In Redefining the Erotic Thriller Basic Instinct Also Changed the Face of Home Video

Basic Instinct, which hit theaters in March of 1992, was one of the most noteworthy and influential film releases of the decade. For starters the screenplay, written by Joe Eszterhas, touched off a Hollywood bidding war before finally being sold for an eye-popping $3 million. The early 90's was a unique time in the filmmaking industry when writers like Shane Black (The Last Boy Scout, The Long Kiss Goodnight), Tom Schulman (Medicine Man), and  Eszterhas (Jade) were inexplicably paid exorbitant amounts of money by studios for scripts that were far more run-of-the-mill than they were novel, unique or high concept. Nevertheless, the Basic Instinct sale broke records and the film's success sparked yet another career resurgence for star Michael Douglas. Topping that, co-lead Sharon Stone owes her entire career to Basic Instinct. The actress had been languishing around Hollywood for close to a decade, unable to make a mark beyond starring in feeble offerings like King Solomon's Mines, Police Academy 4 and Blood and Sand. But Stone found a champion in Basic Instinct director Paul Verhoeven, who had previously worked with her in the 1990 big budget sci-fi effort Total Recall. As femme fatale Lori, wife of Arnold Schwarzenegger's character, Stone crushed in what was her first meaty Hollywood role. Additionally, Total Recall and Basic Instinct had the same production company (Carolco) and distributor (Tri-Star Pictures) so those relationships and Stone's previous work with Verhoeven almost certainly helped her land the part of Catherine Tramell in Basic Instinct. Afterwards, Stone's career took off. Her next two roles were another erotic thriller, Sliver (for which she received top billing and a hefty paycheck) and the Sly Stallone vehicle The Specialist, where she appears in steamy (no pun intended) shower and love scenes. By mid-decade Stone was wearing the crown as the sexiest actress in Hollywood and had earned a Golden Globe Award and Oscar nomination for Casino -- all resulting from the springboard Basic Instinct provided.

But of course what Basic Instinct is best known for is its highly sexualized plot and subject matter. Catherine Tramell, we discover, is bisexual and though the film took criticism at the time from the gay community for portraying her as a heartless killer, Basic Instinct deserves praise for having the guts to include a powerful and unashamedly LGB antagonist. 

Beyond Tramell's sexual preferences, Basic Instinct's focus on sexuality, violence and general sordidness went to levels reminiscent of film noir -- a particular style of American filmmaking (generally considered to have originated in the 1940's) that features a cinematic focus on cynicism, crime, moral corruption and other "dark", unseemly sides of society.  Basic Instinct's story is rife with drug use, stalking, deceit, manipulation, murder and psychological torture, And of course no punches are pulled when it comes to sexual content. In addition to sex scenes as graphic as anything found to that point in an A-list Hollywood feature, there's bondage, sexual assault, and of course Stone's infamous leg-crossing, vagina-revealing interrogation scene.

Moviegoers loved every bit of it and Basic Instinct became a rare spring hit and the fourth highest grossing film of the year. Producers, writers and studio execs noted the film's success and (in the typical fashion of what we know is a copycat industry) began cranking out Basic Instinct clones. In no time at all, Hollywood had fully embraced this new iteration of the movie sub-genre known as "erotic thrillers." Body of Evidence, Consenting Adults, Whispers in the Dark, Sliver and Malice were all released within the year and a half following Basic Instinct but these films certainly can't be considered the first in the genre. Tattoo, Dressed to Kill, Body Heat, Sea of Love, Body Double and Jagged Edge (also written by Eszterhas) from the 1980's, as well as Love Crimes, Under Suspicion and Final Analysis (all released just prior to Basic Instinct) all certainly qualify as erotic thrillers. But what Basic Instinct achieved was to take the core elements of the genre -- danger, suspense, morally ambiguous or outright sociopathic characters, storylines full of plot twists, shadowy cinematography -- and inject it with ultra-heightened levels of sensuality and sexual content. In this way, Basic Instinct raised the bar for the erotic thriller and filmmakers working in the genre began engaging in battles of "can you top this?" as they scripted and shot their films. S&M, group sex, voyeurism and other areas of sexual exploration where Hollywood films had previously only treaded lightly, were now on full display in major productions. From Body of Evidence's infamous Madonna/Willem Dafoe candle wax scene, to Bound, with its focus on the lesbian relationship between the two protagonists, the envelope of explicit sexual content found in erotic thrillers was being pushed further and further.

