The Academy just decided the more the merrier. Starting next year, some movie fatcat will strut onstage at the end of the March 7th Oscar telecast and read 10 nominees for Best Picture instead of the usual 5. Stop with the jokes. I know it's usually a stretch to get even 5. From the early 1930s till 1943, the Academy customarily nominated two handfuls of movies for the big prize. But why go back to that policy now? You'll hear lots of reasons. But the decline in TV ratings for the Oscar show is the one that sticks to the wall. Audiences won't tune in when their favorite movies aren't nominated. The Dark Knight struck box-office gold last year, but the Academy stupidly snubbed it for Best Picture, along with the animated success, WALL-E. Now it's time to make good on missed opportunities.

Let's look at what happened on the 2009 Oscar show.

(more...)

Photo: Gilkas/FilmMagic

American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert sure seemed pumped catching a performance of Hair: The American Tribal Rock Musical on a quick trip to Broadway last week. Hair is the favorite to win Best Musical Revival when CBS broadcasts the Tony Awards this Sunday. Neil Patrick Harris will be hosting. That’s right, the sitcom star of How I Met Your Mother has stage credits stretching from Cabaret to Rent. If you saw NPH fire up SNL this season or spoof himself as a horndog junkie in two Harold & Kumar movies you know the former Doogie he has the sass to kick ass.

OK, why should anyone who lives outside of Manhattan give a damn about the Tonys? Listen up. The best of Broadway is usually smart, funny and provocative in ways Hollywood has given up on. Maybe that’s why so many movie and TV actors have decided to forgo fat paychecks and take a shot onstage where critics are ready to go medieval on their ass at the first sign of movie star ego or laziness. Look at the nominees — good and god-awful — in major categories, and make your own picks:

(more...)

OK, there's really no secret. Just leave quality out of it. The MTV Movie Awards air this Sunday night and it's always a fun show as long as you don't expect the voters to hold to any standard except popularity. There's even a category called BEST WTF MOMENT, but the great thing about the MTV Movie Awards is that every category gives you at least one "what the fuck" moment. Let's take a looksee:

Best Movie
The Dark Knight
High School Musical 3: Senior Year
Iron Man
Slumdog Millionaire
Twilight

Slumdog won the Oscar so let's rule that out. Dark Knight and Iron Man were actually good movies, so their chances are shaky. High School Musical 3: Senior Year sucked from start to finish — I expect it to finish strong. But Twilight — bad reviews, bountiful box office — smells like a winner to me. WTF!

And here we go with the other categories:

(more...)

Photo:Vespa/VF/WireImage

Slumdog Millionaire swept the Oscars with 8 wins. Who predicted that? Practically everyone. Photo: Merritt/Getty

Kate Winslet won Best Actress for The Reader, just like the cover of Time magazine insisted she would do three days earlier.The arrogant stunt almost made me root for her to lose. Photo: Kravitz/FilmMagic

Heath Ledger of The Dark Knight became the second actor in history to win an Oscar after his death (following Peter Finch for 1976's Network). No surprise there. There would have been a riot if he didn't.

You get my point. Shock and awe were noticeably absent from last night's Oscarcast, except maybe for the cult of Mickey—The Wrestler nominee for Best Actor had recently mourned the death of his beloved chihuahua Loki. The cultists wanted to see Comeback Kid Rourke leave fellow nominee (and winner) Sean Penn crying over spilt Milk. My fave comment around the Rolling Stone office went: "The Academy just spit on Loki's grave!"

(more...)

Each year since 1980, the Saturday before the Oscars the Golden Raspberry Awards honor the year's crappiest films from Showgirls to Gigli. So what's Razzie-worthy from 2008? Peter Travers points a finger at the most-nominated film, Mike Myers' The Love Guru ("Everybody in that movie sucked," he says). And this won't be a shocker: Paris Hilton gets nods for her roles in The Hottie and the Nottie and Repo: The Genetic Opera.

Click above to watch Travers take a stroll down the Razzie's memory lane (Battlefield Earth, anyone?) and break down this year's contenders.

