Sgt. Angle Reporting for Duty!

The Oscar telecast is over, which means it’s time for people to remark freely on all things Hurt Locker and Avatar for the next few minutes, and hopefully a Basterd or two will appear.….

Got that out of your system? Good. As your Sgt., I feel it is my duty to brief you on the telecast. There’s so much to discuss, but I’ll break my report into two sections: 1) The Awards — the worthy and the shocking; 2) The production — the useless and the touching. Sometimes, they blend.

AWARDS:

(By the way, I turned out to be spot-on with my predictions, even with Cinematography(Avatar?) )

• HURT LOCKER MADNESS: Not a lot of surprises in the main categories. The Hurt Locker picked up SIX awards out of nine nominations, a strong haul for a film that barely made it into 600 theaters in America and was made for 1/250th (give or take) the budget of Avatar. Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Film Editing. I don’t have a problem with most of these awards, but the editing of the intertwined storytelling in District 9 should have emerged victorious, and Inglourious Basterds showcased better writing than any film in recent memory. The Hurt Locker had the momentum of winning nearly every major award this season, and the “David” angle in the “David vs. Goliath” scenario that Avatar created. Happy or not, like it or not, The Hurt Locker is the victor. (Screenplay?!)

(*Note: I’ve gone on and read some other pundits and reporters write-ups who say that Hurt Locker will be forgotten ten, twenty years from now, but that Avatar will be the one film remembered. To them I say…okay. When Annie Hall beat Star Wars in the 70s, people were saying the same thing; when Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption, people, again, were saying the same thing. And look how well the “losers” have withstood the test of time. But we’re not talking about twenty years from now, we’re talking about NOW — or, to be more specific, last year.*)

On to other awards and items of interest…

All acting awards were predictable and mostly worthy. Kudos to Sandra Bullock, who won for a mediocre role in a less than mediocre movie, but who gains “classy points” because she picked up her Razzy Award the night before the Oscars (the Golden Razzies, for those uninitiated, are handed out every year for the “worst in film.”) It’s her sense of humor…that’s why they like her.

Fisher Stevens has an Oscar. Let that marinate.

Fisher’s Oscar: 20 years in the making.

Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire surprisingly beat Up in the Air for longest unnecessary title Best Screenplay. Also defeated:  District 9. I like how Geoffrey Fletcher’s reaction was honest-to-God shock. That’s how you accept an award.

Someone needs to explain, and I mean right now, how Avatar wins for Best Cinematography.…I’ll wait.

It’s a shame that District 9’s visual effects achievements got overshadowed by Avatar, but what can you do?

THE PRODUCTION:

• Hosts: Twice the hosts, twice the fun. You’re producing the Oscars, you decide to have TWO hosts this year: Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. What do you do? Give them a semi-comical monologue and then pull out the magician’s hat and make them disappear for the rest of the show. Seriously, were it not for an occasional quip by Martin when introducing a presenter, I wouldn’t have known the show had a host this year, let alone two of them.

(Watch their monologue here.)

Angle’s Angle: More screen time for any host, one or two!

• CONSTANT CONTACT: Meryl Streep and George Clooney were the two major cutaways all evening, a fact recognized by Clooney when he waved the camera away at one point.

Angle’s Angle: I appreciate the cutaway to an audience member as much as the next person, but give us some variety, give us some change. I don’t want to see Clooney wave us away, but I also don’t want to watch him watching the show for three hours.

• JOHN HUGHES TRIBUTE: The class of the simple introduction by Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick became lopsided and dull when, after the montage of Hughes’ classic scenes, members of the Brat Pack appeared on stage to say one thing each…and then walk away awkwardly like high school kids at a dance.

Angle’s Angle: Bring out the Pack first, then the clip reel. Move it right along.

• VISUALS: Best Cinematography Award is presented…without images or clips of the nominees. Best Actor/Actress awards are presented as follows: a brief montage of all nominees’ performances, five other actors talk up each nominee for not only acting well but being great people, then the presenter comes out, the presenter lists the nominees, the winner comes up and gives a speech which absolutely obliterates the :45 second rule. Total time to present Best Actress: ten minutes. Total for Best Actor: ten minutes. Total time wasted: eight minutes.

