March Madness

Tomorrow, March Madness officially tips off with the start of the opening round games. Like many, I've been neurotically obsessing over my bracket ever since selection sunday.

My first impressions:

1. I don't like the upset bids this year -- As I look at the bracket, I certainly don't see much upset potential in the first round. There are a few popular upsets that many are predicting.

- (11)San Diego State over (6)Tennessee: Although San Diego is riding high after winning a competitive Mountain West, I don't like their chances in this game. They don't possess any athletic advantage over Tennessee, and in truth their shooting is just as inconsistent as Tennessee's. As long as Tennessee doesn't look past them, I like the Vols to advance.

- (11)UTEP over (5) Butler: This is probably the surest upset of the tournament. Although I
like Butler's team play and experience, UTEP's inside-outside athleticism and defense should win the day. This is one of the few upset picks I actually feel confident about.

- (13)Murray State over (4)Vanderbilt: In my opinion, you can never discount a team as hot as Murray State. A 30 win team, Murray State is athletic and aggressive on the defensive front, but I don't like their matchup. Vanderbilt is a team uniquely built for tournament success. They have size on the inside, an experienced point guard, and hot perimeter scoring. If Vandy can advance past Murray State, then I like them to make a sweet sixteen and maybe challenge Syracuse for a spot in the elite eight.

- (11) Minnesota over (6)Xavier: Minnesota is tough defensively and is generally a good shooting team, but I don't like picking a team coming off a desperation high. Prior to their big ten tournament run Minnesota was squarely off the bubble and was in a win to get in situation. Now they're in, but can they translate their big ten tourney intensity to the NCAA. I think the best thing they have going for them is Tubby Smith, who knows how to get maximum production from his team. But I like Xavier's overall team chemistry and consistency. They have size and shooting and I like them to win and go to the sweet sixteen in an upset over Pitt.

- (10)Florida over (7)BYU: In my opinion, many analysts (except Joe Lunardi) are seriously underrating BYU's potential in this year's tournament. Yes, they haven't advanced past the first round in years, but this is their best team in years and I expect Jimmer Fredette to explode on to the national scene as one of the MVPs in the tournament. I think BYU is good enough to upset Kansas State in the second round. Also, I like Florida is one of the weakest teams in the tournament. They have some athletes on the team, but they're so inconsistent, both offensively and defensively.

- (12)Cornell over (5)Temple: Thanks to Jay Billas' incessant stumping for Cornell, they've become a popular pick to not only upset Temple in the first round but also maybe make a run to the final four. Although I think Cornell is possibly the 12 seed best equipped to do that, I don't like their opening round matchup. Temple is smothering defensively and I think just a better team. Temple had no problem containing Villanova's talented shooting guards, and I think they will do the same to Cornell's. Temple is the possible sleeper to reach the elite eight if they can't get past Wisconsin in the next round.

- (11) Washington over (6)Marquette: You have to give Washington credit for buckling down and winning their conference tournament, but I just don't think they pose any significant matchup problems to Marquette. Certainly, Washington has a legitimate star in Quincy Poindexter and Marquette will need to find a way to contain him, but Marquette is an active defensive unit, and Washington's run-and-gun guard attack is nothing they haven't seen before.

- (12)Utah State over (5)Texas A&M: I think Utah is one of the best lower seeded teams in the tournament and if they had been matched up against Butler or Michigan State I probably would have picked them to advance, maybe to the Sweet Sixteen, but ultimately I like Texas A&M in this game. They're a scrappy defensive unit that's been prepared by their difficult Big 12 conference schedule. If Texas A&M does survive this opening round, I think it's very possible they could pull off a shocker against Duke in the sweet sixteen.

- (13)Siena over (4)Purdue: Before Robbie Hummel's injury I liked Purdue to compete for the
championship, but his absence has caused considerable chemistry problems for the boilermakers. They squeaked by their remaining conference schedule before being embarrassed by Minnesota in the big ten tournament. Siena on the other hand is coming into this game relatively rested and with their athleticism and tournament experience I like them to pull off the upset.

- (11)Old Dominion over (6)Notre Dame: These two teams are in reality much closer than their seeding. Before going on a ridiculous big east run, Notre Dame was barely in the tournament. After Luke Harangody's injury they are seemingly playing better, but their lineup and team strategy is still in flux, and I like a prepared, tight-knit Old Dominion team to beat them.

As you can see I'm only predicting three upsets in the first round (four if you count Missouri over Clemson). History indicates there will be more, but I think this may be a year where the majority of the upsets come in the later rounds.

