Trying to figure out the Best Picture Oscars is based on looking at many things, including: what actors are in it, what director is making the film, whether it’s the kind of film the Academy has responded to in the past, and just plain old guesswork. Also, I am not saying these will be the best movies of the year, just the ones that could strike the Academy’s taste. Keeping that in mind, here are a list of seven more movies that I think have potential to be Best Picture contenders.

Moneyball

Premise: Story of the Oakland Athletics’ new statistic program for finding baseball players.
Starring: Brad Pitt, Robin Wright and Jonah Hill
Director: Bennett Miller
Screenplay: Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin

Pro: It is Bennett Miller’s first film since the Oscar winning Capote, and has Oscar-winning screenwriters Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin telling the ever-popular comeback story of a group of second stringers who challenge the system and win.

Con: It is a sports movie, a genre that has had mixed success with the Academy. They got behind Seabiscuit and The Blind Side, but beyond that, there has not been a lot of love. Also, The Blind Side got in more because of the required ten nominees and the frontrunner status for Best Actress contender Sandra Bullock. The subject matter, while a popular story type, will need to do something different enough to leave an impact on the viewer. Even with the critic love, a lot of it is more that the film does something different as a sports movie. It will need to keep the attention going longer to really stay in the Best Picture race.

J. Edgar

Premise: A look at the life J. Edgar Hoover.
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, and Naomi Watts
Director: Clint Eastwood
Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black

Pro: Clint Eastwood has been an Academy favorite for some time. After winning Best Picture and Best Director for Unforgiven, he has been nominated for Best Picture and Best Director three more times, for Mystic River, Letters From Iwo Jima, and Million Dollar Baby, winning Best Picture and Best Director for Million Dollar Baby. This film seems like the Oscar bait kind of movie the Academy responds to. They love their biographical movies, and taking on one of the most controversial figures in American history will add to the intrigue of the film. Leonardo DiCaprio—an actor who has been on Academy radar and who many think will one day win an Oscar—as the lead, adds to the film’s strength. Finally, Eastwood has a great track record in getting his actors nominated, and the Academy loves to have a movie with performances in it that they can reward as well.

Con: Eastwood has not been a favorite with them since 2006. He has gotten nominations, but not in Picture and Director; he may be losing some steam with them. It’s also worrisome how much Eastwood takes liberties with the subject; if he is too nice in the film he will be whitewashing history, too damning and you lose the intrigue of the character and make him a devil. It will be an interesting balancing act.

The Descendants

Premise: A father tries to reconnect with his children after his wife goes into a coma and he finds out that she has cheated on him.
Starring: George Clooney and Shailene Woodley
Director: Alexander Payne
Screenplay: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash

Pro: Alexander Payne has not made a movie since 2004′s Sideways, which was nominated in several categories including Best Picture and Best Director. Also, lead George Clooney has been on a role with recent nominations for Michael Clayton and Up in the Air. He has been picking projects that have gotten not just him acclaim, but the whole cast, the director, and the picture. The picture came out at Telluride and has already gotten praise for how it handles the emotionlessness of the story, and many had great things to say about Clooney and Woodley.

Con: From the trailer, it looks like Payne is rehashing some similar ideas of the middle-aged loser dealing with his life failing apart. If it seems like a rehash of projects he has done before, it may be hard to get a passionate following.

(Cont.)

I love the Oscar race! Just looking at the potential films and seeing which will become major contenders sends excitement coursing through me, especially for Best Picture. I try to figure out the films that the Academy will love and, more importantly, which films will I love as well. I always hope that I will agree with the Academy, because despite what my feelings might be about the Academy, them giving a movie Best Picture helps a movie become more well known and helps people embrace it. So, when they give it to something less than deserving (or worse), it is like they are hurting film. This is an intense love/hate relationship for me, but I keep coming back and right now we have reached the end of summer and are entering the fall. This is usually the starting point for the Oscar season.

Looking at the Best Picture race, with what has come out so far, what do I think will make it to the finish line? Honestly, not a lot. Most talk is about the contenders that are to come. The summer months are known for being the drought period; here is where we get the blockbusters and the gross-out comedy movies. There are always a few films that spring up as potential contenders, but most of the ‘would be’ contenders fail to deliver at this point.

