New Bruno Trailer

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

Spotted at Runyon Canyon...

Yesterday walking the canyon, I passed Matthew Perry, looking very gray, sporting a goatee and listening to his iPod. It's amazing to see certain stars out and about in Hollywood due to how gray their hair is. You don't realize they always have their hair colored before appearing in movies, TV, or even talk shows, so you get this idea of them being younger than they are. This is because once people find out you're old, you become less of a commodity in show business. So a few stars -- Ben Stiller comes to mind -- walk around LA with very grey hair, but never have even one grey hair in any of their movies. Matthew Perry is apparently a member of this group.

So is Nick Cage, but I think with him it has more to do with bad hair than grey hair. That, or an obsession to come up with the most insane hairdo's imaginable. This is my personal favorite:

State of the Blog

I've been seriously considering quitting the daily baseball diary thing. Not just because I'm quitter -- though I am definitely that -- but also because my writing time (and free time in general) has become such a precious commodity. With a job, a wife, and a screenwriting career (such as it is), I have enough trouble squeezing in time to watch baseball, let alone write about it. I think that shows in my effort, as I often squeeze in a perfunctory post late at night, often thinking, "Oh yeah, I still have write something for the blog." That's never the right attitude to go into any creative endeavor.

I know from experience that my screenwriting is much better when I'm excited to start, when I carve out sections of my life in which to work. But that's the thing -- when it's good, it's not work, but play. Sure, as a professional, sometimes you have to force yourself to get into it with a "Time to make the donuts" kid of mentality. But more often than not, I catch myself working without realizing it -- thinking about ways to improve something while in the shower, or the car, or hiking. Hell, that's half the reason I hike every day -- the other half being to keep from being a pale fatass. That hasn't really happened with the stuff about baseball, and there are several possible reasons for this.

Reason #1 I've already mentioned -- free time. That has to come first, and with the caveat that in terms of priorities, writing about baseball on my blog falls pretty low. That leads to Reason #2: I hate not doing things well. If I'm going to undertake something, I want to be proud of the result. That's why I quit so many things -- I don't think I can do as well as I deem necessary. But neither of those reasons shoulder all the blame.

Enter Reason #3: Though I often dreamed of being a sportswriter when I was a kid, it's not really something I've taken to when given the opportunity. The occasional post about baseball allowed me the great opportunity to write for McCovey Chronicles for a couple of interim stints, and I enjoyed it, but by the end, I was ready to stop and never do it again. A few posts about football from time to time got me the opportunity to write a couple of weekly columns for Niners Nation and that was fun, but again, I was looking forward to the end of the season. I don't know if it has more to do with the responsibility of having to get it done, or the fact my mind is so used to running through character traits, arcs, and plot points that it's hard to train it to think up ideas about what to say about sports. But how can that be the case when I spend so much time thinking about sports?

Maybe because I've yet to learn a successful way to channel what I think about into the posts. For screenwriting, I'm constantly jotting down ideas, notes, capturing every possibility, choosing between them, then tweaking them over and over. For sportswriting I find a little time, write some stream of consciousness stuff and hit "Post". That's it. No plan of attack. No notes about how Travis Ishikawa needs to start swinging at some first pitches because pitchers are laying in fastballs and he's falling behind right away. Just throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks. If you want to do something well, and you're not some kind of genius or savant, you have to put some time and effort in. I haven't done that. The question is, am I ready to? Which brings us to...

Reason #4: Along with the screenwriting, work, and personal life, I also like writing about other things: movie and TV reviews, a post about my life here and there, another Hollywood Horror Show column -- a haven't written one of those in months and I have several good stories just waiting around to be told. I don't want to be all-baseball-all-the-time all summer, ignoring summer movies and all the new TV shows I'd like to review ("Better Off Ted", "The Unusuals", "Southland", even the so-bad-it's-good-or-maybe it's-just-really-bad "Harper's Island"). No matter what I do, I'm definitely going to post more stuff about entertainment.

