As Jack Handey put it, "It takes a big man to laugh at himself, but it takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man." Crimewave is about that big kind of man, and his partner: two electrocutioners on a rampage. They prowl the streets in a truck with a hog-sized stuffed rat on top, with red light bulb eyes. The driver is Faron Crush, who looks like Paul Sorvino playing the Incredible Hulk. HIs sniggering partner Arthur (Brion "I'll tell you about my mother" James) wears a jumpsuit, fingerless leather gloves, and a flat leather cap the shape and color of a cow-chip. If you ever had a nightmare about Gallagher, that's what Arthur looks like. The two maniacs carry with them "a shocker," a killing-machine that has three settings: "Rat," "Man" and "Hero". And they have no motivation beside malice and sheer professionalism.

The Golden Globes and the Oscars may be in trouble due to telecasts, strikes, and all of that turmoil, but the other award presentations are trucking on as planned. Variety reports that the Visual Effects Society has picked their nominees for their 6th awards ceremony. Thinking back on the year...who would you pick? The Academy, they picked a pretty solid 13-film shortlist that they have to somehow whittle down into 3 picks -- a list that includes the likes of Rataouille, Beowulf, and Spider-Man 3. This society is pretty in-line with that.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End unsurprisingly leads the pack with six nominations, and they're closely followed by Transformers and I Am Legend -- both of which follow with 5 nominations each. You just can't refuse a screen full of Johnny Depps. Continuing on, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, on the other hand, has to hold court with Spider-Man 3 with three nods each -- and according to Variety, both of them have fallen off the Academy list. Of course, as with the Oscars, animated films are also present with Ratatouille neck and neck in nominations with Surf's Up (both have 4 each).

Who will come away with the big, special prizes? I imagine the leading three will probably have a pretty successful sweep when the awards are held on February 10 in Hollywood. In the meantime, you can check out the full list of nominees for film after the jump.

Tonight when I look across the river at the Empire State Building, it's lights will be yellow. No, it won't represent the U.S. Open (which usually gets "tennis ball yellow") or support for the troops (ala yellow ribbons). The yellow color will be in honor of The Simpsons Movie on DVD from Fox Home Entertainment. In the thirty years that the ESB has featured colored lights, this is the first time the colors have been a movie tie-in. And it's odd, because The Simpsons Movie doesn't really have anything to do with New York City. Nonetheless, Fox and its yellow-skinned family have taken over the city in a marketing blitz titled the "Simpson-izing of Manhattan." In addition to the ESB lights, there will be a Simpsons on Ice show at Bryant Park, yellow-jacketed street teams (handing out fliers for the DVD, I'm sure) and giant inflatable Homers. Unfortunately, there will be no specially designated street vendors selling Khlav Kalash and Crab Juice.

The event in general follows the city-wide stunts and activities planned in the past for Mission:Impossible III and Spider-Man 3, and hopefully won't be too annoying for actual New Yorkers, who should be able to ignore anything relating to movie-making or marketing in Manhattan these days. The only thing I hope for the sake of people working in Midtown is that those yellow-jacketed street teams aren't as aggressively obnoxious as the Spider-Man 3 flier guys (as if walking through Herald Square this time of year isn't trying enough). I also hope that the ESB doesn't make it a regular thing to lease out its lights to Hollywood -- unless the tied-in movie was at least shot in or has something to do with the Big Apple (for the lighting calendar go here).

There's a continuing debate about whether or not computer-animated films should be eligible for visual effects awards. But despite the fine line seen by some, others are quick to point out that many effects artists have the same function on Surf's Up as they do on Spider-Man. To them, it should come as quite a triumph that the Oscar shortlist for the visual effects category includes two animated films, Ratatouille and Beowulf. According to the Hollywood Reporter, they join 13 other effects-heavy movies, including definite front-runners Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and Spider-Man 3. The trade points out, however, that this is not the first time animated films have joined the effects race. Back in 1994, The Nightmare Before Christmas was one of the three nominees (against Cliffhanger and obvious winner Jurassic Park).

The animated effect issue is different now, though, then it was 14 years ago. Animated films now have their own Oscar category, and it's fair to say that is the place to recognize Ratatouille and Beowulf (actually Beowulf shouldn't be recognized at all). Typically movies nominated in the visual effects category are popular blockbusters that wouldn't otherwise receive notice from the Academy. Until there's an Oscar for best sci-fi/fantasy or action movie, this is one of the best ways for a little movie like Transformers to be put in the spotlight. Sure, I'm being sarcastic, but nonetheless I like the category being the place for those movies actually seen by the majority of Oscar telecast viewers.