Photo: Focus Features (MILK), Weinstein Company (The Reader), Fox Searchlight (Slumdog), Universal Pictures (Frost/Nixon), Paramount (Button)

We're only days away from Sunday's Big Moment, meaning the announcement of what movie takes the coveted Best Picture Oscar. All signs point to Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle's little movie that could. Remember last year's little movie that could? That would be Juno. It didn't win. No Country for Old Men did. Remember the little movie that could from the year before that? That would be Little Miss Sunshine. It didn't win. The Departed did. Or how about the little movie that could from the year before that? That would be Crash. Hell, Crash did win. So what I'm saying is that anything's possible in the land of Academy voting schizophrenia. In any Oscar pool, there's nothing like winning when you've bet on a longshot. So let's take an alphabetical look at all 5 nominees for Best Picture, and chew on the pros and cons. THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

PRO: David Fincher's attempt to channel Forrest Gump with less of the sappiness scored the most Oscar nominations (13) of any film this year, never mind the other four nominees for Best Picture. Domestic gross is $123 million, way more than the other four nominees. Plus, it's much more in the style of the grand, old-fashioned epic Hollywood loves to celebrate—or used to (it's been five years since The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King took the prize).

CON: Call it what you will, it's still Forrest Gump recycled. It lost the important lead-up awards from critics groups, the Screen Actors Guild and even the idiot Golden Globes. Ben B didn't get the usual love.

(more...)

Photo: Getty Images
As the buzz has it, Best Actress nominee Angelina Jolie (The Changeling) will have to settle for looking gorgeous with Brad on the red carpet. Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) might have won if two words didn't destroy her chances—Bride Wars. There has been some talk in the countdown to Sunday's Big Event that Melissa Leo (Frozen River) has been gaining momentum. Oscar voters have finally watched her movie, which they ignored at the multiplex, on freebie Academy screeners, and they like what they see. Much the way they caught up late last year with Marion Cotillard playing Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose. And Cotillard scored a surprise win. Will Leo win in an upset and caress the golden dildo? Though a shock would be nice, don't count on it. The race has come down to two contenders— Kate Winslet for The Reader and Meryl Streep for Doubt. The funny thing is most of the comment about each actress has barely focused on their acting in these films. It's been about their entire careers. Let me explain:

Kate Winslet should win for The Reader. Why? Not because she was excellent (she was) as the former SS guard who feels guilty about her illiteracy as a metaphor for her guilt about aiding in the murder of Jews. But because The Reader represents her sixth acting nomination with no wins. That's right. Winslet scored nods for Sense and Sensibility, Titanic, Iris, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Little Children and now The Reader. At 33, she's the youngest actress to pull off that record. So the reasoning goes that Winslet deserves the Oscar as a career achievement award. At 33? I mean, isn't this a bit early to worry that Winslet won't get another (and better) movie to take to victory? For those (like me) who think Winslet is nominated this year for the wrong movie— I much preferred her risky work in Revolutionary Road—the argument seems specious. Al Pacino, the mad genius of The Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico and Glengarry Glen Ross, wins for Scent of a Woman. Please!

Meryl Streep should win for Doubt. Why? Not because she was great (she was) as the nun who suspects a priest of child abuse. But because Doubt represents Streep's 15th acting nomination—a record. That's right. Streep scored nods for The Deer Hunter, Kramer vs. Kramer, The French Lieutenant's Woman, Sophie's Choice, Silkwood, Out of Africa, Ironweed, A Cry in the Dark, Postcards from the Edge, The Bridges of Madison County, One True Thing, Music of the Heart, Adaptation, The Devil Wears Prada, and now Doubt. Unlike Winslet, Streep—59—has two Oscars on her shelf, for Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie's Choice. But that last one was in 1983, practically the Stone Age. So the reasoning goes that Streep should win because it's been 26 years since she hit the podium. And, really, didn't you want her to win for The Devil Wears Prada? WTF?

So I'm asking you, based purely on the quality of the individual performance, who do you think should win? Reasons, please. A simple Yea or Nay won't cut it.

Sean Penn Vs Mickey Rourke.

As far as I'm concerned it's the closest race at the Oscars this Sunday. Condolences to the other three nominees—

--Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon

--Richard Jenkins in The Visitor

--Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Sunday night will be The Sean and Mickey Show. So how are you pacing your bets?

MICKEY ROURKE in THE WRESTLER

Good Reason for Picking Him: Comeback Kid Rourke has the role of his career as a "broken down piece of meat" who's not ready to go over the hill. Rourke has been bluntly honest about how the screwup he's playing on screen is pretty much the screwup he is (or was) in life. How do Oscar voters resist that?

Stupid Reason for Not Picking Him: Rourke is basically playing himself.

SEAN PENN in MILK

Good reason for Picking Him: Playing assassinated gay-rights activist Harvey Milk, Penn disappears into the role with the artistry of an acting virtuoso. This isn't just another great Penn performance. It may be his greatest performance.

Stupid Reason for Not Picking Him: Penn already won an Oscar five years ago for Mystic River. He'll have lots of other big roles. Rourke probably won't.

