I started writing this review in Chinese before translating it into English, that's how my bi-lingual review came to be.

看改编自真人真事的名人传记片有一个附带缺点，那就是你已经知道故事的发展，以及结局是喜是悲，男女主角有否白头偕老等等。打个比喻，你看《林肯传》免不了要承受主角最终必被暗杀身亡的结局，在你观赏着电影时，你无时无刻就心惊胆跳地等待着那残酷的时刻降临，犹如等待受刑一般。

稍微认识我的朋友都知道我是一个颇为扫兴的电影迷，人家看电影都爱保持神秘感不爱预先知道结局，而我偏偏却爱预先知道故事细节。我会先上维基百科细读电影情节发展，未看电影已知结局。对我而言，这样一来反而减少了因为未知而产生的压迫感，让我更能放松享受电影带来的整体娱乐。本来，这部《万物之理》的维基百科是没有故事情节发展的，只有短短一两句交代这是一个关于斯蒂芬霍金与珍霍金的爱情故事，但偏偏我却阅读了霍金的延伸简介，因此已知道两人最终以离婚收场，童话故事并没有圆满结局。

或许你会问，为何我要花两大段告诉你这一些呢？因为《万物之理》一开场，很明显看得出男女主角演得好有默契，而且两人都郎才女貌，一举手一投足都好有戏味。这样一来就让我有一些困扰，因为我已经知道两人最终会以分手收场，因此他们越爱得浓烈越会让随之而来的结局更为伤感。故事每推进一步，我便忐忑斟酌这场戏是否是分手导火线呢，两人是否因为这情节而渐行渐远呢，会否有大吵一场呢。。。这应该是我在观赏这部拍得真不错的电影时比较大煞风景的一件琐事，只想在这里分享一下，基本上不会影响我对电影本身的评价。

毫无疑问，这部电影是拍来拿奖的。每一年都有许许多多这类影片的出现，我们都已习以为常。只不过有时候野心与成果未必成正比，你想拍一部史诗巨作有时候成了空有大场面毫无精神之作，你想拍部传记片结果为了戏剧效果加入太多虚构成分被人批了一身，终以失败收场。《万物之理》拍得比较平实，一个简单的故事平铺直叙没有太大起伏没有太多转折，让人看得也比较舒服。偶尔几场平淡的感情戏，反而让我感动了。

要谈《万物之理》的精彩，非要从男主角埃迪-雷德梅尼开始讲起。打从电影在影展开映，雷德梅尼便被人锁定在来临的奥斯卡五强人选之一，甚至有人已看好他势将夺冠。除了因为角色本身集合了模仿真人外加身理缺陷，完全开了得奖条件那扇门，也因为雷德梅尼本身确实也演得万分精彩，连霍金先生都说演得像自己，可见雷德梅尼是下了不少功夫。雷德梅尼的每一个走路姿势，每一个脸部表情，每一次嘴角微动，每一次艰辛的说话，坐在电动轮椅上时如何把头歪向右边等等，都会让你相信他就是霍金。如果两年前丹尼尔-戴-路易斯可以凭着模仿林肯出线，今年我绝对赞成把奖项颁给霍金上身的雷德梅尼。

如果说雷德梅尼靠的多是外露的演技，那他的拍档菲丽希缇-琼斯就完全把演技收敛在内心，两人成了极大对比。琼斯的角色本来就无法依靠身理缺陷来展露演技，又没撒狗血大起大落的激动情绪，因此就必须依靠内心戏来弥补。或许正因为如此，最近便有人开始担心琼斯很可能因为角色太过低调而被挤在女主角五强门栏外。在我看来，琼斯反而是两人中演得比较好的那一位。由一开始对霍金的爱恋慢慢转变为窒息的家庭支柱，看着丈夫辛苦地度过每一日，那一份心理负担琼斯便拿捏得很好。游走于对新认识友人的感情与对丈夫的责任，大部分时间只能以一双眼来表达情绪，其实是很难的。

电影本身就依靠两位主角来推动剧情，你不该期待电影会有如《国王的演讲》般有场激励人心的演说当收场，更不会有《铁达尼号》你跳我跳爱得要生要死的浪漫。我必须要说的是，之前提及的两人最终结局，导演选择了用一两场简单的戏带过，让我觉得很不错。没有哭得抱在一起，没有欲走还留的犹豫，妻子一句简单利落的“我曾经爱过你，我尽了力”反而有感动人的力量。我必须承认，经历了两个小时两人的起起落落，这一句话让我眼睛有一点点湿湿的。曾经相爱的两个人走到了这一步，彼此都知道两人的故事只能如此，也就不必强求继续下去，只能放手了。那一份无奈在这一场戏中，两名主角都演得很好。