The other thing that makes this race hard to figure out is the new rules for Best Picture. Now to get a nomination you need to get at least 5% of the first-place votes, and we will have at least five nominees and at most ten. Now, I have not seen all of these films, so this is mostly the general buzz that is circulating. I am also including what the film’s strengths and weaknesses are in scoring the likelihood of a Best Picture nomination.

The Artist

Pro: While not released yet in regular theaters, it was at the Cannes Film Festival and has been seen by many critics already. Also, the response has been overwhelming. The movie is a silent film, in black and white, about the silent age in movies. It charmed audiences at Cannes and many believe that it will be a crowd pleaser as well, due to the chemistry of the two leads (Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo), and the good humor of the film. Also, the Weinstein Company picked up the distribution of the movie, and if there is anyone who knows how to get Best Picture nominations it is Harvey Weinstein; just look at The King’s Speech last year.

Con: It is a silent movie, so many filmgoers may be turned off by this.

Midnight in Paris

Pro: Woody Allen’s biggest hit ever. Allen has an interesting track record with the Academy. They have given him several nominations for screenplay and director over the years, even if they have not always embraced his films for Best Picture. Already popular with critics, this film got popular with the audience by word of mouth, built up its box office over several week,s and got expanded to more theaters. The Academy loves a small movie that makes an impact, like The Hurt Locker, or the small movie that makes it big. like Juno. That and the passion behind the film means it will get a lot of first place votes.

Con: Allen has been nominated on and off over the years for the Academy, but this has mainly been with screenplays and has not had a straight up Best Picture nomination since Hannah and Her Sisters in 1987.

The Help

Pro: Another movie that surprised everyone with the critical love and box office success. Tackling important issues (segregation and racism) never hurts with the Academy, and having a cast including previous Academy nominee Viola Davis and up-and-comer Emma Stone helps as well.

Con: Despite it being an important issue movie, many see it as too lighthearted and more of a crowd pleaser, and while enjoyed by many, it is hard to see it getting many number one votes.

The Tree of Life

Pro: Malick’s first film in ten years has become a hit at Cannes, winning the Palme d’Or, which has helped get attention from the Academy before. It also has a very vocal minority that thinks it is brilliant. These factors are bound to give the movie several number one votes in the ballots.

Con: Malick has only been acknowledged by the Academy once, and that was with The Thin Red Line. And that was still a bit out there for many people. This film is even more esoteric and confusing than The Thin Red Line, even for people who like the film. The Academy has shown from previous Best Picture nominations that experimental films tend not to get nominations here.

Drive

Pro: Another Cannes Film Festival movie that is only now being seen by the wider audience, Drive got critical acclaim and the director prize. Many early viewers have also singled out Albert Brooks to get a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Also, lead Ryan Gosling is on a role this year, with the critically acclaimed Crazy, Stupid, Love and another would-be contender, The Ides of March. That could keep this film in people’s minds.

Con: It is not a typical movie the Academy gives Best Picture to, with the overly dark storyline and being more action-oriented. It may have to settle for screenplay and supporting actor nominations.

Of these, The Artist is the only one I feel very confident in saying will make it to the end of the year, followed closely by Midnight in Paris, but that is the fun of this race. You can never tell what is going to leave an impact in the Academy’s mind. Next time, I will look at the expected contenders for Best Picture that have yet to be released.

It is always hard to tell in a given year what is going to be a good film. I have a notoriously bad track record for predicting what movies I will end up loving. The trailer and the premise of the movies are always misleading because you can never get the full picture of what you are going to get from your characters or the action on screen. The Social Network, my favorite movie of last year, had a trailer that did nothing for me; it seemed the boring story of Facebook instead of one of the most interesting character studies of the year. Or there’s Avatar, the overly special effected movie that seemed it had nothing else going for it, but it ended up being an extremely fun romp that I enjoyed immensely.

So, with trepidation I decided to look at some of the movies that were coming out this year and see what am I going for, what is really exciting me. The movie that stuck out the most in my mind came as a bit of a surprise to me, and for that reason alone I knew that it was the movie to talk about.