So, while I'd like to re-dedicate myself and put a little more thought and effort into my posts, I'm leaning heavily toward either giving it up entirely, or reducing it somehow. Of course, as I'm writing this, the story about Manny Ramirez being suspended 50 games is all over the internet/TV/radio and the Giants are beating the Rockies 5-0 behind an "effectively wild" Matt Cain and a power-binging Bengie Molina. So it looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

Manny tested positive for a banned substance, reportedly a fertility drug. He claims it was prescribed by a doctor for a health issue, which seems curious since I haven't read anything about Ramirez trying to get pregnant. You'd think he'd at least wait until the off-season to try and get knocked up. then again, the way he plays LF, carrying a baby around in his womb probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

This is, of course, a very interesting -- and for a Giants fan, entertaining -- story which I'd like to explore a bit over the coming hours/days/weeks. And the timing of the whole thing -- the day before the 2nd place Giants travel to LA to play the 1st place Dodgers, who are undefeated at home and threatening to run away with the division -- makes it all the more intriguing. I can't just quit now, can I?

Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in.

Mini Link Dump

Screen Junkies has a compilation of great movie deaths. This is why I like Screen Junkies.

Movie Review: 'I Love You, Man'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Yeah, that's right -- a movie review. Bet you forgot I even did these anymore. After three months without one, I think I did, too. But with Spring spring, and summer blockbusters just around the corner, you can expect to see some more, so let's get back in the flow, yo:

The "bromantic comedy" has become a staple of the male 18-34 demo comedy, especially among the Judd Apatow mafia -- 'Superbad' and 'Pineapple Express' are tow recent examples. Though the idea that two straight guys can have a "romance" of sorts, has been a subplot in many movies lately, John Hamburg's 'I Love You, Man' takes it to the next logical step -- giving it all the usual conceits and structure of a romantic comedy.

Hamburg (of 'Meet the Parents' fame) directs, and also co-wrote the script with Larry Levin. Paul Rudd, usually a bit player as the best friend, or one of the gang, plays the lead. With Jason Segel playing his platonic love interest. Rudd's Peter and Segel's Sydney have all the familiar plot points in their bromance -- meet cute, awkward first date, escalating feelings, breakup, makeup, etc. The result, while not ground-breaking by any means, is effective.

Rudd is solid as the slightly off Peter, a guy who doesn't have any guy friends, and acts a little nervous and creepy when he does get around one. Rudd normally plays the glib, easy going type, so it's a bit odd to see him "play down" to Peter, especially since it's his story, and the movie rests on his shoulders. It's during this time the movie suffers through its only real uncertainty. Frankly, it's a little hard to buy Peter's charm with the ladies coupled with his awkwardness with men. The bubbling, and especially the babbling lingo he utters, gets a bit much at times, but Rudd still manages to pull it off with his charming, easy-to-root-for persona.

Peter's lack of a strong personality early on is off-set by those around him. His fiancee, Zooey (Rashidi Jones), and her friends Denise and Hailey (a decent Jaime Pressley and a great Sarah Burns, respectively) are plain-speaking and colorful, as is Denise's husband Barry (a nasty John Favreau). The quality ensemble casting continues throughout Peter's family -- loving mom (Jane Curtain), distant dad (JK Simmons), and gay brother (Andy Samburg). These supporting characters, along with a few others (most notably, Thomas Lennon), help carry the story until Segel shows up at the first act break.

Once Segel's Sydney does arrive, he shakes up Peter's world, giving him -- and the movie -- the electricity he/it needs. He's Peter's polar opposite (fulfilling another rom-com staple) -- confident, relaxed, and seemingly apathetic about how others see him. Sydney helps draw Peter from his shell -- drinking, jamming, going to a concert, even pushing him to work harder at his real estate job. Segel is great as Sydney, keeping the laughs coming, and adding a much-needed wild card into the mix. His riffs on society's habits and rules are the highlights of the movie.

'I Love You, Man' is solid, if not revelatory comedy by talented professionals. It's the kind of movie you shouldn't rush out to see, but it is the kind you should enjoy if you do.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'I Love You, Man':

RECOMMEND

MPAA = EVIL

Kevin Goldstein has a great post on his great blog, The Big Picture (permanently linked on the Blog Roll on the lower right-hand side of the page) today, chronicling the last -- and most egregiously idiotic act by the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA is in charge of rating movies, and they have never been accused of being anywhere close to competent at that job. On the contrary, they have been lambasted for years by filmmakers -- Matt Stone and Trey Parker come immediately to mind -- and have even had a documentary made about how silly and prejudiced they are, regularly going easy on incredible violence while harshly punishing anything sexual.

