The Hangover Part II: How does this keep happening?

They keep asking this question throughout the first half of the movie, and I found myself asking the same thing through the second half. In 2009 Todd Phillips had the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time, so asked himself why change a winning formula, and for those looking for more of the same, the answer is he didn't.

What was great about the first one was that, you had no idea what was coming. Each moment they tried to up the ante. Phillips had a hand in writing this one and I'm not sure what he did, but it looks like he took the last script and copied over all the big points and put them in the exact same spot. I'd be interested to see what would happen if you screened the two movies together side by side, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same jokes hit at the exact same time.

But for what it's worth, this time it's not Doug that is getting married it’s Stu, played again by Ed Helms. The bride to be is not Heather Grahmn's character but rather a very nice Taiwanese girl named Lauren, played by Jamie Chung. And as a favor she asks Stu to bring along her brother Teddy, who plays the role of Doug by getting lost in the city. Phillips may think that by moving the location to a foreign city that this is enough to increase the danger, but really all it does is force them to ask for directions a lot.

Bradley Cooper is back as the leader of the wolf pack, while Zach Galifianakis is back as the stay at home son. All three men do a fine job reprising their roles; Galifianakis is a little more on the annoying side this time around, but the other two male leads play opposite him so graciously that it still works. Ken Jeong is around a little more this time as the effeminate gangster and it is a welcome addition to mix things up a little bit, he adds to the chemistry of the crew and takes some of the jokes that would be delivered by Galifianakis which is a welcomed new delivery.

With Mr. Chow now part of the crew Paul Giamatti is playing the role of the gangster they need to help. And that isn't the only substitution they have, Stu still has his song, but this time he is rockin out on the acoustic guitar. Playing the role of the tiger/baby is a chain-smoking drug dealing capuchin monkey. This year Stu's missing tooth was played by Mike Tyson's tattoo which I'm sure most of you saw in the trailers. They still go to a strip club where Stu falls in love with one of the dancers, which while repetitive leads to one of the funnier moments in the movie.

But really who am I to judge just this past weekend I woke up in my clothes wondering how the night finished off only to find out that my buddy almost got raped, my other friend fooled around with some girl on the floor, I hit on a bridesmaids relentlessly while enraging her big black boyfriend, broke a door at a hotel, and then as retribution most of my crew including myself got punched in the crotch Johnny Cage style. So I could probably ask myself the same question, how does this stuff keep happening, and then I remember, it's because I am looking for a good time. The movie is ridiculous and repetitive, but if you know what you are getting into before you walk in, it can be a good time and really funny. C+

Thor

The superhero movie has been a staple of the big budget studio blockbuster for a decade now. They always make it one of their tent pole movies; and even if it gets bad reviews the studio always gets their money back, and then some. Since movies like ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘Iron Man,’ the bar is now so high it may not be possible to just crank these movies out. Unless you are looking to only use this plot as a jumping off point to a huge ensemble undertaking next year that already have fanboys excited in their pants. Then maybe it’s acceptable, maybe.

Marvel's newest addition in preparation for next year's ‘Avengers’ epic is ‘Thor.’ One of the more boring heroes in the Marvel Universe, the Norse God, much like others who share his mythology, are defined by what they oversee. The God of Thunder is a warrior who wields a powerful hammer, and that is about it. But he has always been a part of the Avengers so why not give him his own movie.

The story breaks down into two different narratives, one while Thor is on Asgard and one while on Earth. While they do overlap, they also seem to be fairly different in tone, which may well be explained by the stable of writers that worked on the script. While on Asgard he is set to take the throne until his father Odin realizes his son is an arrogant shit and banishes him to Earth. While on Earth he tries to adapt to his new life. There is a lot more to it, stuff involving a hammer and his brother but I don't like giving away too much in these reviews. And frankly the story is kind of all over the place with the objective of the movie changing every 20 minutes or so realizing they need to do something else.

I saw this movie in 2D and am glad I did, as there is rarely an instance I feel the need to shill out more money for a pair of glasses. That is until they re-release ‘Apocalypse Now’ into theaters in 3D. The computer generated worlds were very impressive, I wonder if they looked better in 3D or if it lost some of the sharp contrasts in the conversion. Asgard seems like a wonderful place to live especially with Anthony Hopkins as your leader, I don't think I would have a problem living under his rule. While I may have a problem living under the rule of Stringer Bell, I don't think I would have as much of a problem as these people did. But the stand out deity in the film is Loki.