In what seems like a repeat of last year, the 2008 Annie Award nominations include a Pixar movie and a movie about penguins. The top contenders for the 2007 Annies, which recognize the best in animation, were Cars and Happy Feet. The former ended up winning the big award, Best Animated Feature. However, a couple weeks later it was Happy Feet that won the corresponding Oscar, so the Annies can not be looked at to predict the Academy's decision. In 2008, though, the two awards should actually match. The only real contender for both the Annie and the Oscar is Pixar's Ratatouille. There isn't much chance of this year's penguin movie, Surf's Up, winning either award. If there's any minor competition for Pixar, it's from Persepolis. The other two nominees for the Best Animated Feature Annie are Bee Movie and The Simpsons Movie.

Ratatouille was the leader in nominations at 13, while Surf's Up received the second highest amount with 10. In addition to the top award, the two films are competing in the categories for writing (also competing: Simpsons and Persepolis), storyboarding (also competing: TMNT; Meet the Robinsons; Bee Movie), production design (also competing: Beowulf), directing (also competing: Shrek the Third; Simpsons; Persepolis), character design (no other competitors), character animation (no other competitors, but Surf's Up received two mentions here) and animated effects (also competing: Spider-Man 3; Disney short How to Hook Up Your Home Theater; Ratatouille received two mentions here). One category that Bee Movie seriously missed is voice acting, which features three nominations for Ratatouille -- for Janeane Garofalo, Ian Holm and Patton Oswalt.

One thing that is interesting about the Annies is how the awards can be distributed to many different movies. Last year, Over the Hedge won the directing, storyboarding and character design categories, Flushed Away won in writing, voice acting, animated effects, character animation and production design categories and Happy Feet took away no awards. Then again, the year before, Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit picked up ten trophies and then went on to pick up the Academy Award. So, the 2008 Annies could go any number of ways.

Every Friday morning, when I'm surfing the new movie reviews and I flip over to Ebert's site, I'm always a little surprised to see a new review for some movie that came out back when he was sidelined by cancer. Atop each of these retro reviews -- which I think I own the copyright on -- he affixes the following simple tag: "Doubling back to pick up some titles I missed while ill." This past Friday, he panned Spider-Man 3, giving it a weak two-star review. He cites his displeasure with the film's lack of a compelling villain and goes into detail about his problems with the symbiote, which he didn't enjoy at all. He also doesn't like Mary Jane anymore.

Children of Men and the Dixie Chicks documentary Shut up and Sing have both been retro-awarded high marks -- I agree with the latter verdict. The Fountain, a movie that was on my top ten list of that year, is mildly panned although what's most interesting about the review is that Ebert spends much of it musing on the concept of a retro review in itself. "Although as a doctoral candidate in English I was advised to be familiar with the existing criticism on a work before venturing to write my own, as a film critic I am usually writing before other reviews have even been published," he writes.

The Lives of Others and Zodiac get four stars -- Ebert's been a little too generous with the four star rating since his return, by the way -- while Grindhouse is panned for being "an attempt to recreate a double feature that never existed for an audience that no longer exists." I haven't pinned down the exact dates that Ebert was absent, so I have no idea how long his retro-reviewing will go on, but it's fun to read.

Spider-Man 3
The many flaws of Spider-Man 3 have been well-documented: The elevated cheese factor, the overabundance of baddies, that absurd 10-minute stretch of song, dance and unsightliness where it suddenly feels like we're watching some strange mash-up of Willard vs. The Mask... But it's not like this is a bad movie. Underwhelming compared to its pair of astonishing predecessors? Sure, but still entertaining enough for a Sunday afternoon slouchfest. Yes, a movie that costs $250 million (or more?) should make our eyes pop and our remaining senses tingle (and possibly even leave us a craving a cigarette and a shower afterward), and Spidey 3 has moments of such bliss. Its single biggest flaw is that when it needs to get really dark, it gets really hokey -- perhaps catering to a younger audience, but losing a whole lot of credibility in the process.