Angle’s Angle: SHOW A PIECE OF THE FILM’S NOMINATED. In an awards show dedicated to the visual medium, WHERE WERE THE VISUALS?? The chat-party that was featured last night did many things, all of them negative: Wasted time, deflated the energy in the latter half of an already body-less show, disrespected actors in the supporting categories by not giving them the same treatment earlier, and disrespected the audience at home who tuned in to WATCH a show, not listen to people TALK about how great things were last year. Also disrespected Cinematographers, who GIVE US THE IMAGES that later become iconic.

• BEST SONG: Perhaps one of the wisest decisions in this year’s Oscarcast, the show did away with live performances for each nominated song, instead crumbling the category into a simple presentation, featuring a ten-second clip of each song in the context of the movies they were in.

Angle’s Angle: Good choice.

• BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: Nothing tops the appearance of Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman at the Academy Awards in 2001, playing themes from all nominees. Lasted five minutes, and was very moving. This year, as in a few years past, we got to sit through dancers interpreting all of the scores, no doubt from the mind of choreographer and co-producer of this year’s telecast Adam Shankman. Dances were okay, the music was moving.

Angle’s Angle: Shorten the dancing, lengthen the clips and celebrate the music. Itzhak returned four years ago for a solo run at this idea, but it wasn’t the same without Yo-Yo.…

That’s all for this year’s Oscar Telecast! Despite my disagreements with the way the producers produced, and the way the awards are awarded…I will still tune in next year, and the year after that, and I’ll continue to watch the films, the winners and the “happy just to be nominated.” Because that’s a Sgt.‘s duty.

Permission to speak freely in the comments below: Granted.

Sgt. Angle

Sgt. Angle reporting for duty!

Shape up and sit down this coming Sunday, March 7, for the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony, live on every coast imaginable. I’ll tell you my predictions for who will emerge victorious in a bit, but first a quick briefing about this year’s ceremony — what makes it “different” from recent years, what makes it similar, and the moments you need to look out for the most.

This year’s creative team and show producers are Adam Shankman and Mustache Man Bill Mechanic. Shankman’s work as a director is known by you, though you may not realize it: The Wedding Planner, A Walk to Remember, Cheaper by the Dozen, Hairspray. He is also a well-respected choreographer in both movies and theater, and promises to bring a light-hearted sense of humor to the proceedings (he also hired Good Charlotte’s Joel Madden to DJ the party during commercial breaks…yeah).

Bill Mechanic is former Chairman/CEO at Fox Studios, who was allegedly fired because Fight Club “flopped.” He has since produced The New World and Coraline.

Bruce Valanche is a veteran writer of the Oscars’ patter. He is back.

The show is bouncing off of last year’s mildly successful broadcast, which had the highest ratings in three years and was produced by Dreamgirls director Bill Condon. Condon declined to return, wanting to focus on his upcoming projects. Maybe it’s a good thing, but his decision could also prove fatal as Shankman and Mechanic are aiming to bring in the “younger crowd” by having the likes of Taylor Lautner, Kristen Stewart, Zac Efron and Miley Cyrus present a few awards.

Oscars are for closers.

The problem with the Academy’s aim for younger viewers is that the intentions are immediately contradicted in the choice of host — or, for this year, hosts — in Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. Martin has hosted before, and Baldwin has seen a recent resurgence of popularity and exercising of his comedic chops on 30 Rock (an NBC program, you can be sure). Nevertheless, both are more familiar to an older crowd.

Rumors swirling in recent weeks have it that the Academy Board turned down the idea of Borat and Bruno star Sacha Baron Cohen as host of the Awards show, worrying that his brand of humor would somehow bring down the show’s pedigree. Because when you’re having the stars of Twilight and the non-acting-actors Zac Efron and Miley Cyrus present an award, you’re really turning up the talent factor.

For the record, Baron Cohen joins Tina Fey, Steve Carell, Ben Stiller, and Jason Bateman as presenters — all of whom are also potential hosts for future broadcasts.