Loki has always been kind of a dick, both in Norse mythology and in the Marvel Universe. Tom Hiddleston does a great job making him a little more complex than that. One of the very few things I knew about the Thor series was that Loki was not only Thor's arch-nemesis, but his half-brother. Hiddleston does a wonderful job capturing Loki's evil ways but also conveying the love he has for his family. The jealousy he feels for his older brother is something that siblings everywhere can relate to making this villain one of the few I have ever felt sympathetic for, an impressive piece of acting.

Hiddleton may have had the upper hand landing this role as he was working at the West End Stage with his future director Kenneth Branagh. It was an interesting choice having a director typically associated with Shakespeare to take on a superhero movie, but maybe considering the source material it wasn't that far off. Branagh takes what he is comfortable with and applies it to his blockbuster; 'Henry V' is about a young prince who goes to war while courting a girl from a different country, sounds a lot like what I was watching the other day.

Branagh was also essential in snagging Natalie Portman who was quoted as saying "I was just like Kenneth Branagh doing 'Thor' is super-weird, I've gotta do it." She, much like Hopkins, didn't add too much to the story except for a name on the poster. Her role was fun, but all she was asked to do was to look sexy-smart and to give her hero the googley eyes. Mission accomplished.

The best part of the Earth portion of the story was Chris Hemsworth. The lead didn't have too much going for him in the opening part of the story. He had his hammer and that was about it. He does his best as a god trying to fit into a mortal world; it is there you see glimpses of charm and charisma which is why he landed the role. Oden was right to banish his son, it definitely made Thor a better person, or at the very least, more interesting.

As a standalone movie it really is nothing but fluff. This is fine for an early summer flick to get us ready for the other blockbusters. It also helps build the anticipation for 'The Avengers.' While some people are getting sick of all the hype already I am not one of them, I mean come on it’s being directed by Joss Weadon. Hopefully the other superheroes of the summer will have a little bit more to say than Thor did. C

Bridesmaids

Kristen Wiig has been a stand out in the Saturday Night Live cast for some time now, and for those of us unwilling to stay up late for a show that is erratic at best we may have been missing out. Her talent has been noticed by Emmy voters recently, but it was in 2007 that Judd Apatow cast her as the snarky E! executive. Since she has grown into quite the starlet and has put all her talents together and teamed up with executive producer Apatow to star and co-write, along with Annie Mumolo, in the new comedy Bridesmaids.

Many may be quick to compare this movie to The Hangover but for women, and that is just not the case. While it is about one gender group before a wedding, The Hangover formula is completely situational and bases itself of making each moment bigger than the one before it. And not to say there aren't some great gross out moments to this movie, the oddly out of place dress shopping scene comes to mind, but that is not what this movie relies on. This would also seem to imply that this is just a movie for women, definitely the impression I had before taking my seat. While the characters may connect more with the womenfolk in the audience the humor sprawls across the genders.

Bridesmaids takes a buddy movie and makes the moments feel genuine. Movies about female friends have typically been about two girlfriends going after the same thing, whether it is a man, a job, or prize. That doesn't appear to be the case in this movie as Maya Rudolph plays the bride to be Lillian, while Wigg plays lifelong best friend Annie. The strain in this case seems to come from the paths each character is taking, while Lily seems to be achieving the American dream, Annie is struggling with life. At one point she had it all: her own business, a boyfriend, but with the economy playing a role she just as quickly lost it. Now she is stuck at a job she hates, living with an odd brother sister tandem and the occasional late night fling with an awfully handsome man played wonderfully by Jon Hamm. Without looking too deeply into the situation this seems to be an examination of class and how success can affect relationships.

Adding to Annie's stress is the new BFF on the scene. Trophy wife Helen, played by the perfectly cast Rose Byrne, is seeking to steal all of Annie's thunder and usurp her as the Maid of Honor. She is the type of girl who probably never got rejected and always made sure she got her way. She is the type of girl that almost everyone in the audience will immediately dislike. If you don't you just may be that girl, and if that's the case, blow it out your ass. Lillian seems to be drifting towards this lifestyle and away from Annie, compounding Annie's frustration.

