A Visit to the Optometrist

I've had a cyst in my right eye for about three months now. Slowly but surely, it's grown larger and more troublesome. I did a little research shortly after it appeared, and was informed that it is best to just wait for a while and see if the cyst goes away on its own. It didn't. So, I went to the optometrist today to get it looked at.

"What's the problem?" the optometrist said.

"Well, I've had this cyst in my eye for about three months now," I said.

"How do you know it's a cyst?" he said.

"Um... well... I mean, I assumed... that's what it looked like. Is it a cyst?"

"Yes. You would make a good eye doctor."

I laughed. He didn't. There was a long, uncomfortable silence.

"So, ah, what should I do about this?" I asked.

"Well, there are two options," he said. "We can try to deal with it naturally, or we can do some surgery. You definitely don't want the surgery if you can avoid it. It's not fun."

"By all means, let's try the natural approach," I said. "What do I need to do?"

"Apply a hot compress to your eye for about ten minutes, then massage the cyst gently afterwards. Do this about four times a day. Hopefully, it'll start to break apart after a while."

"Okay," I said. "That sounds easy enough."

"Yeah, it's pretty simple," he smiled.

"So, out of curiosity, what's the success rate for people treating cysts naturally?" I asked.

"Oh, in most cases, there's a pretty high success rate," he said. "But in cases like yours, well... honestly, I'd say you maybe have a 25% chance of success. That cyst is awfully big. I kind of doubt the hot compress will work, but it's worth a shot. You'll probably need the surgery, though."

"I see," I sighed. "So, should I have come sooner? I heard I was supposed to wait for a while before seeing a doctor."

"Yeah, it's usually good to wait a while. I mean, we know now that you should have come in a couple of months ago, but a couple of months ago I probably would have told you to keep waiting."

"Oh."

"Hey, let me check a few more things."

The optometrist proceeds to give me a traditional eye exam. He has me read charts, shines lights into my eyes and has me look through a series of increasingly blurry lenses.

"Well, that's interesting," he says.

"What?"

"There are two reasons you have glasses: you're near-sighted, and you have an astigmatism. Now, an astigmatism is basically when your eye is a little warped instead of perfectly round, but it can be warped in any direction. However, the direction in which it's warped almost never changes. But your astigmatism... well, it seems to have shifted."

"Shifted?"

"Yeah. About thirteen degrees. So that's why your vision is worse in your right eye. I think the cyst is the cause of the problem. It's putting weight on your eye, and causing it to move. That's crazy. Very interesting."

"Yeah, um, I guess that is interesting. So, what do I need to do?"

"That's a good question," he says, rubbing his chin. "Nothing for now, I guess. Just... well, let's see how this plays out and we'll figure it out from there. I'm quite eager to see what happens."

Back at ya later

Shifting the Goalposts

The words "troubling" and "politics" go together like chocolate and diabetes, so I expect the revelation that I've noticed something troubling in the political arena in recent times will inspire little more than weary yawns. I have to confess that I've grown alarmingly cynical in this area in recent years, to the point where I'm often simply too exhausted to make my bewilderment known whenever some foolish political figure says or does something beyond comprehension. Dishonesty is rampant, news coverage is cartoonishly shallow and posturing consistently trumps practical solutions. We all know this. And yet, there's something beyond all of this which I can't yet bring myself to dismiss.

Even in midst of endless political bickering, it seemed for many years that individuals on both sides of the aisle were able to agree on the general definitions (if not the specific ones) of "conservative" and "liberal." Just to be fair, let's go with the dictionary definitions:

Conservative: "Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion."

Liberal: "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."

These broad definitions have been generally accepted for quite a long time. However, I've noticed these same generally-accepted definitions being recklessly discarded during the latest political season. A large portion of our nation is taking a sharp right turn, but rather than acknowledging that fact, many are insisting that what was once the center is now the far left, and what was once the far left is now Socialist Communist Muslim Nazism. This year's crop of Republican candidates have been required to engage in a game of, "Who's the real conservative?" in the hopes of winning the nomination. For a candidate to come forward and say, "I'm a right-leaning moderate who's willing to examine both sides of an issue and carefully weigh them before making a decision" would be fatal. Instead, they must essentially say, "I am a diehard conservative who is willing to go so far to the right that it will make your head spin, and my opponents are nothing more than shifty liberals."