Talk to Me
About a month back we ran a feature speculating (guestimating, too) over early Oscar contenders, and a few of our readers astutely inquired, "Where the f*** is Don Cheadle?" Our bad. Cheadle does indeed deserve to be part of the discussion in the Best Actor race, as crowded a field as it looks this year. Shoot, even Cate Blanchett wants in. Cheadle begins chewing the scenery faster than you can say Chiwetel Ejiofor as Civil Rights-era radio talk show host Ralph "Petey" Greene in this honest and engaging portrayal. Also thoroughly impressive -- and who I wish would also get mentioned in awards chatter -- is Taraji P. Henson. The Hustle & Flow breakout has a vibrancy about her to match Cheadle at every turn, AND she's got a killer Afro to boot. Though unexpectedly conventional at times, the film is a rare treat for folks who appreciate thoughtful yet feel-good, socially relevant entertainment.

With Spider-Man 3 arriving on DVD today, it's fitting that we should receive a major announcement regarding Spider-Man 4. Entertainment Weekly reports that James Vanderbilt (who penned the very awesome Zodiac) has been hired to write the script for Spidey 4, and Sony plans to swing the fourquel into theaters in 2009 (most likely early summer). Whether or not Vanderbilt will be the only writer to take on the project is not known; I wouldn't be surprised if this thing passes through the hands of at least two more writers before it moves ahead. Personally, I don't see the impending writer's strike lasting too long (if it happens at all), and so Vanderbilt should start plugging away almost immediately ... if he hasn't already done so. Most likely he pitched his idea to Sony with a full outline, and so I can't see it taking that long to punch out a draft or two.

What we don't know at this moment is whether Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and Sam Raimi will return to the franchise. Raimi has already stated that he wants to be involved in some capacity (most likely as producer), and after taking a critical lashing following Spider-Man 3, it'll be interesting to see if Raimi decides to direct one more. Of course, it probably depends on Maguire and Dunst to a certain degree, but if you ask me, I'd like to see them start from scratch with a new cast and director. Feel free to continue the storyline, but this franchise could use some new blood. There's a writer. There's a potential release year. What say you?

[Thanks Steve]

It's been awhile since we all got together and complained about Spider-Man 3, and although the topic is a tad old, I came across an animated video today that's worth a watch. It's from the same peeps who put out all those How It Should've Ended videos; I'm not sure if you've watched any of their stuff, but some of it's pretty damn funny. Their latest takes a look at Spider-Man 3, and offers up suggestions on how it should've ended. But it's not just the ending; they actually go through most of the film, in brief snippets, and give their take on how certain scenes would've played better. Keep in mind it's supposed to be comedic in tone -- so when Spidey drops down to find a little kid who's pissed off about all the narration, don't take it seriously. (Although a scene like that in the actual film would've rocked.)

Apart from the Spidey 3 video, they also tackle films like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Superman ("Villain's are stupid"), Lord of the Rings, The Matrix Revolutions, Star Wars Episode IV, The Blair Witch Project (one of the funnier ones) and a fake trailer for Ocean's 40, featuring cartoon images of the 40 actors they'd need for the film. If you're looking to waste some time on Friday afternoon, might I suggest heading over to their YouTube page -- there's plenty of content to check out, and a good majority of it will have you LOL'ing all day long. For those interested, I've included the Spider-Man 3 video up top.

A conversation arose in the screening room the other day about the sorry state of young, romantic performers in movies today and the overwhelming blandness slathered across our movie screens. Pretty, plastic, chiseled faces smile at one another and sometimes kiss, and their efforts leave everyone cold. Critics and audiences often use the word "chemistry" to describe these encounters; either the characters have it or they don't. Strangely, there's really no way to tell if it's even there until the movie is finished. You can put two actors in a room together, or screen test them, but none of it comes together until the audience becomes a factor.

One reason most movie couples have been so bland lately is the ever-increasing control that studios are demanding of their product. Every aspect of filmmaking must be regulated and stabilized, and so, to make the most of their romantic stories, these same studio people very simply cast the most beautiful actors they can find. Beautiful people sometimes explode on the movie screen with lots of personality and star power, but just as often, they don't, looking more like polished statues without so much as a heartbeat. James Dean was very handsome, but he had a surprising element, a kind of unpredictability, as well as world-heavy sadness. But James Franco, who played Dean in a TV biopic, has only the looks. As shown in his most recent film, Spider-Man 3 (151 screens), where there should be passion and danger and excitement, there's only grooming. At times I honestly can't tell the difference between him and Paul Walker.