这应该是今年奥斯卡强档电影中除了《消失的爱人》外比较早登陆大马的一部，绝对值得你去捧场。不要以为得奖电影都深奥得摸不着头脑，你可以当着去看一部传记片包装的爱情故事，或是爱情故事包装的传记片，当电影结束了，你会带着一份惆怅一份满足感离开。

There is a fact you need to accept when you watch a biopic adapted from the life story of a real person: you already knew where the story goes, will there be a happy or a sad ending, and whether or not the hero and heroine will end up together etc. Take an example, when you watch Lincoln there’s no escaping of the protagonist’s fate of getting assassinated. When you watch the film, you would anticipate nervously the arrival of that grim moment anytime soon, just as you are waiting for your own execution.

Friends who know my habit in watching movies will tell you that I am a buzzkill. Most people like to have a spoiler-free movie experience, but I am the exact opposite. I like to know every itty bitty detail before the movie. I will check out the plotline in Wikipedia, and I want to know how it ends before walking into the Cineplex. To me, any unknown and suspense will make me feel anxious, the elimination of it means I can enjoy the movie and its entertainment value to the maximum without the feeling of anxiety. As it happened, Wikipedia page of The Theory of Everything does not come with a detailed plotline but a two-line introduction that says this is the love story of Stephen Hawking and Jane Wilde. Unfortunately my curiosity led me to click and read further on Hawking’s marriage thus I knew they ended up divorced. No fairy tale ending.

Why on earth did I just spend two paragraphs telling you this, one might ask? I’m getting to my point now. Right from the beginning of The Theory of Everything sparks fly between the two very gorgeous and good looking leads. Their chemistry makes every interaction so easy on the eyes, which ultimately makes a good drama. Which brings us back to the aforementioned divorce I have known about, and this has caused some level of distraught to me knowing that such a lovely and passionate couple would eventually end up going separate ways. With every pushing forward of the story, I would speculate nervously whether this development would be the beginning of the end, is this the reason why they grow apart, or would there be a huge fit etc. This was the only minor buzzkill when I watched this movie, which I found to be very good. It’s a trivial story here for sharing, and not going to change my evaluation of the film.

This film is made with the main purpose of winning awards, undoubtedly. Not that we are stranger to such idea, there are countless of such movies every year taking an aim at the award glory. The success of those movies is measured by how many awards they pick up. The only difference of a good and a bad movie lies on the gap between the ambition and the execution. Sometimes, you aspire to shoot an epic only to end up with a few grand and eye-popping scenes without much of a spirit within the story; other times you try to make a biopic only to be heavily criticized after adding in too much of your own stories in the name of dramatic effects. The Theory of Everything is relatively restrained by telling a simple love story in a straightforward manner. This helps us to watch the film more comfortably and digest it more easily, with some occasional scenes that move us deeply despite its simplicity.

To talk about The Theory of Everything and how good it is, we have to start with Eddie Redmayne. Ever since the movie opened in film festivals, people have been speculating Redmayne to be a lock in the upcoming Academy Award, even going as far as predicting a win for him. Granted, it is a mimicry of a real person with physical disability which is never a bad news for award traction; but in Redmayne’s case he is truly outstanding that even Mr. Hawking himself praising the performance with compliments like “at times, I thought he was me”. Every step he walks, every face expression he shows, the way he moves his lips and speaks every word difficultly, and the way he leans his head slightly to the right side of his wheelchair, all of these make us believe the man we watch on the screen is in fact Stephen Hawking. Daniel-Day Lewis won the Oscars by impersonating Lincoln, there’s no way Eddie Redmayne can’t achieve the same for embodying Stephen Hawking so well.

