race instead of this one.  If Steinfeld pulls off a surprise win, it could mean a sweep for "True Grit," which blindsided even filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen with 10 nominations including Best Picture.

Who will win:  Melissa Leo.  There's just too much momentum for her going in.

Who should win:  Jacki Weaver.  Who?  I know many of you haven't had a chance to see the Australian's work in the superb Aussie crime-drama "Animal Kingdom."  If and when you do, though, you won't soon forget it.

Supporting Actor

There's an article floating around the Internet today (Feb. 24) theorizing that "loud" performances win Academy Awards.  I'll go along with that, especially in this race.  If there is a sure thing this Oscar season, it's Christian Bale (also a k a Batman) as Mark Wahlberg's crack-addicted boxer brother in "The Fighter."

I feel compelled to mention, though, that all the other nominees are strong, especially Jeremy Renner in Ben Affleck's "The Town."

Who will win:  Bale, for his "loud" and flawless performance.

Who should win:  Bale.

Actress

My gut tells me this is Natalie Portman's year.  She takes a mean "Black Swan" diva dive as a New York ballerina unraveling as her big moment in the spotlight approaches.

Annette Bening, chalking up her fourth Oscar nomination, was extremely strong as the doctor in a same-sex union in "The Kids Are All Right."

Who will win: Portman, but don't expect her to sprout feathers and dive into the orchestra pit.

Who should win:  Portman, I suppose, even though Jennifer Lawrence really got into her "Winter's Bone" character.  And there's this: Bening should probably be handed a golden statuette every time she goes before the camera.  She's that gifted.

Actor

This one's a tough call.  Javier Bardem was his usual sensational self in "Biutiful," and fellow nominee James Franco ("127 Hours") is co-hosting the Oscar shindig with Anne Hathaway.  It would be a coups for the Academy if a co-host won.  I don't see that happening.

And another thing.  If the Coen boys get "True Grit" snowballing, The Dude, Jeff Bridges, might just land a companion Best Actor statuette for the one he got last year for "Crazy Heart."  I don't see that happening, however.

Who will win:  Colin Firth, as tongue-challenged King George VI in "The King's Speech."

Who should win:  Fa-fa-Firth.

Director

When all is right in the Oscar world, the Best Director and Best Picture leave the auditorium in winner sympatico.  That's not always the case, which is something I've never been able to fully comprehend.  How can you have a Best Picture without the best direction?  On the other hand, when someone wins Best Director how can they not have helmed the best film?

That said, this race is a toss-up from this aisle seat.  But let's go with ...

Who will win:  Tom Hooper for "The King's Speech"

Who should win: Hooper

Best Picture

Frankly, I am not a fan of supersizing the Best Picture race to 10 nominees, which the Academy returned to last year (a throwback to the '30s and '40s when it was common).

I understand why:  to increase trade paper ad campaign revenue and perhaps stir the Oscar ceremony interest pot.

So, in this age of bottom-line economics, we're probably stuck with Oscar's version of the Top 10 list.  At least for a while.

There are some really good films in the running this year.  "The Fighter," "Black Swan," "The Social Network," "True Grit" and "The King's Speech," just to name a few.

So ...

Which flick will win:  "The King's Speech."  It's a big year for the Brits onscreen and off, with the upcoming royal wedding.

Which flick should win:  "The Social Network," which was a symphony of deceit, great dialogue and extraordinary editing onscreen and has needlessly taken over our real lives for no real reason.

That reminds me.  I'll be sharing my discourse on that sad fact soon on my Facebook page.  I hope you like my comments, friends.

And, oh yeah.  Tweet me! 

Lies the Oscar contenders told us

 

Christian Bale, Melissa Leo and Mark Wahlberg in "The Fighter."   (Courtesy:  The Weinstein Company)

You want the truth?  Hollywood, apparently, can't handle the truth.

According to an article posted on the Hollywood Reporter Web site, many of the top contenders for the upcoming Academy Awards either stretch the truth, bend the truth or disregard it altogether.

There are reports pirouetting around the Internet that Natalie Portman's head may have been digitally positioned on a "real dancer's body" in "Black Swan."

A stand-out in the article is the case of blue-collar boxer Micky Ward's (Mark Wahlberg) mama, portrayed in broad, award-gathering acting strokes by Melissa Leo in "The Fighter."

"Alice Ward, boxer 'Irish' Micky Ward's mother (played by Melissa Leo), who wasn't anywhere near the ring during her son's championship bout -- but miraculously shows up there in 'The Fighter.' 'That's the biggest fiction in the whole film,' Leo says. "[Director David O. Russell] felt it was very important that she be there,'" the Hollywood Reporter article says.