But of course there's only so far theatrical releases can go in terms of graphic nudity, sex scenes and the like, and only so much A-list talent will agree to. Studios and distributors still had MPAA ratings to consider (Basic Instinct, in fact, had barely dodged the dreaded NC-17.) These factors and the ever-increasing prurient appeal of erotic thrillers led to an explosion of titles made by smaller production companies and then released by independent distributors (or subdivisions of major ones) directly into the home video markets. VHS rentals, cable channels in need of content and (later) the brand new DVD format (first introduced in 1996) gave film distributors viable alternatives for any erotic thrillers that pushed the envelope too far or otherwise weren't suitable for theaters. What's more, erotic thrillers quickly proved to be among the most-watched and most-rented titles. For example, Color of Night (with Bruce Willis and Jane March) flopped upon its release in 1995 but was one of the most rented movies of the year thanks to word of mouth about its explicit sex scenes. Soon a new paradigm was established: script and produce an erotic thriller on the cheap using B- and C-list talent; make it as sexually explicit as you can; combine a titillating adjective (“Indecent”, “Animal”, “Carnal”) with a provocative noun (“Sins”, “Desire”, “Instinct”) for the film's title, then skip theaters entirely and find distribution on late night cable and/or go straight to DVD.

Indeed, this strategy worked so well that for the entirety of the 1990's, home video and cable were glutted with racy films like Sins of Desire, Animal Instincts, Scorned, Night Eyes, Illicit Dreams and Indecent Behavior. These and dozens of other low budget erotic thrillers heavy on sexual intrigue and nudity would soon become go-to after-10PM programming on Showtime, Cinemax (or “Skin-e-max”, as it came to be known) and other cable channels. Truth be told, features like these kept a lot of folks in the movie industry employed for close to a decade and what's more, many of the actresses who starred in these films gained measures of fame for their sexy portrayals and softcore sex scenes. Even today, close to thirty years later, Shannon Tweed, Tane McClure, Maria Ford, Joan Severance and others are recognized and celebrated for their contributions to the erotic thriller sub-genre.

Early 2000's releases like Original Sin, In the Cut and the well-reviewed Mulholland Drive and Unfaithful were some of Hollywood's final entries as the golden age of the erotic thriller wound down. Nevertheless, today you can still find scores of erotic thrillers on the various streaming platforms. Most still adhere to the rules of old paradigm (low budget, B-list talent, no theatrical release, etc.) and only occasionally do you see movies' biggest names revisiting the genre. Still, it's important to remember that in the 1990's many of the decade's most successful actors, actresses and directors (Demi Moore, Kim Basinger, Bruce Willis, Richard Gere, Julianne Moore, Gwyneth Paltrow, Wolfgang Peterson, Phillip Noyce, Barry Levinson and many more) all took swings at the plate with erotic thrillers – and all were looking to duplicate the grand slam home run that was Basic Instinct.

Related Posts:
The Greatest Softcore Actresses of the Home Video Era

The Art of Cinematography: Megan Fox in Transformers

Long before she began looking like a porn star, before she underwent what many believe to be (regrettable) cosmetic surgery, before giving birth to three kids, before she began a nonsensicle relationship with MGK, before all the box office flops (Jonah Hex, How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, Midnight in the Switchgrass) and head-scratching side projects (Legends of the Lost), Megan Fox was every high school boy's fantasy come to life -- half girl next door, half sexy head cheerleader and hottest chick in class.