The best evidence of this double-standard may be the recent case, chronicled by Goldstein, of 'Naked Ambition: An R-rated Look at an X-rated Industry', and how they received a red-band rating for their trailer despite the fact it contains absolutely no nudity, sex, or swearing. That's right, they felt it should not be seen by those under 18 because it's about sex, even though there's none to be seen. If that's not puritanical thinking, I don't know what is. And yet, they'll take it easy on the next torture porn vehicle which comes their way, even if it contains a teenage girl getting skinned alive and fed her own entrails.

Bruno

The long-awaited trailer for 'Bruno', Sacha Baron Cohen's follow-up to 'Borat', hit the web today, and it looks just about how you'd expect it to -- funny, borderline-offensive, and boundary-pushing comedy peppered with condescending and exploitative humor aimed at Christian folks from the midwest and south. Not that there's anything wrong with that. On the contrary, although it does not look to be quite as good as 'Borat', I still can't wait until it comes out.

Here's the red-band trailer:



I think my favorite moment is him picking up the black baby on the luggage carousel, followed closely by the bondage situation at the mall and the O.J. line.

Russell Maryland & the Link Dump

Three links today, but first a quick story: I've been a Miami Hurricanes fan since I was a kid in the early 80's (Bernie Kosar Era), and saw a parade of talent trvel through there on their way to great careers. Despite all the high-flying offensive talents, big-play defensive backs, and dominant pass rushers, some of my favorite players growing up have been defensive tackles (Warren Sapp, Jerome Brown, Russell Maryland).

Recently, my writing partner, Barry, got me some freelance copywriting work for a PR company. It turned out to be writing bios of former NFL players who are participating in a football camp in Dallas. They have played for eight Super Bowl winners between them, so you may have heard of them: Reggie Barnes, Brian Williams, Ray Mickens, Tony Tolbert, and... Russell Maryland. So that's what I did last night for my job -- wrote a bio for one of my boyhood heroes. Not bad work if you can get it.

College Humor has some parodies of those DirecTV ads. careful, a couple of these are pretty tasteless. Just how I like 'em.

If you know me, you know I love lists. Today, I have two of note:

1) Bullz-Eye has a list of their biggest Oscar snubs (and they titled it after another Oscar snub you may be aware of).

2) Screen Junkies has a list (and clips) of the 9 best movie scenes involving vomiting. Sounds good, don't it?

UPDATE: One more diamond found in the internet rough which I had to post...

Spotted at Runyon Canyon...

I've written before about my almost daily treks up Runyon Canyon here in Hollywood, and how it's a hotbed for star sightings. It's so commonplace, it doesn't really excite anymore -- unless it's an exceptional celebrity, or they're doing/saying/wearing something amusing.

Yesterday, I had a bit of a thrill seeing Mickey Rourke driving by in a convertible with a pretty lady, his ponytail blowing in the breeze. Today, I wasn't too excited to see 'American Idol' Season 1 contestant Ryan Starr (twice), although I've always thought she was kind of cute (in spite of overly-glam outfits and a lackluster singing voice -- two attributes which directly led to her appearance in the Lingerie Bowl. But it was what she was doing/saying that caught my attention.

The first time I passed her, she was very carefully and purposefully pulling up her short so as to absolutely maximize the surface area of her exposed midriff (there's nothing more embarrassing than the fashion faux pas of having an only 80-90% bared midriff, believe me). The second time I saw her, she was very animatedly chatting to her friend, seemingly complaining about something. As I passed, I heard her spit out the words, "I woulda won that damn show if I just..." By then, she was out of earshot. I assume she was talking about 'Idol', but what didn't she do which kept her from winning? "If I had just..." what? "Sang well"? "Sang naked"? "Slept with Simon Cowell"? Slept with Paula Abdul"? The suspense is killing me!

Near Perfect

If you were following my Oscar predictions, and didn't put some money on them in Vegas or with your bookie, then you missed out. I went 7 of 8 on the major awards, missing only Sean Penn. I was pretty sure about Mickey Rourke, but Hollywood preferred a referendum on gay rights to the coronation of a prodigal son.

Missing a perfect night by what was probably only a handful of votes is frustrating, but knowing I beat Nate Silver (6/8) and my wife (5/8) cushions the blow. The big winners tonight besides Penn: 'Slumdog Millionaire', Danny Boyle, Kate Winslet, Penelope Cruz, Dustin Lance Black, and Simon Beaufoy. The biggest loser was Rourke, but the most acclaimed role of your career can never really be considered a "loss".

Oscars... For The Ladies II

Just sneaking in this last preview so I can be officially wrong about one more thing tonight...