There are other ways the producers are trying to bring in the audience this year — including an online vote to choose a designer for the outfit worn by the Award Escort — and these tactics only go on to prove that the Academy is now less concerned about actually honoring the best in the industry than they are about scoring ratings for the broadcast. Here’s hoping they don’t repeat the Round Robin of Super Compliments which plagued last year’s awards (five people to TALK about a performance without SHOWING us why Penelope Cruz deserved to win, or Heath Ledger, etc. This is a VISUAL MEDIUM!!!!!) Seriously. It took about 4 minutes to present each acting category, and there was nary a clip to show us why.…

But I digress.

On to the predictions!

You can get a full look at the nominees here. I will only cover a few select categories below, in the interest of space and time. Feel free to chat back below and tell me who you think should win. I want a full briefing on your reasons.

1. Best Actor: Jeff Bridges.

• Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
• George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
• Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
• Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
• Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

Dark Horse: Jeremy Renner — An adrenaline junkie who diffuses bombs in Iraq, tuned perfectly to the material and setting, one with his environment.

2. Best Actress: Sandra Bullock

• Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
• Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
• Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
• Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
• Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

Dark Horse: Helen Mirren — up against two rookies and Meryl Streep, who now gets a nomination because she woke up in the morning, Mirren has the strongest shot against the inexplicable front-runner that is Sandra Bullock.

(**Note that I won’t go into the supporting categories. If Christoph Waltz and Mo’Nique do not win — for Inglourious Basterds and Precious, respectively — then I will eat my boots.**)

3. Best Animated Feature: UP. Up actually has a strong chance of winning best picture, but enough Academy members will still vote for it here. Secret of the Kells is the nominee out of nowhere, here, a little film that has yet to be released wide in the U.S.A. You can find the trailer here.

• “Coraline” Henry Selick
• “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Wes Anderson
• “The Princess and the Frog” John Musker and Ron Clements
• “The Secret of Kells” Tomm Moore
• “Up” Pete Docter

Dark Horse: Fantastic Mr. Fox. As amazing as Coraline looked, the throwback style of Wes Anderson’s Fox is enough to impress even the most adamant Pixar fan.

4. Cinematography: Though Inglourious Basterds featured some of the best camera work in recent memory, Avatar’s pioneering new 3D technology and dedication to world creation gives it the advantage here.

• “Avatar” Mauro Fiore
• “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” Bruno Delbonnel
• “The Hurt Locker” Barry Ackroyd
• “Inglourious Basterds” Robert Richardson
• “The White Ribbon” Christian Berger

Dark Horse: Inglourious Basterds. Because there’s never a Tarantino film that fails to show you something unique.

Bigelow with her DGA Award.

5. Best Director: Bigelow all the way. She has the momentum, the DGA award, and The Hurt Locker is a strong film because of its’ direction more than anything else. Cameron certainly proves that dedication can make anything beautiful, but it’s not enough in a year where Bigelow can become the first woman to receive this Oscar. Standing ovations abound.

• “Avatar” James Cameron
• “The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow
• “Inglourious Basterds” Quentin Tarantino
• “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels
• “Up in the Air” Jason Reitman

Dark Horse: Tarantino. In a weird way, voters might cancel each other out in the duel between Cameron and Bigelow. Tarantino could emerge the deserving victor.

6. Best Picture: The Hurt Locker. It currently has the momentum, and voters may feel that Avatar’s technical achievements greatly outweigh any overall story or feeling in Cameron’s opus.

• “Avatar”
• “The Blind Side”
• “District 9”
• “An Education”
• “The Hurt Locker”
• “Inglourious Basterds”
• “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
• “A Serious Man”
• “Up”
• “Up in the Air”

Dark Horse: Up. Seriously. Precious is too bleak and lost steam in the recent campaigns. Up in the Air is highly regarded, yet is recognized as a manufactured film (made for awards), A Serious Man is a nod to the respected Coen Bros., An Education is similar to Up in the Air in its’ intentions, District 9 remains a genre pick, though its’ presence here is definitely worth something, and I’m still under the belief that The Blind Side is the result of a huge practical joke. Inglourious Basterds re-wrote WWII history, and, though it’s Tarantino’s best since Pulp Fiction, it hasn’t got the regard that Hurt Locker does. Up, being only the second animated film nominated for Best Picture in history (first was Beauty and the Beast) is very well-respected, very entertaining, and people most remember the first ten minutes as pure genius storytelling in pictures — no dialogue needed!