Fox made the Pop Culture Fiend's Ground Floor List way back in 2004 when she was a regular on ABC's Hope & Faith. Prior to Transformers her most high-profile film role was in the Lindsay Lohan vehicle Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, in which she was memorable as the bitchy, vengeful Carla. 

But with 2007's Transformers, the 20 year old Fox had her breakout role and positively scorched the screen as Mikaela, the ridiculously gorgeous high schooler from the wrong side of the tracks and the object of Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf's) adoration. Mikaela is beautiful but not conceited, and Fox, who at first seems far too sexy to play a high school girl, pulls off a portrayal where Mikaela becomes more down to earth and approachable the more Sam interacts with her. 

In Transformers, Fox's inherent beauty is enhanced and accentuated by the film's director Michael Bay and cinematographer Mitchell Amundsen. Bay's resume' includes Bad Boys, Armageddon and The Rock -- the latter being one the greatest action movies of all time. So whatever you want to say about Bay, the man knows how to shoot churning, frenetic, action. But he also knows how to capture the still beauty of his film's quiet moments. Take a look at this scene from 2001's Pearl Harbor:

It's clear that Bay's cinematographic mastery is not limited to car chases, explosions and CGI'd robots; he is expert at making real people look good -- beautiful in fact. The actors in the scenes above (Josh Hartnett, Kate Beckinsale and Ben Affleck) are all flawless.

And you can say the same about Megan Fox in Transformers. Below are just of the few of the shots that lead one to ask the question titling this blog post.

Related Posts:

What Puts Your Butt in the Movie Seat?

Proof That Even Really Bad Comedies Usually Have At Least One Good Laugh: Dude, Where's My Car Edition

"And then?" scene.




Related Posts:
Proof That Even Really Bad Comedies Usually Have At Least One Good Laugh: Coup De Ville Edition
Proof That Even Really Bad Comedies Usually Have At Least One Good Laugh: Skin Deep Edition

The Star Trek Reboot Brings Back Memories

Was really taken with J.J. Abrams' new Star Trek movie. Sure, the whole time travel plot device has been done to death (in Star Trek: The Voyage Home and Star Trek: First Contact, and dozens of other sci-fi movies) and Winona Ryder's part was way too small. But Zachary Quinto was terrific as Spock; the other supporting characters were well cast; the special effects were stunning; and the action tense and exciting. All in all, a fine reboot that pays homage to both the original TV series and the previous films. Here's hoping they keep this cast together to carry on the Star Trek legacy. So with that in mind, courtesy of the Pop Culture Fiend Archives, here's the TV commercial for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, the last of the films featuring the original Star Trek cast:

Where's the Originality in Hollywood Film?

Hey, here’s a question… Is anyone in Hollywood doing anything original? When I take a look at the last six months worth of major studio releases, I come back with the answer, “Not really.” 

Let’s start by taking a look at the box office champs for the past two weeks -- Fast and Furious and 17 Again; the recently released Race to Witch Mountain, Last House on the Left, and Crank 2: High Voltage; and the upcoming Obsessed. Each one is either a remake or a sequel to an earlier film. 

In Fast and Furious, the stars of the original The Fast and The Furious (Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster) return to try and breathe new life into the tired franchise. (I guess the three previous Fast and Furious movies (plus Redline) didn't sufficiently cover the world of illegal street racing.)

17 Again stars Matthew Perry as a middle-aged schmoe who’s transformed into a teenage version of himself and then proceeds to attend the same high school as his kids. The film is just another in a long line of body-switching, “grown-up in a kid’s body and let’s have them go back to high school with their own kids” fantasy-comedies that include Freaky Friday (both the original version with Jodie Foster and the remake with Lindsay Lohan), Big, Like Father Like Son (featuring Kirk Cameron and Dudley Moore as a father and son who switch bodies) and Vice Versa (with Fred Savage and Judge Reinhold doing the same.) Oh, and by the way, in 1988, there was a movie starring George Burns, where he’s transformed into the body of his teenage grandson and then goes back to high school. That movie’s title?... 18 Again. Evidently, besides not caring to make a film with an original story, the producers of 17 Again were too lazy to even come up with a fresh title. 