While Redmayne’s performance highly depends on anything exterior, in contrast his partner Felicity Jones mostly keeps all the emotions inside. Her character is not physically disabled to begin with, and there isn’t much OTT showcase moment for her throughout the film. She has to substitute the disadvantage with showing different layers of emotions. Perhaps this low key performance is the reason why there has been worry lately that she might not make it to the top 5 of Academy Award’s Best Actress race. To me, she is actually the better among the two leads. From her initial admiration of Hawking to the unconditional love and support of a wife who watches her husband suffers greatly, Jones displays a very contained performance. Her dilemma of choosing between the romantic feeling towards her newfound lover and the responsibility of a wife is mostly displayed through her eyes, which is not an easy feat.

The film basically uses the two leads to push the story forward. You should not expect an inspiring speech à la The King’s Speech to end the film, nor should you anticipate the undying love of Titanic’s you jump I jump romance. Good news is, the director chose to do the aforementioned divorce scene in a delicate and simple way. There’s no big tears and long hug between the two, but only a simple but powerful phrase of “I have loved you, I did my best” from the wife. I have to admit that after spending two hours with the two lovers, this scene actually moved me to tears. Once deeply in love, both knew at that moment that their story can only end here so there’s no need to prolong the marriage but to let go. Both Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones act brilliantly in this scene.

Apart from Gone Girl, this film is probably the only Oscar surefire to open in Malaysia so far. I highly recommend it. Not all award-winning films are head-scratching and deep. You may think of it as watching a biopic disguised as a love story, or a love story disguised as a biopic; either way you will be leaving the Cineplex with a sense of satisfaction.

A

87th Academy Awards: The Déjà vu of Best Actress Contenders

By all means I am no Oscar pundit at all. I just happen to take an interest in it and sometimes have an opinion or a special angle in seeing it (then again, who doesn't?). I read what the true pundits write, and collectively form my own ways of looking at it. Don't expect me to write a full on coverage of the event like I'm the Oscar expert now when in fact I am far from it. I was often so wrong in my predictions. I played safe and it often made me wrong (remember Emma Thompson for Saving Mr. Banks?) because once in a while there were surprises, but when I predicted some surprises they usually weren't the surprises that actually happened.

So, let's get a different way that allows me to still write about it. I am a Business Analyst, I am good at (or at least I hope I am, that's my livelihood for God's sake) analyzing past data and trends so I'm going to do an article that compare this year's contenders to someone in the Oscar history. Perhaps by doing so I can see a clearer picture of who will get in and who will not?

The reason I start with the race of Best Actress is actually because it is the category that inspires me to do this. At this moment it seems like it is down to these six women, so someone has to be out. I read somewhere (I didn't save the link, thus not able to verify the source anymore) that Reese Witherspoon, once thought to be a shoo-in for nomination or even a threat to win, is no longer safe for a nomination now due to a shaky critics' groups journey. True, she still has the three that really matters (Critics' Choice or formerly known as BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG), but then again so did Emma Thompson earlier this year. However, in the case of Reese Witherspoon I think she's safe. I believe she'll get in the final five. The combination of her and Julianne Moore (shoo-in for nomination, in the lead for the eventual win) reminds me of a pair of last year's contenders -- Cate Blanchett and Sandra Bullock. That's how this article started.

Reese Witherspoon - Wild vs. Sandra Bullock - Gravity
Hear me on this: In the rush to award Cate Blanchett for her brilliant portrayal of Jasmine, Sandra Bullock did not actually win a lot of Best Actress trophies from the 100 or so critics' groups (it seems every state in America has one, some even two) for her work in Gravity. Some groups came with 5 shortlisted contenders then yes she was among them but usually she did not win eventually. If you scout through the Wiki page "Accolades received by the film Gravity" you will see she only won in North Texas, Houston and Kansas. But we never doubted for a moment that she won't make it to the final five at the Oscars. We shifted the position of Judi Dench, Emma Thompson, Amy Adams and Meryl Streep up and down but Cate and Sandra were always the top two.

Both films are almost entirely a one-woman show, undeniably adding points to their already impressive performances. When you carry a film like this, it's hard to ignore.

True, the movie Sandra Bullock starred in was so adored by the critics and the public that it helped her case. Wild, on the other hand, is unlikely to score big in other categories and the movie itself has been going low profile for a while. But not to worry, there is another similarity between Sandra Bullock and Reese Witherspoon that makes the latter still a safe bet: the likability star power of a past winner. Both had gone through the America's sweetheart phase, Reese Witherspoon has transformed herself into a believable dramatic actress and even added in the role of a producer in her resume.When you say she's low profile nowadays, yet her "low profile" is still relatively higher profile than other actresses. She never really left the spotlight since her movie premiered. She might not win the prize but I think she has no difficulty getting into the race.