BEST ACTRESS

Anne Hathaway in 'Rachel Getting Married'
Angelina Jolie in 'Changeling'
Melissa Leo in 'Frozen River'
Meryl Streep in 'Doubt'
Kate Winslet in 'The Reader'

THE NOMS: Pretty good. Since I didn't see two of them ('Frozen River' and 'The Reader'), I can't say for sure, but the other three were all great performances.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Probably Winslet. I know, I didn't see it, but she's supposedly the only good thing in it, and she was also great in 'Revolutionary Road'. She's been nominated six times, she deserves it.

WHO WILL WIN: Winslet. The Academy knows she's due.

The Oscar Goes To... Some Writer II

Because I'm too lazy to even watch the DVD's of the Oscar winners I have sitting on my entertainment center, I thought I might as well do these last couple previews in case I don't get to them by 5pm tomorrow.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Courtney Hunt for 'Frozen River'
Martin McDonagh for 'In Bruges'
Mike Leigh for 'Happy Go Lucky'
Dustin Lance Black for 'Milk'
Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon for 'WALL-E' (Story by Stanton and Pete Docter)

THE NOMS: I haven't seen two of them -- though I'm still hoping to watch my DVD of 'Frozen River' (no, this is not a recording), which was a big winner at the Independent Spirit Awards tonight -- but the ones I saw ('Milk', 'WALL-E', and 'In Bruges') were all exceptionally written. I'd have loved to see Charlie Kaufman's 'Synecdoche, NY' -- another winner tonight at the Independent Spirit winner -- but without seeing all the nominees I can't exactly cast stones. Well, I could, but they'd be very uninformed stones.

WHO SHOULD WIN: 'WALL-E' will make a strong case with its style, substance, and message. 'Milk' also has a message, and a great performance by Sean Penn to carry it. The other three are low-budget, independent films. That's great for the Independent Spirit Awards, but at the Oscars, it probably won't fly. I say 'Milk' edges out 'WALL-E' based on the timeliness of its issue, Penn's performance, and the whole live-action thing. If so, it'll be the second straight year a writer's first produced screenplay wins them an Oscar (after Diablo Cody's 'Juno').

WHO WILL WIN: I liked 'Milk' quite a bit, and admired 'WALL-E' even more, but 'In Bruges' was the best surprise of the year for me. And I think it announced Martin McDonaugh as a great voice to watch for in the future.

Oscars... For The Ladies

Only a couple more left after this, which I'm holding off on in hopes of still seeing 'Frozen River' and 'Rachel Getting Married' before the Oscars...

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Marisa Tomei in 'The Wrestler'
Viola Davis in 'Doubt'
Amy Adams in 'Doubt'
Taraji P. Hensen in 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Penelope Cruz in 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'

THE NOMS: I like 'em. No complaints at all. All the women were great, and I got to see Marissa Tomei parade around topless. What's to complain about?

WHO SHOULD WIN: A really tough call. All the performances were great, but we can narrow them down with some quasi-logic. Tomei showed too much skin to win -- strippers don't win Oscars. Davis and Adams will split votes from 'Doubt'-lovers (not really, but it sounds good). Cruz and Henson were the meatier of the roles, so I'll call it two-horse race. It's not much more than a coin flip, but I'll go with Hensen, just because she gave 'Button' its badly-needed heart.

WHO WILL WIN: I mentioned earlier that I disagreed with Nate Silver on one category, and this is it. He likes Hensen, and she was great. But I'm going with Cruz.

The Oscar Goes To... Some Writer

Anyone who's read this site for any length of time has read me whine about his screenwriters get the shit-end of the stick, so I'll try to keep it a minimum here. But remember this: Judging a screenplay based on the finished film made from it is a dicey call -- there are a lot of hands which shape a film from screenplay to screen. And that's not to mention the others in development who shape the screenplay from the first purchased draft to the shooting script. As many screenwriters have said before, writing a script and allowing someone else to shoot it is like giving birth to child then having someone else raise it.

It can go both ways -- development execs, actors and directors can add to, or detract from, the original script. When you see an Oscar-nominated screenplay, the film probably turned out pretty well, so before you try and judge the screenplay, you have consider what to examine -- the dialogue (except for obvious improv stuff), the characterizations, the plot points -- and what to ignore: the acting, the cinematography, the music, etc. Since there's no way to knwo who contributed exactly what, it's an almost impossible task. That being said, I didn't read any of the nominated scripts this year, so I'll just have to do what I just you shouldn't really do. That's just how I roll.