There’s more. Race to Witch Mountain, features Dwayne (“The Rock”) Johnson in an updating of one of the more forgettable 70’s Disney flicks and its sequel Escape to Witch Mountain. (I guess since they're remaking lame Disney family movies from the 70s, we should all brace for a new version of Gus, the field goal kicking mule.) Meanwhile, with his "new" version of Last House on the Left, producer Wes Craven remakes his 1972 suspense/horror cult classic. 

 In Crank 2: High Voltage, protagonist Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) returns, and this time instead of constantly having to keep his adrenaline level up (or else he’ll die) Chev has to keep his artificial heart electrically charged (or else… you guessed it, he’ll die.) Now the original Crank had a creative, high concept premise (Speed but with a person instead of a bus) and it's understandable why it developed into something of a cult classic after its DVD release. And though it makes sense that there would be a sequel, it doesn’t change the fact that the plot and action sequences in Crank 2 are too often scene for scene copies of the original. 

This Friday we get Obsessed, which stars Ali Larter as a sexy secretary who develops a "fatal attraction" towards her boss. I guess I’ll see it cause I liked 1993’s The Temp, starring Lara Flynn Boyle as a sexy secretary who develops a… aww nevermind, you get it. 

Even many of the most highly publicized upcoming summer movies –- Terminator Salvation, Star Trek, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Angels and Demons, Night at the Museum 2, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Ice Age 3, and X Men Origins: Wolverine -- represent nothing new in that every one of these is a sequels.

Additionally, nowadays the vast majority of prestige pictures -- serious fare including the recent Oscar nominees Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Revolutionary Road, The Reader, and Doubt, as well as the just released The Soloist -- are based on critically-acclaimed novels or other material. 

So what’s my point?... It seems that increasingly, Hollywood is growing more and more reluctant to make original films from original scripts, opting instead for movies based on books, toys, TV series or comics. I ask with exasperation -- is no one writing directly for the screen anymore? Why don’t we see more original scripts reach the level of Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, and Crash? It's because what seems to occur more often is that creative, edgy, imaginative screenplays are passed over in favor of what agents, movie executives, and other decision-makers consider less risky, more bankable properties -- ones that they believe will bring some level of a guaranteed audience because they are retreads, sequels or remakes of previously successful films. That’s why we get movie versions of popular books like Confessions of a Shopaholic and He’s Just Not That Into You, along with Hannah Montana movies, and endless installments in Tyler Perry’s Madea series. 

Sadly, it’s all just more of the same. The studios, and others holding the purse strings, would rather go over the same ground a second, third, or tenth time with something that is (or at one time was) proven, instead of taking a chance on writers, scripts and filmmakers that are fresh or inventive. It’s a frustrating proposition for all the unknown writers out there with inspired spec screenplays that aren’t getting produced, while the script for a 30-years too late Land of the Lost movie and Final Destination: Death Trip 3D are quickly greenlighted. 

Don’t get me wrong. I know there are still a lot of very good and original screenplays being produced these days. Interestingly, more and more, these stories are finding their way to HBO, Showtime, FX and other cable TV outlets. And while it seems that cable is becoming more edgy and willing to take chances on original material, Hollywood is becoming more and more risk averse. It’s a shame, because the industry is in desperate need of fresh ideas from new writers, and the big screen needs more pictures like last year’s In Bruges and Frozen River. And yes, it even needs more like I Love You Man and Hotel for Dogs, which, though they may not be great movies, at least get points for originality.

If You Liked Planet Terror...

