1. Trouble With The Curve (Warner Brothers, 3,212 Theaters, 111 Minutes, Rated PG-13): For the longest time, the buzz around this film had been that it was Clint Eastwood’s first on screen acting role since 2008′s Gran Torino, his first role in a film he didn’t direct since 1993′s In The Line Of Fire, and quite possibly the last film he’ll ever make. A lot of hooks for a P.R. flack to use to sell the movie.

Then Clint Eastwood had to go and talk to a chair at the Republican National Convention. Now every interview he does for the film will be about that. Yikes.

The film deals with a Major League Baseball scout who’s vision is failing. He drafts his estranged daughter to act as his eyes as he tries to stay in the game.

2. House At The End Of The Street (Relativity, 3,083 Theaters, 101 Minutes, Rated PG-13): I don’t know if it’s because I am getting older, because I am not seeing as many movies as I used to, or because the studios are doing a horrible job promoting their films, but this is yet another movie I know very little about.

Let’s see what IMDB has to say:

A mother and daughter move to a new town and find themselves living next door to a house where a young girl murdered her parents. When the daughter befriends the surviving son, she learns the story is far from over.

Well, that description, the poster and the trailer leads me to believe that we have a horror film on our hands. Further research indicates that this was supposed to come out in March. I don’t know if the film was moved to capitalize on Jennifer Lawrence’s post-Hunger Games popularity or that was just a happy accident. Either way, Lawrence’s drawing power is just about all the buzz the film has going for it, yet it is opening in over 3,000 theaters.

3. End Of Watch (Open Road Films, 2,730 Theaters, 109 Minutes, Rated R): This film applies the found footage/mockumentary approach to the cop drama, which is a unique take on the genre.

Brian (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a beat cop who is taking a course on film making at a local college, and he thinks film his life on the force would be a great way to get an A in the class. However, when a routine traffic stop results in a confiscation of a large amount of drugs and money makes a powerful drug lord come after them, the documentary Gyllenhaal is shooting might record the last days of him and his partner (Michael Pena)

The film is written and directed by David Ayer, who did Training Day (but, to be fair, also Street Kings) and the cast, which includes Anna Kendrick, David Harbour and and America Ferrera, is top notch.

4. Dredd 3D (Lionsgate, 2,506 Theaters, 95 Minutes, Rated R): You have to feel sorry for the Judge Dredd character, at least as it comes to movies.

In it’s first foray into the Hollywood film world in 1995, the property suffered the triple indignity of having Sylvester Stallone play the lead role, having Rob Schneider playing a supporting role, and Dredd taking his helmet off throughout most of the movie, something the comics character never did in the 18 years prior .

Now, it seems like the comic book antihero finally has an adaptation that hews close enough to the original source material, and it comes out on one of the busiest weekends of the fall with the lowest screen count. If it wasn’t for bad luck, Judge Dredd would have no luck at all.

1. ParaNorman (Focus Features, 3,429 Theaters, 93 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Stop-motion animation has the air of an especially quaint form of film making. It is time consuming, exacting, and considering you get a similar look and feel from CGI animation, seems especially archaic. That’s what makes it all the more charming.

Of course, charming might not be the right word for this one. This film centers on a young boy who has the ability to see ghosts. He stumbles across an centuries old curse and must save his town from legions of the undead.

2. The Expendables 2 (Lionsgate, 3,316 Theaters, 102 Minutes, Rated R): I feel I don’t even need to talk about this film, because The Expendables 3 is already in the works. Nicolas Cage is already on board, and producers have a wish list that includes Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford and Wesley Snipes (All the while, a lonely Steven Seagal sits by the phone, desperately waiting for a call that looks likely will never come).

Of course, we’ll have to see how this one does first. They’ve upped the ante by adding Jean-Claude Van Damme and Chuck Norris to the cast and supposedly signing Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis up for more screen time. But will that be enough to have this one improve in the surprising success of the original?

3. Sparkle (TriStar, 2,244 Theaters, 116 Minutes, Rated PG-13): This film is a remake of the 1976 film of the same name that starred Lonette McKee, Irene Cara, and Phillip Michael Thomas. It is a pastiche of the story of the Supremes, only with the 60′s singing group in question being sisters who fall apart as fame takes hold instead of complete strangers.

It is a story that hold some interest and has been made into movies and musicals a number of times (Dreamgirls, anyone?). But this version has an extra dollop of pathos being that its the last film of Whitney Houston.

The original had a plot line that one of the sister’s downfall was brought on by drug abuse. I wonder if that plot point carries over to the remake, and how fans of Houston will react to it considering the pop star’s final fate.

A film called Dark Shadows opened last week. It shares the same name and a number of characters with a cult soap opera from the late 60s, early 70s. Both feature time-tossed vampires who join their descendants 200 years in the future. However, the film plays the story as a wacky fish-out-of-water comedy while the soap opera, which was campy because, well, it was a soap opera with a production budget of $5, portrayed the story as a somber Gothic romance.