Julianne Moore - Still Alice vs. Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine
When you lead a race for so long, people feel bored and start making up stories and theories of how "you might be defeated" or "it's no sure thing you will win yet". Somewhere last year when the whole Woody Allen scandal erupted, people actually thought it would hurt Queen Cate's chance of winning, or how a late surge of Amy Adams in a popular film could surprisingly toppled Ms. Blanchett. Both scenarios didn't happen.

This year, there are some concerns that Queen Julianne will probably not able to carry her victory all the way to the finish line, with a late surge of Jennifer Aniston (we'll come to her later). I tend to think these are the diehard Julianne Moore fans that refuse to believe something so good could have happened (because it is too good to be true that they are finally crowning Julianne Moore) that they have to say something (anything) to make it seems like a real race and not just a dream. I don't know, do you agree?

Both actresses (Cate and Julianne) never went through the rom-com queen or comedy-actress-turned-dramatic route. They were respectable dramatic actresses right from the start. Both had waited a long time for their crowns to arrive (Cate Blanchett won a Supporting Actress on the way, but we've come to learn that for a queen-size actress like her only Leading Actress really counts). The overdue factor is there (see also, Kate Winslet), and there might be no better chance to crown her in the near future if they miss this one (they missed once, with Far From Heaven), much like they missed Elizabeth and had to wait another 15 years to crown Cate Blanchett (FYI, I didn't begrudge Shakespeare in Love for winning Best Picture because I actually love the film, I just happen to think Cate was a better choice than Gwyn for Best Actress).

Both films are with the names of their characters in the title, and from how I see it this almost works like a biopic called Lincoln or Elizabeth. Both films are seen as star vehicles for the actresses to showcase their acting and both feature physical / mental illness to highlight their incredible range. Though not winning as many critics' groups as Cate already had at this point of the race last year, Julianne Moore has collected Chicago, Los Angeles (she was the runner-up but the winner was Patricia Arquette which will be nominated in the supporting race), San Francisco, Washington D.C. and National Board of Review (unfortunately NBR has not been aligned with Academy Awards since Helen Mirren won for The Queen, but that's another story). Julianne Moore will surely be nominated, and now her team should focus on getting her the win.


Rosamund Pike - Gone Girl vs. Kate Winslet - Little Children
According to Wikipedia, Rosamund Pike has won even more critics' groups than Julianne Moore. She has Austin, Detroit, Florida, Kansas, Nevada, Phoenix, St. Louis Gateway, Utah, and Online Film Critics, on top of landing in the BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG. She is most certainly landing a spot in the final five of the Oscars, but she's unlikely to win this year yet. Why? For one, AMPAS never really cared much for the critics' groups (so what if Gabourey Sidibe and Carey Mulligan won most of the critics' groups in 2009? They never really had a shot at winning the Oscars). And Academy Awards are not all just about the performance but a combination of performance, timing and popularity. In all three cases, they have a better choice this year (performance = Julianne, timing = Julianne, popularity = Resse). Rosamund Pike finds herself placed in the middle of every aspect, and being in the middle is even worse than being at the bottom. Either nobody notices you or everyone takes you for granted.

The comparison of Rosamund Pike to Kate Winslet is not based on the accolades they both received. Because Little Children was released in the same year as The Queen, Kate Winslet was not awarded with many Best Actress trophies. No, the comparison has more to do with the movie itself. Both films were adapted from acclaimed novels, and had some early award prospect going in the award season only to be reduced to mostly acting and screenplay categories. Nominated beside Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep (in a role so different from her previous thus creating lots of buzz), Kate Winslet never stood a chance at winning although they realized she was overdue (but Helen Mirren was also overdue).

Rosamund Pike will be nominated, no doubt about it. But if you search online, people are actually discussing about either Jennifer Aniston or Reese Witherspoon will topple Julianne Moore, and there are some very rabid Marion Cotillard's fans who would never give up on her. Not much people actually lauded for Rosamund Pike to win. Give her some time to build up the body of work, she will win. Just not for Gone Girl.