Was watching TV the other night and saw a commercial for House of the Dead: Overkill -- a new zombie-killing, first-person shooter -- and was immediately struck by how much the graphics, gameplay, and characters remind you of Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror feature from 2007's Grindhouse. Looked into it and it seems the game's creators were indeed "inspired" by Rodriguez's ode to good ole 70's exploitation splatterfests. Just like in the movie, there's a hospital setting, bulbous, gelatinous mutants that explode in sprays of blood, plus a stripper character that's a dead ringer for the film's star, Rose McGowan. And the entire game has that worn out B-movie film look. Even the game's packaging looks like the Grindhouse movie poster. 

Related Links:
House of the Dead: Overkill trailer

Oscar Predictions (Part III)

Here's the last of a 3 part series:

Best Adapted Screenplay
In many ways, this year’s Slumdog Millionaire vs The Curious Case of Benjamin Button face-off is reminiscent of 1995, when the innovative and edgy Pulp Fiction ultimately lost Best Picture to the broader, more audience friendly modern-day fable, Forrest Gump. Back then, in the screenplay category, Gump was competing in the "Best Adapted" category, while Pulp Fiction was an original work by Quentin Tarantino. This year, Button’s epic, sweeping story goes against three dramatically intense (but more intimate) dramas (Doubt, The Reader, and Frost Nixon) and the gritty, cathartic Slumdog. 

Hollywood never seems to tire of Holocaust-related material (as Ricky Gervais alluded to at the Golden Globes this year) which gives The Reader a shot at this one. However, the Doubt script was so emotionally charged and rich with dialog, it could have easily had the most lasting impact on voters. Regardless, the official pick is cleverly-crafted Slumdog, with its finely weaved, poignant flashback-intensive narrative.

Should win: Slumdog
Will win: Slumdog



Best Original Screenplay
Apart from Milk, we’ve got some very unusual nominees this year. Frozen River scribe Courtney Hunt is a relatively new writer-director and she’s in against some very tough competition. Happy Go Lucky’s Mike Leigh was nominated previously for both Vera Drake and Secrets and Lies; and WALL-E co-writer Andrew Stanton previously brought us Toy Story and Finding Nemo (nominated for this award in 1995 and 2003, respectively.) Hunt won’t win against competition of this caliber and neither will Leigh’s script which, despite being a favorite among his fellow nominating writers, could be hindered by the fact that British humor is often not as broad as it needs to be to gain the appeal needed to win (as was the case with 1988’s A Fish Called Wanda and 1994’s Four Weddings and a Funeral.)

Similar to the 2007 and 2006 winners in this category (Diablo Cody’s Juno and Michael Arndt’s Little Miss Sunshine) Martin McDonagh’s In Bruges is an offbeat comedy that was hard not to appreciate. 

Milk’s only real shot at a major award is in this category but WALL-E has a wry story and an environmentally conscious theme, which Hollywood loves. Really tough call here…

Should win: In Bruges
Will win: Milk



Best Director and Best Picture
Since the nominated directors are all from the best picture nominees, let's cover everything together. 

Milk director Gus Van Sant is the quintessential Hollywood “outsider” that’s gotten to the point where he’s so respected and his films so highly recognized and successful, he’s now actually more of an “insider”. He’d be a fine selection, but once again, this is just not Milk’s year.

As for Ron Howard (winner for 2001’s A Beautiful Mind), Frost Nixon is a fine film, but nowhere near Howard's best work (see Apollo 13, Ransom, The Missing, Cinderella Man and the aforementioned A Beautiful Mind) so it’s a very long shot he wins here.

Deservingly, at this year’s ceremony, Slumdog and Button will be battling it out in several categories and these two categories are the toughest to call. Watch the telecast closely, as the winners in the Best Cinematography, Editing, and Art Direction categories may give an indication of who will take home the big prizes. 

As I mentioned, this year’s Oscars mirrors 1995’s Forrest Gump vs Pulp Fiction showdown when the grittier, edgier film (Pulp Fiction) lost Best Picture and Best Director to the more audience-friendly Gump (and its director Bob Zemeckis.) I’m going out on a limb by saying history WON'T repeat itself this year.

