But Marissa (Cate Blanchett), a high level government operative with a vendetta against Erik, will stop at nothing to kill Hanna. With Marissa and her assassins on her tail, Hanna’s quest for freedom becomes a fight for survival. In the real world of hunter and hunted, Hanna’s skills are put to the test, and this time, death awaits the slightest mistake. 

—–

Joe Wright has enjoyed a successful and acclaimed directorial career, from his feature length debut with the latest “Pride and Prejudice” to the acclaimed “Atonement.” In “Hanna,” Wright’s abilities shine bright. From a sterile CIA compound in the Moroccan desert to a dilapidated fairytale-themed amusement park in Germany, Wright’s locational choices fit his action perfectly. And the Chemical Brothers’ soundtrack complements beautifully. In one scene, Hanna wanders through a trashy subway. The strings accompanying the scene blends with the crazy babbling of the homeless Hanna passes, mixing and rising like an orchestra tuning before a performance. Hanna’s fear and loneliness are perhaps at their peak here, and both are beautifully mirrored in the scene’s every aspect. 

Occasionally Wright’s cinematographic choices overreach – one fight for instance occurs in ridiculous, unnecessary slow motion – but by and large his camerawork captures the beauty of the life and landscapes that Hanna is seeing for the first time. 

Fairytales feature prominently in the film. Key scenes occur in a fairytale theme park. Hanna’s only keepsakes from a mother she never knew are a strip of photo booth pictures and a warn copy of “Grimm’s Fairy-tales.” Early in the film she opens the book to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, and its hardly a stretch of the imagination to see Melissa as a wolf, hungry for Hanna and her “hunter” father. I see “Hanna” as Wright’s fairytale – his coming-of-age story for the generations. 

Writers David Farr and Seth Lochhead, in their first feature-length script, have avoided the pitfalls of many modern writers. The dialogue between CIA professionals is clipped and punchy; between Hanna and her adoptive road family, natural and fun. For being a thriller with a pretty basic plot, “Hanna” has some good depth, comedy and imagery to supplement the story. 

The acting is quite good. Ronan is a great cold-killing assassin. In a military base she kills her captors with veteran coldness, ignoring the blood spatter on her face. In an overwhelming, beautifully-shot scene where she first experiences modern technology, the assassin disappears, replaced by a frightened little girl. And she hits every emotion in between – from love to sorrow – with great feeling. She’s well supported by Bana, whose brutal instincts and tough love parenting are delicately balanced with the worry and love of a real father. Blanchett is a coy villain whose words and looks drip with seductive venom. The film is bolstered by a cast of exceptional supporting actors in original characters – from the neat to a fault villain sidekick (Tom Hollander) to the freewheeling family that Hanna falls in with as she journeys from Morocco to Germany, namely the shockingly truthful daughter Sophie (Jessica Barden). 

“Hanna” also briefly raises the question of whether life is sacred. As the film progresses (SPOILER ALERT), we learn that Erik was a recruiter for the CIA, finding women at abortion clinics and convincing them to give their baby (in the embryonic stage) over to research. Under Melissa’s watch, these babies were genetically enhanced to make them perfect warriors. But when the program was terminated, Melissa eradicated the experimental babies. It was a step too far for Erik, who – together with Hanna’s mother, who had come to love her child – rescued the newborn Hanna. Hanna’s mother died saving her. It is a straightforward handling of the issue. Erik even expresses remorse for his horrific actions, and his love for Hanna shows he means it. Of course, other viewers are welcome to draw their own conclusions, or ignore it all together. 

Like any good action film, the rest of the movie is a serious plug for a culture of death as Hanna and Erik blow away their opposition. But the cinematic beauty of this film put “Hanna” a step ahead of the competition. It’s a killer film that hits its mark.

The new Ridley Scott film tells the story of Robin Hood in the period before he was known as an infamous outlaw. Oscar winner Russell Crowe plays Robin Hood, a brilliant archer and warrior. After a dying man asks Robin for a favor, Robin fulfills his duty to him and eventually becomes involved with the dead man’s wife, Marion Loxley (Oscar winner Cate Blanchett). After their romance grows, Robin Hood returns to battle to fight for the country he loves against forces that wish to undermine it.

Unfortunately, the movie has little sense of the adventure that Robin Hood is often known for and the characters in this film are not well-developed. For example, I was struck by the frantic pace of one of the early battle scenes and how little I cared about the characters battling in it. Many of the figures in this story are well-known but this movie fails to bring them to life. Although there were some strong supporting actors in this film (including William Hurt and Max von Sydow), the leading actors were disappointing. For one, Russell Crowe is far too serious in this film to have a good time with the role and he fails to create a memorable depiction of Robin Hood.