Right now, there are four Republican candidates left in the race: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.  According to the non-partisan website ontheissues.org, the four candidates are classified as follows.

- Ron Paul is a Conservative-Leaning Libertarian
- Newt Gingrich is a Hard-Core Conservative
- Mitt Romney is a Populist-Leaning Conservative
- Rick Santorum is a Hard-Core Conservative

You may notice that Ron Paul is officially labeled a Libertarian rather than a conservative, though that certainly doesn't exclude him from holding conservative views. In fact, back in 2004, the American Journal of Political Science named Paul the single most conservative congressperson since 1937 (out of over 3000 individuals examined). Meanwhile, Romney is a conservative who leans towards populism, which is an explicitly different thing than leaning towards moderation.  Former candidates Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain are all labeled Hard-Core Conservatives. In fact, the only Republican candidate ontheissues.org officially labeled a "centrist" is Jon Huntsman (he's against abortion and gun control, but in favor of civil unions, protecting the environment and helping illegal immigrants earn citizenship), who was consistently in last place among the major candidates before wearily dropping out of the race.

So, what we have left are four very conservative candidates. And yet, to hear both conservative analysts and the Republican candidates talk about each other, you would think that the Republicans are little more than hardcore liberals wearing conservative Halloween masks. 

"The only way to stop the Massachusetts liberal is to vote for Newt Gingrich." - Newt Gingrich on Mitt Romney

"He's the most liberal, radical left-wing person to run for President in the last fifty years." - Conservative Fox News Commentator Dick Morris on Ron Paul

"He's very liberal." - Ron Paul on Rick Santorum

"[Considering] his past criticism of fiscal conservatives, it's no wonder his campaign hasn't left the launch pad." - Mitt Romney on Newt Gingrich

Look, politicians distort the truth. It's what they do. However, both the media and the general public are permitting the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" to shift by simply refusing to push back against these people. No, the news networks are not separate-but-equal brands of evil, but all of them are consistently terrible about mistaking indifferent silence for objectivity. It is entirely common to see two opposing pundits invited onto a news panel to debate an issue. The debate will often go something like this:

Pundit #1: "President Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim, hates white people and wants to kill your grandmother."

Pundit #2: "None of those things are true."

Program Host: "Two opposing viewpoints. You decide which one is true. Let's take a look at a poll examining your thoughts, and then read some letters getting your point-of-view of the matter. Up next, adorable puppies!"

At a glance, this may seem like a reasonable way to conduct a program. After all, both sides got to make their case, right? Ah, but that's the thing: one side is telling blatant lies, and the other is not. As such, it's the responsibility of the news media to call them on it and then refuse to grant the lying party a podium to spew their preposterous beliefs in the future. Sadly, the fact of the matter is that Pundit #1 makes for better television than Pundit #2, and the sadder fact is that many members of the public are entirely willing to gobble up the sensationalism of Pundit #1 because it fits more comfortably with their own preconceived notions than the fact-based perspective of Pundit #2. So Pundit #1 is invited onto more panels where his opinions are shared with more people, giving him an ever-increasing air of legitimacy. After all, he wouldn't be on the news if he was just making all of this up, right?

Today's political figures are quickly catching onto this trend and capitalizing on it with a vengeance. The claims are getting bolder and wilder, erroneous statements are offered with increasing confidence and the level of fervor among the public is reaching an unnerving fever pitch. Seemingly decent, reasonable people are transformed into belligerent acolytes of the candidate they have chosen, fueled on by the rabid war cries of attention-hungry pundits willing to back the public's prejudices regardless of the cost. News coverage of candidates is playing like a higher-stakes version of Entertainment Tonight. Just as the actual films made by movie stars are ignored in favor of the gossip and behind-the-scenes drama, the actual policies of the politicians are ignored in favor of the useless name-calling, sensationalist hype and spectacle. We're being dragged into an ultraconservative fantasy world in which the timid, moderate, clunky, compromised health care legislation which was passed somehow passes for dangerous socialism and a suggestion that maybe we should require someone to learn how to use a gun before they're allowed to purchase one is dismissed as radical extremism. Progressive politics have been given an ugly stigma, and in most parts of the country it's impossible for a politician to declare their liberalism with half as much pride as a politician can declare their conservatism (Yes, yes, I can hear you now: "That's because liberals have nothing to be proud of!"). If that's the world people want to live in, so be it. But don't stand on the far right side of the room and try to convince me that it's the center.

