So since I'm one to track TV ratings, I've noticed that one could construe the ratings for Lost this season as troubling. CBS's competition in the Wednesdays at 9 timeslot is Criminal Minds, which has gained viewers sharply in its second season and now finds itself almost neck-in-neck with Lost in the Nielsen ratings. What's more, Lost typically loses a small amount of viewers from the first half hour to the second, whereas Criminal Minds gains a few, and it has also lost viewers since its season premiere. All this is troubling, right?

Wrong. There's a great New York Times article that details the battle during this timeslot and the other big CBS/ABC matchup, CSI and Grey's Anatomy on Thursdays at 9. While CBS will probably milk the battle because Criminal Minds is the clear underdog-that-could, the idea that Lost is in trouble just plain doesn't stand to closer scrutiny, and the Times handlely debunks it.

To be sure, Lost has declined in average viewers since it's highs at the beginning of the second season. But plenty of things work in its favor. The second-half-hour dropoff is the result of spillover viewers from 8pm's Dancing with the Stars, Lost's ratings are actually up compared to the second half of last season, and the shows reach two completely different audiences: Lost beats Criminal Minds in the coveted 18-49-year-old demographic by a large margin each week.

The Times also mentions that the younger viewers that Lost attracts are more apt to download the show off iTunes, record it on their DVR, or watch it for free on ABC.com. One thing they didn't mention, though: watching Lost for many of its fans is a group activity, and Nielsen can't measure that accurately, especially in a comparison of households. Congratulations to CBS for good counterprogramming, but Lost is in very good shape.

I usually stay away from publishing profanity, but all of a sudden all I can think of is this phrase:

"Son of a bitch!"

Yes, it was Sawyer's time to shine on last night's Lost. There were plenty of very neat developments on this episode, not least of all the Others ripping open Sawyer's chest to inject a pacemaker that will make his heart explode if he gets too excited.

Okay, not really. But that's what we were led to believe by the oh-so-tricky Ben/Henry (who I will eventually just call Ben, but old habits and all that...). So it made for good funny/dramatic/tense moments, not least of which the point where Kate takes off her dress and Sawyer's heart rate monitor immediately starts beeping. ("Put some clothes on!") And playing like the fair guy he wants us to believe he is, Ben/Henry revealed the little practical joke to Sawyer at the end of the episode, while also pointing out to him that they're not even on the island. They're on another, much smaller island (two times the size of Alcatraz) that lies a little out from the main jumbo-island.

This presents a major problem to Locke and everyone on how to get the captives back. It also means Sayid had really bad luck when he had a freaking boat and still didn't see that other island. (Must've gone around the wrong way...)

But perhaps there's some underground Dharma structures that serve as passageways between the islands?

Some other good developments: back at camp, Desmond tests his newfound premonition ability. (I couldn't figure out what the point of the let-me-fix-your-roof conversation was until about five minutes after it started raining.) It'll be interesting to see just exactly how this happened and whether it can be explained away with logic.

Also, Jack is forced to to operate on the girl that Sun shot, but it's futile: she's dead after a few minutes. Jack, however, regaining his wits a bit, figured out a few things on his own: somebody in the Others' crew his a tumor on their spine, and since Jack just so happens to be a spinal surgeon, he suspects he knows why the Others wanted him in the first place. And was I imagining it or did it look like he wanted to make out with Juliet when he questioned her about it all?

That still leaves the question as to why Sawyer and Kate are along for the ride, but that only supports my theory: the Others want them to get busy so they can produce another kid, and have been keeping Jack separate so that can happen.

Another random theory: know how we found out Sawyer has a daughter in his flashbacks? I don't think he does. His ex-love was conning him because she knew he would send money. Just a thought.

So since every TV/movie website out there is usually a constant stream of headlines on not-that-major news, I'm usually not in the interest of letting you know about every little thing that's going on. (Especially since that would take me forever and I write this in my spare time. Or when I'm procrastinating at work.) But I found a couple of tidbits that will probably interest you folks:

-Lost has locked in its schedule. ABC will be giving the show a lengthy hiatus after the sixth episode of season three so that upon its return, it can be aired rerun-free through the end of the season. It's in response to complaints (and a small decline in ratings) during last season that the reruns killed the show's momentum. The sixth episode will air on November 8th, and the show will return on February 7th. Almost exactly three months. ABC will fill the hiatus with the series premiere of Day Break, which explains why we've seen so many commercials for it during Lost.

(The show's creators have said that with the schedule in mind, they developed the current six-episode block to have its own little arc, with a cliffhanger at the end of the sixth. So with four down, expect the next two episodes to be particularly exciting. And for all the supergeeks out there, you'll be excited to know that Firefly's Nathan Fillion will guest star in one of them.)

-NBC is reinstating its Thursday comedy block. My Name is Earl and The Office are still at 8 and 8:30, while Scrubs will return with its sixth season at 9 and 30 Rock will be moved to 9:30.

In my opinion, this is good news for everybody. This is widely considered to be Scrubs' last season, so putting it up against the #1 and #2 shows in America (Grey's Anatomy and CSI) shouldn't make much of a difference. And putting The Office and Scrubs back to back is just plain nice considering how good both shows are. (Earl ain't bad either.) The only curious part to this is 30 Rock, which has been getting terrible ratings on Wednesdays at 8. My guess is that they know anything in the time slot is going to get clobbered, and are essentially sending it there to die slowly (which is still better than 20 Good Years, which is almost certainly never coming back).

