Best Picture

• BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
• GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
• CRASH
• CAPOTE
• MUNICH

Overall Thoughts: This fell pretty much in line with most people’s predictions, a theme that spread throughout this year’s list of nominees. Of the five, Brokeback Mountain still has the edge, though a surprise win by Crash at this weekend’s SAG awards paints the ensemble drama as a late dark horse.

Biggest Surprise: Munich

Most critics and pundits left this film for dead after the film was crucified for the way it was alternately pro and anti Palestine. Dim audience reaction also did nothing to help the film’s cause, and the film was virtually shut out by the Golden Globes. Bravo to the Academy for recognizing the second bravest film of the year (after Brokeback), and Steven Spielberg’s strongest effort since Saving Private Ryan.

Biggest Snub: Walk the Line

This is only a snub because people were to afraid to support Munich. This is not a snub in my mind because the film is two great performances caught in a mediocre story. This is not Ray, don’t let anyone tell you different.

Biggest Snub, #2: King Kong

Universal banked on the past-Oscar success of director Peter Jackson and probably assumed they could rent their tuxes the day they green lit this picture. Too bad it was twenty minutes too long, poorly structured, thinly characterized and worst of all, kinda boring. The only thing that could have saved this film was a Titanic-like surge at the box office (and $200 million doesn’t cut it).

Best Actor in a Leading Role

• Philip Seymour Hoffman, CAPOTE
• Heath Ledger, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
• Terrence Howard, HUSTLE AND FLOW
• David Strathairn, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
• Joaquin Phoenix, WALK THE LINE

Overall Thoughts: Like the Best Picture race, this slot had four obvious choices and one surprise. It’s always been a three man race between Hoffman, Ledger and Phoenix, but the surplus of nominations for little indie Capote probably signals a larger support base for Hoffman, than for the other two. Look for him to steal the Brokeback limelight, if only for a few minutes.

Biggest Surprise: Terrence Howard

This feels like a thank you nomination, more than a specific deserved performance nomination. Howard was admittedly stellar in Hustle and Flow, but also gave great supporting performances in Crash and Four Brothers. I think this is the Academy’s was of thanking Howard for finally giving them another suitable African American actor to give awards to, after the whole Jamie Foxx thing hasn’t panned out too well (Stealth, Jarhead).

Biggest Snub: Russell Crowe, CINDERELLA MAN

This is what happens when you attack one too many people, and are surly to one too many Academy voters. He gave a fantastic performance, but Terrence Howard’s grace and charisma stole the gruff and unforgiving Crowe’s nomination.

Best Actress in a Leading Role

• Felicity Huffman, TRANSAMERICA
• Charlize Theron, NORTH COUNTRY
• Reese Witherspoon, WALK THE LINE
• Keira Knightley, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
• Judi Dench, MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS

Overall Thoughts: The most boring race of the year. Everyone in the world knows that the Academy has decided to give this to Reese, so I’d bet none of the other actresses are even preparing a speech. Strong support for the little scene Transamerica may give the impression that the luminescent Felicity Huffman may pull the upset, but I’m telling you, Reese is Hollywood royalty at this point, and the same way the Academy was waiting to give Julia an Oscar, they’ve been waiting for Reese since Election.

Biggest Surprise: Keira Knightley

This is only a surprise because Domino sucked so badly, and because she’s never really been given the chance to show she could act (Pirates of the Caribbean wasn’t exactly a tour de force of acting, Johnny Depp aside). Though it is worth mentioning that I predicted this only minutes in watching Pride & Prejudice, and that this better mean that Keira becomes more selective about the film’s she makes (a la Scarlet Johansson).

Biggest Snub: Maria Bello, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

She’s been so good lately (The Cooler), and so disrespected. Critics have drooled over her performance in A History of Violence, and too many seemed a shoo in. I think the unwavering support and respect that the Academy has for Judi Dench (I mean has anyone seen Mrs. Henderson Presents? Anyone?) caused them to pass over Bello. But sooner or later (hopefully sooner), she’ll get herself nominated.

Biggest Snub, #2: Gwyneth Paltrow, PROOF

I guess this means she’s not the Academy’s little darling anymore. Paging a humble pie.! Humble Pie, you have a two o’clock with Mrs. Paltrow. Treat her well.

Best Director

• Steven Spielberg, MUNICH
• Ang Lee, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
• George Clooney, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
• Paul Haggis, CRASH
• Bennet Miller, CAPOTE

Overall Thoughts: What is with the Academy and its love for Paul Haggis? Crash was amateurishly directed at best, and the only reason it’s garnered the response it has, is because of its great cast. But no matter, this is Ang Lee’s race to lose anyway, and he’s not gonna lose.

Biggest Surprise: Steven Spielberg

Say what you will about the content of the film, but the one thing you can never say is that Munich was poorly directed. Munich was easily the most technically masterful film of the year, and also one of the most thought-provoking. Also, at this point, it should just be mandatory to nominate Spielberg whenever he decides to saddle up and make a drama, because no one else does it better.

Biggest Snub: Fernando Meirelles, THE CONSTANT GARDENER

The most inventive, energetic and smart director working today not named Steven Spielberg. It’s crazy that he got passed over by a hack like Paul Haggis. At least he was recognized for his debut masterpiece City of God a few years back. I’m telling you now, that sometime in the next ten years Fernando Meirelles will win an Oscar for Best Director.

