"So, ladies and gentlemen, if I say I'm an oil man, you got to agree."

Some will argue that There Will Be Blood should have taken home more Oscars; how it was not only a better film than No Country for Old Men, but a more relevant one -- what with its themes of religion and greed. But it's probably best not to think about such things. We're lucky to have received two of this century's greatest films in one year, and each will be remembered for decades to come. With There Will Be Blood, the brilliant Paul Thomas Anderson has given us his American epic, set in California at the turn of the 20th century. Daniel Day-Lewis (who deserves every inch of that Best Actor Oscar) plays a hungry oil prospector who'll stop at nothing (and sacrifice almost everything) to build an empire of his own. He'll soon find out that, while he most certainly has enemies, the greatest evil is not buried deep below the ground -- it's, instead, deep within him.

Not many people care to admit it, but Hollywood is run by fear. Fear is an emotion generated by things that are not known or understood, and in the movie business, no one ever knows what's going to happen. (William Goldman was right when he said, "Nobody Knows Anything.") All those accountants, producers, publicists, entertainment TV shows, ad campaigns, etc. are all an attempt to get a handle on the unknown, an attempt to control the uncontrollable. Anything can happen. The world's biggest movie star can jump up and down on a couch and suddenly become a weirdo outcast. Or the star of a dismal turkey like Showgirls can turn around and find herself cast in a Woody Allen film. This fear, in essence, is why so many movies are so bad. The more investors and business people try to control their investment, the more they clamp down on it, and the more it gets smothered.

See, movies can live and breathe like an organic life form, but they have to have a chance. If brave producers step back and let the movie come to life in the hands of a genuine artist, they could wind up with something extraordinary like Joel and Ethan Coen's No Country for Old Men (229 screens), a film that somehow pleased critics both highbrow and middlebrow, won a handful of Oscars and has nearly grossed $75 million. This film has already entered the cultural canon as a classic of cinema. More or less the same can be said of Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood (224 screens), which, having lost the Oscar for Best Picture, is now in a position of being an underrated underdog. But those are exceptions to the rule. No one is immune to the fear: a few years back the Coen Brothers teamed up with sleazy producer Brian Grazer, of all people, and came up with their first dud, Intolerable Cruelty.

Just caught There Will Be Blood on DVD last weekend, and though it's after the fact, I'm pretty convinced now that it should have won Best Picture. I haven't yet explored the DVD (which comes out on April 8), but I definitely encourage you to pick this flick up and watch it again, or watch it for the first time. In my opinion, one of the best films in the past 10 years. Without a doubt. But anyway, came across this very cool Paul Thomas Anderson tribute video today and thought we'd share it with you. It's six minutes long, and covers only five films (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood), but it's cut brilliantly and worth a watch if you, like me, are a die hard PTA fanboy. Whoever cut this must have gotten their hands on a copy of the There Will Be Blood DVD (no, not me -- this would've taken me five years to cut together), so in case you want to go into that film fresh, you may want to skip this.

Additionally, this dude also made videos for Quentin Tarantino and The Coen Brothers, among others. Check them all out if you have some time to kill.

Are films political? Do they fall into left-wing and right-wing camps? I would imagine that not all films have an agenda. Some films can be considered "great uniters," in that they bring together agreeing audiences from all over, films like the $200 million hits I Am Legend (264 screens) and National Treasure: Book of Secrets (177 screens) or a critical favorite like There Will Be Blood (339 screens) that has pleased nearly everyone who has seen it. Of course, There Will Be Blood is about a snaky, sinister, blustery oil baron willing to sacrifice his family, country and humanity for the allure of black gold, which may or may not have a little something to do with current events. (Not to mention that director Paul Thomas Anderson dropped the word "Oil" from the title of the source novel and replaced it with the word "Blood.")

In recent years it has been determined that film critics are a liberal bunch, educated, well-read men and women of letters, who can see and comprehend the human condition in films from different cultures all over the world. Or, they're sometimes known as pompous, ponderous, pretentious, conceited, snooty know-it-alls, lacking in good old-fashioned horse sense. "Why can't you just enjoy the movie," is a question very often asked of critics. Rambo (201 screens) is a fascinating case. It's impressively violent, but very grim and not much fun. Rambo debuted and reigned during the Reagan era (Rambo: First Blood Part II grossed three times the amount of the new film, even with 1985 ticket prices). Bringing him back in a decidedly different political atmosphere didn't seem to work, though the film was screened for the press and earned a few good reviews. It's now starting a downslide, and it's still shy of breaking even on its $50 million budget.