But take a step back from all the time slot competition and ratings and stuff and you'll realize...in terms of quality, it's a solid night of television. Which is nice. Thanks, NBC.

Just a quick few paragraphs on this episode, as I am running slightly behind schedule thanks to an epic take-home midterm I had to do earlier this week. It was solid, thanks in part to the main story on the show -- Logan's brother -- actually relating in some way to the characters. As I've said before, this season's mysteries, specifically the overarching rape mystery, haven't been personal enough -- there's not enough reason for us to care.

So it was something of a breath of fresh air when Veronica found out that the money missing from Logan's trust fund was actually being routed to a guy named Charlie Stone, who ended up being an illegetimate child of Logan's dad Aaron. (The late Aaron had kept it under wraps by funneling the money under the cover of a charity called "Aaron's Kidz" -- get it?)

Alas, the "brother" that showed up to meet Logan was actually an undercover reporter looking for a good juicy story on the abusive behavior of the late Aaron. The real Charlie Stone was just a decent-guy schoolteacher who wanted to keep it hidden forever, but now that the secret's out he's refusing to actually talk to Logan. Poor Logan -- he just wants to be loved. It was actually a decent story that I hope they return to.

In other news, campus rapes, suspicious fraternities, a very predictable subplot with Veronica's dad Keith...blah. Maybe the tone of this show is just better suited to a high school, and in terms of TV schools, Neptune High was pretty dynamite. Luckily the writers have gained the loyalty of the fans with all the pre-established characters; if this was the first season of the show, it wouldn't last.

This time around on Studio 60 was basically a direct continuation of last week's, even more than normal: the show picked up about 2 minutes after the last one ended, and revolved around an in-studio weekly wrap party.

A few plotlines floated in and out, and in true Aaron Sorkin fashion, we learned a few Very Special Lessons about the history of comedy, blacklisting in the '50s, and the plights of black comedians. Luckily we also got to see the studio execs played by Steven Weber and Amanda Peet get really drunk.

Plenty of Nate Corddry this time around as we got to see his character Tom Jeter take around his parents on a personal tour of the studio. They're good old middle-America folks, which in Sorkin's fantasy world means they've never heard of the Who's On First routine. Still, it was kind of a nice reveal that Tom's younger brother is off fighting in Afganistan while Tom is raking in money on the show, and Corddry actually proved that he was a solid actor here (i.e., he didn't spend the episode wandering around in a lobster costume like a few weeks ago).

And while Matthew Perry's Matt was off with Simon scoping out stand-up comedians in Simon's hopes that they'll actually hire an African-American on the writing staff, Timothy Busfield's Cal got some nice screen time as he dealt with a seemingly senile old man played by the always-excellent Eli Wallach. In the end he finally reveals he was a WWII veteran who became a comedy writer in the very same studio (tying nicely into some of the history Tom explained to his parents about) until his career was cut short almost before it began when he was blacklisted. All in all, some very solid writing and plenty of good moments.

Then, of course, they had to relate it all back to Matt and Harriet's non-romance with a few syrupy-yearning glances between the two. Ugh. Well, you can't have everything.

I've decided to take a closer look at each big category race, so I figured I'd start with what is normally the most interesting: Best Actor in a Leading Role. (The sad but true state of affairs is that there are always way more buzz-worthy Lead Actor roles than there are Lead Actress roles, at least in this stage of the game.) So here are some of the top contenders we've been looking at, and my two cents. In NO ORDER WHATSOEVER:

1. Jack Nicholson, The Departed

The idea is that Nicholson could get shoved into this race instead of Supporting Actor if the movie proves popular enough, and so far it's still going very strong at the box office. But I just have doubts about him, because (a) the first thing the Departed naysayers do is rag on Nicolson's scenery-chewing performance, and (b) the race is only going to get more crowded. My guess is that they'll shuttle him into the Supporting Actor race with time to spare, where he'll fare much better.

2. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Departed

The Academy has proven that they appreciate DiCaprio before after nominating him for The Aviator and What's Eating Gilbert Grape. As it stands now, with Departed doing so well, and he's the central character, so I think he has a strong shot. There's always a chance that his upcoming movie Blood Diamond will split his votes, but his faux-African accent in that film is likely to get most of the attention, not his performance.

3. Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland

He's a lock. We're almost into November, so it's late enough in the year that I feel comfortable saying that. A respected actor who hasn't gotten enough love in the past, this is going to be one of those instances they have every year, of a film not getting any nominations except Best Actor (think Michael Caine in The Quiet American).

4. Ryan Phillippe, Flags of our Fathers

Not happening. A lot of people are still considering this, but if you look at the history, it's not working. It's extraordinarily hard for actors in ensemble war movies to get nominations, and the one who has the biggest chance is Adam Beach for Supporting Actor. It's also extraordinarily hard to get a nomination when the director is much more famous than the star (think of Eric Bana's excellent but unnominated work in Munich.) Phillippe has gotten some nice notices for this, and the film will help his career in the future, so I wish him the best.

5. Jamie Foxx, Dreamgirls

This is the unreleased movie that has all the buzz right now, but it remains to be seen whether it will bring in the kind of Chicago-style acting nominations -- and even that movie left Richard Gere snubbed for Best Actor. He has a real shot, but it's way too early to know for sure.

6. Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson

A brilliantly acclaimed performance, but the film was so small, the critics really need to rally around it in their own Oscar urgings to earn Gosling a nomination. He's been an indie-It-boy for a while (The Believer, The Notebook) but he has yet to enter mainstream consciousness; a nomination just might do it, but he's got a rough road ahead of him.

7. Derek Luke, Catch a Fire

I can see this movie really bombing with audiences unless it starts getting a lot of buzz fast. Luke is a capable actor, but the movie actually needs to go somewhere for him to have a shot.

8. Matt Damon, The Departed

At this point in the game, most of the buzz seems to be focused around DiCaprio and Nicholson. Personally, I think Damon at least equals them both, but there's that darn personal bias again. If the film sweeps a lot of categories, it could pull Damon in as well, especially if Nicholson moves to Supporting.

9. Will Ferrell, Stranger Than Fiction

As soon as the movie opens, it will get solid reviews, and he will get solid reviews, but his chances will disappear. I guarantee you. It's just not that type of movie; its best shot is Screenplay, and even that will need a ridiculous amount of raves.

10. Nicholas Cage, World Trade Center

Yes, the 9/11 movies do have the X-factor of being 9/11 movies (i.e., no track record to look at). As for right now, the buzz has disappeared, but it wouldn't shock me if he sneaked in.

11. Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness

I think he has a better shot than a lot of people have been giving him credit for -- he can turn a simple romantic comedy like Hitch into a 175 million blockbuster, so people will be forced to give this a good hard look. Still, we don't know whether it's actually good yet or not, so we'll have to find out that part first.

12. George Clooney, The Good German, and 13. Matt Damon, The Good Shepherd

The two "Good" movies are both wait-and-sees. The third, A Good Year with Russell Crowe, doesn't have a chance. Maybe it should've been named The Good Year.

14. Peter O'Toole, Venus

He's been getting advance raves, so it looks like this might play out similar to Forest Whitaker: one big nomination for an otherwise ignored movie. But who knows? The Academy takes to movies like this sometimes, so it could be the sleeper contender for much more than O'Toole.

Other guys I don't think will cut it at this point but are still worth mentioning: Toby Jones for Infamous (terrible box office), Aaron Eckhart for Thank You For Smoking (appeared too early in the year), Patrick Wilson for Little Children (way less buzz than there should be), Richard Griffiths for The History Boys (wildcard), Guy Pearce for Factory Girl (movie is being ignored), Ed Harris for Copying Beethoven (bad reviews).

(These Oscar columns are published weekly from early Fall through the Oscar ceremony at the end of February.)

Now that the fall is in full swing and winter is just around the corner (especially for us New York folk), movies are slowly but surely getting better. Out this week is the Oscar-baiting Clint Eastwood movie Flags of our Fathers, and I've written a review of it here. It's flawed, but I still will not hesitate to say that you should see it, because there's a whole lot to appreciate (that is, if you've already seen The Departed, which remains my only A+ movie of the year). It's also about eighty times more gory than Black Hawk Down, just to warn you.

Eastwood is actually doing something a little innovative here: early next year he'll release another movie, Letters from Iwo Jima, that tells the same story from the Japanese point of view. Sounds cool, and the comparison should prove to be very interesting.

They're back!

Yes, I'm talking about our way-too-cool-to-miss-the-first-two-episodes characters known as John Locke, Mr. Eko, and Desmond, brotha. (Does he have a last name? I'm pretty sure they mentioned it in the Season 2 finale, but I forget, so somebody let me know.) Of course, as a penalty for giving them all so much screen time, we had to deal with a week away from our love-triangle-in-captivity known as Jack, Sawyer, and Kate (a triangle which Others seem to be trying to force Jack out of, perhaps so that Sawyer and Kate can get busy with it to give them another newborn baby to steal?)

Anyway, this episode belonged to Locke, although I must say (pun alert!) that its depiction of Desmond was the most "revealing". (Ho, ho. Okay, now I'm satisfied.) Seems that all three of the men stuck in the Hatch blacked out, but they ended up in very different circumstances: Locke found himself lying on the forest floor (in a nice homage to the series' opening shot of Jack) unhurt but suddenly mute; Desmond likewise on the forest floor, but instead of mute, stark naked; and Mr. Eko, caputred by a polar bear. Yeah, you read that right.

It was kind of a "what the...?" moment when we found out about Eko's plight, but then, the whole episode garnered that response, at least as soon as Locke and Charlie played charades and Boone showed up. And man, I miss that guy. He was a somewhat underutilized season one character, but he is missed (and kudos to Ian Somerhalder for being a good sport and returning). I also liked his little dig at Locke, referencing a line to Jack in the first season finale: "After all, John, I was the sacrifice the island demanded," he deadpans. Nice.

Allow me to be coherent for a moment for the people who haven't seen the episode: Locke, going back to his weirdo-meditation-man persona, builds a hut and drugs himself so that he may "talk to the island". The island manifests itself, I guess, in the form of Boone, who walks Locke in a dream through a metaphor-filled airport: a married Charlie and Claire, playing with Aaron; Desmond as a pilot; Jack, Sawyer, and Kate getting their baggage checked by Henry/Ben; and so on. (I also liked Boone's little hints about future story arcs: concerning Charlie and Claire, he says, "No, they'll be fine...for a while.") The acid trip ends with Boone revealing that Locke needed to save Eko.

