From my original review:

“[King of Kong] is classic, if kooky, rivalry material. There are goons, and a supportive (if at times exasperated) wife, and someone named “Mr. Awesome.” There’s a lot of posturing, and buildup to a big showdown. Like Rocky and Apollo, the rivalry works because the rivals are opposites: Mitchell is the engineer of an image, and every step he takes is carefully calculated. Wiebe, on the other hand, is a heart on the sleeve kind of guy, who wouldn’t know a dramatic gesture if it hit him across the head. The documentarians have done an incredible job of being in the right place at the right time; it feels like every five minutes we’re witnessing a conversation that ought to be happening in a back room somewhere.

It’s hard to write stuff this good, this engaging, and yes, this deep. The geeks go to great lengths in the first few minutes of the documentary to have their hobby taken seriously, and really, why not? Is it really harder to hit a guy in the head more time than you get hit than it is to score a million points at Donkey Kong? So if we accept them as serious competitors – all the while laughing at their geekiness, for sure – then we can get on to the joys of watching a great movie about great competitors.

So the Oscars are tomorrow, with their new format that allows for 10 Best Picture nominees.   Here are my picks and predictions (and opinions, thrown in for free, of course!)

Best Picture

Nominees: Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious, A Serious Man, Up, Up in the Air

My Pick: My opinion hasn’t changed since I posted by top 10 of 2009 list.   The Hurt Locker is the best movie of the year.

Who’ll Win: It looks like a two-film race between “The Hurt Locker” and “Avatar” — which is interesting, because directors Kathryn Bigelow and John Cameron used to be married.    Oscar tends to like, and reward, bit, epic, money-making visual adventures (like “Titanic” and “Return of the King”) so I think “Avatar” will edge out “Locker,”  though it my opinion, it’s a vastly inferior film.  In fact, there are 8 films on the nominee list I liked better than “Avatar.”

Best Director

Nominees: James Cameron, “Avatar,”  Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker,”  Quentin Tarantino, “Inglourious Basterds,”  Lee Daniels, “Precious: Based on a Novel by Sapphire,”  Jason Reitman, “Up in the Air”

My Pick: Again,  Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker.”   This really comes down to what a director does, versus what a producer or a screenwriter or cinematographer does.   “Locker” is, far and away, the best directed movie on this list — the only one even close in my book is “Up in the Air.”   The rest are great for other reasons – production design, or acting, or script.   I can imagine a “Basterds” written by QT but directed by someone else – it isn’t that different.   Or “Avatar” produced by Cameron but directed by a dead cat.  Same thing.   But Bigelow takes familiar, and oft-failed, subject matter – the War in Iraq — and makes it great.

Who’ll Win: Oscar hardly ever separates Best Director from Best Picture.  So if “Avatar” takes the first, look for Cameron to take this as well.

Actress in a Leading Role

Nominees:  Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side,”  Helen Mirren, “The Last Station,”  Carey Mulligan, “An Education,”  Gabourey Sidibe, “Precious,”  Meryl Streep, “Julie & Julia

My Pick: I love Sidibe in “Precious” and felt like I was watching a star being born in “An Education,”  but for my hard-earned money,   Tilda Swinton in “Julia” turned in the best performance by an Actress in a Leading Role this year.   Too bad she wasn’t nominated.   She’s my pick, anyway.

Who will win: Probably Sandra Bullock, though for the life of me I couldn’t see a single spectacular – or even above-average – moment in “The Blind Side.”   Is it the accent?

Side note:  Sandra Bullock is also nominated for a Razzie – the flip side of the Oscars – for Worst Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role for her godawful turn in “All About Steve.”   No other actor or actress has ever won best and worst actress the same year.   It would be a historic achievement for Ms. Bullock,  who, by the way, is my least favorite A-List actress currently working.   So you know which way I’m rooting.

Actor in a Leading Role

Nominees: Jeremy Renner, “The Hurt Locker,”  George Clooney, “Up in the Air,”  Colin Firth,  “A Single Man”  Morgan Freeman, “Invictus”

My Pick: You know, I don’t really think any of these performances were all that compelling.    I know that some of you hate it when I do this, but I’m going to go off-book again; my favorite performance this year was by Matt Damon in “The Informant!”    He’s my pick.