This week, Battleship opens. It shares its name with a Milton-Bradley board game that was first introduced in 1943. The game is advertised as a game of naval strategy where players try to sink each others armadas first by guessing location of ships on a grid. The film, which was based on the game, features the U.S. Navy combating a sea-based alien invasion force.

Now, this won’t be the kind of post that criticizes Hollywood for their lack of originality. Hollywood has always adapted  works from other media for the screen. That is not necessarily a bad thing. To prove my point, let’s take a look at the Top 10 films on the 2007 version of AFI’s “100 Years…100 Movies” list.

Now, you can argue semantics about this list all night–this film should be higher, that one lower, this film included, that one not–but we can pretty much all agree that these are great films. What do we see here? We have five films based on novels or plays (The Godfather, Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, Vertigo, and The Wizard of Oz), four films based on or inspired by the lives of real people (Raging Bull, Lawrence of Arabia, Schindler’s List and Citizen Kane, which was a fictionalized account of William Randolph Hearst’s life) and one inspired by Hollywood’s history (Singin’ in the Rain). Not one wholly original, but great films nonetheless.

But those were adaptations done right. Unfortunately, Hollywood has the nasty habit of wanting to put their own stamp on properties they adapt, usually with not-so-good results. And Dark Shadows and Battleship take this habit to a dangerous and puzzling new level.

Now, I’m not naive as to think that every original work should be adapted to the screen with no changes. I realize that it would be impossible for eight seasons of a TV series, 300 pages of a novel, or 200 issues of a comic book to be squeezed into one two-hour movie. But doing a good adaptation means keeping the stuff that works, keeping the same tone and characterization, and if you are going to change anything, change it to the better. The problem lies in the fact that the film studios definition of better doesn’t really end up as being better.

This problem, unfortunately, is nothing new. Studios have been making changes to classic works from other medium for decades. Whether it be modern literature, like The Bonfire of the Vanities (Does the journalist need to be British? Why can’t it be Bruce Willis? And does Sherman McCoy have to be such a erudite jerk? Why can’t he be nice, like Tom Hanks? And why have spot-on, social satire? Wouldn’t broad comedy be better?), classic literature like The Scarlet Letter (You know what would make kids pay more attention to the book in school? If Hester diddled herself in the tub.), comic books like Jonah Hex (What? The character is basically the cowboy antihero archetype that led Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson to stardom? That will never work in films. Give him superpowers, have him stop an anacronistic weapon of mass destruction, and, please, make it campy), or video games, like Super Mario Brothers (You know who the best actors to play a pair of Italian plumbers would be? An British Cockney and a Latino American! And Dennis Hopper playing their turtle nemesis! It’s like printing money!), more than one film adaptation was ruined by studio’s “improvement.” But Dark Shadows and Battleship take these kind of changes to an entirely new, and dangerous level.

Dark Shadows is the latest example of a film trying to present a property that is loved by a large, cult audience while having the studio, or, in this case, the director put their own stamp on the project. But what it really is just an unnecessary form of this type of marketing.

While I don’t deny that Dark Shadows does have a following, the fans of the show are not exactly in the 18-35 demographic that make films a hit. It was before my time and I’m way out of that demographic.

And, really? Do you need help marketing a movie where Tim Burton directs Johnny Depp again? You could have kept the fish out of water/man out of time plot, you could have even kept the main character a vampire,  you could have kept the premise the same and not have it tie into Dark Shadows at all and people would most likely still have come to see it.

The real reason that the film is called Dark Shadows is because Tim Burton was a fan of the series and wanted to do his own take on it, a take even he knew that fans of the TV show wouldn’t like. I’m sure Burton probably sold the idea to studios using the TV shows built in fan base. But this was Burton co-opting an existing property for his own use when he could have, and should have, created something original that would have still allowed him to say what he wanted to say. Dark Shadows fans have a right to be upset.

The case with Battleship is even more absurd. It’s not really a case of an adaptation being screwed up by Hollywood, because, really, if there was any way to adapt that particular board game, it would probably an even worse film than this one.

One of the producers of this film is Hasbro, the toy company that bought out Milton Bradley and owns the rights to G.I. Joe, Transformers and, you guessed it, Battleship (And Candy Land, which also has a film in the works). What happened was that Hasbro saw how much money they could make on films with the first two properties, so they decided to make a film out of every piece of intellectual property they own, whether making it into a film made sense or not. Personally, I cannot wait for Easy-Bake Oven: The Movie.

Battleship, like Dark Shadows, is a film that could have been released under another name and still do probably the same amount of business. Also, like Dark Shadows, the demographic of the source material will probably not follow it to the big screen even it was an exact representation of the game. What we have here is a generic alien invasion flick with the twist that the invasion takes place at sea.

Yes, rumor has it that there will be a scene in the film that mimics the gameplay of the original game, and I’m fairly certain that at some point in the film we will see a character, most likely Liam Neeson’s, pull a pair of binoculars away from their faces, squint off into a point just past where the camera was placed, and utter with grim, steely reserve, “They sank my battleship” (or some variation there of). But other than that, the film could have been called Aliens At Sea and it would not have made a bit of difference, except that it would have been mocked slightly less in the press.