The second half of the film does improve as the movie slowly finds its footing. The best parts of the film occur when the movie stops focusing on the one-dimensional characters and focuses more on an unlikely alliance that Robin Hood is forced to make with the corrupt leader of his country, King John. I was not a fan of Oscar Isaac’s portrayal of King John but it was interesting to watch him slowly face reality towards the end of the film. The scenes involving him being forced to compromise on his political values when his country is threatened was a highlight.

One upside is that destructive nature of government overreach is a recurring theme.  Leaders are repeatedly forced to negotiate when the people turn against their agendas and individuals seem to constantly rise up against “the Man” in his various forms. However, the movie fails to coherently develop any of those major themes and the audience is left seeing some smaller pieces that could have worked nicely in a better movie.

Unfortunately, the movie’s strengths are not enough to overcome it’s weaknesses and “Robin Hood” turns out to be a depressing film that does not contain much of the excitement and thrills that are usually associated with the famous outlaw. There are parts of this film that are enjoyable and I think that an exciting movie could have been made using a similar plot about “Robin Hood’s” pre-outlaw days, but Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” squanders that potential, taking the adventure out of a legendary story that is known for it.

Robin Hood is about righteous defiance as practiced by a charming scoundrel. But unfortunately for those moviegoers expecting summer adventure and laughs, what you would think would be the obvious is completely lost on Scott and his screenwriter Brian Helgeland.  Instead, they allow the story to get bogged down with a protagonist exhausted by war, no villain for him (or us) to focus on, and a needlessly complicated narrative involving false identities, palace intrigue, double agents and two wars.

Things open on a promising note.  The date is 1199 and Robin (Crowe) is an archer for King Richard who is pillaging his way through France on his way back to England after the Crusades. Nothing happens you haven’t seen a hundred times before in one of these Medieval romps, but Scott knows how to structure, shoot and edit big action set-pieces like few others so the ole’ castle storm is exciting. 140 minutes later, however, you discover the hard way that this is where it all peaked.

One thing leads to another and as the second act turns, Robin finds himself in Nottingham with his band of interchangeable men (whose rare moments of merriment feel forced) and living in the home of Maid Marion (Cate Blanchett) and her father-in-law (Max Von Sydow – who’s looked the same age since 1973). For reasons not worth detailing, Robin’s there disguised as her husband and his son. But it’s all just a weak plot contrivance to have an old wise man explain to our hero his Destiny.

The story has a number of problems no amount of money and lovely set design can overcome. The first is that Crowe’s Robin Hood is about as fun to be around as a surly drunk. This isn’t the Oscar winner’s fault. He’s a wonderful actor capable of charm. The script just isn’t interested in, you know, the most famous aspect of our hero’s personality. For all the crap critics gave Kevin Costner both he and his 1991 hit delivered.

Another crippler is the lack of a Sheriff of Nottingham. Yes, he’s there, but on the sidelines and not much of an adversary. Unfortunately, there’s no replacement for him, either. Robin’s too busy finding his Destiny and the Palace is too busy intriguing for any of the conflict to get personal. Without a focused antagonist, nothing drives this Robin Hood. He has no goals, no flaws to overcome, and no mission.

There is romance, but absolutely zero chemistry between Crowe and Cate Blanchett’s Marion — a dull character made up of nothing warm, sweet or charming; just sharp, self-consciously feminist elbows. The word “maid” is never used. Can’t have that. Stick to the tired cliche. 

Thematically, “Robin Hood” is all over the place. Because Robin is a blank slate waiting for a mythology fill up and his Obi Wan (Von Sydow) speaks only in platitudes, grasping what the film believes is worth fighting for is near impossible. It’s certainly not England, defeating Muslim hordes or a cold, corrupt Church. Near the end, the story tries to explain itself but even that gets muddled. In one scene, Robin speaks forcefully for liberty and for free men to be allowed to prosper from their own hard work. But in the closing moments Marion extols that the good life means that there’s “no rich, no poor, and fair shares for all.” This feather-headed jab – the final thematic word on the matter — pretty much knocks apart all the goodwill a third act built around the importance of the Magna Carta built up.

Is Robin Hood a Jeffersonian or a Reverend Wrightian?

No one really cares. As the closing moments prove, this is about Hollywood branding a franchise. Personally, I’d prefer Costner have another go before Scott and Crowe saddle up again.