Who’ll win:    Clooney had a solid year, turning in 3 better than average movies.  So even though I felt like his performance in “Up in the Air” was nothing more or less than typical Clooney, I’d put my money on him.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

Nominees: Penelope Cruz, “Nine,”   Vera Farmiga, “Up in the Air,”  Maggie Gyllenhaal, “Crazy Heart,”  Anna Kendrick, “Up in the Air,”  Mo’Nique, “Precious.”

My Pick: This one’s easy.   Mo’Nique’s performance in “Precious” wasn’t just the best supporting performance I saw this year, but the best I’ve seen in perhaps ten years.     It was the stuff of legend.    Anna Kendrick was also very good in “Up in the Air;”  she’d be my pick any other year.

Who’ll win: I think Mo’Nique has a solid shot at this one, because “Precious” is likely to get overlooked in the other categories where it’s nominated.

Best Actor in A Supporting Role

Nominees: Matt Damon, “Invictus,”  Woody Harrelson, “The Messenger,”  Christopher Plummer, “The Last Station,”  Stanley Tucci, “The Lovely Bones,”  Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds.”

My Pick: Well, this is embarassing.   I’ve seen exactly one of the nominees – “Inglourious Basterds.”   And I didn’t love Christoph Waltz, as so many did.   So I’m going off-book again:  my favorite male supporting performance was Alfred Molina in “An Education.”

Who’ll Win:  Everyone else seems to think Waltz was aMAZing in “Basterds,”  so I’d put my money there.

Best Animated Feature Film

Nominees: “Coraline,”  “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” “The Princess and the Frog,”  “The Secret of Kells,”  “Up”

My Pick: It was a strong year for animated films.   I’m a little shocked “Ponyo” didn’t get nominated,  and a little sad “Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs” didn’t make the list.    Of the films that did,  “Up” is my favorite, though “Coraline” is a close second.

Who’ll Win: “Up” is a safe bet.   It got nominated for Best Picture, after all.

Other picks:

Art Direction: Avatar

Cinematography: Avatar

Costume Design: Bright Star

Film Editing: The Hurt Locker

Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air

Original Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds

Judd Apatow absolutely dominated comedy in the latter half of the decade, getting his fingers into every comedy project coming out of the Hollywood – or maybe it just seemed that way.   Regardless, this romantic comedy about a dope-smoking slacker and an uptight career woman who accidentally have a baby together demonstrates Apatow’s strengths at veering from ridiculously raunchy to shamelessly sweet without giving its viewers whiplash.  At the same time, it manages to takes seriously the anxieties of becoming a parent for the first time, and the sacrifices that requires – whether you’re giving up your dope-smoking slacker lifestyle or your 60-hour a week and nightclubs on the weekends lifestyle.   Neither are conducive to good parenting.

And it made stars out of Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and Katherine Hegl.   “Knocked Up” was one of the warmest, funniest, sweetest comedies of the decade.

Durango Gets Reel

“Precious: Based on a Novel by Sapphire” is a harrowing, hopeful movie about a young woman breaking out of the patterns of poverty, despair and abuse that have swallowed her mother and threaten to swallow her.   Clareece “Precious” Jones has grown up in an unimaginably abusive home;  her father regularly rapes her, and her mother verbally abuses her and throws dishware at her head.   She gets kicked out of school but finds hope in an alternative school environment, and, with the help of a caring social worker and dedicated teacher, is able to set out on her own.

This movie is as bleak and hard to watch as the most pretentious arthouse social document; at the same time, it’s as uplifting and inspiring as a movie like “The Blind Side” or any of the plethora of Horatio Alger riffs that are a ubiquitous part of the American cultural landscape.   That it manages to be both horrifying and hopeful sets it apart from the rest.   This movie is a cut above the rest.

And the more I think about it, the more I’m amazed that “Precious” is as powerful as it is.   There are plenty of things I don’t like about it.   I don’t think much of the supporting performances.   Mariah Carey is clearly slumming as Precious’ social worker, trolling for an Oscar nom.   Paula Patton isn’t much better as the dedicated teacher who takes care of her;  she is just too pretty and perfect, too dedicated and righteously indignant to be real.  And Lenny Kravitz as a male nurse is just unnecessary.