So while Locke hunts for Eko and the polar bear, with Charlie in tow for comic relief, Hurley returns as well, and kindly lets Desmond borrow a massive tide-dyed shirt. When Hurley asks what to do about the captive Jack, Kate, and Sawyer, Desmond offhandedly responds that Locke will take care of it; he said so in his speech. What speech, Hurley reasonably asks, and Desmond looks confused before shrugging it off.

The kicker, of course, as I predicted (yeah, I'm awesome...no big deal), is that Locke does make a speech telling everyone he'll figure out a way to save the trio -- after Desmond makes his comment. This neat little moment redeemed an episode that could've been a bit hokey, and opens up the question: what happened to Desmond in between turning the fail-safe Hatch key and waking up naked in the woods? Lose some clothes here, gain some fortune-telling power there...

One final question, though: what's up with Paulo and Nikki? You know, those two new characters who pretended they had been on the show all along? I'm all for bringing extras into the forefront and mining the thirty-odd extra survivors for new characters; personally, I think they should give more lines to the other survivors in general (R.I.P., Arzt). But don't you think their introduction was a little bit...awkward? Sure, reason says that our main characters have interacted with these people before, and the series just didn't show it, but to have Nikki say things like "We need Jack!" and "When were you going to tell us this, Hurley?" seemed completely out of the blue. You're not fooling anyone; while Jack and Hurley were having fun in the hatch, you were on crappy cancelled shows like Related. How about being introduced in a more inconspicuous way, maybe like coming up to Locke and saying, "Hey, I know I've never talked to you, but do you mind if I help you on your rescue mission?"

I really hope there's a point next week where Hurley stops everyone and goes, "Hey wait...who the heck are you?"

Till then...

So we're well on our way into the CW's newly-streamlined Veronica Mars, and so far the changes this season are becoming vastly more apparent. Clearly, an effort has been made to "simplify" the show, and we're seeing more stand-alone storylines. Case-in-point: this episode's romantic subplot concerning Veronica and Logan. Veronica finds herself being more suspicious, Logan finds himself being more distant, they have a fight, and it's resolved by the end of the episode. What is this, One Tree Hill? If this had happened last season, we would've gotten a few choice lines of dialogue, and it wouldn't have been resolved for at least another few episodes, at which point we'd have found out Logan had probably killed someone. Or something.

Yes, this season is decidedly lacking in any murderous storylines, which I always thought gave the show it's edge. Instead, we're being treated to a serial-rapist storyline, which is intriguing, but has two problems. First, the brutality of it is at odds with the kindler, gentler feel of the show. Second, it's not personal. The first season her best friend was murdered. The second season, a whole busload of classmates were murdered, including the girl pregnant with Veronica's boyfriend's baby. It sounds uber-melodramatic on the page, but the mysteries were handled so well it became masterful storytelling.

It also gave the show something of a lose-lose proposition for its third season: the labyrinthine storylines were what made the show great, but they also made it one of the lowest-rated shows on television. Now that they're trying to appeal to a larger audience, the show has lost some of that gravitas.

Still, I'm far from giving up on this season, because I trust the writers enough to allow them more than three episodes to warm me up to the new college folk Veronica is running into. Plus, this episode brought us the return of Weevil, a great character who had been conspicuously absent, and his new janitorial job at the college is a clever way to keep him invovled in the series. I'm also looking forward to the planned arc of having three separate overaching mysteries, each taking roughly eight episodes. Make the one after the serial-rape mystery more personal and more insidious, and I'm there.

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is really three shows. Seriously. The first - and best - is a tongue-in-cheek drama following the backstage politics of a late-night sketch comedy series. There's the loyal team of Matt Albie and Danny Tripp running the thing, there's the cast members and the sweet little P.A., there's the pressures for ratings, quality, etc.

The second show, which is promising but is increasingly becoming disconnected from the first, is the story of a young woman (Amanda Peet's Jordan McDeere) who finds herself in charge of a major television network. In a constant struggle for quality over ratings-driven debauchery, she hears show pitches, fights with the chairman, and copes with a scandal in her now-very-public personal life.

The third show is a terrible love story with an unlikable female lead that serves as a microphone through which Aaron Sorkin can bash the Religious Right under the guise of giving it a fair shot.

The first two shows are everything I like about Aaron Sorkin. The third is the one thing I hate: the constant desire to force-feed us his very specific opinions about everything under the guise of Teaching Us All A Very Interesting Message. (Don't worry, I will contain this rant to one paragraph.) At first, I was interested, maybe even pleased that he gave voice to the masses of rational-minded Christians through the character of Harriet Hayes. Now it's clear that the only reason he had for doing so is to bash evangelicals as if they need more bashing. Aside from the constant pejorative remarks about the bible-thumping Pat-Robertson-watching red-stater cliche that we're led to believe number in the millions, the character of Harriet is portrayed as a stuck-up talent with a superiority complex the size of Mount Rushmore. The kicker is, Sorkin doesn't even realize he's doing this, because he still insists on making her "star-crossed" love with Matt the central romantic angle of the show.

But I digress...

In terms of the actual episode, since that's technically what I sat down to write about, we deal a lot more with the mysterious reporter (Christine Lahti) who was introduced last episode. Now she's got total access backstage, and throughout the episode she goes about slowly psychologically breaking everybody into talking about what they're not supposed to. Unfortunately, all of the taboo topics she's getting into invariably deal with the Matt/Harriet romance, but still, it's entertaining (if a mite predictable...and these people are in show business, shouldn't they know better than to talk to her?)