–

“Gladiator” meets “Braveheart” — Nothing wrong with that.

The Sun says “Lord of the Rings”:

“The stunning landscapes and juicy fight scenes look like something straight out of Lord of the Rings.

“And there’s plenty of muscle for the ladies and sword-slashing for the blokes.

“CATE BLANCHETT also stars as Maid Marion and MARK STRONG, currently playing the villain in Sherlock Holmes, plays baddie Sir Godfrey.

“The film follows the legendary archer who steals from the rich to feed the poor.”

Robin Hood hits theatres in May of 2010.

Last year Miramax released “Doubt,” a high-profile piece of Oscar-bait starring Academy Award winners’ Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Streep plays a puritanical nun on a moral crusade to expose a Priest (Hoffman) who she believes is sexually abusing a 12 year-old boy. Both characters are portrayed as unsympathetic (especially Streep’s) but in just a couple scenes the boy’s working-class mother (Mrs. Miller, played by Viola Davis) is established as the moral center of the film – the only one truly interested in the welfare of her child. When Mrs. Miller’s informed that her son’s being molested, the Moral Center Of The Film responds that her 12 year-old boy is gay, a social outcast, and beaten regularly by his homophobic father … so maybe the best option for him is a sexual relationship with a forty-something child predator.

Starring Aaron Eckhart, Maria Bello, and written and directed by Oscar-winner Alan Ball, last year’s “Towelhead” is a film Roman Polanski might have seen many, many times while wearing a rain coat. The protagonist is 13 year-old Jasira (played by the then barely eighteen Summer Bishil) and the story surrounds her sexual abuse at the hands of a number of men, including Eckhart’s Gulf War Vet. Rather than the repeated abuse damaging the young girl, the filmmaker portrays the rapes and molestations as a healthy and sexually liberating experience. More than once the audience is “treated” to lingering shots of Jasira’s bare legs as she discovers the joys of the orgasm while masturbating to photographs of naked women.

Kate Winslet won last year’s Best Actress Oscar for her role in “The Reader,” in which she plays a “sympathetic” Nazi guilty of mass murder who seduces and then engages in a steamy sexual affair with a 15 year-old boy. The sex scenes between this mature woman and a child lean heavily on the erotic, as opposed to the creepy. (The “sympathetic Nazi” issue we’ll save for another post.)

Yes, in just one year, Hollywood released three films that in one way or another portrayed sex with children as potentially healthy or their molester as sympathetic. And these aren’t fringe, indie films either. All three involve name stars and Oscar winners.

Unfortunately, this is not a conspiracy. Hollywood deviants never gathered together to plan for a slate of films aimed at a drip-drip campaign designed to dull our moral outrage towards the most heinous crime imaginable. It’s worse than that. We’re up against a culture; the same culture that can’t quite grasp why a child rapist should have to serve prison time for a crime he’s confessed to.

And this is how cinematic propaganda works. Whether the filmmaker’s motivations are good or evil, the idea is to get decent and thoughtful people to start second guessing themselves as they’re enveloped in the dark and held captive by the powerful sound and fury of the moving picture. First we’re led to identify and sympathize with a particular character, then that character does something designed to challenge our belief structure. This can range from, “If John Wayne opposes racism, maybe I should,” to, “Well, if a loving mother is okay with it, maybe I need to get a little more nuanced and tolerant about this whole child-rape thing.”

On its face, that may sound laughable, and maybe it is, but that doesn’t mean our eyes are lying to us. Last year merely topped off a campaign targeted at our children that began some time ago.

In 2006’s “Notes on a Scandal,” Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett plays a school teacher engaged in a steamy sexual affair with one of her students. Like “The Reader,” the sex scenes between a mature woman and her student strive for the erotic and never once does the story stop to examine how such a destructive affair might psychologically affect a teen-aged boy. That same year, in “Little Children,” Jackie Earle Haley was Oscar-nominated for his support work as a molester just released from prison who’s the victim of that favorite Hollywood whipping boy, suburban hypocrisy. Just two years earlier, Kevin Bacon’s heroic molester in “The Woodsman” not only saves the day and wins the pretty girl, but in his valiant struggle to “reform” he’s presented as a kind of “civil rights” metaphor as policemen and “intolerant” co-workers torment him.

The award for Most Unsettling, however, must go to 2004’s “Birth,” where Academy Award winner Nicole Kidman stars as a widow convinced her dead husband has returned in the form of a 10 year-old boy. If watching a near-forty year-old woman exchange longing looks with a little kid isn’t creepy enough, wait till they end up naked in a bathtub together.