Enjoy the show, and until next time,

You are dismissed!

Sgt. Angle

Sgt. Angle reporting for duty!

Oscar nominations were announced this past Tuesday at 5:38 AM PST. Yours Truly wakes up at the late hour of 4:30 every day, so with my morning routine already in the bank, I decided to watch the chuckly Anne Hathaway and the what’s-his-face President of the Academy spout out the nominees in “top categories” for the awards. What defines a top category, in this instance, is the showiest titles, the big cheeses of actors, the “most important, flashiest bits” of the movie — the actors, the writers, the directors, the pictures themselves, and the foreigners. What you need to understand is that the Academy members — or, more precisely, the folks in charge of the Oscar Telecast — are more interested in generating buzz and viewership for the telecast than they are for honoring the latest-greatest contributions to the art form.

I won’t ask you to forgive my foul-ish mood today regarding Oscars, and won’t even pretend to chalk it up to the fact that Mr. Wolff ate away at our regularly scheduled blog-time this week because of his timely chomp-up of the Grammy Awards. I can only ask you to read YUKI, the #3 BIRTH issue of MYTHOI, written by a fella named James Ninness, and worthy of every iris in the states to see and download.

Folks, lend me your ears, and your time, and I’ll tell you a little something about the missing piece of the Oscars, something that has left a void since 1952, and shall perhaps one day — through the genius and respect that is Martin Scorsese, or perhaps even from another writers’ strike — return to show us the way. I’m going to tell you about actual respect towards a craft, and how Television Killed the Triumph of Awards.

The Academy Awards are the oldest awards ceremony in the media. In 1929, the first Oscars were given to celebrate the excellence of film professionals in the years 1928 — 29. The awards show was conceived by Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM studios.  Key word there is “excellence” — not celebrate, but excellence. After the LA Times leaked the award winners in 1940, the names were thereafter sealed in an envelope and revealed only during the ceremony, which was first televised in 1953 with Bob Hope as Master of Ceremonies. It is perhaps the decision to televise the show which has brought the most criticisms to the awards themselves.

No longer are voters or Academy members interested in honoring timeless classics or films that will go on forever to be known as the greatest in the pantheon of the art of film in general. Tim Dirks, editor of AMC’s filmsite.org, has written of the Academy Awards, “Unfortunately, the critical worth, artistic vision, cultural influence, and innovative qualities of many films are not given the same voting weight. Especially since the 80s, moneymaking ‘formula-made’ blockbusters with glossy production values have often been crowd-pleasing titans (and Best Picture winners), but they haven’t necessarily been great films with depth or critical acclaim by any measure.”

Make no mistake about it, the Academy Awards are still the most prestigious award ever to win as a filmmaker. But you must be cautious when you win it, think about what you’ve done to deserve it. Should you be given the award as a gift because of your family relations (Sofia Coppola, “Lost in Translation” writer)? Or how about because the Academy forgot to honor you for a prior piece (Russell Crowe for “Gladiator” instead of “The Insider”)? What if you just had something important to say, despite your film being mediocre at best (“An Inconvenient Truth”)? The point is, because of the commercialization of the Oscars themselves, the awards and honors encapsulated by them have become less prestigious over the years, more about popularity or politics than actual excellence.

Twelve years ago, one of the best films of the 1990s (a fantastic decade for films, despite what anyone else says to you), “L.A. Confidential,” was virtually shut out at the Oscars by the Billion-Dollar-Baby “Titanic.” The monster that slipped on an iceberg offered smooth sailing into Awards History for James Cameron, and somehow captured hearts and minds of moviegoers across the US, and around the Globe — most notably, Academy members were swept up in the wave of apparent heaping praise for the film. And that became the problem. Advertising. Campaigning for an award that SHOULD be given on artistic merit and excellence in the craft, was instead doled out to those who could afford to buy it.