It was also nice to see the guest host (Gilmore Girls's Lauren Graham) and musical guest (Sting) actually appear on the show, especially since they could be considered bonafide celebrities (yeah, I'm referring to Rob Reiner's appearance in the third episode. You're just not famous anymore, dude.) There was also a great line from Matt to Lauren Graham in the teaser for next week: "Here's my number. Could you also give it to the woman who plays your daughter?"

And, finally, the whole running-the-network Amanda Peet subplot. I actually liked it a lot. Jordan does, it seems, have a sound long-term plan in eventually raising the quality of the NBS network as a whole, but it's ludicrous to assume that someone in real life would make that gamble when you're constantly on the edge of being fired anyway. Turning down a cheap reality show you know would bring the network easy ratings in favor of a drama about United Nations politics? It's pure idealistic fantasy - pure Aaron Sorkin.

So we're into October, the Toronto Film Festival is over and done with, and it's about time I weigh in on this year's Oscar season. Where to start? It's shaping up to be a solid year, but as always, there's a lot of ifs, ands, and buts on every movie out there. Nothing's a sure thing, and in the words of William Goldman (and which is also the mantra of Oscarwatch.com), "nobody knows anything".

But I can try.

So, for my first column, in the interest of getting everybody up to date and on the same page, here's a rough list of every single movie being widely considered for major Oscar contention (i.e. more than just one random nomination). Yeah -- I know it's ambitious. That's why I'm the best. Now, when I say "every single movie", what I really mean is "every single movie at the moment". Expect surprises to pop up in future weeks. And I didn't include stuff that's already turned out to be a stinker (I'm talking to you, All the King's Men.) For now, though, here's what I like to call "The List".



Babel

Pros: Amores Perros director Alejandro González Iñárritu got Benicio Del Toro and Naomi Watts Oscar nominations that last time he directed, with 21 Grams. Now he's got Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, and Gael Garcia Bernal in an examination of inter-cultural language barriers and the tragedy and violence that can result. That might sound a little highbrow written down, but audiences at Cannes loved it; they handed Iñárritu the Best Director award, and it was nominated for the Golden Palm.

Cons: Iñárritu is only known in pretentious-film-world circles; 21 Grams was ridiculously confusing, and the trailer for this one doesn't seem to suggest he's gotten much more coherent; Pitt will no doubt help the box office, but what kind of a mass-audience reception will this get?

Blood Diamond

Pros: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Connelly, and Djimon Honsou. All Oscar-nominated actors, and the South African themes shout "culturally important". Also from Ed Zwick, who directed The Last Samurai.

Cons: Did I mention that DiCaprio sports an African accent in this one, too? (He got 20 million, so he's the one laughing his way to the bank.) Also, the plot sounds a little too standard-thriller-ish - a hunt for a priceless diamond - for serious Oscar consideration.



Bobby

Pros: A ridiculously huge cast, a period piece set in the '60s, a political plot about a much-beloved figure.

Cons: Props to Emilio Estevez for writing/directing this, but where has he even been since D3: The Mighty Ducks? It's also gotten some rather brutal reviews, with an Entertainment Weekly reviewer calling it a "gooey, overscored, treacle-streaked religiosity for depressed democrats". Ew, indeed.

Breaking and Entering

Pros: Directed by Anthony Minghella (The English Patient, Cold Mountain). Starring Jude Law, Juliette Binoche, Robin Wright-Penn, and The Departed's Vera Farmiga. Need I continue?

Cons: Some good buzz for Binoche, but Toronto Film Festival audiences didn't rave enough for it to break out of the gate. The buzz on this one is, as of right now, very quiet, but surely not for long...

Catch a Fire

Pros: A political (read: Oscar-baiting) thriller about South Africa in the1980's starring Oscar winner Tim Robbins (and a supposed breakout performance from Derek Luke). The director of The Quiet American and Rabbit-Proof Fence.

Cons: I thought Antwone Fisher was supposed to be Derek Luke's breakout performance. Since then he's taken supporting parts in Friday Night Lights and Glory Road. Director Phillip Noyce has made well-received films, but none of them have translated into heavy Oscar nominations.

Children of Men

Pros: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, and Chiwetel Ejiofor in a cool-sounding story about a future world that's about to end because all women have become infertile (from Y Tu Mama Tambien director Alfonso Cuaron).

Cons: Cool-sounding stories don't necessarily translate into Oscar success (as much as I want this one to). Popcorn flick or inhabitant of critics' top-ten lists? We'll have to wait until it's released to know for sure.

Copying Beethoven

Pros: Ed Harris plays the one, the only Ludwig van Beethoven. What else do you need?

Cons: Not a great reception at Toronto. Gary Oldman played Beethoven in Immortal Beloved, which, to my knowledge, got nominated for absolutely nothing.

The Departed

Pros: It's not just the living legend of a director. Or the massively Oscar-baiting cast. Or the brilliant script, rave reviews and great box office. There's also the little fact that it's an amazingly good movie.

Cons: I just brought my own opinion into it, and that's a no-no: the movie you want to win is rarely the movie that wins. Also, many are saying that the crime-thriller nature of the movie might be too popcorny for the big prizes.

The Devil Wears Prada

Pros: It was the surprise hit of the summer; it got mostly good reviews; it's headlined by Ms. Been-Nominated-Eighteen-Million-Times.