Button director David Fincher has the credentials (Seven, Fight Club, The Game, Zodiac) and a reputation as one of the most talented filmmakers in the business. It’s hard to imagine the Academy would deny him in favor of Slumdog’s Danny Boyle or The Reader’s Stephen Daldry. It's just that Slumdog has had so much more buzz, better legs at the box office, and is clearly the more socially conscious choice. Hollywood is like the rest of America right now and mainly just wants to be entertained and made to feel good again. Button does that quite well, but Slumdog just has too much momentum and will walk away with a Best Picture win.

Best Director 
Should win: Danny Boyle (Slumdog)
Will win: Danny Boyle

Best Picture
Should win: Button
Will win: Slumdog

Related Posts:

Oscar Predictions (Part II)

Oscar Predictions

Oscar Predictions (Part II)

Best Actor

This is one of the more competitive categories this year, so the list of nominees regrettably does not include Michael Sheen’s turn as desperate yet debonair TV host David Frost in Frost/Nixon, nor Leonardo DiCaprio as resigned to his lot in life (but occasionally raging) husband, Frank Wheeler, in Revolutionary Road.

Sean Penn’s performance as the title character in Milk was heartfelt and compelling and in a lesser year, he might run away with this award. Penn won the statue previously (for 2004’s Mystic River) and Hollywood’s infatuation with films with gay and lesbian themes and characters, and its penchant for handing out Oscars to actors appearing in these types of films (e.g., Charlize Theron in Monster, Tom Hanks in Philadelphia) could work in Penn's favor.

Brad Pitt gave a sensitive portrayal as the title character in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but Pitt too often seems to be a bit subdued in his performances (from True Romance, to Sleepers, to Meet Joe Black to the Ocean’s movies). And though in this case, soft-spokeness suits the character of Benjamin well, Academy voters might feel that this performance wasn’t “stirring” enough.

Richard Jenkins, as fine as it he may have been in The Visitor, is handicapped by the fact that probably no one outside of the Jenkins family saw this movie.

Everything seems to be setting up nicely for Mickey Rourke. His personal story is the kind everyone loves. Once a slightly dark and brooding but super-talented young actor (in the line of James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Christopher Walken) he earned critical praise early for his roles in Diner, Body Heat, and The Pope of Greenwich Village, then fell into substance abuse, made a seemingly neverending string of crappy movies (Harley Davidson and The Marlboro Man, Wild Orchid), slid from the A- to the D-list, lost his looks, and was completely written off in Hollywood before being resurrected first by Quentin Tarantino (who cast him in Sin City) and then by The Wrestler director Darren Aronofsky. Further boosting Rourke’s Oscar hopes is the fact that this real-life journey in some ways mirrors that of Rourke’s character in the film, Randy “The Ram” Robinson. 

Frank Langella is a Hollywood veteran who, in Ron Howard’s Frost/Nixon, gives a wonderful depiction of the former President and all the dimensions of his personality -- intellectual, cocksure, condescending, bullying, and finally (during his dramatic final confrontation with Frost) cornered, broken, disappointed and sad.

Should win: Langella
Will win: Rourke

Supporting Actress

Historically, supporting actress has been the Oscar category where underdogs have the best shot at taking home the prize. In the past, we’ve seen such unlikely winners as Mira Sorvino (Mighty Aphrodite), Tatum O’Neal (Paper Moon), Anna Paquin (The Piano) and Marisa Tomei (My Cousin Vinny.) That said, Sophie Okonedo gave the best of many strong supporting performances in The Secret Life of Bees and deserved a nomination for her role as "May" in that film.

By upsetting the far more accomplished Judy Davis, Vanessa Redgrave, and Miranda Richardson in 1993, Tomei probably had the most stunning Oscar win in the last two decades (with the possible exception of Three 6 Mafia who won Best Song in 2006 for for “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp”.) Tomei has branched out nicely in her career since, mixing mainstream roles with gritty performances in offbeat films and arty independents like Slums of Beverly Hills, Unhook the Stars, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. Though Tomei was solid in The Wrestler, as stripper and object of Mickey Rourke’s affection "Cassidy", her role didn’t have as much meat on it as those of her competitors and Evan Rachel Wood, who played Rourke’s daughter in the movie, was far better.