In this first of the two screenwriting awards, there's yet another uncertainty to factor in -- since they are adapted, a lot of the credit for dialogue, characters and plot points have to go the original author. Although this year that's a little less of a problem, because two of the screenwriters (Shanley and Morgan) adapted their own plays for the screen -- and one, Shanley, directed as well.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Eric Roth for 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
John Patrick Shanley for 'Doubt'
Peter Morgan for 'Frost/Nixon'
Simon Beaufoy for 'Slumdog Millionaire'
David Hare for 'The Reader'

THE NOMS: Once again, I have to recuse myself on 'The Reader' because I refuse to see it haven't seen it yet, but the others seem reasonable.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Beaufoy and Hare both adapted novels, so it's hard to know just what they brought to the table. I like Roth's work in 'Button', and it's much different than the short story, but its similarity to his own previous work ('Forrest Gump'), and the fact the story is a bit overshadowed by David Fincher's visual wizardry leave it a bit short in my mind. Morgan and Shanley adapted their own plays, so they're the auteurs, and both shooting scripts were tight, with rich character, and crisp dialogue. In a close race, I'll take Morgan.

WHO WILL WIN: Shanley and Morgan each have a decent shot, but I say Beaufoy takes the prize on what will likely be a landslide night for 'Slumdog'.

The Silver Oscars

The great Nate Silver, of Five-Thirty-Eight.com and Baseball Prospectus fame, has come out with his Oscar predictions. If you saw his uncannily accurate predictions of the Presidential election -- he was one of the first to champion Obama's candidacy, correctly predicted a blowout early on, and got 49 of 50 states correctly -- or have paid attention to the rave reviews for PECOTA, the baseball statistical projection system he invented, you'll know he's a man worth listen to when it comes to predictions. I don't know if I've ever had a man-crush on a nerd before, but what I feel for Nate Silver is wrong, I don't want to be right.

So far, Nate agrees with me on all four my predictions -- 'Slumdog' (at an astonishing 99%), Danny Boyle (99.7%!!!), Heath Ledger (only 85.8%), and Mickey Rourke (77.1%). Soon, I'll be finishing off my own predictions, and we'll see how close the rest of our picks are. I guarantee there's already one pick we disagree on. (Can you guess it?) Also, Nate didn't do the screenplay awards, which I of course will do. Maybe next.

Mo' Oscars, Mo' Problems

Onward with my crowd-pleasing series looking at the Oscar nominations. You can find previous installments here.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Philip Seymour Hoffman in 'Doubt'
Robert Downey Jr. in 'Tropic Thunder'
Josh Brolin in 'Milk'
Heath Ledger in 'The Dark Knight'
Michael Shannon in 'Revolutionary Road'

THE NOMS: Maybe the most accurate and intriguing group of nominations this year. One of the best ever, really. Downey gets the rare comedy nod for his amazing and groundbreaking performance. Shannon gets a nom despite only a few minutes of screen time with a great performance. Brolin and Hoffman are among the best character actors working today. And Ledger, well, what can I say that hasn't been already regurgitated 1,000 times by everybody in the entertainment media?

WHO SHOULD WIN: Brolin and Hoffman were great, but probably only nom-worthy. Shannon was special in his role, but is out-classed by deeper performances which had much more screen time, and carried their films to a much greater degree. I'd love to pick Downey, who in any other year would deserve it, but honestly, a nom for a broad comedy is as impressive as a win. I'll never know how much Ledger's death had to do with my enjoyment of his performance, but there's no way it wouldn't have ben recognized as great no matter the circumstances. As soon as I heard he'd be the Joker, I knew it had a chance to be special, and it blew my expectations way out of the water. He has to be the pick.

WHO WILL WIN: Are you kidding? The only mystery is who will pick up Ledger's statuette. Vegas has Christopher Nolan at even money.