Cons: It's a fluff movie. Meryl Streep has a very decent shot, but any chances it has ends there.



Dreamgirls

Pros: Of Oscar hopefuls, this one's in the top tier. It's a musical, based on a stage show, written and directed by Chicago screenwriter Bill Condon (who also wrote/directed and Gods and Monsters and Kinsey). It stars Jamie Foxx, Beyonce Knowles, and Eddie Murphy, that last of whom is getting a lot of buzz for a supporting actor nomination. Extended previews of it shown at festivals have gotten raves. And as far as movie musicals go for Oscar hopes, this one looks a lot more like Chicago than Rent.

Cons: Despite the presence of Foxx and Murphy, what kind of mass male appeal does this have? Box office could kill it, and the fact that no one's yet seen the entire thing may mean people are jumping the gun.

Flags of our Fathers

Pros: Clint Eastwood, Clint Eastwood, Clint Eastwood. He's Oscar's golden boy, and he's directing this World War II movie about the men on the Pacific front who raised the flag in the famous photo. Solid box office potential, some well-regarded young stars (Ryan Phillippe, Adam Beach, Jesse Bradford), and a buzzworthy innovation -- a few months later Eastwood will release another film that tells the same story from the Japanese point of view -- point to a major Oscar contender.

Cons: No big stars means box office potential is a big question mark. Mostly, though, this will survive or fail on its reviews. Early reviews have been good, but there have been a few grousers, notably David Poland and Roger Friedman.

For Your Consideration

Pros: Another mockumentary comedy from Christopher Guest, this one about -- whaddaya know -- a weird indie movie gaining Oscar buzz.

Cons: Guest's movies (A Mighty Wind, Best in Show, Waiting for Guffman) usually never gain notice for anything except a potential screenplay nomination. Still, the subject matter definitely means this one will be mentioned quite a bit.

The Fountain

Pros: Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream) directed this time-spanning love story starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Weisz is fresh off her Oscar for The Constant Gardener, and Aronofsky directed Ellen Burstyn to a nomination in Requiem.

Cons: The bizarro-sci-fi storyline will probably turn Oscar off. It looks visually stunning, so look for some technical nominations, but as I write this, it's score on Rotten Tomatoes in 50%, with 5 positive reviews and 5 negative reviews listed. It looks like this will be something that professional critics will ignore but a loyal audience will turn into a cult flick.

Fur

Pros: Stars well-regarded folk like Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey, Jr. and is directed by Steven Shainberg, who made the critically-acclaimed (but otherwise ignored) Secretary. It's about photographer Diane Arbus, and biopics are always Oscar bait, even though this one is largely fictional.

Cons: There's barely any buzz surrounding this, so it's critical reception will help. For now, though, we'll have to wait and see.

The Good German

Pros: It's got a sweet poster, it's a period piece, and the people involved -- Steven Soderbergh, George Clooney, Cate Blanchett, and Tobey Maguire -- make it automatically worthy of Oscar contention.

Cons: Actually, none. We'll have to wait for the reviews to see whether it amounts to the sum of its parts.



The Good Shepherd

Pros: The second of three "Good" movies this season, this one's about the creation of the CIA and boasts Robert De Niro as the director. The cast of Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie doesn't hurt, either.

Cons: From the trailer, it looks like Jolie is stuck with a lame "complaining wife" role. The last movie De Niro directed was A Bronx Tale, which didn't turn any Academy eyebrows.

A Good Year

Pros: Russell Crowe, Albert Finney, Freddie Highmore, and director Ridley Scott.

Cons: It's a fluff piece that acts as a transparent way for Crowe to try to improve his image. The Academy loves Crowe, but I doubt they'll be fooled.

Goya's Ghosts

Pros: It's directed by Amadeus's Milos Forman, and it's another period piece, this one about painter Francisco Goya. It's gotten a high-pedigree cast featuring Stellan Skarsgård and Natalie Portman.

Cons: Mmm...Natalie Portman. What? Oh. It's a small film that's having trouble getting distribution, and I can't find any early reviews, so we'll have to take a Wait & See approach.



Half Nelson

Pros: Critics raved about this portrait of a drug-addict high school teacher in the inner city (Ryan Gosling) who develops a friendship with a student, played by newcomer Shareeka Epps.

Cons: It has the curse of being a small indie movie: people might forget. If a few critics rally around it near the end of the year, though, it could have decent shots for Gosling, Epps, and the screenplay.

The History Boys

Pros: The British movie version of the play that recently won the Tony for Best Play.

Cons: No stars, little buzz, from the director of Center Stage and The Object of My Affection.

Hollywoodland

Pros: Some above-average reviews and raves for Ben Affleck's performance of the late George Reeves.

Cons: Abysmal box office returns have pretty much buried it...for everything except Affleck's chances. He's actually gotten a lot of recognition, including the Best Actor award at the Venice Film Festival. A comeback, indeed.

The Last King of Scotland

Pros: Forest Whitaker has gotten rave reviews for his portrayal of Idi Amin, the genocidal dictator of Uganda in the 1970s, and looks like a lock for Best Actor.

Cons: Box office will be questionable; prospects for awards outside of Actor seem shaky.

Little Children

Pros: Todd Field, director of In the Bedroom, brings us another ordinary-people drama starring Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy, Angels in America), Jennifer Connelly, and Kate Winslet. So far reviews have been excellent.