So this is what the state of the film adaptation is today. The source material is reduced to a name only, a name Hollywood can use to practice a new kind of originality. The names become tools for directors to work out the issues they had with the original source or companies to earn a quick buck from their intellectual property in by any means necessary. Hollywood has always been accused of not caring about the books, TV shows and comics they adapt. At least now, they are being honest about it. And they get to have the best of both worlds–a film with a recognizable public image that is an “original” creation by the Hollywood establishment.

Unfortunately, this trend will not stop here. By now we should all be familiar Michael Bay’s Ninja Turtles, which every one from Bay to co-creator Kevin Eastman have promised fans of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles would deliver “everything that made [them] become fans in the first place.” Everything except the characters being Teenagers (they will be a bit older) or Mutants (they’re aliens). They couch these changes as “building a richer world,” as if the world that made the Turtles a pop culture phenomenon for thirty years wasn’t rich enough.

And you thought Demi Moore writhing in a bathtub was bad.

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, we’ll look at Superman’s return to the movie screen.

Jaws showed us that a blockbuster could make a lot of money in the summer. Star Wars taught us genre films could do very well at the summer box office. So, it was natural that audiences would be clamoring to see if a man could fly…again. And in the 1970s, Ilya and Alexander Salkind knew the exact way to turn Superman into a summer blockbuster success—make it as campy as possible, just like that Batman TV show.

For those of you who have seen Superman, you’ll know that it wasn’t all that campy. Well, anytime that Otis came on the screen, maybe, but overall, no. There’s a story behind that. It didn’t come out in the summer either, but that’s part of the story, too.

Superman was one of the first films I remember seeing as a child. Even though the film came out in December of 1978, I remember seeing it in the summer. It was at a local drive-in, so, maybe the summer of 1979? I remember my dad packed up our blue Ford Mercury station wagon, put a huge orange and white cooler full of RC Cola in the back, and drove me and my mom to the drive-in. I remember the comic book opening. I remember Marlon Brando’s big head staring at me as we walked to the concession stand. And I remember being flat out captivated.

The reason for this has to do with director Richard Donner, screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz, and, especially, the unknown actor chosen for the lead. But it was a long road before they got there.

The Salkinds acquired the rights to Superman in 1974 and began their master plan to get it on the big screen. They went to screenwriters William Goldman and Alfred Bester before hiring Mario Puzo, he of The Godfather fame, to write the script for two movies which they would film simultaneously. Puzo delivered a 550-page script for the two films combined. The task of whittling it down fell to husband and wife team David and Leslie Newman, with some early assistance from Robert Benton.  Directors ranging from Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, Richard Lester, Sam Peckinpah and William Friedkin were approached before the producers settled on Guy Hamilton as director.

This might have happened if Eastwood was willing to take the role.

Gene Hackman was cast as Lex Luthor and Marlon Brando cast as Superman’s birth father, Jor-El. But the lead role was harder to cast. Any man between the ages of 28 and 55 who had a modicum of fame in the early to mid 1970s was considered for the role. Some choices were intriguing (Muhammad Ali), some were obvious (Steve McQueen, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood), some were mind-numbingly bad (Neil Diamond, Charles Bronson, Arnold Schwarzenegger). As interesting as some of those choices were, it is hard to think of anyone but Christopher Reeve in the role. However, the only reason he was even considered was because of problems Marlon Brando and Guy Hamilton had with the shooting locations.

The film was originally set to shoot in Italy. This was bad for Brando because he had an arrest warrant out for him in the country due to his role in Last Tango in Paris. The production was then moved to England, which was bad for Brit Hamilton because he was living as a tax exile from the country, and couldn’t set foot in the country for longer than 30 days. In a sign of which one was more important, the production was moved to England and Hamilton was out of a job.

The producers chose Richard Donner as a replacement because they liked his work on The Omen. When Donner signed on, one of his first orders of business was to rewrite the script that was provided to him. Donner felt the script was too campy. He hired Mankiewicz to rework the piece into something more somber and serious (due to Writer’s Guild regulations, Donner couldn’t give Mankiewicz credit for writing the new script. He made him an “executive consultant” instead). Donner’s next decision was to cast an unknown in the role of Superman, thinking a star would be too distracting in the role.

Finding a relative unknown would be a difficult process. Hundreds of candidates were auditioned, including Christopher Walken and Nick Nolte, but with no luck. Donner and Salkind decided to test a 25-year-old actor whose audition packet had been recommended to them no less than three times before. Christopher Reeve’s main claim to fame was co-starring with Katharine Hepburn in the short-lived Broadway  comedy, A Matter of Gravity, but he was a classically trained actor. A meeting with Donner and Salkind set up a screen test, and the screen test got him the job.