The question, according to Hollywood Reporter scribes Stephen Galloway and Tim Appelo, is whether or not the truth really matters when it comes to escapism cinema.

The filmmakers' standard reply to accusations such as this is usually, "Hey, we're not making a documentary.  It's entertainment."

This is an interesting topic.  What do you think?  Would you be willing to sacrifice some tear-jerking screen moments for dramatic truth?

If we demand absolute factual accountability every time we slouch into a seat at the megaplex, going to the movies would be as entertaining and harsh as real life.

Bottom line:  We can handle the truth.  We just don't necessarily want to deal with it in darkened movie theaters.

Time to prep for the Academy Awards

 

Natalie Portman, shown here in "Black Swan," could reach Oscar's podium as Best Actress.

(Courtesy:  Fox Searchlight)

The Academy Awards are still two and a half weeks down the blatantly garish publicity push away from the actual ceremonies on Feb. 27 (ABC).

That means two things.  The end to the half-year-long awards season is at least in sight.  Perhaps more importantly, though, it's time to brush up a little on the nominees.

Quick, who's up for Best Supporting Actress this year?

Sorry, I don't usually drop a pop quiz in this space.  For the record, the Supporting Actress nominees include Amy Adams for "The Fighter," Helena Bonham Carter for "The King's Speech," Melissa Leo, the front-runner, for "The Fighter," Hailee Steinfeld for "True Grit" and Jacki Weaver for the gritty Australian crime-drama "Animal Kingdom."

My point is that most of us could use a refresher.

The folks over at CNN.com have come up with just what we need.  Click here for a brief refresher on each of the major categories.

That way, when someone at work asks, "Is it true that a second sequel is nominated in two major Oscar categories this year?," you can confidently respond ... well, click here.   

Harvey Weinstein's 'King's Speech' therapy

From the newly formed Now What? department:

According to a Los Angeles Times article posted on the Hollywood Reporter Web site, movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, whose Weinstein Company distributes the R-rated "The King's Speech," has decided it might be a dandy idea to re-edit the film that leads all Academy Award nominees with 12 nominations.

Say what?

That's correct.  Mr. Weinstein may hit the editing suite to rearrange the movie that's the front-runner in this year's Oscar nominations.

I'm sure you're way ahead of me, but the reason is not to better the film as art, but to pad box-office receipts by making the "The King's Speech" family friendly.

Harvey may or may not be a genius, but he can add.  Weinstein knows that if four or five people in a family belly up to the box-office window for "The King's Speech," more money changes hands than if only Mom and Pop took in the film on parents' night out. 

That's what inspired your loyal, if slightly squinty-eyed scribe to establish the Now What? department.

"Weinstein, who said he is discussing the idea with director Tom Hooper, is aiming for a PG-13 or even a PG. The move would be part of a new marketing strategy intended to up the film's appeal to a broader swath of moviegoers.

"Weinstein said he was encouraged by the movie's box-office performance in Great Britain. There, the movie features a 12-and-over rating and has topped the box office for three consecutive weekends.

"'The British numbers are huge because the rating lets families see the movie together,' Weinstein told the Times. 'Tom (Hooper) and I are trying to find a unique way to do this that keeps his vision of the movie,'" the article states.

Right, but one thought:

If Weinstein really wants to keep Hooper's vision of the film, he'll leave the Oscar leader alone.

(Photo of Colin Firth as King George VI and Helena Bonham Carter as the Queen Mother in "The King's Speech" courtesy:  The Weinstein Company.)

And the Oscar nominees are ... predictable

 

Colin Firth as the stuttering man who would prefer not to be king in "The King's Speech." 

(Courtesy:  The Weinstein Company)

For the second year in a row, the Academy Awards Best Picture race is super-sized.  Ten nominees again instead of Oscar's traditional five.

Why?

If you ask me, it's to pump up interest in the usually head-nodding bore that is the Oscars telecast, pump up the chances for award campaign advertising dollars spent and, of course, pump up ticket sales between now and Feb. 27 (Oscar night on ABC) and perhaps beyond.

This morning's five-or-so minutes of nominees broadcast to the world in the wee hours Hollywood Time -- about 5:35 a.m. out there, 7:35 Central -- offered no surprises.

"The King's Speech" didn't stutter.  Starring Colin Firth (also leading the charge in the Best Actor race) as England's King George VI fighting to overcome a speech impediment, "The King's Speech" leads the pack with a dozen nominations.

"True Grit," which didn't fire a shot in the recent Golden Globes race, came in a strong second with 10 nominations for Best Picture, Actor (Jeff Bridges; last year's winner as Bad Blake in "Crazy Heart"), Supporting Actress (Hailee Steinfeld), Director (Joel and Ethan Coen), Adapted Screenplay (the Coen brothers) and more.