Taraji P. Henson gives perhaps the most authentic performance in this category in her role as the strong, sassy, nurturing but no-nonsense mother to Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button.

Viola Davis’ strong performance in Doubt could be overlooked because in the movie, she acts alongside heavyweights Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Both she and her co-star and co-nominee Amy Adams would have shined more if Streep and Hoffmann both hadn’t been so great.

Penelope Cruz is a pleasant surprise in the sadly overlooked Vicky Christina Barcelona. But though her acting may be getting increasingly better, doesn't her thick accent and, dare I say, ultra-irritating voice get in the way of her performance?

Again, it’s Supporting Actress, and history has shown anything can happen. Henson is probably the favorite; Tomei has the best pedigree; but the prediction is that Davis sneaks in here, aided by the fact that Doubt is likely to be shut out in all the other major categories and voters will likely want to honor the film somehow.

Should win: Henson
Will win: Davis

Best Editing
A film that’s not “tight” has no shot at winning in this category and The Dark Knight has been fairly criticized for being overlong with a final 30 minutes or so that seemed tacked on.

Editing Frost/Nixon no doubt posed an interesting challenge insofar as the film’s most important scenes consists of a sit down interview between the two title characters in a dimly lit room. Keeping those scenes taunt with tension was certainly an achievement, however, the smaller scope of this picture will prevent it from winning a Best Editing Oscar over a film like Benjamin Button, which traces an 80-year long story across two continents and is filled with wonderfully creative and entertaining flashbacks (such as the scene where Benjamin recounts how Lily had her accident.) Over the course of Button’s two and half hours, never once do you feel antsy, and as it winds down, you truly feel as if you’ve been on a journey. All that spells good editing, my friend.

Despite its eight nominations, Milk will largely be passed over on Academy Award night. That'll certainly prove true in this category.

Slumdog Millionaire is the clear winner here. Like Button, the film has a larger scope and a journey-like feel, as it interweaves the life stories of the three protagonists. The pacing is perfect as well, seamlessly leaping back and forth from gritty action, to tense drama, to tender love story. And of course, Slumdog timeshifts, with the bulk of the story told in flashbacks. And although this is a much more ostentatious example of editor Chris Dickens' prowess, the film demonstrates other, more subtle but no less brilliant editing in the slum scenes that chronicle Salim and Jamal growing up, and also in the very suspenseful final act, when Salim helps Latika escape and then prepares for his confrontation with his boss -- all juxtaposed with Jamal being reinstated and facing the final question.

Should win: Slumdog

Will win: Slumdog

Deal Or No Deal Girls Branching Out

Recently noticed that Deal Or No Deal briefcase model Hayley has a role in the new movie Fired Up, opening February 20th. Judging from this trailer, it looks like Bring it On meets Sorority Boys with a smattering of American Pie Presents Band Camp.

In any case (no pun intended) it seems Hayley is a trained actress with a number of screen credits on her resume. Who knew?

It's nice to see the DOND girls are getting more exposure. For the record, I'd like to see more of...

Jenelle...

Megan...

Lindsay...

Lisa...

and Anya.

Anya, by the way, is featured in this commercial for Skinit.com.

Oscar Predictions

The Academy Awards are February 22nd. Here are some predictions you can bank on:

Best Actress

Though she’s previously won a supporting actress statue for Girl Interrupted, Jolie is still somewhat underrated because of her looks and high-profile life with husband Brad Pitt. She shows off her acting chops in The Changeling, which should have replaced The Reader as a Best Picture nominee. But the there’s so much going on in the film and it’s not as dialed in on Jolie’s character as it needs to be to elevate her performance above those of her competition.