And I wasn’t a big fan of the fantasy sequences.   Whenever something terrible happens to Precious, she goes to a place in her head that looks like a Las Vegas stage, and we go there with her.   It took me the entire movie to figure out what these sequences were even doing in the movie, and when I did put the pieces together, they, too, felt utterly unnecessary, like a Danny Boyle flourish in a Sam Peckinpah production.  I thought the girls in the alternative school were stereotypical caricatures.   And I didn’t love the arthouse flourishes, like when Precious looks in the mirror and sees a skinny white girl, or the extreme, greasy closeups of food and eating.   That felt overdone and unnecessary

If I cut away all of that, basically what’s left are the performances by the two main characters:  Gabourey Sidibe as Precious, and Mo’Nique as her mother.   The passion, dedication, intensity, and commitment that these two actresses bring to their roles is astonishing and remarkable.  The performances here bear comparisons to the best that cinema has to offer.   Pacino did work like this in the ’70s;  Brando, in the ’50s.    Sometimes Daniel Day-Lewis inhabits his characters to the extent Mo’Nique inhabits Precious’ mother here.   This kind of acting is rare and remarkable.

Sidibe is sullen and withdrawn; she lives within herself and barely speaks, because speaking is dangerous.   At the same time, she is angry, prone to explosions of violence, and terribly afraid.   That’s a lot to pack into one character, especially one that barely talks.    Mo’Nique, on the other hand, is fiery and verbal;  the onslaughts of abuse, both verbal and physical, which she rains upon her pregnant daughter are breathtaking in their ferocity.   She is monstrous, but at exactly the moment when she seems about to receive her comeuppance, she shows what’s underneath all that violence and anger — deep despair, helplessness, desperation and pain.   I can’t call Mo’Nique’s performance anything short of brilliant; you can’t exactly feel sorry for the character, but you can’t exactly  write her off, either.   She resists judgement, because she is a human being– deeply broken, but a human, not a monster.

Give credit to director Lee Daniels for finding the right actresses (Mo’Nique is by profession an comedian, and Sidibe an amateur he found after auditioning thousands) and giving them room and trust to work.   Credit screenwriter Geoffrey Fletcher for taking the novel, by Sapphire, and turning it into a script these actresses could work with.   But really, “Precious” belongs to these two actresses, and it a rare treat to watch them go to work.

When he wasn’t helming the best action series of the decade not involving hobbits, Peter Greengrass directed movies about tragic real life events.   His penchant for hand-held cameras and quick editing lend these movies a documentary feel, but Greengrass’ talent lies in knowing when to make a movie feel like a documentary, and when to pull back and use more traditional storytelling techniques to keep an audience engaged and interested.   Greengrass’ depiction of that fateful day in Ireland, 1972 is raw, immediate, engaging, and tragic.   You really feel like you’re there, alternately lost in the confusion, watching things spiral out of control, and shocked at what’s happening before your eyes.  It’s a powerful, gut-wrenching experience, and a great movie.

Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

Despite a frantic plot and the oozing charisma of star Robert Downey, Jr.,  “Sherlock Holmes” feels curiously flat.   I’m going to chalk this up to director Guy Ritchie, because most of his movies before this one have been terrible stinkers.  (Ever see “RocknRolla,” or “Revolver?”  Good.  Don’t.)   I’m not really sure what’s wrong with the way Ritchie has directed “Sherlock Holmes,”  but it’s an old film adage that if the thing doesn’t work, it’s the director’s fault.  So we’ll blame Ritchie.

Though it might be Downey, Jr’s fault.   His Holmes is basically an English, Victorian version of Tony Stark:  too brilliant to be bothered with things like manners or morals,  too effective for his friends(and enemies) to let him go off the deep end completely.   And yet Downey Jr’s charisma is what keeps this thing watchable, and really isn’t it Ritchie’s fault for casting him in a role so like a role he just played?   Range isn’t Downey Jr’s problem.  (See: Tropic Thunder.)

The plot involves black magic, and secret societies, and gassing Parliament, and whatever.   There are plenty of explosions, chases,  big guys with hammers, and a final CGI-rich scene on a bridge.   None of it feels too compelling.   All of it feels like a way to keep a movie going that really ought to stop and question its own right to exist.    “Sherlock Holmes”  is a shark in the water:  stop moving, and it will die.

In the end, I’d rather spend two hours watching “House.”

I’ve mentioned a couple of times while making this list a movie’s “rewatchability” factor.   Some movies are great, and memorable, because they’re just as good the second, and twenty-second, time you pop them in the DVD player.   And then there are movies like “Monster,”  which you’ll see once, and then never, ever want to see again, for any reason.   It’s that good.

