Someone needs an oil change.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 02/17/2012
Directors: Neveldine/Taylor
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Violante Placido, Ciarán Hinds, Idris Elba, Johnny Whitworth
Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images, and language.
Runtime: 1 hour, 35 minutes

---

Trailer:

Fire. Fire!

For all you “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” fans, Anthony Head is in this film briefly (minus the “Stewart”)! For all you “Highlander” fans, Christopher Lambert is in this film briefly (with a different sword)! For everyone else, shudder in terror at the prospect of another movie starring Nicolas Cage as a flaming skeleton … no, this isn’t “Bad Lieutenant 3″ … it’s “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance”! Hooray! Yippee! Wait … sorry, still woozy from watching this one.

Gone is Eva Mendes, replaced by Violante Placido. Gone is America, replaced by Europe. Gone is any sense of pride, replaced by shame knowing this movie will make any money whatsoever.

What audiences are “treated” to is the stylings of co-directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor. That means stylized action in the vein of the “Crank” movies they did, it means a sloppy animated backstory, it means no one reined in Nicolas Cage. In fact, it’s possible he hasn’t been this off the reservation on film since 2006′s remake of “Wicker Man” (not withstanding “Bad Lieutenant 2” which called for that kind of characterization).

That video was there to help get you in the right headspace. For anyone who sat through the tortuous “Ghost Rider“, unfortunately it’s just more of the same here, despite ditching the terrible director of the first one and bringing in guys known for hyperkinetic action (if nothing else). And speaking of the action, it’s not that some of it isn’t halfway decent … it’s that none of it makes the whole experience any less boring.

Although this is a movie that just barely passes the one and a half hour mark, it sure feels like a prison sentence staying in those uncomfortable seats. First we get the bad animated opening to catch people up with the origin of Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider (Cage/CGI). Then there’s gunfire and a brief car chase. Then some boring talking. Then a fight with some more gunfire and combusting bodies. Then some boring talking. Then a fight with a lot of gunfire, combusting bodies, and a hellfire-powered crane. Then some boring talking. Do you see where this is going?

Occasionally something happens that doesn’t totally suck (technical film criticism term). Idris Elba plays a drunk monk (well, maybe not monk … something religious … “drunk monk” rhymes okay?!). His character is at least somewhat interesting, though perhaps more because of Elba’s screen-presence than anything written on the post-it note they call a script. Having Christopher Lambert pop up out of nowhere brought the promise of something interesting (which was quickly dashed). And there are a few times when Cage is truly let off the leash and he goes full-nutbag, which is some of the funniest stuff I’ve seen in a while.

In fact, to a certain degree, the entire movie is a comedy. Sure, it’s a comedy of errors and excess but laughter is laughter. My problem with it all (aside from one of the cooler characters in the Marvel comics universe turned into a laughing stock) is that rather than go all out and play up the insanity that is Nic Cage playing a flaming skeleton, it all plays out a bit like “The Transporter 3“. Only instead of Jason Statham having to deal with an annoying woman and driving in Europe, it’s Nic Cage having to deal with a woman with so little presence I almost forgot she was on-screen … while driving in Europe.

And if anyone was thinking that putting this in 3D would do anything, stop thinking. Sure, I was wearing those tinted glasses and saw from the “Wrath of the Titans” trailer that those filmmakers still don’t know how to make the new technology work. However, neither do Neveldine and Taylor. While much of the film appears to have been converted to 3D, very little to none of it seemed to add any real depth (if it was shot in 3D, that’s even more sad). Hell, they didn’t even throw much AT the audience just to be gimmicky. Paying for the 3D isn’t just a poor decision, it’s an irrelevant one since you won’t be able to tell much of a difference.

With all those negatives, it’s no shocker that this wasn’t screened for most press. The studio knows that the hardcore fans aren’t the type to read movie reviews and that discerning adults will find little to like from a filmmaking perspective. However, I don’t think they realize that the most fun reviews to write aren’t filled with praise and admiration for a superbly crafted film. Nope, it’s way more fun to trash a crappy movie and vent over the terrible in-theater experience.

For that, I say thank you, “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance”. A 1.5 out of 5, you’re a terrible, terrible movie. But your review was quick and easy to write; allowing me to warn anyone on the fence to stay far, far away while also confirming the suspicions of those who knew better than to be suckered into the promise of new directors righting the ship. This one might very well make some end of the year lists … just not the kinds of lists anyone involved with making the movie might want to be associated with. Congrats anyways, you’ve all earned it.

I hope you know I’m not a mouse.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 02/17/2012 (USA), 07/17/2010 (Japan)
Director: Hiromasa Yonebayashi
Featuring the Voices of: Bridgit Mendler, David Henrie, Amy Poehler, Will Arnett, Carol Burnett, Moises Arias
Rated: G
Runtime: 1 hour, 34 minutes

---

Trailer:

No playing with perspective here.

2011 was an abysmal year for animation. Aside from “Kung Fu Panda 2“, there wasn’t a single animated affair screened in the year that elicited more than a “meh” upon exiting the theater (if you were over 10 years-old).