Did you see the Chrysler ad featuring Clint Eastwood (one of Hollywood's most notable Republicans) which aired during the Superbowl? It's hardly the Gettysburg address, but I was kind of moved by it, because it was a simple, direct, non-partisan plea for all of us to band together and act like grown-ups. Here's what Clint gently growled:

"It's halftime. Both teams are in the locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half. It's halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they're hurting. And they're wondering what they're going to do to make a comeback. And we're all scared, because this isn't a game. The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together; now Motor City is fighting again. I've seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when it seemed like we didn't understand each other. It seems like we've lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead. But after all those trials, we rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that's what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can't find a way through, then we'll make one. All that matters now is what's ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win? Detroit's showing us it can be done. And, what's true about them is true about all of us. This country can't be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines. Yeah, it's halftime America. And our second half is about to begin."

Again, it's just a car commercial. But it was a welcome reminder of some important things, and its weight seemed amplified by the lack of substance in the programming which surrounded it.

The next day, Karl Rove went on Fox News to comment on the ad: "The leadership of auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patronage. It is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the President of the United States and his political minions are using tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Back at ya later

Capsule Reviews: The Grey, Chronicle, The Woman in Black and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Some thoughts on a handful of movies I've seen recently...

Review: The Grey

Over the past few months, "The Grey" featured one of the most consistently-mocked ad campaigns this side of "Battleship". Liam Neeson punching wolves in the face? Surely the once-gentle actor's newfound machismo had gone too far.  However, it's Neeson and director Joe Carnahan who get the last laugh, delivering a film considerably more meditative and searing than anyone expected. The set-up is simple: Neeson and a handful of other hardened blue-collar workers survive a plane crash and find themselves stranded in the icy Alaskan wilderness. Surviving the nasty weather without much food is challenging enough, but that problem pales in contrast to the pack of hungry wolves which begins stalking the men. "The Grey" begins as a grim, merciless survival thriller; think of it as "Alien" in the wilderness. As it proceeds it reveals additional virtues: characters who prove to have greater depths than we suspect, a level of craftsmanship which surpasses anything else Carnahan has done previously and a surprising philosophical streak which owes more to Werner Herzog than Neeson's recent string of action flicks (there's even a fleeting homage to Herzog early in the proceedings, indicating that the philosophical similarities aren't accidental). Some of the film's more poetic flights of fancy might have come across as pretentious, but Neeson's achingly grounded performance gives the film's spiritual angst an effectively simple relatability. Come for the wolf-punching, stay for the haunting examination of nature's unwavering pitilessness.

Rating: ***1/2 (out of four)

Review: Chronicle



I have to admit, I've grown quite weary of both found-footage movies and superhero origin stories, but "Chronicle" pulls off the noteworthy feat of fusing both into a fascinating motion picture. The set-up is simple: three teenagers wander off to look at something strange in the woods. Shortly after their encounter with the Strange Thing, they realize that they've begun to develop superpowers. That's all I care to say about the plot for now, because part of the fun is the thrill of discovery the film offers. The first hour or so is a surprisingly joyous experience at times, as the teens react in touchingly giddy fashion to their ever-evolving abilities. Suddenly, things which have long felt like weary clichés feel charmingly fresh again; one scene played for me like the first scene of Superman flying must have played for audiences in 1978. Things take a darker turn in the final act, and it's vastly more gripping than usual because you've finally realized that this flick isn't beholden to the rules of big-budget superhero flicks starring immortal characters. I won't spoil the creative manner in which the film employs its found footage, but suffice it to say that this is the first instance in which it's felt like an inspired artistic choice rather than a gimmick. The film's goals are modest, and yet it runs circles around so many of the films which have inspired it. What a marvelous surprise. Don't read anything else about the movie, just go see it.
Rating: ***1/2 (out of four)