Enter Harvey Weinstein, Stage Right. In case you don’t recall, Weinstein was behind one of the greatest coups in Academy Awards history when he sold members on the idea that “Shakespeare in Love” offered a more historically and artistically brilliant film than “Saving Private Ryan” and “Life is Beautiful.” Even Spielberg stood backstage, holding his still warm Best Director Oscar, wondering how the mighty Miramax Man managed to flatten Ryan’s privates.

And lo, the Awards themselves were pushed back, from late March to late February, to hopefully collapse the campaign season and bring forth honorable films rather than wide wallet films. But that still wasn’t enough. Gone are they days when films released any time before May of the year (“Silence of the Lambs”) are even within radar of Academy members — or marketing wallets. This year, for instance, the only film to be nominated for Best Picture and released before June of 2009 was Disney-Pixar’s “Up.”

And that was released on May 29.

Look, I’ll still watch the Awards, and hey, if I could, I would go to them. But the thing about Awards is, once you start spreading them around, giving them to the moneybags rather than the talentbags, you start to lose sight of why they exist in the first place. You shouldn’t make movies to make money, and you shouldn’t make movies to win awards. You make movies to make a piece of Art, whether it’s a 3-hour character piece exploring the existence of love, or it’s a 3-hour action piece creating a new world, using new technology, and still somehow exploring the existence of love.

I’m as hard-assed as the next soldier, but when it comes to executing your job properly, I’m hoping you don’t spend the most money on the most expensive gun to hit the target; I want to see you hit that target with the cheapest man-made rifle you can find. That’s where real talent lies, and that’s where real inspiration comes from.

That’s just the type of soldier I wanna see on my set.

Let me know what your reactions are to this year’s awards nominations, and next week we’ll ramble on about celluloid history — the type that should disappear from history.

You are dismissed.

Sgt. Angle.

Sgt. Angle Reporting for Duty!

Dear Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Voting Members:

Consider this a filmmaker spotlight, as well as an open letter For Your Eyes Only (I’m talking to you, internet!). What follows is the case for Sam Rockwell’s nomination and eventual victory at the Academy Awards ceremony to take place on March 7, 2010, for excellence in filmmaking for the year 2009.

Over the last few weeks, countless awards shows (both live and taped, both televised and non-televised) have featured one of two actors receiving the award for best actor in a motion picture: Jeff Bridges, for his incredibly subtle and heartfelt, down-and-out country singer in “Crazy Heart”; and George Clooney’s introspective, reflective, and Oscar-engineered downsizing expert in “Up in the Air”. Both are very worthy gentleman, as are “The Hurt Locker”’s Jeremy Renner, Colin Firth in “A Single Man”, and (debatable) Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela playing Morgan Freeman from “Invictus”.

And, just as any of these men are worthy, if not downright perfect, for the Oscar this year, one actor stands out above all the rest: Sam Rockwell. This guy.

straight outta your dreams.

No, I’m not talking about his stunning voiceover in G-Force. Nor do I mean to imply his Son-of-a-Deniro in “Everybody’s Fine.” I’m talking “Moon”.

I must warn you, here and now, that there may well be SPOILERS ahead, however subtle. If you have not seen MOON already (how dare you, movie fans and filmmakers alike!), then you will have some of the plot and interactions ruined by the below comments. However, I will try to refrain from revealing anything past the halfway mark of the film.

Ready?

OK.

Taking from Roger Ebert’s fine review: “At some point in the future (we can’t nail down the story’s time frame), this station on the far side is manned by a single crew member, Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell). He’s working out the final days of a three-year contract and is close to cracking from loneliness. Talking to loved ones via video link doesn’t satisfy. The station is largely automated; it processes lunar rock to extract Helium-3, used to provide Earth with pollution-free power from nuclear fusion….

”The station is large and well-appointed, has entertainment resources and adequate supplies. Sam communicates frequently with the home office … and so does GERTY [the on board A.I. computer]. Sam doesn’t do any actual mining, but his human hands and brain are needed for repairs, maintenance and inspection. One day he’s outside checking up on something, and his lunar rover smashes up. He’s injured and awakens in the station’s medical facility. And that, I think, is all I need to say.”