Getting 2012 off to a promising start is “The Secret World of Arrietty”. Anime fans know that this comes from Studio Ghibli and they’re probably aware that the renowned Hayao Miyazaki
isn’t in the director’s chair this time around (he had a hand in the screenplay and kept the producer’s hat on). First time director Hiromasa Yonebayashi steps in and whether or not he had a great deal of guidance from Miyazki, the end result is a lovely interpretation of the classic kids novel, The Borrowers. This isn’t the first adaptation of the text but is a rare case of creating excellence despite the lack of originality.

The story concerns a family of little people (no, not dwarves) who live underneath a house and “borrow” bits of things in order to survive; a cube of sugar, a piece of tissue, whatever they might need but something that shouldn’t go noticed when it goes missing. A sick, young boy comes to live in the house and befriends the youngest of them, unsurprisingly named Arrietty. The caretaker of the home is intent on proving the Borrowers are there and her quest eventually threatens the safety of the family. Cue resolution, saying anything more would fall under the category of spoiler alerts.

As for the film itself, first and foremost, the animation style on display is luscious and beautiful. In an age of computer generated films, seeing hand-drawn artwork at such a high level is a visual treat. Sure, it’s not in glorious 3D, but the manner in which the background and foreground interact in all of the Studio Ghibli films creates a sense of depth that’s immersive and almost mesmerizing. The character designs won’t be new to fans of the studio’s previous works (I see a lot of Totoro in the cat for example) but there’s also a superb mix of realism to go along with many exaggerated outbursts, grounding everything in an emotional, almost textual experience.

What sets this film apart from the normal fare, seemingly slapped together around little more than an inkling of an idea and famous voice actors, is the ability to rely on the story to keep audiences engaged. Almost every animated film of last year may have been entertaining overall to the wee ones but there was also the kind of restlessness exhibited that meant they weren’t truly focused and involved; and perhaps the most impressive aspect of this movie was that despite an often methodical pacing, the kids were all glued to the events unfolding on screen.

While there aren’t too many “action” scenes, the film goes into great detail about the way in which the characters go about their lives, and presents a clear path for the problems that need resolving to complete the story. Seeing everyday life reduced in scale for people small enough to live in a dollhouse is a little magical, and kids with their active imaginations understand this. The film doesn’t talk down to them nor does it worry about throwing in “adult” material to keep parents interested. It doesn’t need to and that’s what makes a great story.

A 4 out of 5, “The Secret World of Arrietty” is a family treat and will surely factor into the best that the animated genre will deliver to American audiences in 2012. While it may not have toys and happy meals to tie in with the production, kids will nonetheless get excited about this fantastical world … and the parents won’t feel they got suckered into another marketing trap along the way. Win/Win.

Is this what they mean by “looking casual”?

---

Theatrical Release Date: 02/14/2012
Director: McG
Cast: Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, Reese Witherspoon, Chelsea Handler, Til Schweiger, Abigail Leigh Spencer, Angela Bassett, Rosemary Harris
Rated: PG-13 for sexual content including references, some violence and action, and for language.
Runtime: 1 hour, 38 minutes

---

Trailer:

How natural is that light?

Finally, it’s happened. 2012′s nightmare of January dumpage and February no-thought rom-coms is over. Audiences can actually go to the movie theaters to see a movie that’s fun and worth the price of admission.

Ironically, it comes in the form of “This Means War”, which the studio itself isn’t sure if they should have a whole lot of faith in. Originally slated for a February 17th release, it was bumped up to Valentine’s Day Singles Awareness Day but “The Vow” and all of its Channing Tatumness scared the decision makers back to the 17th.

That’s a real shame, not only because they’re probably right that the average 18 year-old girl will drag their unlucky boyfriend to sit through Nicholas Sparks lite, but because “This Means War” is a far better date movie. Not only do you have the attractive and charming men competing for the affections of Reese Witherspoon, the guys are CIA operatives who perform all sorts of crazy action; so the girls AND the guys get something they want. What a concept! (Smell that sarcasm?)

Speaking of the actors, this was a perfectly cast effort. Reese has both the spunk and chops to hold her own against the fellas, but she’s also looking better than she has in years (not that she ever looked bad). She also makes the simple process of microwaving popcorn far sexier than it is at my place. Chris Pine brings the cocky charm and pretty boy looks (aren’t those eyes dreamy? Wait …) while Tom Hardy has the physicality and British accent to ensure that the pair are opposites, yet still complimentary.

The action is 97% over the top, with the guys doing the sorts of things that only happen in movies, but it’s all a lot of fun and exactly the kind of stuff that director McG knows how to do (robot movies not so much). The humor is also delivered on a high scale; the contest between the Pine and Hardy elicited more laughs than perhaps any comedy in the last year. It blends not only the posturing any romantic triangle normally elicits but the boys’ CIA assets are brought into play and they make stalking a hilarious affair. Even not being a big fan of Chelsea Handler didn’t dampen spirits as her boozy, poor-advice giving character helped keep Witherspoon from getting too serious.

Simply put, if your significant other has any intentions of submitting you to the weepy Tatum averageness, let them know there’s more than enough romance here and you get TWO hunky guys who can actually act; rather than one who knows his lines and where the camera is. A 4 out of 5, “This Means War” is almost a movie out of its time, combining a funny script, excellent actors and fun action. We really haven’t seen this in a few years as most movies are content to throw the “it” celebrities into a raunchy situation and see what happens, without much regard as to the results since audiences seem to go to just about anything these days.