Review: The Woman in Black



"The Woman in Black" is an old-fashioned horror tale which delivers precisely what it promises and not one ounce more. "Harry Potter" star Daniel Radcliffe plays an attorney who has been tasked with visiting a creaky old estate in a quiet, gloomy, late 19th Century English village. Most of the locals treat him with hostility, though he does find warm hospitality in the home of a wealthy married couple played by Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer. It seems the locals believe that the estate Radcliffe must visit is haunted, but Hinds is the town's lone skeptic. It only takes a few creepy visions for Radcliffe to become convinced that the estate is indeed under the influence of something rather ominous, and soon he finds himself attempting to learn how to deal with the seemingly supernatural threat. The performances are stellar, the atmosphere is effective, the set design is impressive, the creepy moments appear frequently enough and the ending is satisfying. And yet, somehow the movie is a disappointment, as the plot is remarkably thin and the film rarely takes a risk of any kind. It's a competent motion picture which provides all the things you might expect, yet none of the things you don't. Daniel Radcliffe is effective in the lead role, but the film never requires him to do anything more than look terribly concerned. The movie will inspire its share of goosebumps, but precious few nightmares or long-term memories.
Rating: **1/2 (out of four)


Review: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close



Many movies require a certain suspension of disbelief. I've just seen a movie which required me to believe in ghosts, and another which required me to believe that teenagers could develop superpowers. I accepted these ideas, and the respective movies rewarded my faith by having the characters act as real humans might in worlds containing ghosts and superpowers. However, I simply can't buy "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close", because almost everything the film offers is some form of remarkable contrivance. I might have bought the flashback sequences which tell the story of a recently-deceased, supposedly caring father (Tom Hanks) who likes to send his high-functioning autistic son (Thomas Horn) on unsupervised adventures through New York City. I might have bought the manner in which the film treats the son's condition as a cutesy plot device, and I might have bought the way it uses an old man's muteness as a cutesy plot device. I might have bought the plot's endless coincidences, or the use of whimsical pop-up books and even more whimsical number-crunching (such as the manner in which the young protagonist counts the lies he tells over the course of the film). Alas, when all of these gimmicks (and so many others) are compiled into a single film, the effect is unbearable. The moments of genuine truth and recognizable human behavior are so fleeting (mostly found in the performances of Viola Davis, Jeffrey Wright and Max Von Sydow) that they only serve to illuminate the artifice offered by the rest of the film. As a story of a young boy's attempt to cling to memories of his late father, the film is merely irritatingly precious. However, as a cinematic exploration of 9/11, it's unforgivable. The film uses painful 9/11 imagery of all sorts, but never actually has anything of substance to say about that tragic day. Instead, it simply uses this iconic imagery as a cheap way to exploit the emotions of the audience ("If you weren't sad about the kid's father dying, you will be when you see him falling from the smoking World Trade Center!"). The film was directed by Stephen Daldry, and he certainly hasn't lost his touch on a technical level. It's a slick, polished film which accomplishes its goals with aplomb. It's a shame that those goals are so nauseatingly shameless. This is the worst best picture nominee I've had the misfortune of seeing, and easily the worst film of 2011.
Rating: Zero stars (out of four)

Back at ya later

Songs About Talking About Me

In the past couple of months, I've heard two similarly-titled, narcissistic old-school rap songs performed by middle-aged white men. The first is "Let's Talk About Me", performed by Chris Cooper. 

The second is "I Wanna Talk About Me", performed by Toby Keith.

My question to you: which of the two is sillier?

Back at ya later

Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You - February 2012

January is coming to a close, so I thought now would be as good a time as any to take a peek at the movies coming up over the course of the next month. February is generally a weak month for the movies, but the same can also be said of January, which gave us a pair of exceptional thrillers in the form of "Haywire" and "The Grey". Let's take a look.

"You're just a big... well, a big miracle!"