Felicity Jones - The Theory of Everything vs. Elisabeth Shue - Leaving Las Vegas
I tried to prioritize the most recent years for the comparison, yet to demonstrate my point for Felicity Jones I have to look all the way back to 1995 (which was the first year I started to pay attention to the Oscars). Internet was not as common as today, and I didn't actually start paying attention until the award ceremony so I am not entirely sure of all the stories behind the nomination that year. I can only guess. The thing with 1995 is that there weren't a lot of critics' groups yet, so precursors were so much simpler back then.

Why I chose Elisabeth Shue for Felicity Jones is because I suspected a big factor behind Elisabeth Shue's nomination was because the award prospect of Nicolas Cage was so strong in a two-lead film he played a big role in helping Elisabeth Shue in her race. It might be unfair to say so and she did in fact give a terrific performance in Leaving Las Vegas, but I think without Nicolas Cage it would be a much bigger challenge for her to make it to the shortlisted five on her own.

Now imagine Eddie Redmayne did a terrible job as Stephen Hawking and screwed up the possibility of him getting nominated. In a biopic about Stephen Hawking and his relationship with his wife, do you think they will nominate her alone? When it comes to judging the quality of a performance it is highly interactive. Even if she performs brilliantly most people will still deduct points from her partner thus affecting the overall credit she deserves. Looking at the list of nominations she collected so far, she did not make it to any of them without Eddie Redmayne in the mix of Best Actor shortlist. What does it mean in terms of her chance? I think she stands a solid chance as the shortlisted five, as Eddie Redmayne is a shoo-in in his category, and she did make it to all BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG (they both are), but like Rosamund Pike, she's stuck in the middle and Eddie Redmayne is more likely to emerge as the winner.

Footnote: I toyed with the idea of picking Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) or Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line). But in both cases they actually won and their leading man did not which is the reverse of Felicity's situation. I do not think Felicity Jones will win. For Jennifer Lawrence, she was even the more prominent precursors winner than Bradley Cooper, as the latter's category was unfortunately too competitive for him to gain more traction.


Jennifer Aniston - Cake vs. Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
So Jennifer Aniston seemingly appeared out of nowhere at the last minute of the award season to claim the nominations in all BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG without any mention by the critics so far. Sound familiar? That's probably because Sandra Bullock went through a similar route and emerged as a front runner at the very last minute after most of the critics' groups were done giving prizes. Both actresses were coming from an America's sweetheart image and successfully transitioned themselves into dramatic roles. People like this kind of story (see also: Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon in their winning years) so when people thought Jennifer Aniston is a threat to Julianne Moore they were probably looking at it from this angle.

But I would also like to point out the differences in these two. Sandra Bullock was having one very good year. She had a huge success in the summer with The Proposal, and The Blind Side opened big and became a very popular and successful family film at the end of the year. She even had a very unique narrative angle in the award season as the only actress to win both Razzies (for All About Steve) and Oscars in the same year. And when she hilariously showed up at the Razzies to accept her trophy it only added on to her likability.

So what does Jennifer Aniston have? Besides Cake that is not shown to public yet, she has a little seen indie (Life of Crime) and a forgettable supporting role in a not-so-well-received sequel (Horrible Bosses 2). Her movie star power and likability are no equal to Sandra Bullock, and many still think of her as that TV star from Friends who stars in films now. Not many will be as lucky as Helen Hunt.


Marion Cotillard - Two Days, One Night vs. Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole
Marion Cotillard had been missing from the Oscars since her win in 2007. Since then, every time she made a film people speculated her chances at being nominated. In most of the roles she was actually good and every now and then she got the attention of a few award bodies. Even in movies like Inception and Nine she garnered some award talks. In Rust and Bone, she actually received quite a handful of precursor nominations and wins only to fall short come Oscar nomination. This year, she's back with a pair of films: The Immigrants and Two Days, One Night. There's no deny that critics' groups love to do the "win for this film, and also for that film" thing. It gave her the advantage in the critics' groups but not at the awards that need to choose only one performance. Luckily it soon became clear that Two Days, One Night is the one to stay. She quickly collected quite a number of critics awards like Boston (both of them), New York (both of them) and San Diego in addition to being nominated in a bunch of others. Unfortunately she was left out from the Golden Globe and SAG, and while she was nominated by BFCA, they have six nominees and all five others in this article were nominated as well. Nevertheless the number of precursor awards and nominations she grabs this year has been the highest since her Oscar win in 2007.