The scene stealer in this movie is Megan played by Melissa McCarthy who you may recognize from the CBS comedy Mike and Molly. When you are not watching Wigg it is hard to watch anyone but McCarthy. She nails all her one liners and all the physical comedy in the movie and without a doubt generates most of the belly laughs. She outshines the other two bridesmaids played by Wendi McLendon-Covey from Reno 911 and Ellie Kemper from The Office. Wigg allows all these previously mentioned actors to be and lets them affect her until she finally lashes out. It is when she falls furthest that we feel the strongest for her character.

This comedy tells a genuine story of how the success of others can affect you, and takes an honest examination of what competition between two friends can look like when you are not actually competing for the same thing. And having seen the way girlfriends act around each other and when apart, I can gather this may be more accurate than the laughs let on. Wigg is brilliant in this movie and while she does great putting toether strings of jokes that could have any audience laughing for 5 minutes straight, she can also play it a little sweeter and show off a softer side. There have been a lot of people complaining about the newest cast of SNL, which is always the case as whenever you are watching it is inevitable that you will think the previous cast was better. But this recent ensemble has delivered quite a few movie stars and Wigg will surely be the next one to shine. A-

Arthur

There are those that will cry foul on this movie. That a remake of Arthur during a recession is unseemly and any attempt to try and recreate the brilliance of Dudley Moore would be fool hearty. Sure all of that is true but the original is about a drunk with one liners, that movie has been redone so many times why not try to re-share the story for a new generation.

Both old and new Arthur focus in on a drunken millionaire living up the high life, but he is forced to marry a woman his family believes will finally make him grow up. Right before he pops the question he meets and falls in love with a working class girl and now must choose between a life with money or one with love.

There was little to no chance this iteration was going to be as good as the first one. It was exactly 30 years ago when the original came out and not only was it nominated for four Oscars (winning two) but it is on AFI's top 100 comedy list. In order to enjoy this movie it is best to keep the original out of your head.

Russel Brand does his best to do just that, while both leading men come from across the pond, Brand makes the character in his own image. You imagine he didn't have to dig too far back to gather the necessary inspiration to portray the title character. It was not long ago when Brand himself was a wealthy womanizing alcoholic, that is till he met Katy Perry. I'd probably give up the drink to be hittin that as well. He injects himself into the character and delivers Arthur's famous one liners perfectly. It is tough to tell how much of his humor is written in the script and how much is improvised.

Those behind the scenes decided to do a couple gender role reversals, most likely in an attempt to highlight Arthur's immaturity. I doubt the choices hurt the film any as Brand's female co-stars do admirably in their roles, but certainly don't elevate the movie to any great heights. Both Helen Mirren and Jennifer Garner's characters are written as very strong female foils to the lead. Each character receives their own batch of one liners and jokes to deliver but neither nail the deadpan delivery to get the big laughs. Meanwhile indie star Greta Gerwig plays the love interest which serves to highlight the best points of Arthur's childlike naivety. She plays the role as written but there is zero pop in the performance.

All of the clever zingers get left behind in the second half of the film and are replaced with attempted heartfelt complications. This shift in tone ruins any aspirations the movie may have had of leaving a mark on the movie goers. Any Russel Brand fans out there may just want to wait until this one comes out to DVD, or better yet find the original on Netflix as they have it in their instant viewing section. There is nothing in this movie that can't be seen elsewhere without the cost of a movie ticket. D+

Happythankyoumoreplease

Josh Radnor makes his directorial debut in Happythankyoumoreplease which he also wrote and starred in. Radnor takes some of the lessons he learned on his hit TV show How I Met Your Mother and applied it to his movie. The outcome is a pleasant story amongst like minded people moving towards adulthood.

While this is a cute story, there is a lot wrong with this movie. First off that title, oh god that awful, awful title. And you know that title is gonna come with an indie hipster feel, including the soundtrack. Second the soundtrack, maybe it was bothersome because you knew the second he pulled out his man purse there was going to be a whole lot of acoustic guitars and whiney male vocals. More likely because the song just kind of seemed to be slapped into any old moment. I know this is a movie and things are supposed to be fictionalized but if anyone could fill me in on how struggling writers and wanna be artists can afford a one bedroom, one kitchen apartment in New York City please let me know. And finally that title, I know I mentioned it already but seriously whatiswrongwithusingspaces?