Feb. 3rd: This is a particularly interesting week, as it spotlights a number of somewhat smaller films which are hoping to sell people on intriguing concepts and then survive via good word-of-mouth. The most prominent release is "The Woman in Black," which offers Daniel Radcliffe his first prominent post-Harry Potter role. Even so, the film's inventive promotional campaign has been selling the scares rather than its well-known young actor. We also have "Chronicle," which brings a new spin to "found footage" filmmaking by spotlighting a group of teens who have developed superpowers. Superhero flicks and found footage flicks are both getting wearisome, but a combination of the two is an interesting idea. We'll see whether the public responds. Additionally, Ti West follows up his well-regarded flick "The House of the Devil" with another horror outing, "The Innkeepers." If it generates a similar response, West will have established himself as one of the genre's most prominent voices. Given that all three of the aforementioned pictures are on the dark side, we're also getting the family-friendly and amusingly-titled "Big Miracle" (which stars Drew Barrymore and is directed by the man who gave us "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants"), which is about friendly people saving friendly whales from unfriendly ice.

"Wait... they seriously made a sequel to Journey to the Center of the Earth!?"

Feb. 10th: A handful of the month's more high-profile movies arrive on this date, kicking off with the Denzel Washington/Ryan Reynolds thriller "Safe House" (which somehow isn't directed by Tony Scott). If there's one reliable fact in life, it's that Denzel Washington thrillers will always be reasonably entertaining, and a supporting cast which includes Brendan Gleeson, Vera Farmiga, Robert Patrick, Liam Cunningham and Sam Shepard certainly doesn't hurt this one's chances. On the flip side of things, Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams star in the somehow-not-written-by-Nicolas-Sparks romance "The Vow", which is one of the year's most hotly anticipated films for people who like that sort of thing. For the younger viewers, there's "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island", which pretty much wins the award for year's worst title. Making a sequel to the middling "Journey of the Center of the Earth" was a bad idea, and making one without Brendan Fraser is even worse. Still, The Rock seems content to poke fun at his image (whatever may be left of it) and Michael Caine turns up to enliven the proceedings. I've heard mixed things about Oren Moverman's "Rampart", but great things about Woody Harrelson's "Bad Lieutenant"-style performance in it. Harrelson was the highlight of Moverman's tender "The Messenger" a couple of years ago; word is that they fought rather bitterly during the making of this one. Oh, and "The Phantom Menace" is getting re-released in 3-D, because of course it is.

"I have bills to pay. I have bills to pay. I have bills to pay." 

Feb. 17th: I doubt that "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" will be good. However, I do know that it will feature Nicolas Cage urinating fire, so it can't be all bad. I think Ghost Rider's a terrific character, but the first film messed up in almost every way. Cage was actually solid, though, so maybe things worked out this time. Again, I kind of doubt it. It certainly looks more appealing than "This Means War", a romantic comedy with a crummy premise which looks like a painfully unfunny waste of Chris Pine, Tom Hardy and Reese Witherspoon. Finally, there's "The Secret World of Arietty", which is the latest Studio Ghibli offering (and is not directed by Mr. Miyazaki, sadly). I'm certainly going to check it out, but the trailer looks a little less flavorful than most outings from the studio.

"Look, all those dresses in my closet... honey, I can explain."

Feb. 24th: The director of "Role Models" offers up "Wanderlust", which stars Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston in a film which is being described as, "enthusiastically ribald." Okay. Tyler Perry offers up an earnest, comedy-free outing in the form of "Good Deeds" (in which Tyler Perry learns that he is out touch because he doesn't know how much a gallon of milk costs), and Amanda Seyfried stars in the dreary-looking and blandly-titled thriller "Gone" (hey there, Wes Bentley!). The curiosity is "Act of Valor", a Navy SEAL-themed action flick which stars actual Navy SEALs. Expect awkward line readings and exceptional stunt work.

Picks of the Month:

3. Chronicle (I guess)

Brought to you by the color gray.

2. The Woman in Black (I guess)

"You're taking this seriously, right?"

1. Safe House (I mean, it could be good)

"Yeah, I saw Green Lantern. It was... I mean, the special effects were pretty good."

Not really feeling confident about anything heading into the next month, but there are certainly some items with potential.

Anything which strikes your fancy among the flicks listed here?