Whether it’s true or not that seventy-five years ago Clark Gable nearly bankrupted the t-shirt industry by not wearing one in “It Happened One Night,” what is true is that billions of dollars are spent annually by advertisers convinced sound and images can alter behavior. You’d have to be a fool to make an argument against the persuasive powers of moving images, but those fools do exist. Most of them are liars.

The Hollywood Left is many things but they’re not fools and they fully understand the power of the medium under their control. Certainly, damning everyone who works in the entertainment world would be unfair, but this is also a culture where only a handful of “names” were willing to speak out against the pro-Polanski movement – including many Leftists who have never been shy about speaking out in the past.

The film industry has a history to be proud of when it comes to opposing racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the most vocal from this current crop seem all too ready to tarnish that legacy as they target our children for profit and worse.

Is it too much to ask of the Hollywood Left that they show as much intolerance towards the sexualization of young children as they do towards conservatives and Christians?

That question has already been answered.

“Everything is working.” That’s what one studio exec told me today. “With the exception of the Jonas Brothers, it seems like almost every release is out-performing expectations.” January 2009 has gone down as the all-time 8th-best month in modern box office history. It started with excellent holiday holdovers. Six movies, technically released in 2008, did major chunks of their business after New Year’s.

2008 RELEASES WITH MORE THAN $50M IN 2009 TICKET SALES
1. Gran Torino (Warner Bros) – $132.7M
2. Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) – $92.8M
3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount) – $72.7M
4. Marley & Me (Fox) – $69.5M
5. Bedtime Stories (Disney) – $52.75M

Then there was the surprise phenomenon of Paul Blart: Mall Cop (Sony), a low budget comedy from producer Adam Sandler and starring former King of Queens star Kevin James. The movie opened to over $30M on the weekend of January 16, and it is now closing in on $130M. The other $100M hit so far in 2009 is Taken (Fox), the Luc Besson-produced French import, which delivered excellent grosses in Europe before landing in the US. With a star turn by Liam Neeson, Taken had already delivered $11.2M in the UK, $9.4M in France and $5.5M in Spain before it went wide in the US on January 30. The picture has held up extraordinarily well with $108M domestic to-date.

The movie industry is 14% ahead of last year’s January-February take of $1.5 billion and a full 23% stronger than the first two months of 2007, which posted just over $1.35 billion. It’s fair to start speculating about the possibility that 2009 will be Hollywood’s all-time box office high water mark.

March has a definite shot at topping $800M, which would be a third straight monthly record. Watchmen (Warner Bros) looks huge starting Friday (I’ll post a prediction later in the week), Last House on the Left (Universal) appears to be a solid genre pic on Friday the thirteenth along with Disney’s excellent family offering Race to Witch Mountain. On March 20, Duplicity (Universal) starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen has 25+ appeal and Dreamworks/Paramount is sky-high about I Love You Man. And the month rounds out with Monsters vs. Aliens from Dreamworks Animation.

Back-to-back-to-back all-time monthly records and almost $2.6 billion in the bank by March 31 would be further proof that the movie business is recession proof. In fact, the more dreary the economic news becomes, the more Americans seek refuge at movies. Instead of the annual trip to Disney World or a getaway cruise in the Bahamas, people seem to be spending their pocket change at America’s multiplexes in droves.

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.

Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) is the odds-on Best Picture winner, and it expanded to about 600 additional playdates this weekend for a total screen count of 2,224. The other four contenders for Hollywood’s biggest prize, however, are on a combined 2,508 screens. That means that they are essentially done with their theatrical engagements in the US (barring a truly shocking upset). Even if you wanted to see the other four nominees, you might have trouble finding them at your local multiplex – especially if you live outside a major city.

The United States has approximately 40,000 individual movie screens. Only 11% of them are showing a Best Picture nominee this weekend. That speaks to how decidedly unpopular these movies are. For comparison in 1998, there were about 34,000 screens in the US, and on Oscar weekend 7,586 of them had a Best Picture nominee showing. That’s 22% of all American screens showing a Best Picture contender.

Here is how the Oscar weekend screen counts for 1998 and this year stack up.

1998
Titanic – 3,169 screens
Good Will Hunting – 1,805 screens
As Good As It Gets – 1,604 screens
L.A. Confidential – 723 screens
The Full Monty – 285 screens

2009
Slumdog Millionaire – 2,244 screens
The Reader – 962 screens
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 754 screens
Milk – 411 screens
Frost/Nixon – 381 screens

Slumdog Millionaire has moved from quirky underdog to beloved box office juggernaut. This weekend, Danny Boyle’s Mumbai masterpiece will close in on the magical $100M barrier.