Sgt. Angle again, here we go. Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell as an exhausted, blue collar fella who is waiting for the last days of his contract to come to a close, but what he faces is a harsh wake up call, as he confronts himself in more ways than one and forces us, as film viewers and as human beings, to recognize our own faults and fears, our own desires as overshadowed pipe-dreams, and the very true, very real scenario that, however alone we might feel, we will always have to contend with ourselves.

As filmmaking is concerned, MOON is at an expert level. Made for roughly $5 Million, MOON is the debut film of director Duncan Jones (featured in last week’s Cinegasm), son of David Bowie and director of many small music videos. Jones knows how to shoot for cheap – and to shoot cheap well. He used miniatures and practical effects for the “outdoor” scenes on the moon, and intense planning and execution for the green screen / Sam-and-Sam scenes that showcase Rockwell’s ability to play off himself (aka play off of no one else). The resulting commitment of Jones to his source material and Sam Rockwell to the character, to the project as a whole, are worth the 2 hours, and worth the little Golden Man in March.

Sgt. Angle attended an early screening of MOON, at which Duncan Jones was present post-screening for a Q & A. At the time, he said that Kevin Spacey read the script and liked it, but was scared at the low-budget. Fearing cheesy effects, Spacey waited until the film was shot and edited. He then watched the film, and recorded all of his voiceover scenes in one day. The resulting voice for GERTY is cold, dry, yet somehow more touching than any of Sam’s personas.

Likewise, the film’s look and feel, from the setting to the camera angles, are reminiscent of older Science Fiction films of the 70s and 80s, most notable Alien and 2001: A Space Odyssey: Modern rooms, soft, cushioned white and off-white walls, nothing shiny or spectacular. Just the way a space station should be. (*BONUS* Clint Mansell, of Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain, wrote the music for Moon!)

As part of the case for Sam Rockwell’s nomination for MOON, here’s a brief history of the actor:

In the 90s, Rockwell’s acting career gathered momentum with small roles on television and in movies (“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”, for one). He starred in a few choice indie films, even one with a young (as in TEN) Mischa Barton called “Lawn Dogs.” Many recognize him as the killer “Wild Bill” in Stephen King’s “The Green Mile”, where a particular scene will make Moonpies forever undesirable across middle America.

After a few more showy supporting parts (“Galaxy Quest”, “Charlie’s Angels”), Rockwell broke free critically with his role as The Gong Show host Chuck Barris in George Clooney’s “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”. He bounced from this exceptional lead role directly into another critically acclaimed film, “Matchstick Men”, directed by Ridley Scott, and held his own against “the Head” known as Nicholas Cage.

What to do when you realize you have to make Ghostrider 2.

In “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”, Sam played brother to the coward himself (Casey Affleck), disturbing, dark, brooding. In the world of critics and cinephiles, Sam Rockwell could be known as the poor man’s Christopher Walken – but take away the poor man, and add “new generation”. Just before MOON, Rockwell starred in the latest daptation of a Chuck Palahniuk novel, CHOKE, playing a sex addict who learns about his mysterious origins while fooling people into believing he’s choking, in order to make them feel better about their own existence.

It should be noted that, according to Jon Favreau, Sam Rockwell was considered for the lead in “IRON MAN” before the studio finally caved and cast Robert Downey, Jr. Rockwell will star in the sequel as Justin Hammer, signing on for the role without reading the script or knowing anything about the character.

Surgery works wonders these days.

Sam Rockwell is a fine character actor with lead capabilities, a true independent hero who has mass appeal, is able to charm audiences with his offbeat style and wit. He’s a new form of Steve Buscemi, with a touch of Christopher Walken’s abilities, and a hint – just a hint – of Robert Downey, Jr.’s all around charm. A thrill to watch, anticipate, and observe, Sam Rockwell is truly the Best Actor of 2009.

Buy MOON here, and get thrown for a circular loop.

Until the next invasion…

Sgt. Angle