Biggest Snub, #2: Woody Allen, MATCH POINT

It’s hard to judge the merits of a filmmaker that refuses to give us time to breath between his work. Allen does a movie every year, which makes it difficult to focus on a particular film. Yes, Match Point was well done and Allen’s best film in a decade, but more than a few Academy members are probably still sour on his last few films (Anything Else, Hollywood Ending, Curse of the Jade Scorpion).

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

• Paul Giamatti, CINDERELLA MAN
• George Clooney, SYRIANA
• Matt Dillon, CRASH
• William Hurt, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
• Jake Gyllenhaal, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

Overall Thoughts: Finally, the nominated Paul Giamatti. Even though I hated Sideways, his snub for Best Actor last year was one of the most egregious mistakes in Oscar history. Look for him to get the Oscar he so richly deserves. Though due props must be given to Matt Dillon and George Clooney for finally getting over the hump of their leading man good looks and actually convincing us they could act.

Biggest Surprise: William Hurt

I guess ten minutes of screen time is all you need to impress. After all, Judi Dench won in 1998 for her three scenes in Shakespeare in Love.

Biggest Snub: Don Cheadle, CRASH

He’s so good in everything he does, that’s it’s a shame he doesn’t have at least two Oscars by now. His haunting work in Hotel Rwanda should have properly rewarded. Unfortunately, when you’re in an ensemble drama with fifteen parts, it’s hard to single out anyone, and Dillon only got the leg up because he was on the poster.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

• Rachel Weisz, THE CONSTANT GARDENER
• Frances McDormand, NORTH COUNTRY
• Michelle Williams, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
• Amy Adams, JUNEBUG
• Catherine Keener, CAPOTE

Overall Thoughts: The coolest race of the year (and always my favourite category), as it features five interesting, likeable actresses. Rachel Weisz is the likely winner, but it’s great to see so many smaller actresses get recognized.

Biggest Surprise: Amy Adams

You can probably pin this on Roger Ebert who gave Adams the Charlize Theron in Monster treatment for her work in Junebug. The famous critic pretty much gave her a sponge bath in his review and put her name on the award map. I dig that the Academy gave a flier on an unknown actress in a little seen film. She may prove to be the dark horse in this race, usually the one most notable for upsets (Marisa Tomei, anyone?).

Biggest Snub: Scarlet Johansson, MATCH POINT

She was good, but not that good. She has to prove she can play more than a femme fatale, if she wants to get serious Oscar attention. Doing back to back Woody Allen films is a good start.

Best Original Screenplay

• Woody Allen, MATCH POINT
• George Clooney & Grant Heslov, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
• Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco, CRASH
• Stephen Gaghan, SYRIANA
• Noah Baumbach, THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

Overall Thoughts: This race played out exactly like everyone thought it would. The right films were nominated, a rarity in any year. Even though Syriana is a braver script, look for Clooney to get the nod for Good Night, and Good Luck. After all, the Academy loves to give actors a writing Oscar (Matt and Ben, anyone?)

Biggest Surprise: None

Biggest Snub: Cinderella Man

This is what happens when you release a great film too early in a bad year, it gets forgotten about come awards time.

Biggest Snub, #2: The 40-Year Old Virgin

Was it one of the five best written films of the year? Probably not, but the commercial success of the film indicates that it touched a nerve in a lot of people, which warrants mentioning. At least the WGA was brave enough to nominate it.

Best Adapted Screenplay

• Dan Futterman, CAPOTE
• Josh Olson, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
• Jeffrey Caine, THE CONSTANT GARDENER
• Tony Kushner & Eric Roth, MUNICH
• Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

Overall Thoughts: See above. The ten films represented in the two screenplay categories are the ten best films of the year. I congratulate the Academy on recognizing the best of the year, and not forgetting smaller films like A History of Violence, something they have a tendency of doing.

Biggest Surprise: None

Biggest Snub: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

This is a personal snub for me, as it was my favourite film of the year. Evocatively written, almost illegally fun to watch, and so obviously written with love, Shane Black’s homage to film noir is my favourite piece of cinema released in 2005. And if I was in charge, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang would be my pick for Best Picture of the year.

Tell me what you all thought of the nominations by leaving a comment. Did you favourite films get recognized? Was your favourite actor snubbed? Let me know…

Bangarang!

Forget the Super Bowl (My pick: Steelers +10). Forget Valentine’s Day. Forget pitchers and catchers reporting. Forget the beginnings of spring. None of it matters. For the next five weeks the only thing that matters is the Academy Awards.

Everything gears up to that night. Magazines, websites, television shows; the media coverage for the Oscars goes into overdrive starting from the announcements of the Oscars tomorrow morning at 5a.m. (My favorite bit of procedure as it always leads to the inevitable bogus, yet good times stories of actors being woken up by their agents to tell them that they’d been nominated. Yeah right, like you would sleep if you thought your name was going to be called.), all the way up to show time on Monday, March 6th, and then through all the post-event coverage from Joan and Melissa to the E! Fashion Police to Entertainment Weekly’s next week wrap-up. All of Hollywood is now on a month long bated breath, waiting to see who will win, who will lose, who will look terrible on the red carpet, and most of all, whose price tag will skyrocket. Yes, it is Oscar time, and The Jay is ready.