OSCAR WEEKEND PERFORMANCE FOR BEST PICTURE NOMINEES

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
2,224 screens
$2.1M Friday
$7.5M 3-Day
$97.46M cume
$118M Projected Cume

THE READER
962 screens
$705,000 Friday
$2.53M 3-Day
$22.9M cume
$29M Projected Cume

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
754 screens
$320,000 Friday
$1.12M 3-Day
$124.1M cume
$129M Projected Cume

MILK
411 screens
$265,000 Friday
$928,000 3-Day
$28M cume
$34M Projected Cume

FROST/NIXON
381 screens
$494,000 Friday
$17.22M 3-Day
$21M Projected Cume

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.

But, in the world of gambling, you always want to look for value. What are the films and performances with longer odds that would be worth a wager on Sunday? My purpose here is to establish a betting line for each of the six major categories, and then find the value bet in each category.

Question: Who will win Best Picture? Answer: Still, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

BEST PICTURE
Slumdog Millionaire – 1/7
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 6/1
Milk – 20/1
Frost/Nixon – 30/1
The Reader – 50/1

VALUE: I believe that in order to win an Academy Award, passion is required. Slumdog Millionaire has a passionate zeal among its supporters that will make it virtually unbeatable. Although I have made The Curious Case of Benjamin Button the second choice here, I give it very little chance of winning. It has major studio backing (Paramount), and it is certainly well-respected, but it is more admired than loved. So, for me the betting value is in Milk. Aside from Slumdog, it is the movie with the largest bloc of zealous fans. Gay and gay-friendly Academy members love the movie, and in the shadow of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, Milk is worth a $2 bet at the window.

Sean Penn's portrayal of Harvey Milk is now a decided underdog to Mickey Rourke

BEST ACTOR
Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler – 1/2
Sean Penn, Milk – 3/2
Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon – 10/1
Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 25/1
Richard Jenkins, The Visitor – 35/1

VALUE: After colorful, rambling, verging on obscene acceptance speeches at both the Golden Globes and the BAFTA Awards, Mickey Rourke is the true favorite for Best Actor. Rourke has also campaigned hard, paying the paying the price for that Golden Globe win by schmoozing each and every one of those 95 Hollywood Foreign Press members. Penn just doesn’t play that awards campaign game at all, but actors love him. The only real betting value here is Penn, who still has a chance of winning his second Oscar.

It has been 25 years since Mery Streep won an Oscar

BEST ACTRESS
Kate Winslet, The Reader – 1/2
Meryl Streep, Doubt – 5/2
Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married – 4/1
Angelina Jolie, Changeling – 25/1
Melissa Leo, Frozen River – 35/1

VALUE: It is Kate Winslet’s year. Just ask anybody. She has two outstanding awards-caliber performances in The Reader and Revolutionary Road. If rules would have allowed, she might have been nominated twice in the Best Actress category. She’s 0-fer-5 lifetime at the Academy Awards and deserves to win, but she can be beaten. Jolie and Leo have no shot. Hathaway is the 3rd choice in the field, and a win is not inconceivable, but Streep is the value bet. The undisputed greatest living actress has not won an Oscar in 25 years, despite the fact that this is her eleventh nomination since winning for Sophie’s Choice in 1983.

Ledger is a lock

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Heather Ledger, The Dark Knight – 1/100
Josh Brolin, Milk – 20/1
Robert Downey, Jr., Tropic Thunder – 25/1
Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt – 30/1
Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road – 50/1

VALUE: None. There is no value in this category. Heath Ledger will win Best Supporting Actor posthumously. If you are unfamiliar with how odds work, 1/100 means that you would have to bet $100 to win just $1, and even then, it would be tough to get anybody to take your wager.

Marisa Tomei's "stripper with a heart of gold" in THE WRESTLER may earn her a second Oscar

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona – 1/2
Viola Davis, Doubt – 3/1
Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler – 5/1
Amy Adams, Doubt – 12/1
Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 15/1

VALUE: This is, by far, the most competitive of the major awards. The longest shot in the field, Taraji P. Henson from Ben Button, is only a 15-1 longshot. Woody Allen has a knack for helping actresses win in this category (ask Dianne Wiest , who scored for both Hannah and Her Sisters and Bullets Over Broadway). That points to a win for Penelope Cruz, who was raw and sexy as Maria Elena in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Davis can certainly win for her fleeting-but-powerful turn in Doubt, but my value bet is Marisa Tomei. Her first win, for My Cousin Vinny, was viewed by many as a fluke. In fact, there is an urban legend that she really didn’t win. The story goes that Jack Palance, who presented that year, read the wrong name (the legend claims that Vanessa Redgrave was the actual winner for Howard’s End). In reality, there is no doubt that Tomei is an Oscar winning actress, who gives her career-best performance in The Wrestler.

