However this came about, it needs something else. Jeff Bridges posing alongside the talent, I’m thinking.

I’m sorry but this looks and sounds dreadful.

This is old material but before listing HE’s best and worst Blurays of 2010, I need to re-acknowledge an unpleasant truth. While I’m perfectly happy with Blurays of older films that look like “film” (i.e., restored, cleansed of dirt and detritus, haven’t been digitally scrubbed to excess), I despise the ones that look like 16mm films shown at Howard Otway‘s Theatre 80 in 1979. And in my heart of Philistine hearts, I can’t help but love those Blurays that make older films look cleaner, sharper and more robust than they probably looked during initial release.

I’m sorry but this is what my primitive, insufficiently developed home-video taste buds tell me when I sit down and watch.

Which is why my three favorite Blurays of 2010 are Warner Home Video’s The Treasure of Sierra Madre and Universal Home Video’s Psycho and Spartacus. My fourth- and fifth-ranked faves are Criterion’s Days of Heaven Bluray and Paramount Home Video’s The African Queen — the finest celluloid-looking discs of the year. And my choice for the three worst are Criterion’s Stagecoach (easily the biggest Bluray burn of 2010), Studio Canal’s The Ladykillers and Warner Home Video’s King Kong.

My 2010 list of Blurays that I enjoyed and respected but didn’t exactly open up the windows and sing sonnets about include Fox Home Video’s Alien trilogy, Sony Home Video’s The Bridge on the River Kwai, Criterion’s Paths of Glory, The Thin Red Line, Black Narcisssus and The Red Shoes, Paramount Home Video’s Three Days of the Condor, Warner Home Video’s Dr. Zhivago and The Exorcist, and MPI’s Twilight Zone box sets (blue and red).

There are probably another 20 or 25 that I could mention but I have a 12:30 luncheon to get to and I’m pressed for time.

My understanding is that WHV didn’t distort or digitally scrub the original Treasure of the Sierra Madre elements but (as they did with the Casablanca Bluray) simply did an expert job of enhancing the basic monochrome values. But Universal did indulge in at least some digital scrubbing for their Psycho Bluray (you can tell), and a good deal of it with their derided Spartacus Bluray, according to restoration maestro Robert Harris. I know this is the wrong thing to say but while I agree with Harris that what was done with Spartacus wasn’t respectful of Russell Metty‘s original Super Technirama capturings, I rather like watching it because it’s nice and sharp and vivid. Put me in jail.

Which also means that while I know the notorious Patton Bluray is “bad,” I know when I pop it in that every digitally-refined detail is going to satisfy my inner hot-dog-eating Eloi. I’m going to sit there and go “cool.” If I had a 60-inch plasma and could see how the original photography has been digitally mauled, I would have a different view but I don’t — I have a 42-inch Panasonic plasma, and that much-despised disc looks pretty good to me.

HE quotes from articles about the 2010 Bluray standouts:

“Warner Home Video’s Sierra Madre Bluray is the most exquisitely finessed, luscious-looking black-and-white film I’ve seen in high-def since WHV’s Casablanca. The needle-sharp detail and mine-shaft blacks are magnificent. There are some dupey portions but nothing to worry about — most of it is pure pleasure. It’s so crisp and alive-looking, so perfectly honed and lighted that you can enjoy it entirely for the visual benefits alone. Which you wouldn’t want to do, of course, but I’m just sayin’.” — “2010’s Best Monochrome Bluray,” 9.28.10.

“If you step back from the screen — sit three or four feet away, I mean — the Spartacus Bluray looks way better than the Criterion DVD or the laser disc or any other home-video version that I’ve ever seen. For the first time since seeing Harris’s restored print on a big screen, I felt dazzled by some of the images. I was saying to my son Dylan, ‘I’m not supposed to like this but whoa…look at that!’ Harris will probably get angry, but this Spartacus delivers some of the sharpest, most gleaming and best-looking pop-out images I’ve ever seen of Stanley Kubrick‘s 1960 film outside of a theatre. As long as you keep your distance from the plasma screen, I mean. And especially if you squint a bit.” — “Wrong Response,” 6.1.10.