I know it’s well past New Year’s Eve but let’s make a resolution to only go to movies that aren’t made for the lowest common denominator. I’ll be your best friend! Pretty please? With sugar on top? Well … it was worth a try.

One of these two is doing all the work in this partnership.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 12/23/2011 (limited)
Director: Wim Wenders
Rated: Rated PG for some sensuality/partial nudity and smoking.
Runtime: 1 hour, 43 minutes

---

---

Trailer:

It’s like an alternate George Michael video.

Nominated for Best Documentary at the upcoming 84th Academy Awards, “Pina” comes form director Wim Wenders and pays tribute to the late dancer/choreographer Pina Bausch, who passed away in 2009. However, maybe it shouldn’t have been nominated. Not because it isn’t good, but because to call this a documentary is a bit misleading.

If you thought you were going to learn about Pina, where she came from, how she got into dance, the trajectory of her career – well, you’re out of luck. The film would more accurately be described as a love letter to Bausch, a fond farewell to a woman who meant so much to her dance company and to those who followed the art form. In fact, you’re likely to exit the theater with more questions about her than when you entered.

Instead of the normal talking heads and heaps of archival footage, the film is comprised of some of Pina’s most notable choreographed compositions, performed by members of her company (with some archival footage thrown in for good measure). They also add in some pieces of their own, inspired by their time with her. The result is an excellent collection of dance sequences, made even more transfixing because of the sets, cinematography and 3D.

That’s right, I said 3D. This is one of the very, very, VERY few films I’d say absolutely should be seen in 3D on the big screen. This isn’t about gimmicky objects being thrown at the camera, Wenders actually utilized the technology how it’s supposed to work, by creating depth of field and truly placing the audience in front of a performance. (The faux theater shell and seats used to sell this point are a bit hokey at times but for 3D this good, I can let it go.)

As mentioned, also working in the film’s benefit are amazing sets and excellent cinematography. And when I say “sets”, I don’t just mean some of the remarkable indoor playgrounds created for the dancers, I also mean some outdoor locations that are breathtaking; reflecting the balance between man and nature, such as a gorgeous lake location, a glass house that looks out onto a lush forest, an excavation site, even a city street somehow seems magical when presented alongside the dancers and their performances.

Everything is shot with extreme attention to detail, lighting, and composition; Germany may have nominated this for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars (yet another indicator this is something other than a documentary) but if there was a place this truly was robbed, it was Hélène Louvart’s efforts as cinematographer. This is second only to Emmanuel Lubezki’s work on “The Tree of Life“.

Now, of course, because I’m a jaded, bitter film critic, I can find a fault. The opening 30 minutes or so seem to drag quite a bit. Part of this is due to the more dynamic dance elements taking place in the latter half of the movie, another is not knowing what to expect when I entered the theater. I prefer not to watch trailers, or get too much info on anything I’m going to review so as to minimize any preconceived notions. I did know this was nominated and billed as a documentary, so I was expecting to learn about Pina through recollections from friends, family and fellow dancers. Learning only about the inspiration she provided and a measure of the emotion her company still feels for her, it took some time before I adjusted to Wenders’ approach.

That being said, if you are a fan of contemporary dance, this is your can’t miss movie of the year (2011 or 2012, depending on how you look at it). The technical elements are handled brilliantly, the dance is spectacular, and the measured exhilaration one feels upon exiting the theater is the kind of stuff that doesn’t come along all that often. “Pina” ends up more as a performance captured on film than a documentary but the end result is so satisfying that worrying about what label to put on it defeats the purpose and the film gets a 4.5 out of 5. It’s an excellent movie, what more does one really need to say?

You can always tell who has top billing by who’s in focus.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 02/10/2012
Director: Daniel Espinosa
Cast: Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds, Vera Farmiga, Brendan Gleeson, Sam Shepard, Rubén Blades, Nora Arnezeder, Robert Patrick
Rated: R for strong violence throughout and some language.
Runtime: 1 hour, 55 minutes

---

Trailer:

Even Denzel’s ghost has screen presence.

A spy goes off the reservation, hunted by the agency for which he once worked. There’s corruption within the CIA, stemming from the very top and a trusted mentor may be at the center of it. Action scenes are shot with a shaky camera, cut together in quick bursts to make everything that much more frenetic and almost overburdened with grain to amp up the grittiness.

No, I’m not talking about “The Bourne Supremacy”, I’m talking about “Safe House”. Putting aside the notion that director Daniel Espinosa and writer David Guggenheim concocted this after a late night Bourne DVD marathon, the element that doesn’t seem like a direct lift from the other franchise is pairing Denzel Washington as the rogue spy with Ryan Reynolds’ naïve agency greenhorn. That element is a bit more “Training Day” meets any cliché story about a man framed for a crime he didn’t commit having to convince the cop chasing him of the truth.

There’s also the often used idea of a beautiful civilian girlfriend who has no idea her man leads a double life. Will our hero prove his love by sending her away? Will they find a way to reconnect once it’s all over? The anticipation is almost unbearable!!! (Sorry, sarcasm overload.) Okay, I’m going to stop finding rehashed plot elements; I could be doing this all day.