Lots of actresses “go ugly” to get the attention of the Academy (think Halle Berry in “Monsters Ball,”  Angelina Jolie in “A Mighty Heart,”  Cameron Diaz in “My Sister’s Keeper,”   Mariah Carey in “Precious”)  but nobody has done it with the commitment , skill, and, yes, talent of Charlize Theron.   The performance is amazing, harrowing, and beyond memorable – it sears itself into your memory.   Let me say this — if there were a Best Performance by an Actress of the Decade,  Theron in “Monster” would be on my short list.

I wonder if it is possible to simply watch Dr. Parnassus as a movie, minus all the subtext and circumstance that surrounds it.    I know it wasn’t possible for me.   Perhaps in twenty years, someone will pop this in the 3D hologram machine, and at the end, wonder what all the fuss is about.   Because as a movie, it’s pretty minor, pretty flawed, and pretty strange.   It comes from the Island of Misfit Toys;  it’s the kind of movie you love–or at least feel affection, and perhaps pity, for– because of its flaws, not in spite of them.

“Parnassus” is about a wizard/mystic/sage/entertainer(Christopher Plummer) who is able to offer people entrance into their own imaginary worlds.   Unfortunately, he does so through a gift-wrap paper looking glass that is part of a shabby travelling show, so very few people give him a second look or bother to sample what he is offering.   He, his daughter(Lily Cole) the requisite dwarf (Verne Troyer, predictably awful) and a stage hand (Andrew Garfield) live in poverty, stealing more meals than they earn, in spite of possessing what must be considered the Most Amazing Show on Earth.

Now parallel that to director Terry Gilliam’s career.   For thirty years, since his days with Monty Python, Gilliam has made some of the most original, creative, and unique films out there.    Almost all of them have been box office failures.   Some of them, like “Brazil” and “Twelve Monkeys, and “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”  have attained cult status.   Gilliam ought to be spoken of in the same breath as directors like Tim Burton, Henry Selick, maybe even David Lynch and Guillermo del Toro, but he isn’t.   He’s the outsider amongst the outsider, the shabby, rambling showman who has something incredible to show you, if you’d just slow down on your way to the latest ruination of “Alice in Wonderland” to see it.   He is Dr. Parnassus.

And you’ve probably heard that “Parnassus” is Heath Ledger’s last film; he died while it was still being shot,  and there was some question as to whether it would be finished at all.   Ledger plays a stranger the troupe finds one night hanging from a bridge; he ought to be dead but isn’t.   He has amnesia, or maybe he doesn’t, and thus can’t remember who he is or where he came from, except maybe he can, and doesn’t want to.   He joins the troupe and attempts to modernize their approach, which as mentioned before, is badly needed.   Ledger finished filming all of the scenes outside of the magical Imaginarium.   And then he died.

What follows is perhaps the most heart-breaking, beautiful and memorable tributes in movie history.   To finish his final film, Ledger’s friends sub in for him.  Johnny Depp takes a turn, then Jude Law, and finally Colin Farrell (rumor has it that Tom Cruise wanted a shot, but Gilliam turned him down, because Ledger didn’t know him personally.)  This works, mostly, because they are inside the Imaginarium; the rules are different.   It works, supremely, because it makes “Parnassus” feel less like a piece of entertainment and more like a labor of love.   Ledger’s friends carry him across the finish line, and the movie is made.    If that doesn’t bring a tear to your eye, you are made of stone.

The plot involves a deal that Parnassus has made with the devil (played, with relish and appropriate scenery-chewing, by Tom Waits) involving his beautiful daughter.   As I watched this bearded wizard scramble to escape the devil, make a new deal, beg, borrow or steal his way out of it, again my thoughts turn to Gilliam.   He’s not a young man anymore, and it must grow harder and harder to find people willing to finance the movies he wants to make.   At what point must the travelling show come to an end, the child of his heart be sold to the highest bidder, and this wonderfully imaginative director start churning out Cameron-esque moneymakers?   I hope there’s still a few ticks on the clock for him.

Christopher Guest’s mockumentaries are one of those cinematic phenomenons–like Robert Altman films from the ’70s–  that will be nearly impossible to explain in 20 years.   “Well, they weren’t documentaries, but they were made to look like they were, and there wasn’t really a script, just a group of actors improvising, and there isn’t really a plot…”

“Best in Show” lampoons a dog show and the quirky people who attend, and while it goes a hundred directions at once, it is sly, wickedly funny, smart, sharp, and never dull–not for a moment.   Unlike most comedies made this decade, “Best in Show” doesn’t telegraph its jokes in all-caps.   And that makes it rewatchable.   And its rewatchability makes it one of the best movies of the decade.