Skipping Around

After Best Picture and Best Actor, the next logical category is Best Actress, but I've only seen two of the movies/performances and hold out hope of seeing one or two of them before the Oscars (I've even gone so far as to rent the DVD of one -- 'Frozen River'). So, in the meantime, let's go to a category I can write about intelligently (at least in theory):

BEST DIRECTOR

David Fincher for 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Danny Boyle for 'Slumdog Millionaire'
Ron Howard for 'Frost/Nixon'
Gus Van Sant for 'Milk'
Stephen Daldry for 'The Reader'

THE NOMS: Looks good except for 'The Reader' (again), which as I said before, I have not seen, yet manage to dislike anyway. I would've liked to see Martin McDonagh for 'In Bruges', Darren Aronofsky for 'The Wrestler', or Charlie Kaufman for 'Synecdoche, New York'.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Van Sant did a great job, in the most straight-forward cinematic approach he's ever taken, but it comes down to Boyle and Fincher. Boyle was inspired and unique, while Fincher displayed his usual technical mastery. It's a close call, but I give the nod to Fincher, who gives us his warmer, most introspective work to date, while wowing with the visuals.

WHO WILL WIN: Fincher may have told a warmer, more inviting story than he has before, but Boyle made something no one can compare to anything else. While Fincher stands an outside chance, Boyle will be riding a wave of hype along with his film, which could sweep the non-acting awards as a tribute to the film's achievement (voters knowing they can award their favorite performances from the other multi-nominees like 'Button', 'Milk', Frost/Nixon', etc.)

More Oscar Thoughts

The next in our award-winning series on the Oscar nominees...

BEST ACTOR

Richard Jenkins in 'The Visitor'
Frank Langella in 'Frost/Nixon'
Sean Penn in 'Milk'
Brad Pitt in 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Mickey Rourke in 'The Wrestler'

THE NOMS: Right on the money here. You could quibble with Pitt's selection, and some have, but although I think his was probably the weakest performance of the lot, he did have a very difficult role and nailed it. He had to play someone from childhood to old age, only in reverse -- acting young while looking old, and vice versa. The rest are all not only nomination-worthy, but Oscar-worthy, and the choice of Jenkins was a surprising bullseye by a group that often misses the target altogether on small indies and the performances within.

WHO SHOULD WIN: I adore Jenkins' performance, and was truly touched by its grace, subtlety, and nuance, and I very much admire Langella's non-impersonation of Nixon, but this is a two-man race. It's a tough call between Penn and Rourke -- the latter playing a role so close to himself it morphs beautifully into something between art and life, the former playing as far against type as ever and still delivering a typically great performance. The degree of difficulty of Penn's performance is higher, but the result is so moving in Rourke's, I have to go with that. Besides, Penn already has an Oscar.

WHO WILL WIN: Rourke. Come on, it's too good a story for Hollywood to pass up.

MY Oscars

Okay, it's been quite awhile since the Oscar nominations, but I was busy at the time, and haven't gotten a chance to discuss them. Until now. With the show only a week away, I thought I'd take a look at each of the categories -- what I think of the nominations, who should win, and who will win. I'm going to try to squeeze in as many of these as possible before the big day, but you never know, so rather than hold off on the major awards, I'm starting with the biggie:

BEST PICTURE

'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
'Frost/Nixon'
'Milk'
'The Reader'
'Slumdog Millionaire'

THE NOMS: These look pretty good, with one glaring exception. I haven't seen 'The Reader' -- the only nominated film I missed -- mainly because the buzz around it was so bad, but I still feel pretty safe in saying it's a bad choice. Why? Well, for one, some people are calling it the worst Holocaust film ever. Another: Harvey Weinstein. He's known for pimping his films more tenaciously during Oscar season than any other mogul, and calling in all the right favors. Without his push, I doubt this film is nominated. Lastly, both 'The Wrestler' and 'The Dark Knight' were great, and really deserved a nomination, as did 'In Bruges'.

WHO SHOULD WIN: In my opinion, of the noms, 'Button' and 'Milk' were the best films in the traditional Oscar sense, but 'Slumdog' was one of the more unique films I've seen in a while. I understand the buzz it's generating, but my choice is 'Button'.

WHO WILL WIN: 'Slumdog'. It might be manipulative, and a bit un-Oscary, but it's too much of a feel-good hit to lose in a year without a slam dunk Oscar-type lock.

Random List: 10 Best Movies of 2008

Here's my Top 10 films, with a caveat: I have yet to see 'Slumdog Millionaire' which people are raving about (don't you love it when people say that?), and which won a bunch of Golden Globes last night.