Best Bet: In the final rounds leading up to Sunday, Rourke has the heat and it's building. But Penn has my heart. These are two brilliant performances. So I'm asking, why not a tie? The Academy has done it twice before. Once, in 1969, when Barbra Streisand (Funny Girl) and Katharine Hepburn (The Lion in Winter) shared the gold. And once, way back in the Pleistocene era (1932), when Wallace Beery in The Champ, playing a boxer as washed-up as Rourke's wrestler, fought to a draw against Fredric March doing his own kind of transformation in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. A Penn-Rourke tie seems far more warranted than these. Or does it? Your turn to weigh in.

For months now, everyone (me included) has insisted that the late Heath Ledger of The Dark Knight is a lock for winning the Oscar as Best Supporting Actor on Feb. 22nd. I still think it will happen, despite the fact that the Academy has awarded only one single posthumous Oscar in its 82-year history. And that was to Peter Finch for his mad-as-hell TV anchorman in 1976's Network. What I'm saying is the Academy doesn't rush into these after-death honors. James Dean was just 24 years old when he died in a car crash in 1955 and became the first actor in Oscar history to win a posthumous acting nomination, for his performance in East of Eden. Dean received a second posthumous nomination the following year for Giant. He lost both times. Don't get me wrong. Ledger, who was 28 when he died from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs, definitely deserves the prize. His tour de force as the Joker belongs in a time capsule. I wouldn't envy the actor who beat him and had to get up there on Oscar night and accept the prize with Ledger's family in attendance. As an experiment, who would you pick as Best Supporting Actor if Ledger's name wasn't on the ballot? Here are the nominees:

PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN in DOUBT

As Father Flynn, the parish priest suspected by Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) of behaving inappropriately with an altar boy, Hoffman nails every nuance in a complex role. Back in 2005, it was Hoffman who won the Oscar for Best Actor in Capote when Ledger was considered the favorite for his heartbreaking portrayal of the gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain. Could that upset happen again?

ROBERT DOWNEY, JR. in TROPIC THUNDER

As Kirk Lazarus, an Aussie actor who has already collected five Oscars for losing himself in his roles, Downey ups his own ante on risk-taking. To prepare for the film role of African-American Sgt. Lincoln Osiris Kirk alters his voice and dyes his skin black. Kirk won't stop talking black even when the camera stops rolling. "I don't break character till the DVD commentary," says the out-of-control actor. Downey is so off-the-charts hilarious that you want to stand up and cheer.

MICHAEL SHANNON in REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

While his two costars, Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, failed to score acting nominations for this drama about a 1950s marriage rotting in the suburbs, Shannon managed the feat. As John Givings, the institutionalized son of a gossipy realtor (Kathy Bates), the volcanic Shannon plays the role like a heat-seeking missile that targets hypocrisy, spitting truth at the young marrieds. He's electric.

JOSH BROLIN in MILK

As Dan White, the troubled San Francisco supervisor who shot and killed Harvey Milk, Brolin is simply astounding at revealing the inner torment of a man at odds with his own emotions. At a party, a drunk Dan approaches Harvey in a piercing display of yearning and isolation. It's a piercing scene, intensified later by an image of Dan naked in front of a window, utterly alone. Devastating.

MY CHOICE? Josh Brolin. His stature as an actor grows with each film, and this is his best, most deeply felt performance to date.

YOUR CHOICE? Let's hear it.

Photo: Winter/Getty
Box-office reports this weekend show Slumdog Millionaire generating real heat, it's the only one of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture to crack the Top Ten. But that hasn't stopped a backlash from kicking in. What was once the little movie that could is now the favorite movie to take a swing at. Everything from accusing the filmmakers of exploiting the child actors in Mumbai by paying them chickenfeed on a film whose worldwide gross is $86 million so far—to claims that the movie, from British director Danny Boyle, is dying in India because real slumdwellers hate being called slumdogs. Then there are the critics who insist the film is far from all its cracked up to be. The arguments go like this (jump in if you agree or disagree):

--The movie isn't an upper, it's "poverty porn," exploiting misery for fun and profit.

--It's a "white man's imagined India," not the real thing.

--The movie shows the worst aspects of India and that is what the western world likes to see.

--The plot is impossible to believe. The questions that young Jamal (Dev Patel) is asked on India's version of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire correspond chronologically with traumas in a young boy's life.

--The quiz show theme sends the wrong message— the answer is education and hard work, not a quick fix."

--The movie's joyfulness "feels more like a filmmaker’s calculation than an honest cry from the heart about the human spirit."

Do you buy into any of this? Do you think the backlashers have a point or are their criticisms just sour grapes?