About the only element of the film that’s original is the importance of CIA safe houses in order to interrogate and hold prisoners prior to extradition. Or, at least, I can’t readily remember this being a significant feature of another film, so way to go guys! (Sarcasm burp, excuse me.)

However, while stopping to think about the development of the script or the film’s direction is a bad idea for anyone just looking to have a good time, the upside to “Safe House” is the cast. Denzel is sort of mixing and matching some of his previous roles but his presence on-screen is always appreciated and it played nicely against the desperation and almost wide-eyed innocence being exuded from Reynolds (think Washington vs Pine in “Unstoppable“). Adding to the mix are Sam Shepard, Brendan Gleeson and Vera Farmiga as the CIA muckety mucks; it’s a shame you see through their veneers so quickly but they’re such good actors it’s still enjoyable to see them go through the paces.

Also, while the action may be framed like a film school student imitating director Paul Greengrass, there’s a decent amount of it. The runtime is just shy of 2 hours, and a few of the slow downs could have used some tightening but the generally frequent splashes of violence will keep action junkies at least moderately satiated. And while The Green Lantern Ryan Reynolds isn’t always 100% convincing as a supposedly trained wannabe field agent, there’s no doubting the ruthlessness Denzel can elicit when the situation calls for it.

In the end, whether or not all that cinematic “Déjà Vu” will get in the way of liking this experience probably rests on your ability to suspend your disbelief and forgo from any film comparisons until after the credits roll (this time, the only connection is me shoehorning in a movie title). So while one could just sit comfortably on the couch and pop in a few DVDs of the films “Safe House” not so subtly echoes, if you’re looking for an action film in theaters right now, this will fit the bill and it gets a 3 out of 5.

Be careful, Rachel. All that’s keeping Channing’s head on is that hat.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 02/10/2012
Director: Michael Sucsy
Cast: Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum, Jessica Lange, Sam Neill, Jessica McNamee, Wendy Crewson, Tatiana Maslany, Lucas Bryant, Scott Speedman
Rated: PG-13 for an accident scene, sexual content, partial nudity and some language.
Runtime: 1 hour, 44 minutes

---

Trailer:

Ewww.

SPOILER ALERT: “The Vow” isn’t based on a Nicholas Sparks book. However, short of certain plot resolutions Mr. Sparks seems to prefer, one wouldn’t really be able to tell the difference.

In the film, Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams are a happily married couple, running in a Chicago hipster crowd and living a romantic, unrealistic life as a recording studio owner and sculptor, respectively. A car accident renders McAdams’ memory of her life with Tatum kaput. He must then start the arduous process of attempting to get his wife to fall in love with him all over again.

The fundamental problem with this setup is casting Tatum. I realize he’s the man-candy of the moment but he’s only got one acting gear; and any attempt to ramp up the emotion to something higher than a simmer results in simple yelling or the swing of a fist. McAdams is fine, though she really doesn’t have much to do but look trapped and confused whenever she’s not flashing that infectious grin of hers (a hideous hair coloring in the latter half doesn’t help things either). Bringing in Sam Neill and Jessica Lange as McAdams’ parents is a nice touch, though whoever was in charge of Lange’s make-up might want to consider looking for a new career field.

As for the story, there’s not much on-screen that fans of the sappy rom-com genre won’t see coming a mile away (and yet be completely satisfied with). It would have been nice to axe an annoying subplot involving an old flame played by Scott Speedman; It manages to make watching Tatum on-screen almost desirable in comparison. Also, the hipster friends that comprise Channing’s support system are the very definition of plot devices and get as much character development as a Michael Bay film.

All that being said, I doubt it comes as any great shock that I’m not the target demo. Hell, I spent a portion of the film lamenting the terrible foley work whenever characters walked in the snow (the crunch of their footsteps was all wrong) and groaning that they chose to play a song by The Cure I really like when the credits begin to roll (which elicited more emotion out of me than the film itself).

For all those who saw the trailer and squealed in excitement, you’ll get all you want out of “The Vow” and it gets a 3 out of 5. Aside from the very nature of films like this, and Tatum’s non-modulating emotive abilities, this is actually a bit better than most of the weepy romances boyfriends and spouses work so hard to avoid being dragged to. Take that for what it’s worth.

A striking remembrance of the 90s, “Empire Records” is a dividing line between generations x, y, and whatever the heck kids are today. You either love it, don’t get it, or never saw it. I, of course, loved it and whenever it drifts onto the television, the channel surfing comes to an abrupt end. You don’t need any of these rules to enjoy the film but why not revisit an under appreciated ensemble piece that makes the inclusion of Liv Tyler, Robin Tunney & Renee Zellweger not only okay but somehow perfectly cast.

There are two ways to play this one, and it depends on the number of people gathered around. If it’s just you and a friend or two, go for Track 1. If you have a small horde and they rightfully stocked your fridge with cold beverages, try Track 2.

Track 1:

These are all social drinks.

Anytime someone says “Empire”, “Music Town”, or “$9,000″

Anytime a new song starts playing

Track 2:

Rather than work together, everyone picks a character name. Anytime their name is said in the film, tip back that beverage. Names are listed in frequency of use, highest to lowest.