That being said the movie also do some things right to make this indie romantic comedy enjoyable for the audience. The movie has a Woody Allen feel to it, without the breaking of the fourth wall and more believable dialogue. Radnor wrote a script that could be casually heard on the streets, including the snappy retorts. The only time the dialogue seemed less believable was when the characters would go on heartfelt monologues, but every rom-com needs that cliché in order to help the protagonist.

While Radnor may star in this one, like a typical TV episode, he chose to separate the movie into three separate story lines all with a different romantic twists. Radnor takes the male lead and is counterbalanced with rising star Kate Mara. Radnor plays Sam, an aspiring novelist, who finds a small black child on a subway and decides to take him home. Just as I assume most hipsters in Williamsburg do so they can tell people they have a black friend. While this orphaned child is sleeping unsupervised on his couch he goes to the bar to hit on Mara who plays aspiring singer Mississippi. There is not too much friction between the two actors, which translates to little chemistry but they are both charming enough that it works. Mara is multi-talented and I doubt this is the last time she will be taking a lead role.

Sam's friend Annie, played by Malin Akerman suffers from alopecia so her character is bald, but Akerman's beauty glows through her bald cap and decorative scarves she wears. Radnor definitely could've taken this story a different way, but really the only thing her disease leads to is poor judgment in men. That is until she meets Sam #2, played by Tony Hale. While their story is not well developed both of their characters shine. Their little moments between each other and Sam #1 all seem genuine. The only downside is they are forced to be the moral compass for the story, so deliver all of the previously mentioned monologues. And while Hale delivers his wonderfully, Akerman probably lays it on a little too thick; despite this one flaw both characters are wonderful.

The third story line features Sam's cousin and friend who are at a fork in the road. Do they stay in New York or move to the west coast. Fortunately you won’t care that much as this is clearly the C storyline, the characters are not developed and there is very little audience investment in the story. It seems to be just thrown in to add more to the running time.

The movie doesn't have the glossed over touch that a big budget romantic comedy might but it works for the story as it is all about struggling artists. They also tend to reuse a lot of the same camera shots, including one too many close-ups but it is easy to get past.

Despite all of the trite moments contained in this little indie film, it has much more heart than any of the big budget flicks in the same genre. It takes an honest look at this weird new age group between post collegiate life and adulthood and what steps need to be taken to get to 30. While I hate the title, it seems to fit the film as the final frames leave you wanting more. C+

2011 Oscars: Best Picture

It is time. If there was a year to have 10 best picture nominations it is definitely this year. Unfortunately they started this trend last year when there were not 10 great movies. But all that has changed and now after having seen all of these movies it is time to whittle them down to see what is the best picture of the year.

Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

It is tough for small independent movies to get noticed in a world full of blockbusters, its even harder when the movies debuted early in the year. Which is why the nominations of "Winter's Bone" and "The Kids Are Alright" is so impressive. Both movies were smash hits at Sundance last year and that kind of kudos never usually carry over. For Kids the acclaim has not stopped, winning some major awards from the foreign press. But for small films like this they need to pack a lot of punch for them to overcome huge budgets and a much larger pool of talent to work from. Bone moves far too slow for anyone to not fidget around, and while an honest look at a bigger problem without self examination it probably didn't blow you away. And comedies, well as we all know comedies are very rarely deemed artistic enough to be certified with the highest awards. Kids won't walk away with any major awards because of such fierce competition from more dramatic categories, and until a comedy comes out with a lot more to say, one will probably never win in best picture. There is no need for the Oscars to split the genres like the Golden Globes does as that would water down what it means to be best picture, it’s just something we will have to deal with.

The same genre discrimination happens with animation. Are you telling me that "Lion King" wasn't a better movie than "Quiz Show"? Or that Wall-E didn't have important critiques of society just because it was done by robots. Any movie that can go 45 minutes without dialogue and still tell a beautiful story has done amazing things. But alas only three animated movies have ever been nominated for best picture and if the category hadn't been expanded I doubt "Up" or "Toy Story 3" would be in the running. Last year was a weak year for movies and they were trying to correct an injustice from the previous years. "Toy Story 3" is without questions one of the best movies of the year but with so many other quality live action films I doubt they would have received the recognition they deserve. The movie had everything; there was action, comedy, drama and heart. There were moments in the movie where I was afraid for the well being of the toys I have gotten to know so well. Anyone who tells me there wasn't any water leaking from your face you are either a liar or soulless, both options kind of suck. Pixar has changed the game and now require children's movies to appeal to an older generation as well. It also forced the Academy to increase the number of movies they nominate.