The uncompromising David Fincher

BEST DIRECTOR
Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire – 1/7
David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 6/1
Gus Van Sant, Milk – 20/1
Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon – 25/1
Stephen Daldry, The Reader – 35/1

VALUE: Nobody is going to beat Danny Boyle, but if I was looking for a strong value bet, I would wager on Fincher. He is a visionary with some amazing movies on his resume, including Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac. He has worked with countless actors and industry types, and his uncompromising nature makes him tough to like, but easy to respect. If there were an upset in this category, Fincher is the only guy who could pull it off.

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.

BAFTA Winner Mickey Rourke

The two major uncertainties entering Sunday’s ceremony were whether Kate Winslet, twice-nominated for Best Actress, would split her own vote and miss out on her second BAFTA Award and who would prevail in the Sean Penn-Mickey Rourke battle for Best Actor. Aside from that, it seemed like a Slumdog sweep, and that’s exactly how it played out.

BEST PICTURE: Slumdog Millionaire
Presented by Mick Jagger, so good in 1992’s Freejack, also starring Emilio Estevez, Renee Russo and Anthony Hopkins, the Rolling Stones front man was chosen to lead the coronation. (I’m being facetious. Freejack was awful. Jagger just seems like an odd choice.)

BAFTA Winner Danny Boyle flanked by Patrick Stewart (left) and Ian McKellan

BEST ACTOR: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
Chalk one up for Rourke. I think that the tide is turning in the Oscar race. Mickey dropped an F-bomb in his acceptance speech, and although censors will need every one of those 7 seconds of delay, I am now leaning to Rourke’s heroic turn as Randy “The Ram” Robinson to win Best Actor at February 22’s Academy Awards. A choice moment from Mickey’s speech, “Thanks to Marsei Tomei for constantly taking her clothes off on-screen…I enjoyed looking at her.” Here’s a link to Mickey’s acceptance speech with all the necessary bleeps.

Penelope Cruz, Mickey Rourke and Kate Winslet show off their hardware

BEST ACTRESS: Kate Winslet, The Reader
She was nominated for both Revolutionary Road an The Reader, but just as Oscar voters did, the BAFTA Awards voters preferred the slow burning guilt and shame of her performance in The Reader over her showy Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf-style theatrics in Rev Road.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
The year’s most memorable performance, and since TDK was snubbed for Best Picture at both the BAFTA Awards and the upcoming Oscars, this is the best way to pay tribute to the all-time second-biggest grossing movie in US history.

Cruz didn't have to contend with Winslet, with both of her nominations in the Best Actress category or Viola Davis (Doubt), a strong contender at the Oscars

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Very well-deserved. She had a tremendous year with both the edgy, verge of crazy Maria Elena from Woody Allen’s comedy and a haunting performance in the very underrated Elegy. With Winslet out of the Supporting Actress race at both the BAFTA Awards and the Oscars, Cruz gets her shot. Keep in mind that Viola Davis, so good in Doubt was not nominated here, but is a live bet in two weeks at the Academy Awards.

BEST DIRECTOR: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
The obvious choice. Manchester-born. The career of a true auteur with brilliantly diverse films like Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, Millions and 28 Days Later on his resume.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
After writing The Fully Monty in 1998, this UK-born screenwriter seemingly disappeared until 2008 when he wrote both Miss Pettigrew Lives For a Day and Slumdog. No surprise at all that he wins here, and he seems like a lock on Oscar night with David Hare’s The Reader as a distant challenger.

Original Screenplay winner Martin McDonagh with his In Bruges star Colin Farrell

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Martin McDonagh, In Bruges
Known for his plays The Pillowman and The Beauty Queen of Leenane, he actually won the Oscar for Best Short Live Action Film in 2006 with something called Six Shooter. London-born this is his first full-length feature film and he is both a BAFTA winner and an Academy Award nominee. McDonagh is unlikely to repeat on Oscar night with Dustin Lance Black, already the WGA winner, a strong favorite for Milk.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Anthony Dod Mantle, Slumdog Millionaire
A Boyle favorite who previously worked with him on 28 Days Later, Mantle was also DP on 2006’s fantastic The Last King of Scotland. He could be carried to an Oscar win riding the crest of a Slumdog tidal wave, or Wally Pfister could snag the award for his work on The Dark Knight (there could be a reverse backlash at the Academy Awards with voters rallying around TDK because of the Best Picture snub). The tag-team of two-time Oscar winner Chris Menges and eight-time nominee Roger Deakins are also a threat for their work on The Reader.