“The Studio Canal/Lionsgate Bluray of Alexander McKendrick‘s The Ladykillers is a strawberries-and-whipped-cream nightmare — perhaps the most visually unappealing manipulation of a classic film ever issued. It’s saturated with the brightest and bleachiest white light seen anywhere since the aliens stepped out of the mother ship at the end of Close Encounters. It’s like someone turned down the color key and then poured milk and cherry sauce over the master negative. The effect is one of rosey anemia — a sickly dilution like nothing I’ve ever seen from a 1950s color film.” — “Bleachy Pink Ladykillers,” 3.4.10.

“For me, the greatest Blurays of older films are the ones that look much better than the finest projected image in a theatre could possibly achieve in its original day. And which look better, even, than what the director or studio guys saw in a private screening room when they were catching dailies fresh from the set. That’s what the just-out Psycho Bluray is like. It’s beautiful. Although I still say they should have issued two aspect-ratio versions — one in 1.33, the other in 1.78.” — “Above and Beyond,” 10.21.10.

“Jett, who’s seen King Kong five or six times, walked in and took a look and said, ‘That’s it? It doesn’t look any different!’ I slightly disagree. I think the Kong Bluray looks a little grainier than the 2005 DVD did. Because Blurays always make grain pop through a bit more than it does via DVD or film itself. Grain becomes feister, livelier. The bottom line is that while the monks are applauding the Kong Bluray and calling it an upgrade in image quality, common-man types don’t see it this way and could even make the argument that it’s a step down because every scene is covered top to bottom with digital mosquitoes.” — “King Grain,” 10.4.10.

“How much better looking is this new African Queen than the version that gets shown on Turner Classic Movies now and then? A lot better, I’d say. Some of it looks amazing — sharper focus, smoother textures, no blotchy colors. There are portions that look only slightly or somewhat better because they were matte shots or African location footage to begin with, and therefore were never as clean and well lighted as the sound stage work Huston shot in London, but they still look better than they ever have. And the sound has been nicely enhanced (i.e., the usual scratches, hisses and pops removed).” — “Savoring Luscious Queen,” 3.5.10.

“It may sound extreme to call this an awful Bluray with others giving it a thumbs-up, but I’ll go one better: this is the worst-looking, worst-sounding Bluray of a classic black-and-white film in history. The reason is simple. The Criterion monks used a 1942 nitrate duplicate negative that had squawky sound and titanic grain levels plus all kinds of smudges and wounds and scratches, and then went by their usual creed, which is that ‘whenever the damage [is] not fixable without leaving traces of our restoration work, we elect to leave the original damage.’ Which has resulted in one of the biggest burns in Bluray history.” — “Graincoach,” 6.1.10.

An honest, plain-spoken, well-phrased piece about where things are was posted yesterday by Awards Daily‘s Sasha Stone. I should have paid attention but…what was I doing? I forget. Probably buried under two or three articles simultaneously.

The reason for sitting down yesterday afternoon with Greta Gerwig was to rehash the glories of Greenberg, in which she memorably costarred with Ben Stiller. We talked about everything else instead. Phil Spector, Black Swan, her cool Grace Kelly haircut, German relatives and her post-Greenberg roles in Ivan Rietman‘s No Strings Attached, Jason Winer‘s Arthur and Whit Stillman‘s Damsels in Distress. Time flew.

Greta Gerwig at Lovely Day on Elizabeth, just south of Prince — Monday, 12.13, 5:10 pm.

Okay, here’s some Greenberg information. Gerwig has recently received two nominations from the Detroit Film Critics Society, one for Best Supporting Actress (why not Best Actress?) and the other for Breakthrough Performance.