2. Despite their difficult path to the final four, Kansas will still make it -- Put simply, Kansas is
the deepest, most experienced, most balanced, and most well-coached of the major seeds. In a lot of ways, they remind me of the 2006-2007 Florida team. Their commitment to defense, their paralyzingly consistent offense, and their overall team dynamic is just that impressive.

3. What team seeded 3 or lower can make a run to the finals? -- When you're talking about surprise final four teams, anything lower than a two seed usually qualifies.

- (4)Wisconsin: They didn't acquit themselves well in the big ten conference tournament but I think they have the pieces in place to make it to the final four. This is an extremely disciplined team that doesn't make mistakes or turn the ball over. That combined with their hard-nosed defense and great shooting could be the winning formula. In the very least, I like Wisconsin to give Kentucky a run for their money in the sweet sixteen.

- (4)Vanderbilt: The Commodores are a very talented team. They have size in the interior and effective perimeter shooting, which could be the blue print for beating Syracuse's 2-3 zone. After that, who knows?

- (3)Baylor: They have great size, athleticism, and good shooters. I think they're going to give any team they play major matchup problems, especially Villanova. It also doesn't hurt that they have arguably the easiest bracket to go through.

- (7)BYU: This is a dark, darkhorse pick, but I really like the Cougars this year. If they can get past Kansas State, then the rest of the bracket sets up pretty well. They could possibly play Pitt, or a team that upsets Pitt like Xavier or Minnesota. Either way, I'd like BYU to advance. Then, the best team they'd have to play is Syracuse, who may be dealing with lineup problems.

I'd also like the University of New Mexico's chances but they have too many elite teams to get through in a stacked East region.

4. What high-seeded team are poised for an upset?

- (2)Kansas State: KSU is a great team-athletic and with great shooting by Cliemente and Pullen, but I think they're going to face a drastically underseeded BYU in the second round that may be prime for an upset.

- (1)Duke: Although they've been blessed by a notoriously unbalanced region, I just don't love the Blue Devils this year. This may be their best team in years, but do they really have the skill to make it to the fina four? I don't think so. I don't buy into the athleticism of their big men or the clutch shooting of their main scorers. They're possibly the best coached team in the tournament, but I like them to get bounced out in the Sweet Sixteen or Elite Eight.

- (3)Pitt: The Panthers were an overachieving bunch this year, but they're still young and offensively inconsistent. I like them to be upset in the second round.

- (3)Georgetown: They have a lot of potential, but I don't buy that a team that didn't make the tournament last year is suddenly going to make a sustained run. They certainly have talent but because of their big east tournament run, everyone is forgetting about their flaws.

Post Academy Awards Analysis

And onto the next awards season.

I watched the Academy Awards last night, and while I always felt that the magnitude of the event was compelling, it was far from a perfect presentation. For one, the decision to have dual hosts in Steven Martin and Alec Baldwin did not bear the fruit we all hoped it would. There performance together seemed lacking in relevant content and disastrously ill-planned (where was Alec Baldwin's occasional British accent coming from). Also, how did two people as brilliantly funny as Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin settle on that opening monologue (I know there are two of them, but I'm calling it a monologue). There were actually some incredibly funny moments in there--Steve Martin's two favorite things: rugby and tension between blacks and whites; Meryl Streep's Hitler memorabilia; the wonderfully timed moments with George Clooney. But couldn't the comedy writers at the Academy Awards come up with anything more intelligently structured than, "Hey, it's (fill in with name of any celebrity).

In an attempt to broaden its popularity, the Academy made a few changes this year. For one, the nominated songs were not performed. Many were upset with this, but I still contend that this is the correct move. Sure, every now and then the musical performances contain something truly surprising and memorable (Falling Slowly, anyone?), but for every Falling Slowly there are ten overly bubbly songs from musicals or animated films that just drag the night down. Also, the showrunners were clearly making an effort to appeal to a younger, more genre-centric demographic, hence the Twilight Presenters and the oddly conceived tribute to horror films, which included such classics from the genre as Edward Scissorhands. I respect the Academy's attempt to showcase their appreciation for film history, but these montages are rarely as interesting they need to be warrant the time they take. Finally, did anyone really think the modern dance sequence set to the best score nominees was a good idea? The dancers looked like characters out of Step Up 2: The Streets, only they were performing to the cringingly out-of-place music from Up, The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Sherlock Holmes, and the Fantastic Mr. Fox.

A final note on the ceremony: Can we please dispense with the peer tutorials before the Best Actor and Actress awards. Tim Robbins did his best to liven them up, but other than him they were largely bloated, decorous statements lacking any real insight.