So why Nicole Kidman? After her win in 2002, Nicole Kidman had been consistently giving some award-worthy performances. She had some award heat with Dogville, Cold Mountain, Birth and Margot at the Wedding. None of those made it to the Oscars, until she received unanimous praise for her role as a grieving mother in Rabbit Hole. Unlike Marion Cotillard, she did not actually win a lot of precursors but her name was always in the shortlist. And she eventually got into the final five at the Oscars. I still think Marion Cotillard will be unfortunately shut out come nomination morning, but picking this Nicole Kidman's nominated performance for her is me sending my best wishes for her. I hope she gets in over Jennifer Aniston.



So yes, I predicted Moore, Witherspoon, Pike, Jones and Aniston to be the final five at the Oscars. They are all in the shortlist of BFCA, Golden Globe and SAG, and Oscars can be lazy and unimaginative sometimes. But once in a while there comes the Emma Thompson snub and the Quvenzhané Wallis surprise, so who knows if Cotillard or even Amy Adams or Hilary Swank will get the last spot.

My Foolish Oscar Predictions

I'd like to think I’m an observer to the Oscars, I’d like to think I’m half an expert to it (okay, maybe 10%, the rest I obtain through various consensus, news, blogs and critics’ awards). Because everyone else is doing it, I thought I will join the party by doing my own Oscars prediction too.

I’m very sure I will do badly in my predictions, based on these four facts which proved to be true in previous years:

(1)    I tend to overthink. Sometimes I had it at my first instinct, but at second thought I changed it due to some unnecessary consideration. These second thoughts are toxic.

(2)    I tried to be different. I can’t help it. I like to take some risks because there’s no prize in getting high scores so I might as well go bold. If it happens, I get to brag; if it doesn’t (and this was always the case), I got nothing to lose.

(3)    I am bias. Sometimes I knew the movie was going to be shunned but my stubbornness told me to keep it because I want it to happen so much. This happened last year with Cloud Atlas.

(4)    Most importantly, no matter how intensively I follow every precursor or every blog, I am still an outsider when it comes to the voting body. The voting members are mostly from America or Europe which have totally different culture than us in Asia. We can never truly understand their way of thinking, what do they like or dislike, or what happened there around the time they cast their vote (timing is always the key, if the movie is fresh in your mind when you cast your vote, you are most likely to place it on top of your vote).

Now, my predictions:

Random Thoughts While Watching "The Croods"

Random thoughts after watching “The Croods” (this is not a review, just random notes):

(1) This movie officially opens next week, but like so many animated movies before it, they have three shows per day (actually nine, three for the normal, three for the 2D, and three for the 3D) one week earlier. Just out of curiosity, does this happen universally or just in Malaysia? Is this a special preview?

(2) I love how DreamWorks Animation keeps playing with its logo, customizes it to suit different movies. Sometimes the penguins come out and slap the boy (Madagascar 2) or a UFO abducts the boy away (Monsters vs. Aliens), sometimes it's in Chinese style (Kung Fu Panda), or Jack Frost is the boy (Rise of the Guardians). In The Croods, it's done as a drawing on the wall of the cave. Creativity always win me over.

(3) Emma Stone's voice is so recognizable. I swear when I watched this movie, sometimes I was distracted by the visual of the actual Emma Stone standing there speaking the line, with her face expression and all.

(4) The opening breakfast scene has got to be the weirdest sequence in the history of recent animated movies. Funny and lively, this sequence sets up the tone of the movie.

(5) Yes yes, the Croods are supposed to be noisy and annoying. That's what they are, that's what defines this weird family. But gosh, loud and annoying they really are. You'll have a brand new appreciation of your family which you previously thought was annoying.

(6) When the Croods finally entered "the new world", for a moment I thought they are making the animated version of Avatar, as the design of the jungle, all its fauna and flora, and all its color reminded me of Avatar. This is a very rare occasion where I hated myself for not going for the 3D version.

(7)  One of the running jokes in the movie really makes me laugh out loud: the face expression of Grug when he, for a moment, mistakenly thought he finally gets rid of his mother-in-law, or his face expression when he thought by getting new idea out of his brain he would have the chance of killing her. I know this is bad for wishing an old grandma to die, but damn this is funny and that grandma is annoying.

(8) So the word "hug" was invented by Grug, cuz' it rhymes with his name. Haha.