Tomorrow marks the beginning of the extensive TheJay.com coverage of the 2006 Academy Awards. Since nothing else of note happens in entertainment in February, I’m going to put all my attention on the Oscars. So, you’ll see no regular poster review, no Actor’s Life pictures, no fawning pieces on Rachel McAdams. For the next five weeks, it’s all Oscars, all the time.

Here is the official schedule of my Oscar coverage, so you can plan your TheJay.com reading, appropriately.

Tuesday, January 31st – Oscar Nomination Reactions

• Immediate thoughts on who got nominated, who got dissed, and how this all affects the show itself.

Friday, February 3rd – Oscar Movie Poster Review

• Reviewing the posters for the five Best Picture nominees, as well as a look back on my favorite Oscar winning movie posters.

Tuesday, February 7th – Oscar, I.O.U.

• The top ten list of actors, writers, directors and movies that in hindsight, should probably give back their Oscar. We’re talking the people and films that failed to live up to their Oscar hype (Mira Sorvino, I’m looking directly at you).

Friday, February 10th – The Jay’s Bizarro Oscars

• This is how the Oscars would look if The Jay was in charge. I’ll give you a hint: Lifetime Achievement Award Winner, Sylvester Stallone.

Tuesday, February 14th – Special Valentine’s Day Surprise

• This may be about the Oscars, it may not (Most likely not, if I’m in trouble and need to post a big love letter to The Lady to apologize for something, like, forcing her to watch American Idol).

Friday, February 17th – The Biggest Oscar Travesties

• I’ll catalog the actors who should have won, the films that deserved to win and all the other ways that Oscar has gotten it wrong.

Tuesday, February 21st – Oscar and The Jay, Through The Years

• A look back at where I was and what I was thinking during each Oscar show of the last fifteen years. This is gonna be a good one, not to be missed.

Friday, February 24th – How To Win An Academy Award

• The official TheJay.com guide to manipulating your way to Oscar gold.

Tuesday, February 28th – The Paul Newman Never Won List

• I’ll breakdown the list of all the best actors and actresses still working today who have never won an Academy Award.

Friday, March 3rd – The Jay’s Official 2006 Oscar Predictions

• I’m going to breakdown who will win, who should win, and my picks for the people who might give the best potential Oscar speeches.

Tuesday, March 7th – Immediate Oscar Breakdown

• Expect my traditional “Things Overheard on the Red Carpet��?, as well as my thoughts on how the night went down, and how my predictions panned out (Expect me to gloat about my Brokeback Mountain Best Picture prediction).

Friday, March 10th – Final 2006 Academy Awards Spectacular

• My final wrap up of the best and worst from Oscar night, and how the awards will shake up the power scales in Hollywood.

I hope you join me throughout the next month, I promise the Oscar overload won’t stop me from doing what I do best: making fun of celebrities.

Bangarang!

This Friday, Academy Award-winning filmmaker Steven Soderbergh will change the way movies are offered to the public, but not in a good way. It is on that day that his new film “Bubble” will be released simultaneously in theatres and on DVD, giving consumers their first ever chance to spend their money in whichever way they desire. For all intents and purposes this is a good thing. After all, there were easily 365, 432 crappy movies that came out last year that were not worth spending the money to see it in theatres, but were well worth it as a Blockbuster or Netflix night. But on the complete other hand, for anyone that has ever wanted to make a movie, or has made one, and, I can’t press this point enough, YOU’RE KILLING OUR WILL TO LIVE!

Ask 100 filmmakers why they make movies, and 99 out of 100 will say that they make movies so that people will see them (and that other 1 guy is just deluded, or he’s Brett Ratner). After all, that’s the point of making art. Yes, you want to satisfy your creative drive, but in the end, you want someone to see it. Film is no different. And while people will still see your movie if they rent it, it’s not at all the same thing as seeing the film on the big screen.

Any kid that went to the movies, fell in love and decided to devote their lives to making movies, wants a different kid to walk into their movie and have it be the one that inspired them to be a filmmaker. We want people to take time out of their lives to make plans with their significant other or friends, to drive to the theater, buy a ticket, buy concessions, sit with two or three hundred people, ignore the talking, the ringing cellphones and the crackling of candy wrappers, and enjoy our movie. To be carried away by the movie. To get lost in the movie. We do not want you to be able to pause it to answer the phone, or have it on in the background while you play on your computer.

But like I said, for all intents and purposes, this is a good thing. Movie ticket prizes have become astronomical, the overall quality of movies is on the decline, the movie theater experience sucks and too many other interesting diversions are now offered to the public at costs significantly lower than your average night at the movies. And doesn’t this give more people the opportunity to see the dual release movie right now, as opposed to having to wait three months or more? So yes, there are real, tangible reasons for releasing a film into theatres and on DVD at the same time.

Except, what’s the big rush? For one, I’m not gonna buy a movie on DVD unless I’ve seen it before and liked it, and two, having a theatrical window gives the consumer time between having seen the film once and wanting to own it so they can see it again and again. It’s like I said before, there are too many entertainment-related diversions out there; I don’t have that much time to devote to any one movie. So if I take the time and spend the money to see a movie in the theater, chances are good that three, four or how ever many months later, I’m gonna want to see it again, and at that point, I’ll buy the DVD.