How about this wild-eyed and enthusiastic photo of pretty much the most intelligent film critic in America? Unfortunately, Jonathan Rosenbaum has served notice that he's leaving his staff position at the Chicago Reader after 20 years, in favor of more occasional appearances in print and on the Internet, and the chance to write about other matters besides movies. It's a good time to retire; cinema, once the bravest of the popular arts, is now too often just a part of the entertainment bandwidth, sampling itself relentlessly, following trends like it used to set them.

The 65-year-old critic has been a long-time champion of foreign film, particularly when they're handled poorly by distributors, shelved or re-cut (as Miramax did so many times during the 1990s). His book Movie Wars is essential reading about how studios lead the critics and mislead the public; as he puts it in his 2007 top ten list, the problem is that "each film is supposed to be important when it comes out and is then forgotten soon afterwards." The books Placing Movies and Movies as Politics are two excellent introductions to Rosenbaum's well-informed polemics.

He is, perhaps, at his best when doing a minority report; his essay on Eyes Wide Shut, reprinted in Philip Lopate's collection American Movie Critics, needs to be read by anyone who feels Kubrick's last film is a neglected masterpiece. Rosenbaum dared to fight a lot of the accepted wisdom of his day, such as the suggestion that Woody Allen was better than Jerry Lewis or that Clint Eastwood's Bird is a masterpiece. An exit interview is visible on YouTube, with Rosenbaum describing his plans for the future, elevating the reputation of Ishtar and cutting There Will Be Blood down to size. It's the critic in me that makes me say that this two-part YouTube video goes on for a couple of minutes too long. ...

The double-role has been a favorite for movie audiences for a long time. Actors as different as Lon Chaney and Ronald Colman have indulged in the two-actors-for-the-price-of-one roles. In The Dark Knight, Aaron Eckhart will get to do a two-fer, playing a character who didn't get nearly enough to do in that Joel Schumacher fiasco. (Though I did very much enjoy the bifurcated Tommy Lee Jones' use of the pluralis majestatis, the royal "we.") Few double-roles, however, are as roundly a good time as Brian De Palma's Raising Cain, a reviled but rich melodrama derived in equal parts from Psycho and the equally scandalous Peeping Tom. Preposterous, invigoratingly silly, and done to a technical turn by Hitchcock's most devoted fan, this forgotten thriller gives John Lithgow -- kindly actor and easy-going TV star of Third Rock from the Sun --a chance to show his hulking, evil side.

I

After spending 2006 having the crap scared out of him by Daniel Day Lewis, Paul Dano could probably stand to work on something just a little more light-hearted. The Hollywood Reporter announced that Dano has signed to star in the independent romantic comedy, Gigantic. Dano will star alongside Zooey Deschanel, and plays a mattress salesman who falls in love with a young woman at the store where he works. I can only assume that Deschanel, fresh off of M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening, will play that young woman.

So far, no other cast has been named other than Frank Harts (Miracle at St. Anna). The relatively tiny cast leads me to believe that the film is going to be a pretty small affair. Although now that Dano still has some of that post-Oscar buzz surrounding him (despite being snubbed for a nomination), it could raise the profile of the film ever so slightly.

Gigantic will be directed by first-timer Matt Aselton, who also helped to write the script alongside Adam Nagata (also making his feature debut). Production is set to begin this March in New York, but a date has yet to be confirmed. After Dano finishes up work on Gigantic, he's off to work on another indie film, The Good Heart. Heart will reunite Dano with Brian Cox (the two worked together on L.I.E. back in 2001) in a story about an older man who befriends a young homeless man and makes him is protégé. Well, so much for Dano making more happy-go-lucky flicks. Gigantic is expected to be released later this year.