Back at ya later

Laughing at Leprosy

I'm kind of looking forward to Aardman animation's forthcoming comedy "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" (though I prefer the original title: "The Pirates! - In an Adventure with Scientists"), as it looks like another reasonably entertaining outing from the folks who gave Wallace and Gromit to the world. When I saw the trailer for the first time, I chuckled at one of the throwaway gags it offered up. The pirate captain has boarded another ship in the hopes of stealing their gold.

"Afraid we don't have any gold old man, this is a leper boat," one of the men on the ship declares. Then the man's arm falls off.

It's a silly, disposable gag, but one which has suddenly stirred up a great deal of controversy. Groups like the Leprosy Relief Association Health in Action, The World Health Organization and others have protested the joke, which they claim pokes fun at the millions of people who have leprosy. From their point of view, "The Pirates!" is encouraging audiences to laugh at people who are in pain.

On one hand, it seems a little odd that "The Pirates!" should be a target of widespread criticism, as this particular joke pales in comparison to... well, quite a lot of jokes, really. Just watch a random episode of "Family Guy" or "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" or a Judd Apatow flick or a stand-up routine from any comic this side of Jeff Foxworthy and you're bound to find something vastly more offensive within a matter of minutes.  On the other hand, I realize that "The Pirates!" is perhaps placed under increased scrutiny because it's a children's movie, and children are a bit more susceptible to simply accepting jokes based on stereotypes rather than recognizing their intentional absurdity.

Obviously, I don't find real-life leprosy amusing in any way. I would never laugh at someone suffering from that disease. However, I really don't think "The Pirates!" is cruelly mocking such people, but rather assembling a quick, Pythonesque gag built on the handful of facts the average viewer knows about leprosy (lepers have historically lived in leper colonies, the disease is infectious and it does rather horrible things to your body). The joke is on the pirate captain, who has come searching for gold and has instead stumbled upon something which makes him intensely uncomfortable.

Anyway, all of the fuss made the folks at Aardman nervous, so they've removed the joke from the movie. End of controversy. I doubt this will do anything to damage the quality of the final product, and such a tiny compromise (precisely the sort of little change made by countless movies after early test screenings) doesn't affect my desire to see the film one way or another. Still, it does make me wonder why certain gags generate such controversy while other, more flagrantly rough jokes are left alone.

My suspicion: the mistake was including the joke in the theatrical trailer.  Ron Howard made the same mistake not long ago with the trailer for his movie "The Dilemma" by including an awkward bit of dialogue about electric cars being "gay" (it wasn't particularly funny, nor was it particularly offensive). If the joke had been included in the film but not in the trailer, I doubt anyone would have noticed or cared. However, because it was being used to promote the movie, various gay rights organizations protested (Howard relented by releasing a new trailer which didn't include the joke, but did keep the joke within the film itself - by the time the movie was actually released, no one really seemed interested anymore). The moral of the story: it's okay for Seth Rogen to tell Helen Keller jokes in a movie, as long as he doesn't tell them in the film's promotional materials. It's hardly a lesson worthy of Aesop, but it's a lesson nonetheless.

Back at ya later

Some Thoughts on This Year's Academy Award Nominees

Every year, I see the same comments made about the Academy Awards: The Oscars are a joke, someone or something was horrifically overlooked, undeserving rubbish was nominated, awards ceremonies are disgusting, the Oscars don't mean anything... you get the idea. There's certainly merit to those arguments, but I still anticipate checking out the nominations each year, because I still find the Oscars the most compelling, consistent and legitimate barometer of what the film industry really regards as its best work each year. Of course things I love were ignored, and of course things I dislike were nominated, but that's going to be the case anytime anyone other than myself chooses the best films of the year. How many times have we looked at someone's "best-of" list and thought, "Wow, that's a great list!" rather than "How on earth could they pick this over that?" And yet we enjoy best-of lists anyway, because they give us an insight into how another person/group/publication/organization thinks. Let's take a look at this year's nominees, category by category.

1. Best Picture: "The Artist," "The Descendants," "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close," "The Help," "Hugo," "Midnight in Paris," "Moneyball," "The Tree of Life," "War Horse."