1. The Dark Knight -- I'm a traditionalist, and I have to admit, I had a hard time putting this movie in the #1 spot because I don't think of a comic book movie that way. But it was the most fun I had at the movies this year, and there's certainly something to be said for that. Another thing: I loved each of the the movies which follow, but no film this year made me feel like "Best Picture", so why not go with the movie everyone loved? Especially when it had great acting by past Oscar winners and nominees alike (topped by Heath Ledger), was directed by one of the world's best directors (Christopher Nolan), and made some of the best commentary on modern existence, all within what was heretofore a limited, predictable genre. And to think, we thought Tim Burton's 'Batman' -- and Jack Nicholson's The Joker -- was cutting edge 20 years ago.

2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button -- The visual masterpiece of the year, David Fincher's dark fairy tale about life and death resonated more with me than any other film this year. The only thing that kept it from the top spot is the fact that it didn't raise the pulse, or have me on the edge of my seat, as much as it had me watching in respectful wonder. Great acting, great effects, well-crafted story. One of those Hall of Very Good rather than Hall of Fame types. (My review)

3. The Wrestler -- This was right up there my favorite recent movie-watching experiences. Mickey Rourke's performance (already Golden Globe-winning), was one of the very best in awhile -- a harmonic convergence of actor and character. Directed with remarkable restraint by Darren Aronofsky, the film is a ballad to a man past his prime who's too set in his way to change for the better now. It's funny, real, and heartbreaking. (My review)

4. In Bruges -- The best surprise of the year. A little film with not much fanfare, which delivered laughs, action, and a surprising amount of heart. Colin Farrell is great (he also took home a Golden Globe), as is Brendan Gleeson -- both capturing the humanity with the hitmen they play. The lyrical style employed here by Martin McDonagh, who wrote and directed, is irresistible, and draws you into this light-hearted world of murder-for-hire.

5. Synecdoche, NY -- Most people were too confused by this movie to like it. I wasn't surprised. It isn't for everybody. In fact, this film is only for a thin slice of filmgoers -- ones who like to think a lot, don't mind excessive symbolism and metaphors, or a meandering storyline. It is even more specifically for artists, and especially for writers -- about the creative process, how it affects your life, and how your life affects it. If that sounds boring to you, you're not alone, but for me it was one of the unique pleasures of the year. (My review)

6. The Visitor -- Richard Jenkins' performance as the lead is as good as anyone's this year -- much more subtle than Mickey Rourke's, and not quite as entertaining, but just as solid. A small story about big ideas -- freedom, immigrants, America, love, and the healing power of music. Jenkins allows his character to change greatly over the course of the movie without ever making major changes to his performance. Just the subtle way he allows his body to slowly un-tense as he becomes more comfortable with his new friends and musical instrument speaks volumes.

7. Tropic Thunder -- Not many comedies make this list -- I see it more for achievements, rather than entertainment. But the funniest movie of the year had a couple of the year's best performances -- Robert Downey, Jr., Tom Cruise -- and some of the best sequences -- when the cast is first released into the jungle, when Stiller is captured by Red Dragon, the Asian drug-running gang, when Jack Black's character runs out of heroin. It had a great concept, great cast, and great execution. When you have all that, you can make this list -- even if you're a studio comedy.

8. Milk -- A well-told story, a great performance, and superior supporting cast make this one of the best films of the year. The timeliness of the subject matter didn't hurt, nor did the straight-forward yet loving directorial job by Gus Van Sant, but most of this film's success can be attributed to Sean Penn's performance. It was vivid and colorful, but not over-the-top, or cliche. (My review)

9. Frost/Nixon -- Like 'Milk', this film told a fairly well-known political story in a period piece format, but spends less time examining what happened than why things happened. It introduces us to the personalities and peccadillos behind the great (or not-so-great) men, and allows us to understand the men who shaped the events of their time. I think some more chances could've been taken, but you don't see Ron Howard movies for cutting edge tricks and chance-taking, you see it for well-crafted, populist entertainment. That's exactly what this is. (My review)

10. The Promotion -- Quite possibly, the most underrated movie of the year. Great performances by Sean William Scott and especially John C. Reilly make this film's unpredictable storyline -- is he the hero, and he the villain, or the other way around? -- work, and keeps you rooting for both characters, even though they are usually at each other's throats. That's no small feet. Neither is keeping us guessing how the story will end, which is a rarity when you watch as many movies as I do. Nor making us laugh consistently all the way through, or filling the supporting cast with solid actors giving quirky, funny performances -- Jenna Fisher, Lily Taylor, Gil Bellows.

Near misses: Gran Torino, Defiance, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'.