Nolan also had a hand in that when audiences and critics agreed that "The Dark Knight" also got the snub treatment. Nolan has done amazing things with a camera and I would implore everyone to see all of the movies he has done as there is not a dud among them. This meteoric rise to prominence is what has alienated some of the voters. It is without doubt one of the most original movies of the year, but without any nominations in acting or directing it shrinks any legitimate chances of winning, even though I could see this movie getting a fair share of the votes. It should clean up in most of the technical awards but that will be it.

Had the category not been extended I am not sure that "True Grit" or "127 Hours" would be receiving this honor. These two movies, more so than the independents that I mentioned earlier, are probably closer to the edge of the bubble. They were both really good movies, but I don't know if I would classify either of them as great. Danny Boyle and the Coen Brother's both recently won and for better works I doubt that the Academy will look to reward them again so soon.

Now here are 4 of the 5 that would be on the list had the Oscars chosen to keep it short. "Black Swan” is a beautiful art house movie that was transformed into a blockbuster using special effects. Critically, this may be the actual best movie of the year. It could go round for round with any of the four movies that are left, but I am not voting, and neither are the critics. This is an old man's game and it was a weird movie. And if you are not into the psychological frenzy that comes with turning into a big black duck than I doubt this is a movie for you. Plus the weight of it all is entirely on Natalie Portman to assure this movie does well, she has a solid cast around her but the acting block, which is the largest group of voting members in the academy, didn't deem any of their performances worthy enough to also be nominated.

All the acting kudos went to “The Fighter,” and justifiably so. The cast is fantastic and coming from Boston I can say they captured the essence of the town. Not Boston proper per say as that is full of rich people and college kids now, but the suburbs of Boston, which is actually where the movie takes place. While usually not as telling as the Director's Guild, the Screen Actor's Guild's best ensemble award and Best Picture have been in sync about 50% of the time. It also helped to predict major upsets in the past. Many thought that "The Fighter" would win for best ensemble, which is not surprising as three of the supporting players are also nominated for Oscars and two are heavy favorites. I would argue that the cast for "The Fighter" is the best this year, but the voters chose "The King's Speech" perhaps confusing the honor for what they perceive as the best movie of the year. Speech does have a solid cast but it isn't nearly as deep or as powerful as the one from Lowell.

With only two movies left, these remain the popular movies to win the night’s biggest award, the heavy favorite being "The King's Speech." After winning the SAG for best ensemble many thought that David Fincher would win the DGA award but it was not meant to be as the director's involved chose Tom Hooper as their recipient. The Producer's Guild also rewarded Speech which made it a Triple Crown winner. This has happened only six other times and of those six times five of those movies won the best picture award. The only time it didn't happen was when "Apollo 13" lost to "Braveheart." But 'The Social Network" also has some major awards as well winning the Golden Globes and Critics' Awards big prizes. The Facebook Movie had all of the early momentum but that has since vanished to the other side of the pond.

This is a classic match up between the youth and the older vote. And that is how many of the battle lines may be drawn with an assist from the Brits supporting a movie about the crown. Historical dramas with an uplifting message have always done well in this category, but in the past decade there has been more of a sway towards grittier movies with appeal from the critics. The past three winners "Hurt Locker," "Slumdog Millionaire," and "No Country for Old Men" have not been typical Oscar winners. They have even been nominating towards a younger and hipster crowd, with nominations like "Juno" and "District 9." But did it go too young with a movie about college kids being smarter than you alienating voters.

This also sets up a rematch and possible vengeance for producer Scott Rudin. Harvey Weinstein has always been one to go after Oscars and in 1999 he pulled off one of the biggest Oscar upsets when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan." Now there is little doubt over which is the actual better movie (if any of you say Shakespeare send me your address so I can slap the taste right out of your mouth) but campaigning helped and won him the award. Now it is Rudin who is knocking on the door of the man who won all three of the guild’s awards. It would not be anywhere near the same kind of upset but it would still be impressive.