But if I have the choice, I’m always going to prefer seeing a movie in the theaters because the audio and video are better, and if I don’t like the movie, I don’t own it. For me, the value of buying a product that is lousy is higher than buying the rights to view a product. Put simply, I feel less crummy when I go to a bad movie, than I do when I buy a bad DVD. Also, going to the movies is a thing you do for fun. Don’t take that away from me. And they will, you know. If the trend becomes to sidestep theatrical release and go straight to video, and studios decide that it is more financially viable to do it, than we lose a percentage of our opportunity to go to the movies on a Friday night. This experiment was supposed to give us options, not take them away. Renting a movie or watching a DVD is never as cool as going to the movies, and it never will be. Giving us the option to decide how we see the movie is nice, but I’d rather you take the option away if it means we get to keep the right to go to the movies and press our luck that the movie is any good.

And moreover, as a business decision, it’s a poor one. On the one hand, DVD sales are increasing and theatrical box office is down, so it would seem smarter to go straight to DVD. But the limited theatrical run is what pumps up the DVD sales. The big screen movie has essentially become the teaser trailer for the eventual DVD release. Take the teaser away and the DVD sales will go down. But on the other hand, releasing a movie simultaneously in theatres and on DVD will decrease the theatrical box office, thereby screwing over the exhibitors, a bad idea in a time of a box office slump. Studios need to woo the exhibitors and theater owners. Take their money away and suddenly they don’t want to run your movies. In the end, someone is getting hurt by this decision.

So how do we fix it?

I have two answers. The first is tailored to solving the problem of the ever-shrinking retail window, which only five years ago was steady at one year between the release of the movie in theatres and the release of the movie on video or DVD, but today now stands at merely three months. And the second is an answer to how to increase box office sales to combat the increasing desire of the consumer to “wait until it’s on video”.

1. The Shrinking Home Video Window

When Disney decides to pull a beloved title from its vault and re-release it on DVD they give the title a limited release window, after which it is put back on the shelves and given a retail moratorium (in other words, you can’t buy it anymore after the window closes). Studios should follow the Disney model when releasing their movies. Part of the problem in a shrinking home video window is that of course, if you aren’t that interested in the movie, then you will skip the theaters and wait to see it on DVD. But some people still love going to the movies, and will choose to do so despite only needing to wait another three months save their money and grab the DVD.

As well, I think there’s a portion of people who want to see a movie in theatres but take the release time for granted, figuring that if they miss the opening weekend they still have time to “see it later”. This isn’t always the case for a movie that doesn’t open well. The Chronicles of Narnia may still be going strong after two months in release, but Hostel is pulling out of theatres and prepping for DVD in only its second week. So instead of propagating the myth that a film could be in theatres indefinitely, set a window of opportunity for the film so that the public knows exactly how long they have to see a movie in theatres.

Here’s my plan: Make the theatrical window like a department store sale, thereby increasing the need to see a film in the theatres while there’s still time. A film given a wide-release (1000 screens or more) will only stay in theatres for one month (or four weeks). That’s all you get. After all, if you haven’t gotten to a movie in a month, you’re probably not going. But don’t worry, because as soon as those four weeks are up, the film will be released immediately on DVD. This gives the studio a chance to make some decent box office money, and for exhibitors and theater owners to make their percentage. As well, the DVD comes out sooner so the average consumer has less time to wait, and it still gives people a chance to see a film in theatres if they so desire. Finally, the four-week theatrical window is basically a month long test run and publicity boost for the DVD, thereby increasing DVD sales! My best friend majored in business at UCLA, and is getting a JDMBA at Duke and even he couldn’t come up with a business model this sound. Damn I’m good.

A few things to round out the plan:

1. If a film is successful beyond a certain money point (let’s say $75 million) studios will be given the right to expand the four week window by one week for each $50 million it makes beyond the original money point. So for example, if King Kong comes out and grosses $125 million in its first two weeks, Universal would now have the right to expand the theatrical window to five weeks. This way, the public decides the demand for the theatrical release, and not corporations intent on making DVD money (ahem, Wal-Mart).

2. If a film is unsuccessful at the box office (say, $25 million or less by the end of week 2), you can opt to decrease the window by one week.

3. A film released in less then 500 screens, and therefore considered a limited release, is not subject to the four-week window. However, if the film is successful and then expanded to beyond 1000 screens (the benchmark for a wide-release), the four week window immediately goes into effect. After all, I’m not trying to kill the chances of a quality independent or edgy film, I’m just trying to be fair to all films.

Give me a month to decide whether or not I want to spend the money on a film in the theaters. After that, by all means, release the special edition DVD and let the good times roll.

2. How to solve market saturation?

Why is the box office in a slump? Well, for the purposes of this column, let’s assume it’s because ticket prices are too high ($10 bucks or more) and we no longer want to spend that much money for such a degraded movie going experience. How do you fix that?

Here’s my plan: Create a price plan that is universal. Make opening night exceedingly cheap for every movie. As the film plays week to week, the price of a ticket increases.

The price model looks like this:

• Week 1: Ticket Price = $5.00
• Week 2: Ticket Price = $6.00
• Week 3: Ticket Price = $7.00
• Week 4: Ticket Price = $8.00
• Week 5 - Through the end of the run, all bets are off. Theaters may customize their ticket price.

As of this last weekend, the average motion picture makes more than 60% of their total gross from the opening weekend. But the average drop-off for a summer blockbuster is near 55%. And since we all know that the opening weekend numbers are what determines the “success” of the film, then cap that number and give the film a true test. This works to reward quality films that are well liked by the public. Blockbusters with great special effects but lousy stories would open small, flame out quickly, and would not fool us out of our hard earned money (ahem, Fantastic Four). On the other hand, smart, well-made films would be rewarded for their quality. Now, for example, a “Garden State” has just as much a chance to succeed as a “War of the Worlds”.