60+
Joe

Pushing 50
Rex (Rexy, Rex Manning, Sexy Rexy)

40+
Lucas
Warren

~30
A.J.
Gina
Corey

~20
Mark
Mitch (Mitchell)
Deb (Debra)

Under 10
(if you’re picking one of these, maybe add in Track 1′s rules too … lightweight)
Berko
Eddie
Jane

Rules for Fools Main Page

“Rules for Fools” is intended for entertainment purposes only. In no way do we suggest that anyone actually attempt to play any of these games. If played, there is a serious risk of various alcohol related hazards, up to and including death.

Instead of alcohol, may we suggest using slurpees and laughing as brainfreezes ring out around the room as you and your friends chill your brain?

Please remember that alcohol should not be treated carelessly and we at The Sobering Conclusion urge you to reconsider should you actually be thinking of playing any drinking game on this site or any other. Should you in fact choose to play a game on this site, we at The Sobering Conclusion assume no responsibility for any health problem you may experience whatsoever. Your decisions are yours and yours alone.

We do not assume any responsibility whatsoever for decisions made by you or your guests in relation to games on this site or any period thereafter.

This is why you buy comprehensive auto insurance.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 02/03/2012
Director: Josh Trank
Cast: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan, Michael Kelly, Ashley Hinshaw
Rated: PG-13 for intense action and violence, thematic material, some language, sexual content and teen drinking.
Runtime: 1 hour, 23 minutes

---

Trailer:

Is that Rand McPherson’s cherry red beamer?

As the calendar flips away from January, the hope is that the state of films can only go up, as we leave what is traditionally the biggest dumping month for films as studios aim their sights on pushing films for awards attention. Kicking February off is Harry Potter having problems with ghosts in “The Woman in Black” and “Chronicle”, a small science fiction picture that has a DIY look but does more with its $15 million dollar budget than so many tent pole films with ten times the cash. I’ll leave Radcliff’s attempt at shedding his Hogwarts’ image to others and concentrate on the latter project

The story is simple but to the point. Three high school seniors (Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, and Michael B. Jordan) discover something out in the woods and are imbued with superhuman abilities. This isn’t “Spider-Man” or any of its ilk however. The majority of the film sees the trio figuring out what they can do with their new abilities and dealing with their newfound power in different ways, based on their underlying personalities. Two of them handle things rather well while the third has a lot of anger and pain buried not so deep that is sure to find its way out.

There is a small “Heroes” vibe, and the special effects are handled quite well, giving off shades of “District 9“, only without the giant alien prawns (though this too was filmed in South Africa). As a science fiction fan, I was happy to see a concept, though not so new, that was blended well with a pretty realistic portrayal of high school life. There are a few issues with kids looking beyond their characters’ ages (though only one side character is old enough to call Luke Perry-esque shenanigans on) but the raw emotions and difficulty in seeing the big picture capture what it’s like to feel young and invulnerable. And given their powers, these kids have more reason than most to feel like they can do almost anything.

That’s not to say the film isn’t without problems. First and foremost is the need to use a first person perspective, hand-held (i.e. shaky) camera. Think “Diary of the Dead”, think “The Blair Witch Project”, think “Cloverfield“. Hmm, all horror movies. I’m not sure if I want to see this gimmick applied to a romantic comedy or not … but I digress.

The movie begins with Andrew (DeHaan) propping up a video camera and telling his alcoholic father he’s going to film everything. Andrew then has to explain to the next few characters we meet that it’s what he wants to do, and the audience is subjected to epileptic shots for the first ten or twenty minutes. Once the boys’ powers come into play, a conceit is given as for smoother camera work; although every frame of the film is shown directly via the perspective of looking through a camera lens and rather than a diary of something that happened previously. The film simply shows us what’s occurring at the time, not via rewound footage.

This narrative device has its benefits in horror, putting the audience right into the fray. It even has merit in smaller independent films, creating a more intimate connection between the characters and those watching the movie. However, forcing it into every shot of this picture is more a sign of being obsessed with the gimmick than understanding how it can benefit the story. And when boiling the pros vs. cons down in this case, the only reason to use it is to make for more logical gaps in time, as we keep jumping forward to see a longer progression of the boys’ exploration of their powers without extending actual running time (83 minutes).

There’s also some issue with the manner in which everything is resolved. Most of the picture is a decently accurate portrayal of high school seniors being given powers they could only dream of. The final conflict is a bit more of a smash ‘n grab. It’s fun to watch the chaos all over what’s supposed to be downtown Seattle (the Space Needle is not immune to the destruction either), but the shift in tone seems more like the ending a five year-old would invent with Lego than how the story builds up until that point.

With all that said, it’s with a grain of salt that I give “Chronicle” a 3.5 out of 5. That extra bump comes from project’s ambition and my appreciation of sci-fi getting a slightly new look on the big screen; without all the hoopla that would come attached to some huge budget, star-studded affair (how did “Hancock” turn out? Exactly.). Due to the slight dichotomy between the build-up and the finale, it’s possible that you’ll like one section and not the other, but be able to balance the effort in your mind favorably overall. Also, there’s an indie feel to the project that may or may not appeal to some viewers but if you’re a fan of science fiction, there’s enough here to warrant checking out the film and the effects are good enough to be seen on the big screen but they’ll also play out just fine on your 103″ OLED TV.