It’s easy to beatify Reeve because of his unfortunate health issues at the latter part of his life and his tragic death, but it is not hyperbole to say that many comic fans consider him to be THE Superman. He had the square-jawed, All–American look to him, with just a touch of something alien about him. His Superman was wholesome without ever being corny. His Clark Kent was fumbling and clumsy without losing dignity. He played both roles in such a way that us theatergoers who had the inside information would obviously know they are the same man, but that the other characters in the film would not. That kind of balancing act takes skill and talent. Reeve did it superbly. It is an underrated performance from and underrated actor.

For the role of Lois Lane, Donner would choose Margot Kidder over actresses such as Stockard Channing, Anne Archer and Lesley Ann Warren (who portrayed Lois in the TV adaptation of the Broadway musical, It’s a Bird…It’s a Plane…It’s Superman). With his cast set, Donner went immediately to work on the film. And that film was…Superman II.

Next time, the Superman soap opera continues as Donner’s decision to film the sequel first leads to friction between Donner and the Salkinds and to there being two Superman II’s.

1. Jack And Jill (Sony/Columbia, 3,438 Theaters, 91 Minutes, Rated PG): Like him or not, Adam Sandler usually doesn’t do the expected plot in his movies. Whether it be a grown man having to go through 12 grades of school to earn an inhertance, being a 1980′s wedding singer jilted at the alter, or being a man who receives a magic remote control that allows him to control his life, Sandler usually strays from the sterotypical comedy plot.

That’s what makes this one so disappointing, because Sandler is employing hackneyed and old comedy concepts–dressing in drag, twins, family who hate each other–and combining it into a wafer-thin plot.

Sandler plays Jack and Jill, a medically impossible pair of identical twins, who come together each Thanksgiving to give each other grief.

2. Immortals (Relativity, 3,112 Theaters, 110 Minutes, Rated R): I feel the tagline for this movie should be “Did you like Clash of the Titans? Then you’ll like this film! Thought Clash of the Titans would be better if it was more like 300? Then this film is for you! Didn’t like Clash of the Titans at all? Then this film is for you too!”

The plot is taken from the same Greek myths that Clash of the Titans was–Theseus must face off against the mad Titans to save all of humanity–but now with more slow motion, stop-and-go swordplay to keep your attention.

If anything, this will be your opportunity to see the new Superman, Henry Cavill, in action. He plays Theseus

3. J. Edgar (Warner Brothers, 1,910 Theaters, 137 Minutes, Rated R): This film opened on Wednesday, but it is getting a wider release today, so we’ll cover it here because it’s pedigree pretty much forces us to, and because it is essentially the film that kicks of the annual Oscar season.

This film has Oscar contender written all over it. It is directed by Clint Eastwood (2 Oscars for directing), stars Leonardo DiCaprio (3 time Oscar nominee) and is written by Dustin Lance Black (who won an Oscar for his script for Milk). And it’s a bio pic about a controversial, yet widely known public figure.

Normally, you would just had the statuettes over when a film has this much going for it. However, this is a bit early for a Oscar contender to be released, even with all the things this film has going for it. That gives me a little cause for concern.

Since J. Edgar has a great chance to do well at the forthcoming Oscars, I felt its about time to start this yearly feature of the new releases posts.

The most interesting thing to see about J. Edgar is if Leonardo DiCaprio will get a nomination, if not win, an Oscar. He is at the point of his career that he has done worthy work in the past (some that he wasn’t even nominated for, like The Departed) but his lack of accolades from the Academy is begining to take on the appearance of their being a bias against him. This role, where he ages 50 years on screen as a larger-than-life real person, should get him over the Oscar hump if he does it well. If he succeeds in the role and doesn’t even get nominated, then you’ll know someone at the Academy hates him.

In other Oscar contenders opening in limited release, Warner Herzog’s documentary look at the death penalty, Into the Abyss, opens in 12 theaters. On paper, this should be in the running for the Best Documentary prize, but that category never goes as expected.

Opening in New York and Los Angeles is Melancholia, the latest from Lars von Trier. von Trier has been a controversial figure in film, both for what he puts on the screen and what he says off it. But Kirsten Dunst supposedly gives an Oscar caliber performance in the lead role, and could be honored come nomination time.

1. Paranormal Activity 2 (Paramount, 2,900 Theaters, 91 Minutes, Rated R): The first Paranormal Activity was such a surprise hit that it became a mini-national sensation when it was released last year. It hit wide release two years after it was made, it cost a pittance to make–an estimated $11,000 (and yes, those zeroes are right), and became one of the most profitable films of all time.

Of course, when a concept makes money, there is a rush for a sequel. But often times, a sequel isn’t the best idea in the world. I think that this might case here.

Part of the success of the original was the novelty of a demonic possession caught slowly over time on video tape. That gimmick, and it’s final twist pay off during the film’s grim ending, was what drew people in. Returning to the well with the same gimmick a second time isn’t as novel.