Capping the price of the first week box office would inevitably affect the quality of films themselves. Most likely, we would come to see a decreased percentage of films tailored to a quick fix. I’m thinking of films like Catwoman, Flightplan or any of those Jerry Bruckheimer/ Nicolas Cage action movies. Conversely, we would begin to see a higher quality of movies due to the increased pressure to deliver a film people will not only like, but will agree to pay more for, the longer they wait to see it.

It’s the same method for home video. When a DVD is first released it is priced on sale. You can never find that DVD for as good a price. As the weeks go on, and other DVD’s come out, the sale ends and the price goes up. Now the consumer must choose whether or not the film is important enough to pay more for; a great test of the longevity and overall quality of a film.

Now, think about what would happen if the entertainment industry combined both of these plans. You have a four week window to see a movie before it gets released on DVD for ten or fifteen bucks. But if you do go see the movies in theatres, the ticket would average six dollars, only $1.50 more than your average Blockbuster rental. Wouldn’t this increase your desire to see the movie in the theaters and also help your decision to buy the DVD or not? Also, if you don’t want to go the movies, you only have to wait one month instead of three months, you are only inundated with promotions for a film once, instead of twice, and by watching how the public reacted to the limited theatrical window, it would further inform you to the possible quality of the film itself. Now, everybody wins.

Thus endeth the lesson, and my plan to fix the way Hollywood releases their movies and how we decide to pay for them. And if someone of influence reads this and steals my idea, I expect to receive royalties. And if it helps boost the economy, I fully expect to hear from the Nobel people. That would sound nice: The Jay, Nobel Prize Winner. Wouldn’t that be a nice twist of irony after my consecutive “C’s” in algebra and trigonometry? See Dad, I am good at math.

Bangarang!

It’s human nature for people to let you down. There’s no way that all your friends and family can please you all the time; that someone could be there for you when you need them, every time. And we must resign ourselves to this fact, so that we can begin to care for and about them, despite their shortcomings. The beauty of entertainment, however, is that certain talents can always entertain you. Whether it be through their personality, or charisma, or beauty, some actors transcend to become the people that never let you down and are always there for you (Though your friends and family are no less important just because Morgan Freeman is always there for me, while my best friend is not. In other words, you suck A-Train. Why aren’t you more like Morgan Freeman? You’ve never once offered to narrate my life.).

There are cities of good actors. And there are boatloads of actors that have turned in a good or fun performance here or there. But only a select group of people are good all the time, and turn in a good performance, every time. They rise above bad material, they raise their game in the company of greatness, and they always seem to make you laugh, or smile, or cry, no matter what the project is. More specifically, they are the group of actors that you are always willing to spend your hard earned money for. They make up something I like to call “The $10 Buck List”.

In coming up with my list I realized that I needed to be put a few ground rules in to ensure that I had the right actors. I mean just because I think a particular actor is fantastic, doesn’t mean I’ll see everything he/ she does (Gary Oldman). And just because I’ve seen everything they’ve done, doesn’t mean I think they were good in all of it (Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller are both good examples.). So here are the rules for being on “The $10 Buck List”.

Rule #1: They can not have been bad in any movie you remember seeing them in, especially their bad movies.

For example, Ashley Judd is in a ton of bad movies, but she’s usually the best thing in it. And then came Twisted, and BAM, she was off the list.

Rule #2: You would willingly see them in any movie they are in, just because they are in it.

What I’m talking about here is that you see a trailer and it looks unimpressive. Then, say, Jack Nicholson shows up and immediately you sit up in your seat. You’re starting to smile, you got some good adrenaline pumping through you, and when it’s over, you turn to your friend and go “I am so there!” Unless the mere sight of them inspires good will in the movie, then this rule does not apply.

Rule #3: No one hit wonders. Automatic four movie minimum to make the list.

Zach Braff is a perfect example of this. He was fantastic in Garden State, and I do plan to see his next few movies, but it’s too early to tell if he’ll keep my loyalty.

Rule #4: You can’t look at their IMDB page and be surprised.

This was a late addition to the rules after I made up a rough list and then had to throw the majority of them off because I couldn’t remember or hadn’t seen half the movies they’ve been in since the start of the millennium (i.e. Robert Duvall, Sarah Polley, Halle Berry, Eddie Murphy, Bruce Willis, Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, et al.).

So after several drafts, several actors, and a few surprises (Where did #13 come from?), I have finally compiled my treasured group. The keepers of my ten spots. In other words, the exclusive members of The Hamilton Club (He’s on the ten dollar bill. Try to keep up).

The $10 Buck List a.k.a. The Hamilton’s

1. Morgan Freeman – Obviously the top of the list. He earned his goodwill with The Shawshank Redemption, Glory, Bruce Almighty (Rule #1), Kiss the Girls (Rule #2), Sum of all Fears, and about 30 other movies I’ve seen just because he’s in it. Not to mention he’s the best movie narrator in the history of cinema. He could narrate a Paris Hilton movie and make it a sure-fire Oscar contender. He’s that good. Morgan Freeman has my money until he retires.

2. Gene Hackman – A surprise number two that lofted to the top because of Rule #4. I’ve always liked him, but when I looked at his IMDB page I realized that I had seen eight of his last ten movies, and loved him in each one (I even saw Runaway Jury just so I could see his scene with Dustin Hoffman).