The strongest idea I got from our conversation is that Gerwig is much more than an “actress.” She’s wise beyond her years, has excellent taste in films and knows a lot about everything else, it seems (especially music), and that by the time she’s 30 or so she’ll probably be directing. That’s not just an assumption — she concurs.

I’ve been on friendly terms with screenwriter Robert Towne since the early ’90s, give or take. We haven’t spoken in a while, but it’s all good (or was the last time I checked). Earlier today I popped in a Criterion Bluray of Jack Nicholson‘s Drive, He Said (’71) and lo and behold there’s a dark-haired Towne, nearly 40 years younger, playing a college professor whose wife (portrayed by Karen Black) is having an affair with a basketball player (William Tepper).

(l.) Towne in 1971; (r.) in 2008.

The backwards-in-time effect felt kind of “wow” to me. I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a moving and talking living-color facsimile of someone I’ve only known in an older, somewhat craggier incarnation. Fascinating.

Drive, He Said has never had that great of a reputation, but it’s reasonably well directed and acted and never boring, at least according to my standards..

Typepad log-in problems have blocked would-be commenters over the last two or three days, but I think things are okay now. It had something to do (idiotically) with the server clock being off and causing a synchronicity problem. In any case, Film Society of Lincoln Center associate program director Scott Foundas tried to respond two days ago to blogger reactions to the LAFCA voting, but was blocked by the malfunction. Here’s what he wrote:

“[LAFCA Best Supporting Actor winner] Niels Arestrup did not ‘exhaust’ his Oscar eligibility last year. In fact, he was never — and never will be — eligible for an Oscar because of the current Academy rule (much revised over the years) stating that any film nominated for Best Foreign Language Film can not be nominated in a subsequent year in any other categories, regardless of when it actually opens in the U.S. Had A Prophet been released for a qualifying run in 2009, then Arestrup would have been eligible at the 2010 Oscars. Had the film not been nominated for Foreign Film at the 2010 Oscars, then Arestrup would have a shot in the spring.

“This is the sort of thing one would assume would be common knowledge amongst such an august group of awards-season ‘experts,’ but then we all know the old adage about making assumptions…

“As for the suggestion that neither Arestrup nor Kim Hye-Ja will surface again during the remaining awards season, ‘just as it was the first and last we heard of LAFCA’s 2009 best actress Yolande Moreau,’ I suppose that was true of Moreau if one discounts Moreau’s similar wins at the National Society of Film Critics, the Cesar Awards [French Oscars], and even that hotbed of obscurantist cinephilia, the Newport Beach Film Festival.

“At the very least, you can expect to see Arestrup (who also already won a Cesar for his performance) and Kim’s names in the mix in the annual nationwide polls of film critics conducted by The Village Voice, Film Comment and Indiewire. Look back to the reviews these films received at the time of their release, and you will find that the performances in question — and the movies that contain them — were among the best received of the year.

“Sorry that the companies responsible for releasing the films in question didn’t paper the pages of Variety with ‘For Your Consideration’ ads or organize any cocktail soirees to parade their talent before the Oscar-blogging cognoscenti, thereby instantly ruling them out as contenders in the minds of some. (Hey, they’re no Frankie and Alice.) The job of film critics, however, remains to review movies, and not just the hype surrounding them.”

These year-end compilations always seem to emphasize speed, flourish and pizazz over resonant themes, soul and emotionality, which of course are what the best films are always about. The G-Whiz team never lingers long enough to sample any dialogue or feeling? To go by this, 2010 was a relatively shallow and sensationalistic year. Hopefully someone will do a better job of it before long.

“All of us at Relativity are deeply grateful for the Hollywood Foreign Press’ recognition of The Fighter. I also want to congratulate my fellow producers, and David O’Russell for his extraordinary direction and leadership. Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Melissa Leo gave outstanding performances and are the heart and soul of this project.” — Fighter producer and Relativity Media honcho Ryan Kavanaugh (received at 11:11 am).