The movie is Drive, directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, starring Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, and Bryan Cranston. The film has been described as a throwback to the action movies of the 1980s and was a surprise contender at the Cannes Film Festival. Considering its more action-oriented storyline, it seemed unlikely that Cannes would put it in competition, let alone give awards to it. Then it ended up being one of the best reviewed films of the festival and Nicolas Refn won the best director award.

I have not read many synopses for the film, or reviews, because I want to go in without too many preconceived notions. The premise that I have gotten is that Ryan Gosling, known simply as Driver, is as his name says. He is a driver; he works stunts for movies and he is the driver for criminals that seek his services. He meets up with Carey Mulligan’s character, Irene, and through some deal with her husband, something goes wrong and Driver is pursued under the notion that he stole some money.

The fact that this got into Cannes and won Best Director would alone make me interested in the film. I have found some great films through that festival; films that win awards there are usually at least worth a look. So that was the original draw, and with good critic responses already, that’s what made it easier to be excited about the film. What made it even more intriguing is that they are taking a concept that by all accounts is very simply done, just a lot of action and driving, and appear to have done something more with it. They have given it a depth beyond the normal instinct of these types of films. Violence is going to be all over the place, but they seem to be kicking it up a notch. This is not just watching the hero do impossible stunts. This is going to be the down and gritty, almost Goodfellas-type violence, that, instead of using violence for grotesque shock value, actually uses violence to accentuate the story and give a sense of actuality about what these characters are going through. Within this type of violence is the sense that we have no idea what characters will live or die; this adds a level of anticipation and makes the outcome in doubt.

There is also the draw of the cast. I am a huge fan of Breaking Bad and am eager to see Bryan Cranston in a movie, but the main draw for me is Ryan Gosling. He has been on my radar for awhile, but it was seeing him in Blue Valentine that really got my attention. He was spectacular in that film, overshadowing Michelle Williams (an actress I am very fond of) and really showing a range that I wasn’t aware that he had. Then there are the three movies he is doing this year. The first is Crazy, Stupid, Love, a romantic comedy that seems to be slightly different than the usual fare we get this time of year. Than later he has the possible Oscar vehicle Ides of March, George Clooney’s new movie, where he plays a political operative. Then Drive, where he looks almost detached. He is in the crime world; he knows what he is doing, but he also knows he isn’t the ultimate bad-ass. He is in a world that could kill him and is aware of it. It’s in the contrast of these roles that Drive popped up for me; the fact that he is showing off so many areas of his personality makes him more intriguing as an actor and thereby makes the movie more seeable.

This movie stands out to me as something a bit different, something to look forward to, but you never truly know if a movie will be worth your time until you see it. That is part of the fun of films: seeing something that looks interesting, and if disappointed, you can examine what didn’t work and have fun insulting it; then there is the time a movie surprises you and is better than you could possible imagine. It is what makes the filmgoing experience so much fun, never knowing what exactly you will get.

Drive will be released September 16th.

If I had a time machine, I would go back and find 10-year-old me. I would be easy to find, probably in my bedroom reading comic books. I would tell myself that in the future, comic book movies have finally become cool. Of course, 10-year-old me wouldn’t believe me; I was always a glass-half-empty kid.

Now, when I say that 10-year-old me would be reading comic books, there is an 80% chance the comic in my hands would be “Captain America.” Cap was my favorite title. Especially in the early eighties, when Mike Zeck did the penciling. That guy was amazing. I liked that Cap didn’t technically have any super-powers, but he could kick some serious ass and he was a natural leader. And, I still think that shield is way cooler than anything on Batman’s utility belt. As you might be able to guess, I am very excited about the new movie opening this weekend. Captain America: The First Avenger stars Chris Evans as the titular hero and co-stars Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, and Hayley Atwell. Joe Johnston, who has a previous comic book adaptation on his reel, 1991’s The Rocketeer, directs the movie.