3. Jack Nicholson – An obvious Rule #2’er. Would you ever skip a movie that Jack Nicholson was in? I mean, ever?

4. Jeff Bridges – The Dude has my good will from a string of solid performances, capped by his transcendent role in The Big Lebowski. I’ll put it to you like this, I sat through the god awful Seabiscuit just for him, and I HATE Tobey Maguire.

5. Cate Blanchett – She’s not my favorite actress, she hasn’t made classic films, and she hasn’t accrued a tremendous amount of goodwill yet. But damn if she’s not fantastic in every single movie she’s in (The Aviator, The Gift, Pushing Tin - Rule #1, The Missing – Rule #2).

6. Tom Hanks – He never takes a day off, he has career-making hair, he never slums in bad movies (Even The Ladykillers was directed by the Coen Brothers, how was he to know it would be a disappointment?), he’s often great (Catch Me If You Can) and he’s occasionally brilliant (Saving Private Ryan, Castaway). Like Morgan, Tom will have my money until he retires (Unless I see a few too many Terminals and a few too few Road To Perditions, then I may reconsider.).

7. Owen Wilson – I can’t believe he beat out Vince Vaughn for this spot, but then I looked at Vince’s resume and realized why (Has anyone ever seen Blackball, Domestic Disturbance or The Prime Gig? Yeah, me neither). Even though Owen has the IQ of a career stoner, he’s always enjoyable, he’s always having fun and he works with other Hamilton’s, which helps his cause (Freeman in The Big Bounce, Hackman in The Royal Tenenbaums and Behind Enemy Lines).

8. Rachel McAdams – Like I wasn’t gonna have her on the list. She’s got my money for as long as she wants it. Hell, she might be the only charter member of The Jackson Club (He’s on the twenty dollar bill. Just making sure you’re all paying attention.).

9. Edward Norton – Superb actor, and a pretty good director (Keeping the Faith). After Fight Club and 25th Hour, I’d follow him anywhere. Even to Kingdom of Heaven, where I couldn’t even see his face! Talk about loyalty.

10. Kate Winslet – She had me on the ropes with Titanic, and she knocked me out with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. And even though I didn’t see Finding Neverland (Because of my unjustified apathy towards Johnny Depp), I wanted to because she was in it, a clear case of Rule #2 if there ever was one.

11. Daniel Day-Lewis – He only makes a movie like once in a blue moon, but it’s an event every time, and he’s always the best thing in it (Gangs of New York).

12. Julianne Moore – I’ve loved her since Safe, and that love has brought me with her throughout the years, up through 2004 when I sat through the crapfest The Forgotten just because she starred in it. And if her excellent work in The Hours wasn’t enough, she went ahead and ruled in Far From Heaven. Count me in to see her new movie Freedomland, despite the presence of the anti-Hamilton Samuel L. Jackson.

13. Seann William Scott – Where did this one come from? Oh yeah, that’s right, I’ve seen all his movies, and liked him in all of them. He’s the best part of the terrible Dukes of Hazzard. He’s the only good thing in all the American Pie movies that isn’t Shannon Elizabeth’s breasts. And he made me laugh in The Rundown, Old School, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Road Trip and Evolution. We’ll just forget about Bulletproof Monk, so I can stay right about him.

Honorary Addition: Keanu Reeves – I can’t in good conscience leave my man Keanu off the list. I would go to war for the one-time Ted “Theodore” Logan, and have in the past, as I’ve seemingly fought with every one of my friends over the merits of Neo himself. I have said it before and I will say it again, loud and proud: I will see any movie that Keanu Reeves is in, no matter what.

The IOU List a.k.a. The Aaron Burrs

Like good has evil, like light has dark, so do the Hamilton’s have their Burr’s (Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton. Thus endeth the lesson). These five people give me so much grief from their film choices to their acting choices that I have vowed not to see a movie if they are in it. Heck, I won’t see it just because they are in it. In short, they have screwed me too many times to ever get the right to see my money ever again.

1. John Travolta – How far the mighty do fall. Be Cool was the final straw for Johnny T; I would have forgiven him Basic, Lucky Numbers and Battlefield Earth, if only he had just pulled through with the sequel to Get Shorty. But he had to go and fumble and fuck it up, and now the man that I so revered in Pulp Fiction will never make a movie that I will pay for, for the rest of his years (Unless a Hamilton is in it, then I have to see it).

2. Ashton Kutcher – Do you know how you lose all your goodwill from the underrated The Butterfly Effect, Ashton? You go and remake a Sidney Poitier movie (With yourself in the Poitier role. The arrogance of this guy!), and then you stoop to do an Amanda Peet romcom and thereby solidifying yourself as an actor I have officially given up on. You suck.

3. Jennifer Lopez – Even five years ago I would have thought that J.Lo was on her way to an Oscar. Now, you couldn’t pay me to see Monster-in-Law (But I did. Happy Mother’s Day, Mom!).

4. Kate Hudson – Stop making movies. Nobody likes you. Give me my two hours back from that P.O.S. The Skeleton Key.

5. Jimmy Fallon – One word: Taxi.

So that’s the list of the good and the list of the bad. I urge you to come up with your lists and present them to me so that I can tell you you’re wrong. Because after all, this site isn’t called EveryoneElseIsRight.com, it’s called TheJay.com. Respect.