- Interesting that we have nine nominees this year. Many analysts were predicting seven. The pleasant surprise is "The Tree of Life," which was ignored by quite a few of the other groups. The biggest surprise is "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," which must surely be one of the most poorly-reviewed Best Picture nominees in history. Critical response has been mixed at best, with quite a few prominent critics labeling it one of the year's worst films. The others were more or less expected to get nods, though I suppose one could argue that "Midnight in Paris" and "War Horse" also qualify as surprises.

2. Actor: Demian Bichir, "A Better Life"; George Clooney, "The Descendants"; Jean Dujardin, "The Artist"; Gary Oldman, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"; Brad Pitt, "Moneyball."

- Two enormous surprises here. The first is that Michael Fassbender wasn't nominated for his fine work in "Shame," an NC-17-rated film which might have proved a bit too uncomfortable for the traditionally conservative (in contrast to other groups, at least) Academy. The second is that the little-known Demian Bichir was nominated for the little-seen (and little-promoted) "A Better Life." I haven't seen the film, but I will say it's nice to know that Academy members are looking beyond the universally-accepted frontrunners for their nominees. The biggest heartbreak (though it was probably inevitable) is that Michael Shannon's unparalleled turn in "Take Shelter" wasn't nominated. The biggest relief is that Leonardo DiCaprio's underwhelming work in "J. Edgar" wasn't nominated.

3. Actress: Glenn Close, "Albert Nobbs"; Viola Davis, "The Help"; Rooney Mara, "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"; Meryl Streep, "The Iron Lady"; Michelle Williams, "My Week With Marilyn."

- Wow. This category is actually kind of weak this year, with two overpraised impersonations from Ms. Streep and Ms. Williams heading the list. So many strong performances (Elizabeth Olsen, Kirsten Dunst, Vera Farmiga, Jessica Chastain) ignored in favor of more traditional "Oscar bait."

4. Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh, "My Week With Marilyn"; Jonah Hill, "Moneyball"; Nick Nolte, "Warrior"; Christopher Plummer, "Beginners"; Max von Sydow, "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close."

- None of the nominees are particularly surprising, but I am surprised that one of them wasn't bumped in favor of Albert Brooks' work in "Drive." Personally, I'd flick Jonah Hill off the list. He was effective in "Moneyball," but it's hardly one of the year's best performances.

5. Supporting Actress: Berenice Bejo, "The Artist"; Jessica Chastain, "The Help"; Melissa McCarthy, "Bridesmaids"; Janet McTeer, "Albert Nobbs"; Octavia Spencer, "The Help."

- Another batch of unsurprising nominees, though it's interesting to see so many lighter performances nominated. McTeer could end up taking this simply on the basis of dramatic weight, but I'm guessing it's probably down to Spencer and McCarthy.

6. Directing: Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"; Alexander Payne, "The Descendants"; Martin Scorsese, "Hugo"; Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"; Terrence Malick, "The Tree of Life."

- It's generally accepted that the five films nominated in the "Best Director" category would be the five films chosen for Best Picture if we were still under the old system. If that's actually the case, then these are exceptionally surprising. It seems the Academy likes "The Tree of Life" even more than we might have initially suspected. No predictions just yet, other than that Woody probably won't attend the ceremony.

7. Foreign Language Film: "Bullhead," Belgium; "Footnote," Israel; "In Darkness," Poland; "Monsieur Lazhar," Canada; "A Separation," Iran.

- As usual, I'm afraid I haven't seen most of these... um, any of these, actually. "A Separation" continues to get a great deal of praise and is regarded as the frontrunner.

8. Adapted Screenplay: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, "The Descendants"; John Logan, "Hugo"; George Clooney, Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon, "The Ides of March"; Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin and Stan Chervin, "Moneyball"; Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy."

- No surprises here.

9. Original Screenplay: Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"; Annie Mumolo and Kristen Wiig, "Bridesmaids"; J.C. Chandor, "Margin Call"; Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"; Asghar Farhadi, "A Separation."

- Many thought "Bridemaids" would snag a Best Picture nomination, but Original Screenplay will have to do. I'd say that's more than fair. The film is funny, but let's not pretend it's a whole lot more than that. "A Separation" is the rare foreign film to receive recognition in another category (making it basically a lock for the Best Foreign Film win). I'm happy to see newcomer J.C. Chandor get recognized for the overlooked "Margin Call," which you need to check out as soon as you get a chance.