Any fan of this writer knows who my support is behind. "The King's Speech," while a very well done movie, just tried following a winning formula. Academy members love historical dramas and love to humanize monarchs. A successful formula to follow, but it was a wholly unoriginal story and idea. The performance of Colin Firth is sublime as His Royal Highness; he submerged himself in the role and helped to make a historically unimportant role seem regal again. The praise it received from the guilds and an Oscar for best acting should be enough. "The Social Network" is without a doubt the best picture of the year, it is current, it is fresh, and god damn it, its American. It had all of the best parts to it. The writing and directing will no doubt win but Jesse Eisenberg is also nominated and at one point there was talk that all three supporting actors could get nominated, and maybe they all deserved it. Tell me it wasn't impressive that one man played both Winklevoss twins. All of the interactions between each character were amazing. Not only that but Trent Reznor did a fantastic job with the score. It was the best produced movie of the year with all of the parts contributing to a masterpiece. A direct correlation between this movie and "Citizen Kane," arguably the greatest movie of all time, is impressive as well. Even if this movie were to lose in the end it would still go down as the more important film of our time and much more telling of our era.

What do you think? Do I have it wrong? Will you even be watching? I personally can't wait. And to those of you who made it to the end of this extremely long article and my others thank you for reading and I hope you enjoy the show.

2011 Oscars: Director

Over the past 50 years the best director and best picture award usually sync up. Makes sense the director is there from start to finish and he usually crafts the way the movie is to be made. Unless you have pissed off your editor. So with the big night just a couple of days away let’s look at the best directors of 2010

Darren Aronofsky, "Black Swan"
David O. Russell, "The Fighter"
Tom Hooper, "The King's Speech"
David Fincher, "The Social Network"
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "True Grit"

First and foremost HOW IS NOLAN NOT ON THIS LIST. I know people in the business have been going on and on about this snub, but it has justification. I mean come on, could anyone else in the industry make a movie like this. And why, because he didn't go to a few luncheons. Seriously. Alright I'm better, let’s continue.

Many speculate that it was the Coen Brothers who knocked off Nolan for the nomination (I know I said I was done bitching about it but this has a point, just wait) so that would make them the last ones invited to the party. I love their treatment of the West and they are at their comfort level in a rural atmosphere. Also working against them is they just won three years ago, and this film is not nearly at the same level as No Country for Old Men so I would have to suspect that they have probably the least possible chance to win.

I really enjoyed both Black Swan and The Fighter but these two movies are pretty much on the opposite ends of the spectrum. For every person out there who loved the almost noir style of the movie, there is another older voter out there who found the movie creepy and unwatchable. This movie is far too polarizing to win. The Fighter is a much safer watch with a happy and uplifting ending for all of the characters involved. But there is nothing to it visually. Russell pretty much just lets the actors be and allowed them to take over the scenes. This will get the movie a couple acting awards but makes it less likely for the film to win for its directing.

Now we are down the big two movies of the year. Tom Hooper has all the stats behind him. His movie is heavily favored to win best picture and he won the Director's Guild's award which also has a 70% carry over rate to repeat a win. So the easy pick would be Hooper to win as best director, but this may be a year to buck the odds. This relative new comer has already won Emmy gold and with the most nominations of the year this movie is going to walk away with some of the biggest awards of the night, but not this one.

The Social Network is an obvious choice for best adapted screenplay and rightly so, everyone notices the fast paced poetics that fly out of the actor's mouths. But the movie is also visually striking. Even in the day light hours there is a dark tone that is present through the entire film and I can assure you this is not done by accident. With the underhanded dealings and all the betrayals going on it the story the lighting captures the mood of the story. The pacing of the movie also has to do with just how the movie is put together. There are a lot of quick cut and close ups that allow you to become intimately involved with the characters. The framing of the story allows for the flow and it never feels like it is being rushed, but rather the time flies by in the movie which is always an accomplishment given so many people's short attention span. The Social Network had such early momentum that was all snagged up by The King's Speech but traces of its early domination can still be seen. The Academy will look to award David Fincher the award for best director, an award he deserves to win for what he did with the movie.

Will this win for Fincher be a telling sign of things to come for the nights last award, will all the Oscar predictors get it right with Speech, or will one of the other eight movies pull an upset and bring everyone on stage, we'll examine that tomorrow.