I have such a huge Oscars hangover this morning. Did anyone theme it for the night? I cooked some mean-ass burgers in honor of Juno, then attempted to make a few milkshakes (in honor of There Will be Blood) before realizing I had no ice cream. Anyone get nutty and make Ratatouille? Anyway, when it comes to the day after the Oscars, talk usually surrounds the big surprises. What were the shockers? Personally, I totally thought Transformers would walk away with at least one Oscar for special effects or sound, and Marion Cotillard winning best actress came somewhat as a surprise. I mean, a French actress winning best actress for a foreign language film that practically NO ONE saw?

And Tilda Swinton? Really? Do cracked-out single mothers not mean anything to the Academy voters? Amy Ryan definitely should've won in that category. Other surprises -- who the hell let Gary Busey onto the red carpet? Did you see him lick Jennifer Garner's neck? Poor girl. Unfortunately, her husband was f**king Jimmy Kimmel at the time and couldn't be there to rescue her. But anyway, last night's biggest upset? In your opinion, who was it? (And is it okay to say that my new crush is Marion Cotillard. Holy crap did she look fantastic!)

Analyzing the weekend box office returns, Leonard Klady of Movie City News saw "no great Oscar box office surge," though No Country for Old Men enjoyed an upward swing; based on his estimates, Best Foreign-Language Film Oscar winner The Counterfeiters (Sony Pictures Classics) topped the indie charts. Hailing from Austria, The Counterfeiters tells "one of the most interesting stories to come out of World War II," wrote Christopher Campbell, though he felt it was "not quite a great film." The Counterfeiters averaged $12,330 per-screen at the seven locations where it played.

French master Jacques Rivette's latest, The Duchess of Langeais (IFC Films) struck Ryan Stewart as similar to La Vie en Rose "in that it works just well enough to support a dynamic performance but contains too many structural oddities, fights too many directorial idiosyncracies and stifles its own momentum too much to succeed on the whole." Rivette's fans came out at both theaters where it opened, averaging $11,250 per screen, according to Box Office Mojo.

Well, the Oscars are a wrap. You can see all the winners right over here.
Cinematical staff did pretty well with our predictions, and so did our readers. You guys picked the winners for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Adapated Screenplay -- the same categories we got right. We missed Best Doc and both actress categories. Not bad overall.

What do you think about this year's Oscars? Did you think Jon Stewart did a good job with the hosting? Aside from the part where he kind of disappeared for the last hour, but I guess they usually do that towards the end when everyone wants to wrap it up already and get to the parties. What were the big surprises of the night? Any huge disappointments? (Go ahead, anti Diablo Cody contingent. You can say it.)

Oh, and who looked awesome, and who didn't? I thought Marion Cotillard, Helen Mirren, Jennifer Garner and Anne Hathaway had the best looks of the night among the ladies. On the guy's side, Johnny Depp and George Clooney both looked hot, and so did Denzel Washington. And Glen Hansard ... yeah, he was adorable too. I'm just saying.

Time for your thoughts on Hollywood's big night -- discuss away!

If you still haven't seen all the Oscar-nominated films, you're not alone. I still haven't seen a number of them, and I have less excuse than most people. After all, I live in a city in which pretty much every nominee has played. Some major contenders I haven't gotten around to -- with little reason for not -- include Atonement, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street and Into the Wild, all of which are still in theaters and are probably best to see on the big screen.

Apparently, at least according to Variety, a lot of people are seeing the Oscar nominees on the big screen compared to in previous (recent) years, as cumulatively the five Best Picture contenders have seen a significant bump at the box office since the nominations were announced. I would be extremely excited if I didn't believe the truth is that Juno's tremendous success has elevated the Best Picture box office average. The comedy is showing on far more screens, is much more accessible to a wide audience and has so far earned twice as much money domestically as the next highest-grossing Best Picture nominee. Variety also this week had published a story about how Juno is the one movie that may save the Oscar telecast's ratings, since it's the one movie people have actually been able to or bothered to see. One thing I will note, though, is that Best Picture nominee Michael Clayton came out on DVD this past Tuesday and yet there was still a significant number of people seeing it in theaters through the week. Additionally, I would be interested to know how many people took advantage of yesterday's AMC Theatres-hosted Best Picture marathon.

I didn't get a Juno hamburger phone or one of those yummy There Will be Blood milkshakes that were being delivered around LA recently (I don't live in LA, so it would've gotten all melty by the time it got to my house anyhow, so I'm not bitter ... ), and I don't get a lot of pig masks or movie-related thongs, but every now and again a studio sends something cool enough to write about, and today is one of those days.