The first was a surprise success in relation to its low, low cost. This version cost more, an estimated $2,750,000, but still cheap enough that it should make a tidy profit considering the amount of theaters it’s in. But there is bound to be a let down.

2. Hereafter (Warner Brothers, 2,181 Theaters, 129 Minutes, Rated PG-13): It has a director who has built himself up from a B-movie actor to one of the most respected, awarded and admired directors in the world in Clint Eastwood. It is written by one of the most talented writers working in films today, Peter Morgan. It has Matt Damon and an all-star international cast filled with some of the best actors the world has to offer. But I’d rather carve my eyes out with a rusty spoon than see this film.

It’s not that I particularly mind films that deal with death. But this film is soaking in it. It’s about three people touched by death in different ways who come together in search of answers.

Yeah, but considering Damon’s character has a special bond with the afterlife and it looks like a young boy will be losing his brother, this film will be way too heart wrenching for me to sit through. I don’t forsee this film being a life reaffirming experience, I see it being more of a test of endurance to make it through all the grimness.

Well, this week it’s pretty much Hereafter or nothing. Eastwood is an Academy favorite, Morgan has two nods to his name, and Damon has to acting nominations and won an Oscar for his writing. And the film is the serious, challenging subject matter that Academy voters dig. Something would have to go seriously wrong for this film not to get a passel of nominations.

1. Toy Story 3 (Disney/Pixar, 4,028 Theaters, 103 Minutes, Rated G): The franchise that started the Pixar empire is back, and, really, how can you not be excited.

Of course, it has been 11 years between installments, so the kids who saw Toy Story 2 are now surly teenagers. But through the magic of home video, new generations of viewers can catch the previous installments and its fan base can constantly replenish itself.

The plot now revolves around the toys being given to a local day care center when their owner, Andy, goes to college. Life at the day care center is not all its cracked up to be, so Woody and Buzz lead the rest of the toys in a jailbreak.

I don’t know if this will be the last installment (although I can’t see how far they can keep going in the story progression), but it will be one you have to go see.

2. Jonah Hex (Warner Brothers, 2,825 Theaters, 80 Minutes, Rated PG-13): This film brings back a old-school brand of filmmaking. It’s where Hollywood takes a property from another medium, thinks it could present it better than how it appeared originally, makes unnecessary changes to try to “improve” it, takes away pretty much all that was good about the original concept and ends up destroying the idea in the minds of millions.

The Jonah Hex of the comic books was a badass. A horrible scarred badass, but a badass nonetheless. A lot of movies have been made about badasses. Heck, Clint Eastwood practically made a career out of them, many of which were westerns. So, you really don’t need bells and whistles to sell the character.

But this film gives us bells and whistles out the wazoo. Hex now has “talking to the dead” powers. His horse has two Gatling Guns on either side of it. His origin, one of the more interesting ones in comics, has been changed to one of petty revenge and a good man punished for doing the right thing. And there is  an anachronistic super weapon to provide the threat.

Now, I straddle the line between comic book fan and film buff enough to know that you do have to make some changes to bring a comic book to the screen. But you have to know what makes the property appealing in the first place. The Spider-Man films know this. Most of the X-Men films knew this. Christopher Nolan’s Batman films know this. The producers of this film doesn’t.

This film will be annihilated by Toy Story 3, so the quality of the film really doesn’t matter. But this explains what DC has such problems adapting its characters to the screen. I hope the new regime at DC Entertainment makes it their priority to correct this kind of thing.

It’s that time of year again. This Tuesday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will announce the nominees for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards.

Every year there are snubs and surprises, thrills and controversies. There is no way of knowing who will be nominated, but we here at FilmBuffOnLine, who believe the day nominations are announced should be a National holiday, are going to try and handicap the process for you.

We will try to tell you who we think are Almost Certain to get a nomination, who Definite May Be nominated, and whose nomination is a Outside Shot in the major categories (the four acting categories, Best Director, and Best Picture). We are trying to cover all bases, but don’t come to us if you lose money on your Oscar Nomination pool.

Best Actor:

Almost Certain:

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart; George Clooney, Up in the Air; Colin Firth, A Single Man;  Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

Definite May Be:

Morgan Freeman, Invictus;

Outside Shot:

Robert Downey Jr, Sherlock Holmes; Matt Damon, The Informant!; Tobey Maguire, Brothers

Four of the five spots should be locked up, as Clooney, Firth, Bridges, and Renner have been nominated for all the other awards this season and have pretty much split up the winnings. Freeman should be nominated, but could also have some backlash headed his way. Downey Jr. won the Golden Globe for comedy acting, and there is some buzz for Damon.