Regrettable, Wrong Headed Poland: “What does The Social Network winning [Best Picture from the NYFCC and LAFCA] do for The Social Network? Aside from some lovely ego play, nothing. The film has been in position to be nominated across much of the board since the first screening in September. Come February, no Academy member is going to vote for anything based on what awards groups said.” Repeating: “The Social Network still isn’t going to win Best Picture from the Academy…unless they’re starting a media branch.”

Wells response: Poland wrote yesterday that the Best Picture race “is between The King’s Speech, True Grit and Black Swan.” The older traditionalists want The King’s Speech, and so yes, it’s definitely a top contender. But while Black Swan will be nominated (of course!), I fear it can’t win because of the older-women-don’t-like-it factor. The yentas have been talking it down, I hear. And I don’t feel much of aTrue Grit locomotive effect at this point. It may become one of the ten, but a finalist? No way.

Right now the signs point overwhelmingly to The Social Network, The King’s Speech and The Fighter being the three most likely finalists. It’s also obvious at this point that The Social Network is sweeping the critics’ groups like The Hurt Locker did last year, and if Poland thinks this will have little or no effect on Academy determinations, he’s really, really out on his own island.

If nothing else critics group awards instill flutters of guilt and shame into the industry/guild/Academy mentality. They know deep down that the critics are a little less political and a bit more integrity-driven than themselves. And if The King’s Speech doesn’t win a Best Picture award with any critics groups at all (which it may not), then at the very least Academy members will be facing the fact that if they vote for it and not The Social Network and/or The Fighter, the world will regard them as tired, backward-gazing traditionalists and quality-deniers. And they’ll have that knowledge to live with every time they look in the bathroom mirror for the rest of their lives.

I’ve said over and over that 2010 is, if nothing else, a year of generational conflict and a within the Academy. The Social Network and Black Swan (adored by under-40s) and The Fighter (and, in my book, the regrettably ignored Let Me In) vs. The King’s Speech (favored by old farts) and The Kids Are All Right (particularly admired by over-40 women).

Agreeable, Right-On Poland: “I think Colin Firth is the cat’s pajamas. He probably should have won last year for a performance that was complex, to say the least. But he’s going to win this year for a more technical, but very high quality performance. I am at peace with that. That said, if you saw Javier Bardem‘s performance in Biutiful and you think that any of the other performances, including Firth’s, is even aiming for the kind of depth Bardem goes to there, you are an idiot. And the lack of any nods to Bardem, in a performance that makes the overlooked turn in The Sea Inside looks like a cake walk, from LAFCA, NYFCC, or BFCA is an embarrassment. This is how critics have become marginalized. It can’t stop handing awards to great, fun, movie-movie performances and disconnecting from the tough stuff.”

Semi-sincere congratulations are offered to all the Golden Globe nominees. No one on the planet is wholly sincere about this joke of an awards show, but it serves a purpose and is obviously accepted for this. Are the Globes entertaining? Kind of. Diverting? Sure. Amusing from a distance? Okay. Harmless? Mixed opinion. They help out certain films and performances, but they also insert, I feel, a kind of poison into the bloodstream.

Unethical, whorish, an annual laughing stock and in some instances categorically insane — the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has it covered. We all know about the first three, but the HFPA’s idea of what constitutes a comedy has gone beyond odd and into the Valley of the Deranged. But because their award telecast helps to sell less-than-surefire-commercial movies to the schmoes and shore up Oscar cred, the film and TV industry industries work with these clowns each and every year.

I heard yelps of astonishment a few minutes ago when the nominations were announced and three were handed to The Tourist, which the HFPA regards as a comedy. (It has a slightly jaunty tone with a glamourish sheen.) The Tourist was nominated for Best Musical or Comedy, and costars Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp were nominated for Best Actress and Best Actor, respectively, in a Musical or Comedy.