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Probably the right choice here. It’s a 160-minute movie covering decades so getting the look right must have been a daunting task.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Again this is right on. In fact, you could argue that the whole movie is predicated on the visual effects. Seamlessly placing Brad Pitt’s face on another body without the strings showing? If the FX people don’t pull this off, Fincher has no movie.

BEST SOUND: Slumdog Millionaire
On Oscar night, this category will either belong to Slumdog in a sweep or The Dark Knight.

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIR: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The obvious choice for the BAFTA Awards and the Oscars.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN: Michael O’Connor, The Duchess
Big gigantic dresses. That’s what I saw when I watched The Duchess. Generally speaking, that’s what wins in this category.

Composer A.R. Rahman wins the BAFTA and may become the first Indian to win an Academy Award

BEST MUSIC: A.R. Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire
In my mind, this is the right choice. There has never been a mainstream film score that sounds remotely like what Rahman produced for Slumdog. The score is integral to the feel of the movie. In fact, it’s hard to imagine that it would be the same movie with a conventional score. Rahman is only the third Indian ever nominated for an Oscar, and this soundtrack does represent a fascinating bridge between traditional and modern Indian music and the Western sound we all know.

BEST ANIMATED FILM: WALL-E
Yes, Waltz With Bashir is unique – an animated, foreign language documentary, but WALL-E is a special, special movie, and Andrew Stanton deserves every award that comes along. The Chaplinesque quality of the first act makes it, for my money, one of the best animated movies of the modern era.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: I’ve Loved You So Long
This was easily my favorite foreign language film of 2008. The arcane rules governing Best Foreign Language Film excluse this Phillipe Claudel drama from Oscar contention, but put this in your Netflix cue when it becomes available. Kristen Scott Thomas delivers a haunting portrait of a woman with a secret, and, as it unravels in the hands of her empathetic sister (played by the remarkable Elsa Zylberstein), her burden and suffering are heartbreaking.

BEST BRITISH FILM: Man on Wire
Slumdog was nominated here, but the BAFTA tradition is to recognize a smaller film, excluded from the Best Picture race. I am one of the few people that didn’t fall in love with this James Marsh doc about wire-walker Phillippe Petit. Since the Brits have no Best Documentary Feature category, this was their one chance to recognize Marsh. Man On Wire is the prohibitive Oscar favorite for Best Doc, and I may have to watch it again just to see if I missed something the first time around.

Noel Clarke, the surprise winner of the BAFTA Rising Star Award

ORANGE RISING STAR: Noel Clarke
This award is voted on by the British public, and Clarke is the star of the UK TV hit Doctor Who. Both Michael Cera (Juno, Superbad) and Rebecca Miller (Frost/Nixon, Vicky Cristina Barcelona) lost the fan vote but are likely to have longer and more notable careers than Clarke.

CARL FOREMAN AWARD: Steve McQueen, The Hunger
Tells the story of the last six weeks in the life of hunger striker Bobby Sands. Michael Fassbender, who also lost out on the Orange Rising Star Award to Clarke, portrays Sands, and the movie played for just one week in the US (I’m assuming for Oscar qualification). Hopefully IFC will give this some arthouse runs this year.

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.

Only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees has inspired any real passion from the broad public. The almost-certain Best Picture winner is Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight), and its devotees, including critics and members of the Academy (not to mention yours truly), have made it a word-of-mouth smash hit. The Danny Boyle-directed feel-good Bollywood fusion movie made for a meager $14M added another $2.05M or so on Friday and is charting a 3-day course for about $7.4M. That will give the Slumdog a $77.4M take, and it could reach $90M-$95M before it’s through in American theatres.

David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin is the only 2009 Best Picture nominee to top $100M

The other four Best Picture noms are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount), Milk (Focus), The Reader (Weinstein) and Frost/Nixon (Universal). I approached  Benjamin Button as a little kid might approach broccoli. (You’re not allowed to leave the table until you eat it, and it’s supposed to be good for you.) It’s very long, a bit pretentious, and not nearly as good as other David Fincher-directed films like Se7en and Zodiac. After opening strong, the movie is now fading despite 13 Oscar nominations, selling about $640,000 in tickets Friday for a likely $2.24M 3-day. The cume will be a respectable $120M by Monday, but how many people have you actually heard saying, “I love Benjamin Button!”