As is self-evident by the crudely manipulated photo above, the Oscars are back (and so is Billy Crystal). I’m still trying to peer into my crystal ball to determine which nominees will walk away from Sunday, February 26th’s awards with a golden statuette but a preliminary look is now up for all to see (and hopefully not mock too greatly).

All I’ll say about the nominees, because it would take a number of pages to fully express my disappointment, is that this may be the worst set of nominees in a decade, if not longer. All of the kudos to “War Horse” can be stricken from the record; Jonah Hill was good (not great) in “Moneyball” but that film is wildly overrated; if you can only pick 2 (not so great) selections for Original Song, what’s the point?; Just because you respect and like Glenn Close & Meryl Streep doesn’t mean you have to nominate them when they’re featured in two of the most boring films of 2011; how is this Gary Oldman’s FIRST nomination? And add that film to the boring list; Etc., etc. I’m stopping before this turns into a full rant.

In any case, check back as it gets closer to show time, picks are likely to change according to the way the wind blows leading up to the event. Many of my selections below at this point are gut instinct (and I wouldn’t always trust my gut, no matter how big it is).

● Best Picture: “The Artist”
– Should Win: “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” —

Other Nominees:
“The Descendants”
“The Help”
“Hugo”
“Midnight in Paris”
“Moneyball”
“The Tree of Life”
“War Horse”

Notable Snubs:
“Drive” (which really should be the winner)
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2″
“Beginners”
“50/50″

The continued use of an expanded Best Picture field does little to actually add drama to the award (nor does it seem to help ratings which is the only reason it was done in the first place). There doesn’t seem to be any stopping the freight train known as “The Artist” running silently towards the podium this year. A small amount of backlash regarding the film is buzzing around so it’s possible for “The Descendants” to sneak in for the win but I’m sticking with the front runner (for now). Almost any other selection is like voting for Ross Perot.

● Directing: “The Artist” Michel Hazanavicius
– Should Win: “The Tree of Life” Terrence Malick —

Other Nominees:
“The Descendants” Alexander Payne
“Hugo” Martin Scorsese
“Midnight in Paris” Woody Allen

Notable Snubs:
“Drive” Nicolas Winding Refn (Like with the film, the one who really should win)
“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” Stephen Daldry
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2″ David Yates

A predictable lot of nominees. Refn is the biggest snub and considering the film’s overall lack of recognition (just one sound category nomination), I’m beginning to wonder if someone involved with the film pissed off all the wrong people. That, or the voters refuse to pick anything that isn’t safe, warm and cuddly. Either way, blegh. As for picking Hazanavicius, he picked up the Directors Guild of America award, which has only been wrong six times in over sixty years; You do the math.

● Actor in a Leading Role: Jean Dujardin in “The Artist”

Other Nominees:
Demián Bichir in “A Better Life”
George Clooney in “The Descendants”
Gary Oldman in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”
Brad Pitt in “Moneyball”

Notable Snubs/Should Win:
Ryan Gosling in “Drive”
Brendan Gleeson in “The Guard”
Stellan Skarsgård in “A Somewhat Gentle Man”
Joseph Gordon-Levitt in “50/50″
Michael Shannon in “Take Shelter”
Ewan McGregor in “Beginners”

Wow, is this one almost too close to call. I’m giving the edge right now to Dujardin because of his SAG win, which has predicted the Lead Actor for the last 6 years in a row. But it’s a razor thin margin between the two and I was leaning in Clooney’s favor up until the SAG award was announced. Still, I’d cast my vote for any of the talented gentlemen above that were passed over for their efforts in 2011 before any of the “official” nominees. In fact, I’d just swap out the entire category list. But what do I know?

● Actor in a Supporting Role: Christopher Plummer in “Beginners”

Other Nominees:
Kenneth Branagh in “My Week with Marilyn”
Jonah Hill in “Moneyball”
Nick Nolte in “Warrior”
Max von Sydow in “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”

Notable Snubs:
Albert Brooks in “Drive”
Alan Rickman in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2″

Plummer did a great job and it will be well deserved should he indeed be named the winner, though it’s too bad Brooks and Rickman aren’t in the mix. But who should come off, you ask? Branagh and Hill. Their performances were fine but far from amazing, and it’s only because of Kenneth’s reputation that the head-scratching wasn’t as pronounced as it was with Jonah’s Tomei-like inclusion.

● Actress in a Leading Role: Viola Davis in “The Help”

Other Nominees:
Glenn Close in “Albert Nobbs”
Rooney Mara in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
Meryl Streep in “The Iron Lady”
Michelle Williams in “My Week with Marilyn”

Notable Snubs/Should Win:
Brit Marling in “Another Earth”
Elizabeth Olsen in “Martha Marcy May Marlene”
Tilda Swinton in “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
Adepero Oduye in “Pariah”
Liana Liberato in “Trust”
Felicity Jones in “Like Crazy”

Once again, I come up with six snubs. SIX. I think you can tell how I feel about the nominees (though Davis was very good). Is it too late for a recount once Academy voters watch more than ten or fifteen films from 2011? If Close or Streep win (the latter being a distinct possibility), it’ll make my liver very sad because binge drinking will be in order.