(9) The song played at the end credit - Shine Your Way is performed by Owl City and our local girl Yuna. So this lady really has made it to international, good for her! The song sounds really nice and catchy, but will it be nominated at the Oscars next year? They did nominate a lot of songs from animated movie in the past. If they nominate this song, it means Yuna will be performing it at the Oscars?

(10) Final verdict: 4 stars out of 5. This movie does what an animated movie should be doing: entertain kids and adults with very good laugh and beautiful visual. Mission accomplished.

10 Reasons Why They Should Remake The Sound of Music Now and Cast Anne Hathaway as Maria

Anne Hathaway just won her first Oscar for her role of Fantine in Les Misérables. But that's not what I wanna talk about. As indicated by the title, I'm gonna list down why Anne Hathaway is bound to play the next Maria if they decide to remake the musical, my all time most favorite movie. Some of the reasons might be a bit forced, but others are just fate.

(1) Two of the great moments in her career involved the cast of The Sound of Music. Anne Hathaway became a star when she starred as Mia in The Princess Diaries opposite the original Maria, Dame Julie Andrews. Then just a mere few days ago she received her first Oscar from the hand of none other than Captain Von Trapp himself, Christopher Plummer, with even a The Sound of Music joke prior to the category. Now this is not a co-incidence, this is fate calling.

(2) She can sing, she can really sing. We knew this when she co-hosted the Oscar few years ago, we certainly are sure now that she belted out I Dreamed a Dream so perfectly in Les Misérables. Songs from The Sound of Music certainly are a piece of cake for her?

(3) She was down the same character arc before... more than once. In The Princess Diaries (1 & 2), Mia is a girl joining the royal family as the new princess, and needs to prove herself to her grandmother and the people of her country. In The Sound of Music, Maria is a nun joining the Von Trapp family as the new governess, and needs to prove herself to Captain Von Trapp and his children. In The Devil Wears Prada, Anne's role of Andy worked for the strict and stern Miranda Priestly, vying for her attention with a competitive colleague Emily. In The Sound of Music, Maria worked for the strict and stern Captain Von Trapp, vying for his affection with a competitive Baroness.

(4) I will die to see her on screen with Hugh Jackman again, and this time throughout the whole movie... Wait, Hugh Jackman WILL be cast as Captain Von Trapp right? I don't have to do another 10 reasons article to convince that right?

(5) She's at the right age. When The Sound of Music was released in 1965, Julie Andrews was 30 years old. Anne is 31 years old this year, just about the same age as Julie Andrews was back then.

(6) Well, if this year is not the year, the 50-Year Anniversary of the 1965 movie musical is coming soon in 2015. Surely they have some special plans for it, apart from a special DVD edition?

(7) They are doing a live broadcast of The Sound of Music later this year, with Carrie Underwood as Maria. If Carrie Underwood can, why can't Anne Hathaway?

(8) Anne Hathaway chopped off her long hair for the role of Fantine. Julie Andrews had short blonde do when she played Maria. Anne just needs to dye her hair blonde for the role.

(9) She needs to have another Oscar, this time for Best Actress not Best Supporting Actress. Come on, a star like her should be the leading actress not the supporting actress winner. No offense to all the suporting actress winners, but Anne is leading actress material. The role of Maria nearly won Julie Andrews another Oscar (google the well-known Julie vs Julie race in 1965). In my opinion, had Julie Andrews not won an Oscar one year earlier already, she would have won it with the role of Maria.

(10) OK, this might sound cruel, but Anne needs to work her charm back into many people's heart after the many controversies and critics she received this past award cycle (I really scratch my head for all the backlashes, I don't see what she's done wrong). The role of Maria, a well-liked role, will do just that.

Convinced yet? No? Well, who cares. I know they have no motivation to do another musical on the Von Trapp family, since the 1965 movie version is so well-known any attempt to remake it will sound like a disaster even before it is being made. This article is merely for fun.

Now... The Fate of My Crystal Ball...

One week ago when I made my Oscar prediction, I ended it by saying the fate of my crystal ball depends on the accuracy of my prediction. Well, here's the results. Let's see if I should toss out my crystal ball or should I keep it for next year's use.

Best Picture
Predicted : ARGO
Actual Winner : ARGO

Michelle Obama presented this award? Weird weird weird. Maybe they can no longer surprise us with the winner that's why they need to surprise us with the presenter.