Now, let's talk about the Awards. Firstly, I'm very happy that Avatar had as poor of a night as it did, although I still think it shouldn't have won Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, or Best Visual Effects. Yeah, I said it. But the awards generally went according to script. The one significant upset came in the Best Adapted Screenplay category, in which Precious surprisingly beat the favored Up in the Air. I was VERY PLEASED with this result. With all due respect to Up in the Air, it simply didnt have the emotional complexity or strengh of craft that Precious did. After this award, I thought Precious might have a chance to win big in other categories, like Best Actress, but obviously that didn't happen. I also want to say that I found Mo'Nique's acceptance to be very poignant, and I wonder if her words were also meant to indict Academy Awards voters for completely disregarding the soul-bearing intensity of Gabby Sidibe in Precious in favor of Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock's coyer performances.

By the way, what was Christoph Waltz talking about in his acceptance speech? Quentin Tarantino was to his left and they wanted to discover a new continent, but they decided to move to their right and found anothe continent?

The Spirit Awards

Well, that settles it. Whatever chance Precious had of winning Best Picture at the Academy Awards has officially been erased. Last night at the Spirit Awards, Precious won five prizes, including Best Feature and Best Director, and at any other major awards show that might be a good thing. But the Independent Spirit Awards NEVER successfully predicts the best picture winner at the Oscars. Remember Brokeback Mountain and Little Miss Sunshine? Brokeback was considered the overwhelming favorite to win Best Picture and Little Miss Sunshine came into the Oscars riding a wave of momentum from SAG and Producer's Guild wins. Both films eventually won Best Feature at the Independent Spirit Awards and boths promptly lost out Crash and The Departed respectively at the Academy Awards.

Now, obviously I'm not saying that Spirit Awards has a direct impact on Academy voters preferences. I'm just saying that 100 percent of the time the Spirit Awards and the Oscars disagree on best picture. I'm not too upset about this, but Precious was my favorite of the ten nominated films at the Academy Awards. By the way, what happened to the love for Precious? Presumeably, the best picture race has boiled down to Hurt Locker vs. Avatar--although some would have you believe that Inglourious Basterds could win as well. Aren't there any Academy voters loyal to Precious?

Oscar Preview and Predictions, part 2

Best Supporting Actor


Who will win?
This might be the most statistically assured category of the night: Christoph Waltz will win for Inglourious Basterds. His closest competition is Woody Harrelson, who gives his best performance in years in The Messenger, but even he is not that close.


Who should win?
There's a reason Waltz has won everything in sight: as the delightfully menacing Han Landa, he's simply been the most outstanding supporting actor of the year (and this comes from someone whose been especially vocal about his dislike of Inglourious Basterds). On a seperate note, though, I would have liked to have seen Brad Pitt's equally immersive turn as Aldo Raine nominated. And why not one of the great comedic actors from In the Loop?


Best Supporting Actress


What will win?
Like Christoph Waltz, Mo'Nique looks to have this category sown up. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be sufficient support for any of the other nominees to even a mount credible push to the top.


Who should win?
The reason no other nominee has been able to make a competant case for themselves is because they're just not as good as Mo'Nique in Precious, in which she manages to be both reviling and surprisingly vulnerable.


Best Actor


Who will win?
Although there still seems to be some goodwill for Colin Firth in A Single Man, he won't win this award, and for one reason: Jeff Bridges is nominated. Not only is Bridges' role as a fading country singer highly acclaimed, but there is consensus that it his time to win.


Who should win?
I haven't seen Crazy Heart, but I understand Jeff Bridges is brilliant in it. So, instead of who will win, I'll make this who should have been nominated. The first that comes to mind is A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg who is wonderful as the Job-like Larry Gopnik.


Best Actress


Who will win?
Conventional wisdom would have you believe that awards season cinderella Sandra Bullock will win come Sunday for her sassy, southern turn in The Blind Slide. After all, she has won the Golden Globe and the SAG awards. But there are rumblings of Blind Side backlash that I predict will topple Bullock in the late stretch in favor of Meryl Streep in Julie and Julia.

Who should win?
Although I haven't seen either Bullock or Streeps' performances, I have to say I find them both grating in the previews. What I don't understand is why Gabby Sidibe in Precious has been completely ignored in this discussion. In my view, she delivered the rawest and most blisteringly human performance of the year.


Best Director


Who will win?
James Cameron brings an impressive technical pedigree to this award and is favored by many to win, but I think at the end of the day Kathryn Bigelow walks away with the prize for her visceral visual command of The Hurt Locker. The Academy just seems ready to give the award to a female director for the first time, and James Cameron has already won once.