● Actress in a Supporting Role: Octavia Spencer in “The Help”
– Should Win: Jessica Chastain in “The Tree of Life” “Take Shelter” “The Help”

Other Nominees:
Bérénice Bejo in “The Artist”
Melissa McCarthy in “Bridesmaids”
Janet McTeer in “Albert Nobbs”

Notable Snubs:
Mélanie Laurent in “Beginners”
Jessica Chastain in almost anything else she did this year
Shailene Woodley in “The Descendants”
Carey Mulligan in “Drive” or “Shame”

Woodley’s omission from the list is one of the biggest surprises (Brooks on the men’s side being the other). Bejo should be considered a lead actress if you factor in screen time and significance to the film (she did a great job, but didn’t make my Top 5). McTeer did a decent job but in a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE film. And throwing aside my estimation of “Bridesmaids” (which is poor; very, very poor), this feels more like the Golden Globes picked the nominees than Academy voters. Based on that, I’ve gone with Spencer, who picked up the Golden Globe (and SAG award) this year. This is notoriously one of the most erratic awards to select so almost anything could happen.

● Writing (Adapted Screenplay): “The Descendants” Screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash

Other Nominees:
“Hugo” Screenplay by John Logan
“The Ides of March” Screenplay by George Clooney & Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon
“Moneyball” Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin; Story by Stan Chervin
“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” Screenplay by Bridget O’Connor & Peter Straughan

Notable Snubs:
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2″ Screenplay by Steve Kloves
“Carnage” Screenplay by Yasmina Reza and Roman Polanski
“Drive” Screenplay by Hossein Amini

Actually not a very surprising list, just a sign that voters love anything with George Clooney or Brad Pitt. I get it. I just wish the popularity contest wasn’t so very, very obvious.

● Writing (Original Screenplay): “Midnight in Paris” Written by Woody Allen

Other Nominees:
“The Artist” Written by Michel Hazanavicius
“Bridesmaids” Written by Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig
“Margin Call” Written by J.C. Chandor
“A Separation” Written by Asghar Farhadi

Notable Snubs/Should Win:
“Beginners” Written by Mike Mills
“50/50″ Written by Will Reiser
“The Guard” Written by John Michael McDonagh
“Win Win” Written by Thomas McCarthy

Another category where I’d swap out most of the picks, leaving “Midnight in Paris” as a nominee but preferring any of the four efforts not getting the recognition they deserve. Nominating “Margin Call” and “A Separation” are at least interesting choices, though it also won’t be too surprising if “The Artist” pulls this out as well. As ridiculous as it sounds giving a silent film a writing award since there’s virtually no dialogue, a lot of work goes into crafting a feature film and it starts with the screenplay.

● Foreign Language Film: “A Separation” Iran

Other Nominees:
“Bullhead” Belgium
“Footnote” Israel
“In Darkness” Poland
“Monsieur Lazhar” Canada

Notable Snubs:
A Somewhat Gentle Man
Happy Happy
The Housemaid

This is tricky because each country nominates one film for consideration released in their homeland between 10/1/2010 and 9/30/2011. I’m only concerned with foreign language releases in the states in the 2011 calendar year. It’s made trickier as only “A Separation” has even been screened for most critics to this point. This is almost like throwing darts at a list of names.

● Animated Feature Film: “Rango”
– Should Win: “Kung Fu Panda 2″ —

Other Nominees:
“A Cat in Paris”
“Chico & Rita”
“Puss in Boots”

Notable Snubs:
NONE … actually, this category shouldn’t exist this year. Just because there are animated films doesn’t mean an award HAS to be given out. “Kung Fu Panda 2″ was very good and the best of the bunch but even that wasn’t something I’d place on a pedestal. I’ve preliminarily picked “Rango” because people like Johnny Depp. Yes, that’s the only reason. Meh.

● Documentary (Feature): “Pina” Wim Wenders and Gian-Piero Ringel

Other Nominees:
“Hell and Back Again” Danfung Dennis and Mike Lerner
“If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman
“Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky
“Undefeated” TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay and Rich Middlemas

I’m still mulling this one over but my first instinct is to say “Pina” will take it because of its inclusion on a number of critics’ lists.

Update 2/5: After finally seeing “Pina”, I’ll back this horse for now.

● Documentary (Short Subject): Predicted Winner TBD
“The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement” Robin Fryday and Gail Dolgin
“God Is the Bigger Elvis” Rebecca Cammisa and Julie Anderson
“Incident in New Baghdad” James Spione
“Saving Face” Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy
“The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom” Lucy Walker and Kira Carstensen

● Art Direction: “Hugo” Production Design: Dante Ferretti; Set Decoration: Francesca Lo Schiavo
– Should Win: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2″ Production Design: Stuart Craig; Set Decoration: Stephenie McMillan —

Other Nominees:
“The Artist” Production Design: Laurence Bennett; Set Decoration: Robert Gould
“Midnight in Paris” Production Design: Anne Seibel; Set Decoration: Hélène Dubreuil
“War Horse” Production Design: Rick Carter; Set Decoration: Lee Sandales

Notable Snubs:
“The Tree of Life” Production Design: Jack Fisk; Art Direction: David Crank
“Super 8″ Production Design: Martin Whist; Art Direction: David Scott & Domenic Silvestri
“Jane Eyre Production Design: Will Hughed-Jones; Art Direction: Karl Probert

“Hugo” will likely only have a shot at technical awards (unless Scorsese picks up his 2nd lifetime achievement Oscar) and if there’s one element I’d agree on with most others, it’s the excellent production design.