The Reader, Milk and Frost/Nixon are now on as many screens as they will ever be, and they are certainly not setting the world on fire. Here’s how the five movies nominated for Hollywood’s biggest prize are performing this weekend.

BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE OF BEST PICTURE NOMINEES FEBRUARY 6-8
Slumdog Millionaire – $2.05M Friday – $7.4M 3-day – $77.4M cume
Benjamin Button – $640K Friday – $2.4M 3-day – $120M cume
The Reader – $605K Friday – $2.3M 3-day – $16M cume
Milk – $285K Friday – $1.1M 3-day – $25.2M cume
Frost/Nixon – $189K Friday – $753K 3-day – $15.6M cume

Aside from Slumdog Millionaire, there’s not much box office upside here. Ben Button is unlikely to reach $130M, while Milk will probably fall short of $30M. The Reader could add a possible $8M before its done, and Frost/Nixon won’t even get to $20M domestic.

Frank Langella and Michael Sheen in Frost/Nixon, unlikely to top $20M domestic

PROJECTED CUMES OF 2009 BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
Benjamin Button – $127M cume (projected)
Slumdog Millionaire – $95M cume (projected)
Milk – $29M cume (projected)
The Reader – $23M cume (projected)
Frost/Nixon – $19M cume (projected)
Combined projected cume: $293M

If those numbers hold, the 2009 awards season will have given us three of the six weakest performing Best Picture nominees of the last decade.

TOP 10 LOWEST GROSSING BEST PICTURE NOMINEES OF THE LAST DECADE
1. 2006 – Letters From Iwo Jima – $13.75M cume
2. 2009 – Frost/Nixon – $20M cume (projected)
3. 2009 – The Reader – $25M cume (projected)
4. 2005 – Capote – $28.75M
5. 1999 – The Insider – $29M
6. 2009 – Milk – $30M cume (projected)
7. 2005 – Good Night & Good Luck – $31.5M cume
8. 2002 – The Pianist – $32.5M cume
9. 2006 – Babel – $34.3M cume
10. 2008 – There Will Be Blood – $40.2M cume

Now just two weeks away, the 2009 Oscar ceremony could be a Waterloo of sorts for the Motion Picture Academy. First-time Oscar producers Bill Condon and Lawrence Mark have promised something daring. A re-imagining of the Academy Awards telecast, coming off last year’s all-time lowest ratings.

Hugh Jackman, the talented Australian actor, will serve as host. He previously won an Emmy for his hosting of the Tony Awards a few years back (Here’s his opening musical number from the broadcast.) Yes he can sing and dance, but can he overcome the lack of appeal of the movies that the Academy has chosen to honor?

As a hardcore movie fan, I will be watching, but the average American doesn’t care about enough of these movies to draw a substantial audience. This group of Best Picture nominees seems destined to be the second-least popular group of nominees in the past fifteen years with an ultimate combined cume of just $293M.

Thandie Newton and Matt Dillon in Best Picture winner Crash, which grossed $54.5M domestic

WEAKEST TOTAL GROSS FOR BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
- last 15 years -
1. 2005 – $245M
Crash, Brokeback, Capote, Good Night & Good Luck, Munich
2. 2009 – $293M (projected)
Slumdog, Ben Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader
3. 2006 – $296M
Departed, Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen
4. 1996 – $306M
English Patient, Fargo, Jerry Maguire, Secrets & Lies, Shine
5. 2007 – $357M
No Country, Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood
6. 1993 – $368M
Schindler’s List, Fugitive, Name of the Father, The Piano, Remains of the Day
7. 1995 – $378M
Braveheart, Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino, Sense & Sensibility
8. 2004 – $401M
Million Dollar Baby, Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray, Sideways
9. 1998 – $440M
Shakespeare in Love, Saving Private Ryan, Life is Beautiful, Elizabeth, Thin Red Line
10. 1994 – $543M
Forrest Gump, Four Weddings & a Funeral, Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show, Shawshanke Redemption

I would love to be wrong. I’d love to believe that keeping the identities of presenters a secret, and a song-and-dance man from Down Under, and the sight of Brad and Angelina on the red carpet, and a gutsy, little independent movie from Mumbai, and a guarantee from producers that the show won’t exceed three hours, and the dramatic posthumous recognition for Heath Ledger – that it will all work to draw a huge television audience. But I am feeling more certain that ABC’s Oscars telecast this year may go down as the lowest rated ever.

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.