Johnston is not the only one involved with comic book movies in his past. Tommy Lee Jones played Two-Face in Batman Forever as well as Agent K in the Men In Black series, and Hugo Weaving was the mysterious V in V for Vendetta, but I think the winner in the roles based on comic books sweepstakes is the Captain himself. Before taking on Captain America, Chris Evans played Johnny Storm/The Human Torch in two disappointing Fantastic Four movies, he was Jenson in The Losers, Lucas Lee, one of the seven evil exes, in Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, and he was the voice of Casey Jones in the 2007 version of The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Evans is playing Captain America again in The Avengers, currently in production, and I’m sure he’ll return again in a Captain America sequel. That is a lot of comic book movies. I wonder if he seeks them out?

I’ve got to give some props (do people still say that?) to my fellow Bostonian Chris Evans. He was probably the best part about the Fantastic Four movies, really nailing the bravado and ego of Johnny Storm; I thought his small part in Scott Pilgrim was very funny and The Losers is a really good action movie. So far, he hasn’t really leapt off the screen into movie stardom, but that may change with Captain America. If it is a hit, Ole’ Winghead may be that last comic book character Evans can play.

Many a director has said that by properly casting your movie, half the work is done. That credo is even more applicable when it comes to comic book movies. Many producers and studio people seem to think that they need a movie star in the lead, but I completely disagree when it comes to superhero movies. In fact, the last thing you want is a movie star in the lead role. You want the audience to look at the screen and think “That’s Batman,” not, “That’s George Clooney dressed up like Batman.” When making a superhero movie, you need a really good actor, someone who can wear the silly costume convincingly and say the outlandish dialogue with conviction. Directors such as Richard Donner, Bryan Singer, and Christopher Nolan understood that. I think the “movie star factor” was one (of many) reasons for the failures of Batman and Robin, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and Green Lantern. Conversely, I think having quality actors, not big-time stars, like Christopher Reeve, Tobey Maguire, and Patrick Stewart were huge contributions to the success of Superman, Spider-Man and X-Men. Of course, we need only look at Superman III & IV, Spider-Man 3, X-Men: The Last Stand to see that good casting will not hide bad writing and directing or inferior storytelling of any kind.

All successful comic book movies also have one other thing in common: complete respect for the original characters. There is a reason these characters have been popular for 10, 20, 30, or, in the case of Superman and Batman, over 70 years, and it takes a lot of chutzpah for a screenwriter or director to throw that history away and think, “No, I can make it better.” You can take any frame from 1978’s Superman or 2002’s Spider-Man and place it in the comic book and it would not look out of place. That doesn’t mean a filmmaker shouldn’t make any changes. Some things that work in the illustrated panels may not translate convincingly to a live action performance. Superman and Spider-Man were able to pull off the costumes, but Hugh Jackman would not have been nearly as cool if his Wolverine was garbed in the same vibrant yellow outfit from the comic book; and both Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan knew that, at least on the silver screen, Batman wears black. Yet, all those movies were huge hits, because the writers, directors and actors respected the spirit and foundation of the original characters and only changed the things that might take the audience out of the movie.

Based on what I’ve seen so far from the new Captain America movie, I think Johnston and his team understand that as well. They did the right thing by keeping Cap’s beginnings during WWII. That is the way it happened in the comic books. His costume looks cool. Sure, they changed it some, but it seems to make sense for the story. As a long-time fan, I’ve really enjoyed everything I’ve seen. There have been four previous live-action attempts to bring Captain America’s story to life. A cliffhanger movie serial was produced in 1944, two horrible made-for-TV movies in 1979, and a so-bad-it’s-funny feature film in 1990. They all stunk. Hopefully this new movie serves Cap well. He deserves it.

The Science Fiction and Fantasy Short Film Festival, affectionately known as SFFSFF (say it “siff siff”) returns to the Cinerama theater in Seattle this weekend. The sixth annual event, jointly sponsored by the Experience Music Project/Science Fiction Museum and Seattle International Film Festival, will feature twenty films that span the definition of the genres, and come from around the world.

The wonderful thing about a shorts festival is the opportunity to sample emerging or experimental works from a large number of filmmakers in a small amount of time. The director biographies of festival participants show a wide spectrum of backgrounds, viewpoints, and experience levels. There will be Q & A sessions with many of these filmmakers that are sure to be worthwhile.