Cons: In the Bedroom was successful because it was the critical hit of the year. Now Field is a known quantity and the marketplace is crowded between now and December.

Little Miss Sunshine

Pros: Already the Little Independent Movie That Could. Box office is above fifty million. A huge crowd-pleaser.

Cons: It's a comedy. Nothing more than a screenplay nomination seems likely.

Marie Antoinette

Pros: Sofia Coppola scored big with Lost in Translation. And she gets points this time for a period piece.

Cons: The movie got booed at Cannes (whether or not it was only the French booing, it's still not exactly good press). The trailers look emo-tastic. The movie doesn't even include the beheading.

Margaret

Pros: A reportedly great script from Kenneth Lonergan, who wrote and directed You Can Count On Me, which introduced us to Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo. With Ruffalo, Anna Paquin, Matthew Broderick, and Matt Damon in the cast, it has an usually high pedigree for an independent drama.

Cons: Another too-soon-to-tell. Critics will make or break it.

Miss Potter

Pros: An Oscar-friendly biopic, this one of author Beatrix Potter. Stars Renee Zellweger in the title role, with Ewan McGregor and Emily Watson among the supporters.

Cons: Another Renee-Zellweger-pretending-to-be-a-British-woman movie?



The Nativity Story

Pros: Stars Keisha Castle-Hughes, the young teenager who was nominated for Best Actress for Whale Rider, as none other than Mary, mother of Jesus. Thirteen director Catherine Hardwicke and Oscar nominee Shohreh Aghdashloo (House of Sand and Fog) add to the pedigree.

Cons: Hollywood wasn't exactly supportive of that last big Christian movie, the little indie known as The Passion of the Christ.

Notes on a Scandal

Pros: Frankly, I'm sick of looking things up. From what I recall we're looking at another Judi Dench nomination.

Cons: Since when have movies that have gotten Judi Dench nominated gotten nominated for anything else?

The Notorious Betty Page

Pros: Another biopic...this one of pin-up girl Betty Page. Gretchen Mol is said to give a great title performance.

Cons: It's already out on DVD after barely making a dime. Reviews were good for Mol but not always for the film as a whole.

The Prestige

Pros: It's got director Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins), Scarlett Johannson, Michael Caine, and a period-piece setting. Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale star as dueling magicians.

Cons: Unless the reviews are really good, this will probably play out like a popcorn flick (and Nolan and Bale's fun diversion before returning to Batman with The Dark Knight.

The Pursuit of Happyness

Pros: It's a drama based on true events with a central performance from Will Smith as a poor father looking for a little dignity.

Cons: It looks like its prospects are limited to Smith's performance, although its conceivable critics could take to the little-guy-overcoming-the-odds story. But what's with the distracting title?

The Queen

Pros: This one's recently released and is riding high on a truckload of buzz, mostly thanks to Helen Mirren's performance. It's also a nice change of pace from the historical dramas: this one is about Queen Elizabeth II, and chronicles the events after the death of Princess Di.

Cons: That buzz it's riding on needs to last through the year if it wants to be nominated for anything besides Mirren's performance.

Running with Scissors

Pros: Star-studded and based on a beloved book. Annette Bening is gaining some good buzz for her performance.

Cons: Might be deemed too "quirky" for the Oscars. Plus, it remings me a bit of The Chumscrubber and Thumbsucker, both of which came and went like the wind.

United 93

Pros: Got almost universally rave reviews. Also topical, to say the least.

Cons: Audiences preferred to shy away from it, and it made less than 35 million. Still, it's got the X-factor of being a 9/11 film, so who knows.

Venus

Pros: Peter O'Toole is said to be wonderful.

Cons: I haven't heard a single thing about it except for the above statement.



Volver

Pros: The newest film from prolific Spanish director Pedro Almodovar, who we should never count out: his movie Talk to Her wasn't expected to get nominated for anything, and walked away with a win for Original Screenplay. This one got a great response at Cannes and stars Penelope Cruz.

Cons: Almodovar's last movie, Bad Education, didn't get the same love from the Academy that Talk to Her did. Penelope Cruz has a massively hit-or-miss career.

World Trade Center

Pros: Did twice the box office of United 93, with almost equally impressive reviews.

Cons: The Academy has been kind to Oliver Stone in the past, so will they take to this new patriotic non-conspiracy-theorist user-friendly version of him? And there's the 9/11 movie X-factor, which could help or hurt it.

Anybody still reading? If you are, you're in luck. I'm done. That's The List. Until next time...

(These Oscar columns are published weekly from early Fall through the Oscar ceremony at the end of February.)

My review of the new Truman Capote movie Infamous has just been posted at TheCinemaSource. Yeah, it's the second Capote movie in two years, but this one is plenty strong enough to warrant a viewing. Toby Jones in the lead and Daniel Craig as murderer Perry Smith are excellent. Read the review to find out more...

After watching pretty much every rerun of Lost on DVD through September to catch up my friends and roommates, it's been a bit of an adjustment to go back to the 40-minutes-a-week, lots-of-commercials schedule. You know, normal TV.

Still, I'm happy to say that the show hasn't "lost" its touch at all (sweet pun), but rather has proven to be an excellent season so far. (True, we're only two episodes in.) I liked the season premiere but have to say this episode was a bit better, if only because we got to see more of the characters: Sayid! Sun! Jin!