Who should win?
Kathryn Bigelow does a terrific job of crafting a narrative that is both vividly stylized and realistic, but of the five nominated my choice for best director would actually be Lee Daniels, who is just as sensational in his direction of Precious.


Best Picture

What will win?
Avatar or The Hurt Locker? This queston has become more complicated with the recent news that a Hurt Locker producer sent an email to Academy voters criticizing Avatar and essentially stumping for votes. Prior to this I would have predicted The Hurt Locker winning the award. Did this email signal that The Hurt Locker's support is waning. Did the email turn off potential voters? Considering the Academy's new weighted voting system, I'm still predicting The Hurt Locker to win.


What should win?
The Hurt Locker is an electrifying war film; District 9 and A Serious Man are both brilliantly original; Avatar is a film with big, ploddingly simplistic ideas and many flaws. But the film that should win is Precious, which may be the most moving film of the year.

Oscar Preview and Predictions, part 1

As you probably know, the Academy Awards are being held this Sunday, and naturally I've been hard at work coming up with my predictions. I'll go over the main categories and what I think will win.

Best Score

What will win?
In my opinion, Michael Giacchino's charming, disney-throwback score for Up clearly has the inside track in this category, not only because the film has won for this category at the Golden Globes, but als because Giacchino produced an acclaimed score for Star Trek as well. This is his year.

What should win?
Although I do appreciate the saccharine tone of Giacchino's work in Up, I happen to think that the best score in this category is Alexandre Desplat's in The Fantastic Mr. Fox. It's sparkling, whimsical, and at times deeply moving.

Best Cinematography

What will win?
This is a slightly difficult category to predict. If voters are judging purely by the actual aesthetic and photographic virtues of the film, than the evocative black-and-white The White Ribbon could win. However, if they're placing a high priority on technical innovation than Avatar wins in a landslide. My personal belief, Avatar wins (although if the voting results were ever revealed, I bet The White Ribbon would be a close second).

What should win?
I've been a fan of the visual world David Yates has created with the latest Harry Potter films, and sure enough The The Half-Blood Price was beautifully filmed. However, my favorite film in this category is actually Inglourious Basterds, photographed with impeccable richness by Robert Richardson.

Best Film Editing

What will win?
The race is clearly between Avatar and The Hurt Locker. The Academy usually loves tensely edited films like the The Hurt Locker, but they also seem to love showering James Camerons' record-breaking box office successes with every technical oscar imaginabe. Although I sincerely hope Avatar doesn't win because I think it was poorly edited, in the end it will, since the Academy rarely honors well-structured, nuanced editing over fast-paced, epic action.

What should win?
Although I thought The Hurt Locker was exceptionally well-done, I think the best edited films in this category were Precious and District 9, and of the two I think District 9 should win. It's mix of documentary and thrilling sci-fi drama was brilliant.

Best Adapted Screenplay

What will win?
The awards season Gods seemed to have annointed Up in the Air as the heir apparent in this category. And why not? It's a wry and incisive character-driven drama, and the Academy loves to honor those films for their screenplays.

What should win?
I'm not nearly as enamored of Up in the Air as others. I found George Clooney's performance to be merely adequate and the film's overall message to be trite. I don't know why other more adventurous and poignant films are constantly being igored, like Precious and the In the Loop. I would be greatly surprised if either of these two won the award, which is a shame. In the Loop is one of the most interesting comedies in recent memory and Precious presents a level of human grittiness that is truly exceptional.

Best Original Screenplay

What will win?
There are three films in this category that could potentially walk away the award. The first, and decidedly least likely, is the Coen Bros. grimly offbeat A Serious Man. At the start of the awards season, this film won every major critics prize for best original screenplay, but recently it's momentum, slim as it was, has stymied. However, you can't count out the Coen brothers. The favorites are certainly The Hurt Locker, a upstart as of late, and Inglourious Basterds. If you had asked me a few weeks ago which would win, I would say Inglourious Basterds in a heartbeat; however, The Hurt Locker's recent wins at the Writers Guild and BAFTA awards prove how close this race has become (although in fairness, Inglourious Basterds wasn't nominated at the WGA). Although The Hurt Locker has narrowed the gap, I still think Inglourious Basterds will win. It has a great deal of goodwill in the Academy and it has another advantage as well: It was written by Quentin Tarantino. With his uniquely, dialogue heavy work, this is the category he's supposed to win for.

What should win?
A Serious Man is everything a winner in this category should be: unique, layered, finely detailed, and resonant.