The films in the fest fit a range from comedy to action thriller to surreal adventure. Easily, the highlight of those I’ve seen is the charming Zero, from writer/director Christopher Kezelos. Made with a stop motion animation technique and characters formed out of yarn, it tells the tale of a lad unfortunate enough to be born a literal ‘zero’ in a world of numbers. The clever set-up provides a lot of nice moments, but the impressive visuals, simultaneously adorable and sleek, are the real draw. Other animated films in the selection also stood out to me, such as The Astronomer’s Sun, an odd, sad film with lovely animation and sound, and The Wonder Hospital, a fantastical journey with a memorable main character who will remind you of all manner of literary urchins.

Many of the live action films also show off impressive special effects, particularly the action-on-a-spaceship piece Cockpit: The Rules of Engagement. Unfortunately, this isn’t a film that matches its high production values with an equally polished script; chock-full of “on the bridge” sorts of clichés, the decent acting can’t save it. (The captain, played by Ronny Cox, provides a nice “Hey! It’s that guy!” moment…I am here to tell you that yes, that dude’s in RoboCop.) We find a similar problem with Hector Corp., a big business satire that deftly combines CGI animation and live action, but that isn’t nearly as funny as it thinks it is. Still, each film is very much worth watching, to see what can be done by an independent filmmaker on a limited budget.

Even with how well something like Cockpit is done, complete with space explosions, from a production standpoint I was most impressed by Denmark, which has a marionette crustacean for its main character. The film almost gives the impression of being animated in the way it’s shot, and the movement of the main character is spellbinding. It’s a lovely piece that I wanted to go on for much longer than it did. It’s also the sort of thing that I might never come across, if not for specialized festivals such as this.

The selection of films for this year’s SFFSFF will air in two blocks of ten, one at 4 P.M. and one at 7:30 P.M., followed by an awards ceremony. Though the Saturday events are sold out, an encore best-of-the-fest screening will take place on Sunday at SIFF Cinema (you can buy tickets here).

Be sure to check out our interview with Brooks Peck of EMP/SFM, speaking about the festival. For those of you who are not in Seattle or otherwise can’t attend this weekend, he assures us that eventually most of the films will be available online.

Though I have nothing against the line-up of comic book films, big budget explosive sequels and such and the like coming along this year, most of the films I’m actively looking forward to in 2011 don’t fit that mold. Also, a lot of them don’t seem to be coming out until at least the second half of the year, if they have a release date yet at all. I will be spending many months waiting patiently for most the films I’m hoping will be the highlights of my movie year.

Jane Eyre — March 11
directed by Cary Fukunaga
screenplay by Moira Buffini, from the novel by Charlotte Brontë

The world probably isn’t crying out for another adaptation of this novel, but the cast, director, and visuals and tone on display in the trailer have me extremely ready to revisit this story. It seems like Fukunaga (whose one previous feature-length film is the wonderful Sin Nombre) might really hit the perfect sort of Gothic/romantic vibe to satisfy a huge fan of that genre and era of literature. Namely, me.

Battle: Los Angeles — March 11
directed by Jonathan Liebesman
written by Christopher Bertolini

On a completely different note, the same day Jane Eyre will be wondering what Mr. Rochester might be hiding, the citizens of contemporary Earth will be getting a rude awakening from above of their own. This film was really nowhere on my radar until the most recent trailer started making the rounds; now, I’m taking notice. You’ve got to love a trailer that can get you psyched over what sounds like a really been-there premise.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 — July 15
directed by David Yates
screenplay by Steve Kloves
from the novel by J.K. Rowling

No one should be shocked that I’m incredibly excited for this film. Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is by far my favorite of the adaptations, and the second half of the novel is filled with the best action and most wrenching emotion of the saga. I fully expect seeing this at a packed midnight screening filled with adrenaline-fueled, cheering fans to be among the best movie-going experiences of my life so far. (And one of those moments I simply cannot wait to experience is, of course, Molly Weasley screaming those choice five words to Bellatrix Lestrange during the final battle…literal chills just thinking about it, people.)

(Cont.)