Best Actress:

Almost Certain:

Sandra Bullock, The Blindside; Gabourey Sidibe, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire; Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia

Definite May Be:

Helen Mirren, The Last Station; Carey Mulligan, An Education

Outside Shot:

Amy Adams, Julie and Julia; Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria; Ellen Page, Whip It; Hilary Swank, Amelia

Bullock seems to have set off a siren with critics and her fellow actors as per her acting ability. Sidibe’s debut won raves and that should make her a lock for a nomination, Mulligan has won her fair share of awards, but will Oscar nominate two relative unknowns in the same year? The Academy should just make a rule that Streep is automatically nominated whenever she puts a movie out. Julia and Julia seem more Oscar worthy than It’s Complicated. But I wouldn’t be surprised if her co-star from the former gets a nod. Amelia was a poorly received Oscar bait, but the Academy seems to like Swank.

Best Supporting Actor:

Almost Certain:

Christoph Waltz,Inglourious Basterds

Definite May Be:

Matt Damon, Invictus; Woody Harrelson, The Messenger; Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones

Outside Shot:

Ben Foster, The Messenger; Christian McKay, Me and Orson Welles; Christopher Plummer, The Last Station

It’s Waltz’s Oscar to lose, so he’s pretty much guaranteed a nomination. Damon, Harrelson and Tucci have received enough acclaim elsewhere that they should be nominated. Plummer has received a number of nominations, but Foster and especially McKay were strong in their roles and could surprise.

Best Supporting Actress:

Almost Certain:

Mo’Nique, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire

Definite May Be:

Penelope Cruz, Nine; Vera Fermiga, Up in the Air; Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air; Samantha Morton, The Messenger

Outside Shot:

Mariah Carey, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire; Diane Krueger, Inglourius Basterds; Julianne Moore, A Single Man; Sigourney Weaver, Avatar

Like Supporting Actor, Mo’Nique is enough of a front runner that a nod is a given. However, her performance isn’t the only surprisingly good one in the film, so a nod for Mariah Carey is not outside the realm of possibility. Both women from Up in the Air should be nominated, but Kendrick has the edge if they only choose one. The Academy loves Cruz, so she should get a nomination for a poorly received movie. And I can’t see Avatar not getting one acting nod, and the most likely candidate is Weaver.

Best Director:

Almost Certain:

Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker; James Cameron, Avatar; Jason Reitman, Up in the Air

Definite May Be:

Lee Daniels, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire; Clint Eastwood, Invictus; Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

Outside Shot:

Tom Ford, A Single Man; Pete Docter & Bob Petersen, Up

The big three of Bigelow, Cameron (who were once married to each other–keep an eye on each other’s face if the other wins) and Reitman should get nods. Daniels and Tarantino have other nominations to their credit and the Academy loves Eastwood. But Docter and Petersen are more than worthy.

Best Picture:

Almost Certain:

Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire, Up in the Air

Definite May Be:

An Education, Inglourious Basterds, Invictus, A Single Man, Up

Outside Shot:

(500) Days of Summer, The Blindside, Crazy Heart, District 9, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Hangover, Julie and Julia, The Messenger, Nine, A Serious Man, Star Trek, The Young Victoria

Since this is the first time in decades that more than five films will be nominated for Best Picture, this has become one of the most unpredictable categories. Any film nominated for Best Director should have a good chance at making the ten, but what about sci-blockbusters like Star Trek and District 9? How about comedies like The Hangover? Do poorly received films like Nine and The Blindside have a chance? This all adds up to a test year for the new system and the list of nominees being anybody’s guess.

False Tension, Bland Drama, Banal Inspiration And The Unforgivable Transformation Of Nelson Mandela Into A Yoda-like Character Mouthing Embarrassing Platitudes

I recently celebrated a milestone birthday. As I reflected upon the day, I thought about the sheer number of unlikely things that have occurred in my lifetime.

On the negative side, I have witnessed the single worst airplane crash (in Tenerife in 1977), the single worst nuclear disaster (Chernobyl in 1986), the worst environmental disaster (the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989), the worst industrial disaster (the 1984 methyl-isocyanate leak in Bhopal), the worst natural disaster (the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004) and the worst terrorist attack on US soil on September 11, 2001.

But on the positive side, back when I was ten, the idea that Great Britain and the IRA would ever achieve a ceasefire in their hostilities was, at best, a dim prospect. Likewise, no one thought the USSR would ever dissolve or that the Berlin Wall would be dismantled and the idea that a black man would one day, in my lifetime get elected President of the United States was given about as much a chance of happening as finding two identical snowflakes.

Therefore, the very thought that South Africa, a county where racism WAS the official government policy would ever end its evil apartheid ways was almost inconceivable. And that those same South African citizens would also elect themselves a black president was an almost unbelievable turn of events.

But it did happen.

Then, in move that truly astounded almost everyone, President Nelson Mandela, a man who personally had plenty of justification for seeking revenge on the previous Caucasian administrations who treated the black citizens of South Africa with such cruelty and disdain, was determined to unify his country and keep the people from devolving into anarchic resentment and revenge. To achieve this almost impossible goal, President Mandela (a believer in the power of forgiveness) established the Truth And Reconciliation Commission wherein the South African people, if they honestly admitted their past racist misdeeds and were sincerely remorseful, they would then be publicly forgiven. It is never an easy thing to forgive those who have trespassed against you.  This is why almost every culture considers true forgiveness to be one of the most important virtues you can ever attain.