And while normally I find the charming Korean couple's flashbacks a bit pointless, we did get a rousing good story out of it: turns out Sun did sleep with the dashing young man who taught her English. While she was married. And that means it's possible that her baby is his.

Sun has gotten more and more unlikable, which I think has been successfully controlled by the writers, and this was the last straw for me (I believe I may have shouted "SLUT!" at the screen.) Remember the touching scene late last season in which Sun promised Jin to his face that she's never been with another man?

Dead to me.

In other news, Sawyer and Kate are given a whole lot of busy work to do, shoveling rocks or something. Luckily for us, Sawyer (and, therefore, the camera) can't help but stare at the lovely-looking Kate('s butt), still wearing the sundress from last episode. Sawyer gets so hot and bothered, in fact, that he kisses her, knowing full well his taskmasters in charge will literally shock the crap out of him.

And finally, there's Jack, his spirit temporarily broken (courtesy of Juliet), sitting in the corner of his cell, refusing to speak. The image brought back very clear memories of the Henry Gale days, and I guess old Ben/Henry thought so too, as he came in to chat about the role-reversal. (Can you believe in Lost-time he was only a prisoner a week ago?) We also got a handful of good tidbits about the Others in general from Ben, including (a) his last name, which I've promptly forgotten, (b) he's lived on the island his whole life, and (c) they have contact with the outside world! It was kind of a throwback, really, learning that in Lost we're actually still back in late November of 2004, right after George W. Bush was re-elected and Christopher Reeve died. And, of course, the Red Sox bit, which was priceless. The just-plain-coolness of that whole scene brought a smile to my face.

So what do you guys think? Why was with Alex Rousseau wondering where Karl went? Why do people who leave the island only "go in circles", as Juliet mentioned, and how was Michael able to surpass that (if he did)? And what the heck happened to Desmond, Eko, and Locke? Feel free to post comments. Until next week...

So Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was on last night, a show I have been both addicted to and frustrated by. Having not watched much of West Wing, I'm new to the whole witty-quick-speak of Aaron Sorkin, and in general it's very appealing. Matthew Perry's really stepped up to make a great lead, he has great chemistry with co-star Bradley Whitford, and the stories are consistently entertaining. (I'm a bit of an SNL freak, through its good and bad, so watching the backstage drama is like looking at an idealized version of a future dream job.)

Unfortunately, now in its fourth episode, the show's flaws have been consistent, too. A lot of critics have griped about the decided lack of comedy in all the actual sketch comedy they show on the show, which doesn't really bother me so much. I wasn't expecting to see any more than the first and last 20 seconds of each show-within-a-show each episode, and I actually find it kind of admirable Sorkin's trying to showcase actual glimpses of the sketches. (At least now we know sketch-writing isn't his strong suit.)

No, the bigger problem: Harriet Hayes. The character just plain doesn't work. She's supposed to be the main romantic lead, the secret obsession of Matthew Perry, and she's an annoying bore. The "twist" is that she's a born-again Christian, and hey, kudos to network television for realizing that Christians exist (even though they still haven't quite figured out that most of us aren't evangelicals). But contrary to actually humanizing her, Sorkin (with plenty of help from the actress Sarah Paulson), makes her a standoffish brat with a massive air of superiority and a so-so Juliette Lewis impression. (It's also not too hard to link the dots that while Sorkin was the showrunner of West Wing, he briefly dated and broke up with the also blonde, also talented, and also very Christian actress Kristin Chenoweth.)

Still, the only reason these flaws stand out so much is that the rest of the show is so good. Watch it yourself and make up your own mind.

Hey, I've set up all of the Archives sections so they should be fully operational. Let me know about any dead links (or any other problems).

Just a quick note here before I get back to the schoolwork I've been telling myself all afternoon I'd do: The Departed is a fantastic film. I saw it last night and wet myself a couple times. It's hilariously funny, shockingly interesting, and ridiculously well-acted. Every part in the movie is an actor's dream and they all rise to the occasion. Scorsese's back to doing what he does best, but he's helped in no small part thanks to a dynamite script by William Monahan (which was based on the Hong Kong flick Infernal Affairs). Great soundtrack, too -- Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, and super-pumped-up Irish music.

GO SEE THIS MOVIE.

Hey kids, my review of the Dane Cook vehicle Employee of the Month has been posted at TheCinemaSource. Here's the direct link. The one-word verdict: mediocre.

By the way, unless you've kept up with my AIM profile, I've failed to mention my last few reviews. There's the John Cameron Mitchell-directed Shortbus, featuring massive amounts of nudity and sex; The Guardian, an ode to the Coast Guard with Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner; and Season 2 of the excellently dry The Office. And once again, very soon I'll have a linked list of everything I've written, both for TheCinemaSource or for here, in the Main Archives.

Hey everyone. In the interest of simplicity, versatility, and good content, I've (slightly) revised the site for Senior Year. You'll notice it looks suspiciously like a blog...and that's because it is. However, I've (a) kept all of the site's old content (in that top "Archives" section, which should be up and running shortly), and (b) tried to keep the feel of my old site as much as possible (notice the familiar fonts and title banner). Whenever I add anything to this site, it'll show up as a regular post, and then later I'll add it to its respective archive. I'll also post whenever anything new of mine shows up at TheCinemaSource.

Hope my loyal three readers like it (as well as any new visitors who've somehow managed to get here). For now, I'll leave you with the immortal words of Michael Dawson: "THEY TOOK MAH SON!"