● Cinematography: “The Tree of Life” Emmanuel Lubezki

Other Nominees:
“The Artist” Guillaume Schiffman
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Jeff Cronenweth
“Hugo” Robert Richardson
“War Horse” Janusz Kaminski

Notable Snubs:
“Drive” Newton Thomas Sigel

If anything but “The Tree of Life” wins, every voter eligible in this category should be forced to get their eyesight checked. This one should be such a slam dunk I almost feel bad for the other nominees. However, I won’t be shocked if “The Artist” scoops this up as part of its awards run … I will be sad and disappointed though. Oh, and upset. And annoyed. And angry. And – You get the point.

● Costume Design: “Anonymous” Lisy Christl

Other Nominees:
“The Artist” Mark Bridges
“Hugo” Sandy Powell
“Jane Eyre” Michael O’Connor
“W.E.” Arianne Phillips

While one normally sticks with period pieces from England, making “Anonymous” perhaps an even likelier choice, this category has often just stuck with the dominant force no matter how worthy the actual costuming. Remember, “The English Patient” won for dressing everyone in khaki from The Gap. That tuxedos and late ’20s/early ’30s women’s wear could pick up a statuette wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

Update 2/19: Flip-flop city. Moving back to “Anonymous” as it has the loudest costumes of the bunch. Voters won’t/shouldn’t feel like they have to give everything to “The Artist”.

● Film Editing: “The Artist” Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius

Other Nominees:
“The Descendants” Kevin Tent
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall
“Hugo” Thelma Schoonmaker
“Moneyball” Christopher Tellefsen

Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall won this award last year for “The Social Network” and probably delivered the best example of their craft among these nominees. However, I think this comes down to “The Artist” vs. “Hugo”. I’m waiting to decipher the buzz a bit more before declaring a prediction.

Update 2/19: After the ACE Awards handing Best Editing to “The Descendants” and “The Artist” (Drama/Comedy or Musical respectively), I’m going to give the edge to “The Artist” as it sweeps through things.

● Makeup: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2″ Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight and Lisa Tomblin

Other Nominees:
“Albert Nobbs” Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnston and Matthew W. Mungle
“The Iron Lady” Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland

Look I get it, you took two excellent actresses and either made them look like a man, age over time, or both (Sorry, Prime Minister). But the team involved in “Harry Potter” should win this in a landslide … if there’s any sense of justice in the world … which there probably isn’t. So if “The Iron Lady” takes it, I’ll just roll my eyes and take another sip of my adult beverage.

● Music (Original Score): “The Artist” Ludovic Bource

Other Nominees:
“The Adventures of Tintin” John Williams
“Hugo” Howard Shore
“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” Alberto Iglesias
“War Horse” John Williams

Notable Snubs:
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2″ Alexandre Desplat
“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” Alexandre Desplat
“Hanna” The Chemical Brothers
“Like Crazy” Dustin O’Halloran
“Drive” Cliff Martinez
“Another Earth” Fall on your Sword

This one particularly hurts my soul. John Williams is great but his nominations are based on reputations alone. Iglesias’ score did nothing to keep me from falling asleep during “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” and Howard Shore’s work on “Hugo” was fine but feels more like inclusion by association due to the film’s multiple nominations. Bource makes sense as a nominee, as the film is carried by his score and it’s well composed, and given early indicators he’ll probably take the award. But this is yet another category that could almost be clean swept and replaced by more worthy selections. I’ve once again come up with SIX snubs. We’re well past ridiculous at this point.

● Music (Original Song): “Man or Muppet” from “The Muppets” Music and Lyrics by Bret McKenzie

Other Nominee (singular. only one other possible winner. ugh):
“Real in Rio” from “Rio” Music by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown; Lyrics by Siedah Garrett

With this one, although I’m going with “The Muppets”, just flip a coin because it doesn’t matter. I couldn’t even find any notable snubs within the other 37 eligible songs (full list here). What’s so wrong with omitting a category? It would help with the show’s runtime.

● Sound Editing: Predicted Winner TBD
“Drive” Lon Bender and Victor Ray Ennis
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Ren Klyce
“Hugo” Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” Ethan Van der Ryn and Erik Aadahl
“War Horse” Richard Hymns and Gary Rydstrom

● Sound Mixing: Predicted Winner TBD
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Bo Persson
“Hugo” Tom Fleischman and John Midgley
“Moneyball” Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, David Giammarco and Ed Novick
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush and Peter J. Devlin
“War Horse” Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson and Stuart Wilson

● Visual Effects: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White and Daniel Barrett

Other Nominees:
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2″ Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler and John Richardson
“Hugo” Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman and Alex Henning
“Real Steel” Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Dan Taylor and Swen Gillberg
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew Butler and John Frazier