It’s because forgiveness is such a hard thing to do that made the fact that South Africa was doing it such a newsworthy event and let’s be realistic, it could have failed miserably. The fact it didn’t showed me that the people of South Africa, both black and white, have achieved a level of grace and civility that we Americans can only dream about.

Don’t believe me? Have you heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh recently? For that matter, just listen to any Teabagger or wingnut religious conservative on contemporary talk radio; you won’t hear more foolish hateful nonsense this side of a fascist dictator. Our airwaves reek from the opinions of the aggressively lowbrow and the militantly stupid, all cheered on by equally ignorant TV commentators and lunatic fringe politicians cynically manipulating the public discourse for their own petty power games. It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

However, what the real Nelson Mandela did to help South Africa avoid the potential revenge and recriminations of the people is a truly inspiring story that gives me hope for mankind.

So how come Invictus proved to be one of the most annoying experiences I have spent in a movie theater in a long time? Was it because director Clint Eastwood has reduced Nelson Mandela to a supporting player in his own life and instead focused his film on a white rugby team? Was it because he turned the truly inspirational Nelson Mandela into a Yoda-like character sputtering out banal philosophy that would embarrass even the flightiest of New Age nit-wits, or even a serious New Age nit-wit like Deepak Chopra?

I haven’t been this disappointed in a film since last year when I saw the ludicrous Changeling and the dismal Gran Torino.  I have to ask this question; what has happened to Clint Eastwood? I have generally been a fan of Eastwood in his acting roles in westerns and cop dramas, including the ones he directed. As an actor, Clint Eastwood is capable of eliciting a sense of macho vulnerability that other action stars of his generation were not capable of doing.

Consider Clint Eastwood in the Wolfgang Petersen film In The Line Of Fire, Eastwood showed a sense of human frailty and self-doubt that added subtle dimensions to the film. One of Clint Eastwood’s better qualities is he has always had a slightly mocking sense of humor regarding his screen persona. Indeed, Eastwood had no trouble playing second banana to an orangutan in the films Every Which Way But Loose and Any Which Way You Can, something you could never expect from a notorious sour puss like Steve McQueen.

As a director though, Clint Eastwood has never shown anything like subtlety. This is perfectly OK when you are making utilitarian action pics like Heartbreak Ridge, western revenge fantasies like High Plains Drifter or Dirty Harry sequels. But projects like Bird, a bio-pic of the jazz musician Charlie Parker, or a complex murder in high society drama like Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil or even a simple romance film like The Bridges Of Madison County require a level of directorial sophistication that Eastwood simply does not possess. And the problem seems to be that Clint Eastwood doesn’t realize it and no one is brave enough to tell him.

I know Eastwood prefers to shoot his films fast, but how else can you explain the fact that after directing about 30+ feature films, Clint Eastwood still has not developed any kind of engaging camera sense? I find it hard to accept the consistent sloppy choice of camera angles and coverage in Eastwood directed films, especially since he usually works with very competent cinematographers and editors. I am not being disingenuous. I know that telling a story via the film medium is a very difficult task. I myself have written and directed numerous short films and two feature length films so I am aware of the dichotomy between what a director wants to achieve, and what can actually be achieved within the constraints of time and budget. But none of that enters into the choice of what story you wish to tell. So it is perfectly fair to ask, why did Clint Eastwood decide to tell this story as opposed to the countless other scripts that have no doubt piled up in his Malpaso Productions office?

I could have told Eastwood that he was embarking on a fool’s errand if he was specifically trying to make an “inspirational” movie. That’s like trying to make a “cult” film on purpose. You can’t. If an audience derives inspiration from your film, that’s great, but they will have to do that on their own, you can’t help them. Because if you try to impose an inspirational feeling onto an unsuspecting audience, you will just end up sounding preachy and scolding. Consider some of the films that people have called “inspirational” in the past like Rocky or It’s A Wonderful Life and you will see that being inspirational was not the intention of the filmmakers. Believe me, the only thing worse than false sincerity is false inspiration.

But Invictus compounds every inspirational felony by telegraphing every poignant plot point well in advance, so even the thickest audience member will get it. The downside to that is that any chance of a narrative surprise or character insight is completely muffled. Is this what Eastwood’s vast experience in the film industry has taught him? That it is better to bludgeon an audience into submission than to allow them to figure things out on their own?

Clint Eastwood has spoken with admiration for some of the directors he has worked with in the past, like the studio trained minimalist Don Siegel and the operatic Italian stylist Sergio Leone, in fact, he’s even dedicated films to those two masters. Why Clint Eastwood now desires to direct films like a Ron Howard clone is a true mystery. But there are a couple of things in Invictus that even the anemically talented Ron Howard would have vetoed. For instance, what’s with all the musical montages that serve no purpose but to add length to what is already an over-long film?