10. Animated Feature Film: "A Cat in Paris"; "Chico & Rita"; "Kung Fu Panda 2"; "Puss in Boots"; "Rango."

- Far and away the most bewildering category this year. I haven't seen "A Cat in Paris" or "Chico & Rita," so I can't speak as to whether they're deserving, but I can guarantee you that "Kung Fu Panda 2" doesn't belong here. Also, where is "The Adventures of Tintin"? Or the lovely "Winnie the Pooh"? I just... I can't...

11. Art Direction: "The Artist," "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2," "Hugo," "Midnight in Paris," "War Horse."

- Yeah, basically.

12. Cinematography: "The Artist," "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," "Hugo," "The Tree of Life," "War Horse."

- I have to say, I'm glad that "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" was nominated in this category, because it's deserving. These are some terrific-looking movies, and I'd actually be okay with any of them winning. "The Tree of Life" ought to, and this is probably the category where it stands the best chance.

13. Sound Mixing: "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," "Hugo," "Moneyball," "Transformers: Dark of the Moon," "War Horse."

- Good choices. Glad to see someone noticed what strong sound work was done on "Moneyball."

14. Sound Editing: "Drive," "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," "Hugo," "Transformers: Dark of the Moon," "War Horse."

- More good choices.

15. Original Score: "The Adventures of Tintin," John Williams; "The Artist," Ludovic Bource; "Hugo," Howard Shore; "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," Alberto Iglesias; "War Horse," John Williams.

- The biggest relief is that Trent Reznor's overpraised, distracting, poorly-written score for "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" didn't get nominated, as many were simply allowing Reznor to coast on his reputation rather than actually listening to his dull, meandering work. That said, John Williams really didn't need a nomination for "Tintin." It's a good score, but a nod for "War Horse" would have been sufficient. Surprising to see the low-key, jazzy Iglesias score nominated.

16. Original Song: "Man or Muppet" from "The Muppets," Bret McKenzie; "Real in Rio" from "Rio," Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown and Siedah Garrett.

- Wow, only two nominees? Let me say this: these are both songs which actually play a key role in the movies they appear in, so I'm happy the Academy isn't just nominating some tacked-on end credits tunes. Well done. That said, the Muppets song is so much better than the Rio song. This isn't even a contest (unless Sergio Mendes generates a sentimental vote).

17. Costume: "Anonymous," "The Artist," "Hugo," "Jane Eyre," "W.E."

- Period movie = costume design nomination.

18. Documentary Feature: "Hell and Back Again," "If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front," "Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory," "Pina," "Undefeated."

- Haven't seen any of them, plan to check out most of them. As usual, some of this year's best documentaries weren't even eligible.

19. Documentary (short subject): "The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement," "God Is the Bigger Elvis," "Incident in New Baghdad," "Saving Face," "The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom."

- I should probably watch these.

20. Film Editing: "The Artist," "The Descendants," "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," "Hugo," "Moneyball."

- I'd like to see this one go to "The Artist" or "Hugo." I'd prefer "Drive" or "The Tree of Life," but hey, it is what it is.

21. Makeup: "Albert Nobbs," "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2," "The Iron Lady."

- Oh yeah, the Harry Potter series ended this year. Will the Academy pay homage to it with, um, a makeup award?

22. Animated Short Film: "Dimanche/Sunday," "The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore," "La Luna," "A Morning Stroll," "Wild Life."

- I should probably watch these. I see that Pixar's "Toy Story" shorts aren't getting any love, which is probably for the best.

23. Live Action Short Film: "Pentecost," "Raju," "The Shore," "Time Freak," "Tuba Atlantic."

- I should probably watch these.

24. Visual Effects: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2," "Hugo," "Real Steel," "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," "Transformers: Dark of the Moon."

- Interesting category. Say what you will about "Dark of the Moon," it had some terrific visual effects work. Still, this prize will probably go to "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," thanks to all of those "Please vote for Andy Serkis" promos which reminded everyone that they needed to vote for the visual effects team.

An interesting batch of nominees this year. Certainly not the worst group of films the Academy has picked in recent years, but then 2011 had so many superb offerings. What do you think?

Back at ya later