The Comedy/Musical category has been notoriously elastic in years past, but this feels to me like a new HFPA low. The Tourist has been slaughtered by critics, has under-performed at the box-office and is generally regarded as an embarassment. The HFPA sluts want Jolie and Depp to attend the telecast, of course, and they’re counting on people rolling their eyes and letting it go.

I like and respect most of The Kids Are All Right — it’s an above-average family relationship piece with rich performances, affecting emotion and intriguing sexual contours. But the HFPA is calling it a comedy, having given it a nomination for Best Picture (Musical or Comedy) and nominations for Best Actress (Musical or Comedy) to costars Annette Bening and Julianne Moore. This is sheer reality-defying political calculation.

Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg‘s dialogue is smart and knowing and clever, and this level of discourse always results in an occasional smirk or chortle. But the bit about Bening and Moore watching male gay porn to get off is just flavor — it’s not “funny.” (The reaction of their son, played by Josh Hutcherson, to this information is straight and earnest.) Yes, the sex scenes between Moore and Mark Ruffalo are momentarily amusing (i.e., when Moore succumbs with an “oh, yeah!”) but this is mainly just lively writing and acting.

The darkest stories have little trickles of humor. The perversity is in the HFPA exploiting this tendency to suit its own ends. By the HFPA’s standard Macbeth is a comedy/musical because of the “knock knock” scene.

The political idea behind the Kids Are All Right noms, of course, is to spare Bening and Moore from having to compete against Natalie Portman, Michelle Williams, Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Lawrence in the dramatic category, and to assure that one or the other will win. It’s a completely corrupt inside move, but as long as the fix is in the HFPA should declare a tie and give the award to Bening and Moore. It would be the fair thing, and Scott Feinberg would approve.

I for one heartily approve of both Amy Adams and Melissa Leo getting nominated for Best Supporting Actress for their Fighter performances. The truth is that Leo’s performance as Wahlberg and Bale’s headstrong, chain-smoking mother is the livelier of the two, but not as likable or engaging as Adams’ girlfriend character, Sharlene. Adams is all about loyal, blunt and tough — the antidote to Leo’s bad-mom tendencies.

Lesley Manville (Another Year) didn’t make the cut. A real shame. She was also omitted by the BFCA nominations. She could conceivably land a Best Actress Oscar nomination (and let’s hope she does), but the concerns I shared on 10.27 and 11.20 about what may happen are apparently starting to come true. Sony Classics, no offense, should have put her up for Best Supporting Actress.

Hey, Anthony Breznican — what happened to True Grit?

The Kings’s Speech garnered the most nominations, followed by The Fighter and The Social Network.

The HFPA’s Best Picture (Drama) nominations are correct — Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The King’s Speech and The Social Network. If the Oscars still had five Best Pic noms, this is what they might be.

The HFPA has nominated Burlesque, a drop-dead awful film, for Best Picture (Musical or Comedy)…naturally! The other nominees are also a bit weird. Alice in Wonderland is spirited and bizarre but in no way “funny.” Red isn’t funny in the least — it’s horribly depressing. Why didn’t the HFPA nominate an actual comedy (like Due Date) or musical?

Best Directors: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan), David Fincher (The Social Network), Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech), Christopher Nolan (Inception) and David O. Russell (The Fighter).

Best Actor (Drama): Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network), Colin Firth (The King’s Speech), James Franco (127 Hours), Ryan Gosling (Blue Valentine) and

Mark Wahlberg (The Fighter)…Wahlberg and Gosling!

Here are the rest. The nominees list is everywhere. I have better things to do with my time than sit here like a stooge and type this stuff out.

Lethally slow pacing, no story tension, no wit or intrigue of any kind. This would be the reaction of any viewer who hasn’t seen and admired The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. On top of which we don’t get Booboo’s motivation, except that he’s conflicted about pulling the trigger. Does he resent Yogi’s dominance? What’s he going to do with the dough after Yogi’s dead? Cartoon characters don’t have wallets or bank accounts or money concerns.