Bangarang!

The next what, you ask? The next Reese Witherspoon? The next Sandra Bullock? The next Meg Ryan? The next Julia Roberts? Here’s the bolder (but true) statement:

Rachel McAdams will be bigger than all of them.

Tomorrow marks the DVD release of “Red Eye”, her cool “B” movie thriller that was a late summer sleeper hit. This comes on the heels of last week’s DVD release of “Wedding Crashers”, the ginormous summer hit she sparkled in and stole every time Vince Vaughn wasn’t on-screen. These releases cap a tremendous 2005 for the fledgling Canadian would be mega-star, and was probably the best all-around movie star year since Mel Gibson’s $100 million trifecta back in 2000 (The Patriot, Chicken Run, What Women Want). This follows a 2004 that saw her not only break out as a recognizable name (with Mean Girls) but saw her carry a romantic drama to huge box office gross and now legendary chick-flick status (The Notebook). I’ll put it to you this way, with the last five films she’s made (including last month’s The Family Stone), if she retired today, we would still look at her as one of the biggest stars of the new millennium.

Her combination of fresh beauty, lightning charisma and down-to-earth humility have helped her to transcend the teen genre she started in (The Hot Chick), and in only two years vault herself to the top of the A-List. If you had a movie centered on a female protagonist and you had your choice of every actress in Hollywood, who would be on your list? Chances are it would be a short list and probably look something like this:

1. Julia Roberts
2. Reese Witherspoon
3. Rachel McAdams

Now consider that Julia has all but retired from acting in order to raise her kids, and that Reese is fast losing her audience goodwill, especially in romantic comedies (Just Like Heaven, anyone?). As well, both of those actresses have bombs on their resume, and McAdams does not. Both of them carry the baggage of past successes, and McAdams does not yet. Your choice would obviously be Rachel McAdams.

Moreover, when was the last time you saw an actress succeed in five different genres (Comedy, Drama, Thriller, Romantic Drama, Teen Comedy)? I’ll give you a hint, that person doesn’t exist. In fact, the only comparison you could make is Julia Roberts. Let’s take a closer look at the beginnings of each actress’s careers, and see if we can find some similarities.

These are Julia’s first five big films and their genres, in order:

• Mystic Pizza – All-Girl Comedy
• Steel Magnolias – Ensemble Family Drama
• Pretty Woman – Romantic Comedy
• Flatliners – Sci-Fi / Horror
• Sleeping With the Enemy - Thriller

Now look at Rachel’s first five:

• Mean Girls – All-Girl Comedy
• The Notebook - Drama
• Wedding Crashers – Romantic Comedy
• Red Eye - Thriller
• The Family Stone – Ensemble Family Drama

See any patterns emerge? They both broke out in all-girl comedies, they each had a huge comedy hit in which they were the sole female star, they each toplined their own thriller, and they each took a supporting role in a well-received family drama. Rachel is following the blue-print that Julia created for super-stardom. The only main difference is that Rachel as been able to avoid most of the tabloid hell that Julia fell prey to (due to the failed engagements to Kiefer Sutherland and Jason Patric). This feat is even more impressive considering how intense celebrity gossip in the media has become in the last ten years.

Also, and this is purely subjective, in twenty years, which set of films will we still be watching? My bet is on Rachel, as Wedding Crashers, Mean Girls, and The Notebook are all well on their way to permanent DVD collection status. I’ll put it to you this way, when I show my kids the best teen flicks of all time, I’m gonna run a marathon of these flicks: Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles, Heathers, Clueless and Mean Girls. And you can bet my wife will show our daughter The Notebook before she shows her Pretty Woman. And I agree with that decision. I’d rather show my daughter a movie about the passion of two people in love, over the redemption of an L.A. street hooker, no matter how good she cleans up or how spunky she is to a snooty Beverly Hills saleswoman. So they’ll both most definitely be introduced to Rachel, before they know Julia.

So now we know that Rachel McAdams is the next Julia Roberts. Let me now tell you why she will be a bigger star that the famous red head.

First and foremost, Rachel is older than Julia was when she became famous. Rachel was 28, while Julia was only 21. Those extra seven years give Rachel a higher level of maturity, a quality necessary to navigate the ups and down of celebrity life. This maturity is most on-display in the handling her private life. Did you know that Rachel is dating (and possibly engaged) to her Notebook co-star Ryan Gosling? You probably didn’t, because they’re never on the covers of Us Magazine or In Touch Weekly. They don’t flaunt their relationship for publicity and they defend their privacy as vehemently as possible. This attitude helps her in two ways, 1. It keeps her a believable on-screen romantic foil, and 2. By staying out of the public eye, her interest level from the casual movie-goer remains high.

(By the way, the fact that she is dating Ryan Gosling, after they have become immortalized as one of the best on-screen couples of all-time, is unbelievable and no one is making anything of it. This is akin to Meg Ryan dating Billy Crystal directly after When Harry Met Sally. Or Sylvester Stallone dating Talia Shire after Rocky. Or Ben Affleck dating Matt Damon after Good Will Hunting. Why is no one paying attention to how surreal and cool this is? UNBELIEVABLE!!!)