Now speaking of The Reader, try and follow this: Kate Winslet gets a Golden Globe best supporting actress nomination for her role in the movie and a best leading actress nomination for Revolutionary Road. She wins in both categories. Kate then gets a nominated in the same two categories for the same two roles at the SAG awards. She wins supporting actress but loses lead actress to Streep. Then the Academy Award nominations come around and Winslet gets nominated as lead actress for The Reader (which finally gets it right because she’s clearly the lead in that film) but then gets completely ignored for Revolutionary Road, which is actually the stronger performance. In The Reader, Winslet is sober, somber, and pensive, and while she’s excellent in the film, in RR, as tortured suburban housewife April Wheeler, we get to see her character’s angst, lust, wrath, and anguish explode on the screen. It was obviously a much more demanding role and Winslet not getting nominated for it was baffling. Academy voters will no doubt feel the same way, giving Winslet a great shot at being honored (if for nothing else) her combined work in the two films.

With her role in Rachel Getting Married (as well as her 2007 film, Becoming Jane) Ann Hathaway is just now starting to gain her reputation as a “serious” young actress.

Melissa Leo’s nomination for her quirky role in Frozen River was one of the Oscars annual change-up pitches, designed to show that Academy members are independent thinkers and not slaves to the Hollywood establishment or the studios’ publicity machines. Unfortunately, nominations like Leo’s usually come off as manufactured attempts to shake things up just for the hell of it.

Should win: Winslet (for Revolutionary Road, for which she wasn’t nominated)
Will win: Winslet (for The Reader)

Best Supporting Actor

Michael Shannon had two scene stealing appearances in Revolutionary Road, and was irritatingly good in his role as a slightly unbalanced dinner guest who gets under the skin of reluctant suburbanites Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. But a lack of screen time (maybe 15 minutes total) is bound to hurt Shannon’s chances here.

2008 was a comeback year for Robert Downey Jr. He was perfectly cast as Tony Stark in Iron Man, but his comic turn in the mix-reviewed Tropic Thunder is just not Oscar material.

Phillip Seymour Hoffmann has established himself as one of Hollywood’s most reliable and versatile actors. Unfortunately, his performance in Doubt may be unfavorably (and unfairly) measured against his Oscar-winning role as the title character in 2005’s Capote.

In The Dark Knight, Ledger gives an unforgettable performance as the maniacal Joker, in the spirit of how the character was reworked in Frank Miller’s graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns, which by the way was the inspiration for Tim Burton's Batman movie back in 1988. And of course, Ledger died just before his film's release, making him a virtual lock in this category.

After fine performances in No Country for Old Men, American Gangster, W, and now Milk, Josh Brolin has reached a point where he will now be on the short list (along with Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and a few others) for every plum leading actor role that comes along. If not for Ledger, he’d be the winner here.


Should win: Ledger
Will win: Ledger

Best Cinematography

No nomination for Baz Lurhmann’s Australia was a surprise, as he’s known for stunning visuals (his Moulin Rouge was a nominee in this category back in 2002) and the photography in Australia was Out of Africa-esque. The Reader’s stark, barren look nicely complemented the film's subject matter and the bleak circumstances of the two protagonists, but nothing about the photography in The Changeling seemed exceptional.

So what we’re left with is pretty much a three horse race. Slumdog Millionaire was maybe the most visually exciting of the nominees, but are folks tiring of steadicam shots that follow characters as they race through crowded streets?

The Dark Knight’s cinematography may have been the best part of the movie, but too many people will only remember the heavy use of CGI and pyrotechnics.

That leaves The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which has the sweeping, majestic photography of a Titanic or a Reds (both previous winners in this category) combined with state-of-the-art rotoscopy and other visual effects. Throw in some wonderfully moody and shadowy (sometimes sepia-esque) camerawork in and around the New Orleans, and you've got yourself a winner.

Should win: Button

Will win: Button

Related Posts:
Oscar Predictions (Part II)
Oscar Predictions (Part III)