Best Director
Predicted : Steven Spielberg - LINCOLN
Actual Winner : Ang Lee - LIFE OF PI

Yes yes yes, it's a difficult movie to make. But do you mean other movies are easy to make?

Best Actor
Predicted : Daniel Day-Lewis - LINCOLN
Actual Winner : Daniel Day-Lewis - LINCOLN

Well-deserved winner.

Best Actress
Predicted : Emmanuelle Riva - AMOUR
Actual Winner : Jennifer Lawrence - SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Not so well-deserved winner. But you know, they need to give SLP something.

Best Supporting Actor
Predicted : Tommy Lee Jones - LINCOLN
Actual Winner : Christoph Waltz - DJANGO UNCHAINED

What? The first award tonight already a shock? Not that I don't see this coming, just that he's the most recent winner among all 5 and they handed him another one so fast already? Christoph Waltz, 2 times Oscar winner doesn't sound quite right yet.

Best Supporting Actress
Predicted : Anne Hathaway - LES MISERABLES
Actual Winner : Anne Hathaway - LES MISERABLES

Of course she's gonna win. They campaigned so hard for her. But I still insist that she wins for the wrong movie and role. LINCOLN, at this point still empty-handed.

Best Screenplay
Predicted : AMOUR (original) & ARGO (adapted)
Actual Winner : DJANGO UNCHAINED (original), ARGO (adapted)

One win for DJANGO (supporting actor) is not enough? Really? ARGO, how dare you? Over LINCOLN? Sigh, the most unsatisfied results... well, until Best Director is being announce anyway.

Best Animated Feature
Predicted : BRAVE
Actual Winner : BRAVE

Yeah! Just when everyone else had gone the WRECK-IT-RALPH route, I remained optimistic about BRAVE's chance. But seriously, all 5 nominees were great, and any of them winning will be a happy news for me.

Best Foreign Language Film
Predicted : AMOUR
Actual Winner : AMOUR

They even snubbed THE INTOUCHABLES just to clear the road for AMOUR to win. Do you really expect this to be won be any other movies?

Best Cinematography
Predicted : SKYFALL
Actual Winner : LIFE OF PI

Shit! I should have known. 11 nominations can't be going home with just 2 tech awards I predicted.

Best Production Design
Predicted : ANNA KARENINA
Actual Winner : LINCOLN

Best Costume Design
Predicted : LINCOLN
Actual Winner : ANNA KARENINA

I know they are going for different films for Production Design & Costume Design, and I guessed the right movies but unfortunately they are in reverse categories. ANNA KARENINA deserves to win both.

Best Makeup & Hairstyling
Predicted : LES MISERABLES
Actual Winner : LES MISERABLES

No movie outside of the 9 Best Picture nominees will win in the tech awards, not even the once Oscar darling (yes, you know, that Middle Earth movie franchise). Unless your name is SKYFALL or ANNA KARENINA.

Best Film Editing
Predicted : ARGO
Actual Winner : ARGO

Really, they can't just let ARGO win a sole Best Picture and let it be a future trivia fun? What's so special about the editing of ARGO anyway?

Best Sound
Predicted : SKYFALL (mixing) & LIFE OF PI (editing)
Actual Winner : LES MISERABLES (mixing) & SKYFALL + ZERO DARK THIRTY (tie for editing)

I regretted my choice soon after I read everywhere online that LES MIZ has the mixing category in its bag with all the fuzz about live singing. And a tie! for sound editing. Since 1968. Wow, a tie in a tech award that many people do not care for? But as I pointed out in my prediction article, I have limited knowledge in these sound categories.

Best Visual Effects
Predicted : LIFE OF PI
Actual Winner : LIFE OF PI

Not because it has the best visual, frankly speaking everyone in that list has great visual. It's only because it's the only movie loved by so many people they give it every tech award it was nominated for.

Best Original Score
Predicted : LIFE OF PI
Actual Winner : LIFE OF PI

LIFE OF PI to be the biggest winner tonight? OMG, I used to like the movie alright but now it's no more than an overrated movie to me.

Best Original Song
Predicted : SKYFALL
Actual Winner : SKYFALL

The law of the universe: whenever Adele's nominated, she wins.

So there it was, my final score = 55% (correct in 11 categories out of the 20 I predicted), so it's a "C" for me.
The fate of my crystal ball? Nah, do you actually believe someone still own a crystal ball at this era?