"The Social Network," heavily favored to duke it out with "The King's Speech" for the golden statuettes before this morning's nominees were announced, and "Inception" tied with eight nominations each.

Overall the list (click here to see full nomination list) is solid and bears few surprises.  "Toy Story 3" drew a Best Picture nod as well as a nomination for Best Animated Feature.

That's hardly a revelation or a major step forward for animation.  With 10 nominees to throw around, the Academy has tons of wiggle room to stroke egos and schmooze major studios, which in this case is Disney.

I'm more interested in some tremendous performances that didn't result in an early wake-up call.  Where was the nomination for San Antonio's Tommy Lee Jones or Chris Cooper for "The Company Men"?  And what about Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor for "I Love You Phillip Morris"?

And for that matter,  why not Best Picture nominations for both outstanding films in a 10-horse race?

Too edgy and/or, too revealing perhaps?

That's my guess.  But to borrow and paraphrase a line from "Chinatown":

Forget it, Jake, it's Oscartown.

'Airbender,' 'Twilight' in tight race for worst

 

Aang (Noah Ringer) bends some wind in "The Last Airbender."   (Courtesy:  Paramount Pictures)

Welcome to The Razzies, the flip-side of movie awards season.

As is the custom this time of year, The Razzies "honor," or at least put on public display, the worst of the worst in cinema.

This year's lucky nominees feature a tie for "Worst Achievements in film."  M. Night Shyamalan's grotesquely boring "The Last Airbender" and "Twilight Saga:  Eclipse" each drew nine hoots, er, nominations.

According to an article posted on th Hollywood Reporter Web site, it's a dubious dishonor for the "Airbender" director.

"Razzie repeat offender Shyamalan was nominated as worst director for 'Airbender.' The film is also up for worst picture, worst remake, worst screenplay, worst screen couple/ensemble (the entire cast).

"The movie is also up for a brand new award, Worst Eye-Gouging Mis-Use of 3-D," according to the Hollywood Reporter article.

The so-called Razzie "winners" will be announced from Hollywood on Feb. 26, just one night before Oscar rolls out his red carpet for Hollywood's brightest movie awards spotlight.

So where did the Razzies come from, anyway?  Believe it or not, they've been around for three decades, according to the Razzies Web site.

"The Razzies were created in 1980 as a logical antidote to Tinsel Town’s annual glut of self-congratulatory awards by John Wilson, author of 'The Official Razzie Movie Guide and Everything I Know I Learned at the Movies.'

"Nominees were determined by mailing ballots to 637 voters in 46 U.S. states and 17 foreign countries. Electronic voting and certification of this year’s final Razzie ballots will be handled by Vote-Now.com," says the Razzie Web site.

Click here for the full story and the complete list of nominees.

(Worst actor Robert Pattinson, for "Twilight Saga:  Eclipse" courtesy:  Summit Entertainment)

Critics' take over as award season gone wild

 

Sandra Bullock, left, and Meryl Streep pretend to fight at last year's Critics' Choice Movie Awards.

(Courtesy:  Getty Images for VH1)

The wild-and-woolly major event of Hollywood's Let's-Pat-Ourselves-on-the-Back season begins Sunday night with The Golden Globe Awards on NBC, right?

Wrong, Pilgrim.

That used to be the case, back in the days when Jack Nicholson and Tinsel Town's Old School bad boys got plastered on live TV and wobbled up to the podium to accept what the Hollywood Foreign Press dished out.

Still golden when it comes to getting most up the press as awards season leads up to the all-important Academy Awards (Feb. 27 on ABC), the Globes have begun to dull, to take themselves a little too seriously in the past few years.

That left a gap for a new raucous contender.  The Critics' Choice Movie Awards have filled that gap nicely and, I might add, with wild abandon.

You may have noticed the photos accompaning this blog.  Up above, that's Critics' Choice Awards Best Actress co-winners Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock (weeks before her personal life got tangled and ugly) staging a mock fight.

As you can also see, Bullock and Streep, two comically gifted, daring movie stars, pretended to make up in what can best be described as a rather passionate manner.

No one can guarantee more of the same at this year's 16th Critics' Choice Awards, which air tonight at 8 (Central, 9 Eastern) on the VH1 cable network.

In all fairness, I must point out that although I'm a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association and thus a voter in the outcome of the awards, I have nothing to do with staging mock fights or encouraging Major Movie Stars Go Wild behavior.

All I can do, like you, is hope for the best.  Or worst.

Best, I think.

(Streep and Bullock locking lips photo courtesy:  Getty Images for VH1)