DHL just dropped off a package a bit ago. Usually when they show up at my door, it's with a screener of an indie flick, or a DVD I'm reviewing. This time, however, the package felt ... oddly lumpy. I opened it up, and there inside was an Official Indiana Jones Bullwhip, accompanying the official trailer for the film. I managed to snag a few pics before my pack of kids ran off to play with it (after stern admonishment that they are NOT to use it to hit each other ... or the dog ... or their parents).

What really struck me, though, was that when I said, "Oh, cool, it's an Indiana Jones bullwhip!" they collectively looked at me and said, "Who?" So I called my dad and told him, and he was much more satisfyingly excited about it than they were. It made me realize that we've been terribly regress in our kids' movie education -- how could they live with me and NOT know who Indiana Jones is? It's even worse that when we realized we'd never showed them Ghostbusters! We're going to have to remedy that.

Now all I need is an official Rose McGowan machine-gun leg from Grindhouse, and I'll be all set ...

Forget about the nuances of cinematography, the precision requirements of editing, the challenges of costume design, and the dazzle of visual effects. All we really want from a movie is a great quote! I'm kidding, of course -- we want more than quotes -- but every screenwriter dreams that one of his lines will join the immortals ("Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn," "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown"). What are the best candidates from this year's crop of Best Picture nominees?

There Will Be Blood surely must have the edge so far. Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) explains the facts of life to Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) and utters the memorable rejoinder: "I... drink... your... milkshake!" The quote has already taken on a life of its own.

Juno has so many it's hard to choose. Paulie (Michael Cera) says, "I still have your underwear" and Juno (Ellen Page) replies, "I still have your virginity." I also like Juno's dad (J.K. Simmons): "Thanks for having me and my irresponsible child over to your house. "

Michael Clayton is epitomized by George Clooney's line as the titular attorney: "I'm not the guy you kill. I'm the guy you buy!"

Atonement caught my attention when young Briony (Saoirse Ronan) confides in a friend: "What's the worst word you can possibly imagine?"

No Country for Old Men is more about atmosphere and landscape than dialogue, but it's hard to resist: "You can't stop what's coming," spoken by a weather-beaten yet wise Barry Corbin.

Now it's your turn. What are your favorite quotes from this year's Academy Award nominees for Best Picture?

Over at MTV-land, Josh Horowitz has a rather clever short up in which he inserts himself into the nominees for the Best Picture Oscar. Horowitz gets verbally abused by Keira Knightley, finds out he got Juno pregnant, uses his hamburger phone to call Javier Bardem's serial killer to take care of his "little problem," has a chat by the fire with Daniel Plainview, and gets yelled at by George Clooney. The editing isn't seamless, but it looks quite good, and Horowitz, when he's not being annoying, can be funny.

It's pretty darn amusing (or at least, it was to me, but I've only had one cup of coffee this morning, so it's possible I'm just not awake yet), and just the kind of thing Jon Stewart might do for the Oscars. I wonder if Stewart had something similar planned, saw this online and said, "Damn that Horowitz! He stole our idea!"

What do you think about the video? Funny, or not?
[Hat tip: Hollywood Elsewhere]

When I first moved to New York City, I was shocked to find out there are no bargain matinees at movie theaters in Manhattan. For a young man starting college and having neither income nor allowance this was a horrible turn of events. Back in Connecticut, I was working at a multiplex and seeing movies for free. Now, not only did I have to pay for them, I had to always pay full price. And considering full price was even higher than back home, I needed to find work.

Eventually I got a job at an art house theater downtown. Soon, I realized one of the reasons the city might not have discounts in the daytime. People went to the movies in the late morning and the afternoon! A lot of people, in fact. I somewhat remember being told the main reason for the lack of bargain matinees is the higher rents and/or taxes in Manhattan, but I figured the substantial amount of daily moviegoers could have also been a factor. While it seems fine economically to offer a price cut in the suburbs, where fewer people are able to attend those matinee shows, it makes sense economically to charge full price in the city that doesn't sleep, where a good percentage of the population doesn't operate on a 9 to 5 work schedule.