Sydney Poitier once said that if the public sees you for free during the week, they won’t pay to see you on the weekend. That statement has never been truer than right now. So while Lindsay Lohan continues to devalue herself by slutting around in front of the paparazzi, her Mean Girls nemesis is still a mystery to the public. I know more about Lindsay than I ever cared to, and because of this, I no longer buy her on-screen. I’ve seen her next movie (Just My Luck) and at no point did I ever forget about her off-screen actions or reputation (drugs, bulimia, Wilmer Valderrama). Conversely, while watching The Family Stone, I couldn’t help but notice how easily I believed McAdams as the sister of Luke Wilson, despite having seen her romance Luke’s brother Owen not six months ago. Rachel has no off-screen baggage, and if it continues this way, she will be able to retain her pure on-screen persona during the prime of her career.

Let’s not forget, she carried a romantic drama to $80 million at the box office, in the middle of the crowded, male-heavy summer season, and turned the film into an instant-classic. To give you a sense of perspective, the last romantic drama to succeed in the summer season was back in 2002 with “The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood”, starring Sandra Bullock (putting on her Hope Floats face for most of the flick), and The Notebook out-grossed this film by $12 million, and did it without an A-list star. Moreover, in ten years, which film will you remember more? My money is not on the Ya-Ya (a film even my Mom can’t stand, and she LOVES Hope Floats).

In sports terms, if Rachel McAdams had come out at the same time as Julia, Julia would have been Magic Johnson, but Rachel would have been Larry Bird. Maybe Magic won more titles, but everybody knows that Larry was the better player. Also, and this can’t be stressed enough, it was easier to become a movie star in the 80’s and 90’s. There was no internet, no US Magazine, and there wasn’t 300 hundred recognizable names like there are today. Back then, if you headlined a couple movies you were a mega-star, even if you didn’t deserve it (see Winona Ryder as a prime example).

Now, it’s nearly impossible to break through the glut of the media to become a name and face that we all care about. This is why so many movies bombed this year, they were headlined by actors we don’t care about and will never care about (hello Orlando Bloom, Jennifer Garner, Paul Walker, Kirsten Dunst and Jessica Biel). Conversely, a Rachel McAdams movie has never grossed less than $60 million dollars… EVER. Think about that again. While all of her peers are releasing bomb after bomb, all of her films have been hits. Even the small movie she made (Red Eye), which had zero expectations and would have grossed $35 million tops with any other actress, was a good mid-size hit.

She has won Mtv Awards, Teen Choice Awards, and was the 2005 ShoWest Supporting Actress of the Year. Though to be fair, “critical awards” is the only area she’s lacking in. Julia had already been nominated for an Oscar and a Golden Globe by this point. But I figure since there are over 300 movies in awards contention this year, and there were only around 180 back in 1990, that this point is less important. I expect Rachel to get major awards attention for her next group of films. In fact, her audience and critic goodwill is so high right now, this is how I figure her next ten years will probably go:

• Seven movies, for which she will topline four of, with 3 grossing over $100 million, 2 grossing over $70 million, and one solid indie at $45 million.

• Three Golden Globe nominations, and one win

• Two Oscar nominations, and possibly one win.

• The covers of Vanity Fair, People, Premiere, Cosmopolitan, In Style and multiple Entertainment Weekly covers

• She will work with Steven Spielberg, and a collection of the most talented writers and directors that Hollywood has to offer.

• Her price tag will rise to $15 Million per movie, making her third behind Julia Roberts and Jodie Foster.

• There will be repeated and correct comparisons to Audrey Hepburn, both in beauty, in talent and in their respective places in cinema history.

Anything less than the above should be considered a squandering of her talent and promise.

You want one more reason that she will be The Next Great Actress? Nobody really wants to see her naked. I mean, yes, of course we do, but we really don’t. This has always been a quality of famous actresses. Julia, Meg, Sandra, Reese, Jodie, Cameron (especially Ms. Three Day Coke Bender)… none of them are high on the list of “Must See Naked Before I Die” (which used to be topped by Britney Spears, but is now firmly in the corner of Scarlet Johansson). And when we do see one of them (i.e. Meg Ryan in “In The Cut”) the nation of men is collectively mortified and apologetic. It is important for a mega-actress to be so wholesome that we want them to stay pure and incorruptible, but sexy enough that we always hope they get a little wild.

And further, not to make too much of this, but look at that list again, none of them are how you say… voluptuous. And Rachel is no different. She has the body, the chest, the face, the smile, the sexuality and the personality of the type of women that we want to see on screen again and again.

Here’s my recommendation for her next few career moves: Make a geek movie. You want to be an eternally loved movie star? Make a film that every braces-wearing, Star Wars-loving, film school wannabe will love, revere and have a poster of on their walls. Next, do a small, dark comedy like “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, get some indie cred and some awards and cement your reputation as the best of your generation. Then follow it up with a good role in a Steven Spielberg movie and then a big whopping studio picture with your face and name on the poster. After you’ve done that, go back to your roots and do an ensemble film, then a romantic comedy. And whatever you do, do not start accepting every film thrown your way. The fact that you have nothing on your current slate speaks to your choosy nature, which I appreciate. Keep that in you, and choose smart movies that further you as a talent, and not as a star commodity. You do those things, and my list above won’t seem so far-fetched, it will seem like small potatoes.

Over the next decade the top female actresses will all, one-by-one, defer to a new Queen. She will be she will be winsome, she will be humble, she will be private, she will be charming, charismatic, funny and nice, she will be Canadian, she will be deserving and she will be successful. Her name is Rachel McAdams, and she is The Next.

Bangarang!