And more than once, Clint Eastwood tries to make us fear that Nelson Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) will be assassinated. Early in the film, Eastwood counterpoints Nelson Mandela’s brisk early morning walk with the movement of a speeding van with dark tinted windows heading towards a sinister rendezvous with the oblivious new President. As it turns out, the van is simply delivering stacks of newspapers, much to the relief of Mandela’s security detail. Later in the film, we are shown a very suspicious looking white man surveying the rugby stadium where the World Cup game will be played and then, when the game has begun and Nelson Mandela is in attendance, we cut to this white man and we discover him in the cockpit of a jumbo jet. With malevolent foreboding, he creepily assumes control of the plane from the other pilot and aims it directly at the rugby stadium, his eyes radiating with a psychotic glee. One (and only one) of Mandela’s security team notices the distant jumbo jet heading towards the stadium, coming in way too low and there is a panicky walkie-talkie discussion about what to do to save Mandela, but there is no time to do anything before the huge jet buzzes over the stadium rattling the windows of the Presidential skybox, knocking over drink glasses and booze bottles. But the plane is carrying nothing more dangerous than a friendly message to the South African rugby team painted on the bottom of the fuselage. The surprised stadium audience erupts into applause.

I find this scene totally unforgivable, even though it actually happened. Yes, a real jumbo jet did buzz the stadium during the World Cup game and I can only hope the pilot had his license revoked for the dangerous stunt because there are some things you just don’t do. But the reason this is unforgivable in Invictus is because Clint Eastwood is not using this incident for the reason it actually happened, as a demonstration of how the citizens of South Africa became a more unified people through the exploits of their national rugby team. No, Clint Eastwood is using this incident as a way to instantly tap into our post 9/11 awareness of planes flying into buildings for terror purposes to make us think we are about to witness the assassination of Nelson Mandela by 747 jumbo jet. But all it does is create a false and inept feeling of tension. For the record, although he is older now and not quite as vigorous as he once was, as of this writing, Nelson Mandela is very much alive.

Who was Clint Eastwood hoping to fool? I mean, even the most xenophobic American who cares not one whit about what happens outside the borders of the continental United States would have at least heard about a jumbo jet crashing into a rugby stadium in South Africa during the World Cup game, which, by the way, is actually played for by teams from around the world, most unlike our own masturbatory baseball World Series where we even celebrate the lunacy of two teams from the same city competing with each other, as if this were something culturally significant.
Invictus is nothing more than a two hour plus scolding lesson full of inspirational haranguing that has the ultimate effect of pummeling you into brain dead, but laudatory submission. When I looked around and saw that the whole damn fool audience was cheering at some of the most cliché of sport movie banalities, I found it a lot easier to just turn off my brain and simply go with vapid emotions of this undiscerning crowd.

Although it’s not explained very clearly, the title Invictus is Latin for “unconquered” and is also the title of a famous poem by William Ernest Hensly that ends with the lines “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”

Apparently, Nelson Mandela used to recite the poem to himself during his long imprisonment on Robben Island to help keep himself sane. But there is a more recent use of the poem Invictus that deserves to be mentioned.

It seems that when Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001, he used the Hensley poem Invictus as his final statement to the world. Proving once and for all that you never can tell what another person is going to find inspirational. Why do I find Timothy McVeigh’s selection of Invictus much more interesting to contemplate than Nelson Mandela’s?

1. The Princess and the Frog (Disney, 3,434 Theaters, 97 Minutes, Rated G): This is the week where I can’t decide what I think about the films being released. Each film has a lot going for it, but I am not really sold on either of them.

Take this one for example. As much as I love Pixar and their CGI animation, I am old school enough to appreciate cel animation. So this film, which is a throw back to the old-style frame-at-a-time animation makes me a bit happy for that reason.

However, as much credit as this film gives itself for having the first African-American “Disney Princess”, from what I’ve seen of the trailer, it seems like broad sterotypes instead of realistic characterization. I could be wrong, it’s hard to tell that kind of thing from just a few minutes of footage, but if that was the case it would be counter productive.

2. Invictus (Warner Brothers, 2, 125 Theaters, 134 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Then there’s this one. It has a lot going for it. It’s directed by Clint Eastwood, which should count for something. And you have him reuniting with Morgan Freeman, who is playing a part he was born to play in Nelson Mandela.

But there is a lot of things that irk me about the film. Like, say, the title. What does that mean exactly? I’m sure they’d explain it in the film, and the original title, The Human Factor, wasn’t much better, but still. It’s a little off-putting.

And then there’s the plot. In a post-Apartheid South Africa, new President Mandela needs something to unite the country. The trailers make it seem like it encouraging the South Africa team to win the soccer World Cup. But what it really is is the Rugby World Cup.

Now, soccer I could understand. That has universal appeal and a film based on that could play well across the world. But Rugby? A sport where burly men crash into each other without padding or helmets bringing about peace? Yes, it is a true story, but still.

And the less said about Matt Damon’s “just got stung by a bee and I am starting to swell up” physique, the better.