The End of "Babylon Five"

So many television series with ongoing stories fail to stick their endings. I've suffered through a lot of them over the years, and I have to give it to "Babylon Five." This was one of the most graceful ends I've ever seen to a science fiction program. Spoilers ahead.

Season Five was a step down from the seasons that preceded it, but it wasn't disastrous. The first half featuring a storyline about a telepath colony on the station was tedious and predictable, but had some good creepy moments. The second half fared better, reviving some of the major themes and conflicts from Season Four, but it didn't feel like much narrative ground had been gained. The few major events, like the ascension of Londo Mollari to the Centauri throne, were needlessly dragged out over several episodes. Other conflicts that had been previously alluded to and heavily foreshadowed, like the Telepath War, never fully materialized, while the more immediate ones seemed manufactured to fill time.

"Babylon Five" did regain its footing in the final denouement, committing the last handful of episodes to the major characters' farewells as they left the station, one by one. Some of these departures were the natural results of ongoing character arcs, like Ambassador G'Kar's rise to religious icon status, but others were more clumsily orchestrated. The station's doctor, Stephen Franklin, who had just taken on one new job, was abruptly obliged to take on a different one back on Earth. Another character's alcoholism resurfaced out of the blue, requiring him to seek alternate employment. On the other hand there were some interesting twists. Odd characters were paired up, and one had a tragic turn I didn't see coming.

The last episode was a coda that skipped ahead twenty years into the future for a goodbye with more finality. It wasn't as ambitious as some of the other "Babylon Five" stories that hopped around in space and time, but it was a fitting conclusion that still left the door open for more to follow. The creators used it as a chance to bring some old characters back, and to lay in more groundwork for storylines that would never be explored onscreen. A little research reveals that some of these would be used in later tie-in novels and some were meant to be revisited in the "Babylon Five" sequel series, "Crusade," that only lasted a season.

Up until the end, the series was great at leaving us wanting more. There were so many unanswered questions when the final episode was over. The fates of several major characters were left up in the air, and the particulars of many big events were not explored. The Centauri emperor who makes in appearance in the coda is Vir Cotto, confirming the long-prophesied demise of Londo Mollari, but we don't get to see it happen. One of the most important characters who is supposed to figure heavily into the later adventures of the two leads, never appears onscreen at all, though it didn't feel like we lost anything by not seeing him either.

So after five seasons, how was "Babylon Five"? From a narrative standpoint, it came a long way and accomplished more than I think any science-fiction serial on American television managed before it. The special effects were much improved by the final year, though I'm sad to say the music never got any better. The writing and acting were similarly patchy throughout, full of shining ideals and romanticism, but sometimes awfully shaky on particulars with a lot of blind spots as to its own biases. It was definitely science-fiction in the tradition of Asimov and Clarke, full of larger than life characters who represented interesting concepts, but often had little psychological depth. On the other hand, I can see why this was necessary to a degree, as the show dealt in far bigger concepts and ideas than anything else on TV.

Still, I found it disappointing that human characters, like Michael Garibaldi and John Sheridan, were far less complex and multi-faceted than alien characters, like Ambassador G'Kar, Londo Mollari, and even Lennier. There was also certain aura of predestined greatness around the two leads, Sheridan and Delenn, that made them harder to empathize with, though the writers - or really, the writer J. Michael Straczynski who scripted most of the series - deserves credit for recognizing and incorporating some of these issues into Season Four. I'm sorry to say that some of the blame has to fall on the actors, because I've seen similar characters on "Star Trek" and other science fiction series who were realized far better. Next to the very imperfect heroes of "Battlestar Galactica" and "Firefly," certain members of the "Babylon Five" crew are awfully stiff and pedantic.

Today, "Babylon Five" feels a little dated, perhaps because it's such a product of its time and owes so much to older science fiction narratives. Space operas of such grand ambition and with such optimism for the future are out of style. Most of our science fiction has taken on gloomier overtones, predicting all manner of apocalypses and extinction scenarios for the human race. So I appreciated the show for its hopefulness and its faith in human betterment. I like that it's a piece of science-fiction that cares about ideas and ideals as much as it cares about spaceship battles and aliens in rubber masks. There are a lot rough edges and I don't think the series is as good as it's been trumped up to be, but I still found its universe extraordinary and its aspirations very admirable. Science fiction and fantasy shows have found more mainstream acceptance these days, but you still rarely see anything at the level of "Babylon Five."

So I was sad to see it end, and I join the legions of fans hoping that someday, somehow, it might come back in some form. I still want to know what happened to Lennier and Lyta and G'Kar and Bester and Zathras. I still want to know if Majel Barrett's prophecy came true. Until then, I guess, we'll always have reruns.

Now what do I watch next?

The Week in Entertainment News

It's been an eventful week in Tinseltown, despite the snoozy box office and the so-so TV ratings. The Golden Globes officially kicked off awards season, Oscar nominations will be announced on Tuesday, the Sundance Film Festival is premiering a slew of new prestige pics that will reach theaters later in the year, the TV midseason has kicked off, and "American Idol" has returned and predictably slumped. There have been a lot of announcements and controversies lingering over the past few days, but none that I feel deserve an entire blog entry to themselves. But I don't want to let them pass without comment either.

Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes - This may go down as one of the most hotly debated award show hosting performances in history. Maybe all those Comedy Central roasts and VH1 rock band retrospectives have warped my standards for bad behavior, but Ricky Gervais's zingers didn't ping as mean-spirited or especially original to me. Every film freak knows the Hollywood Foreign Press Association will sell itself for a song - one sung by Cher, apparently - and the Golden Globes are only a big deal because NBC trumped them up as their answer to the Oscars a few decades ago. The yearly Globes telecast is famous for having a more laid-back atmosphere, where the stars frequently become inebriated and tongues are looser. The pressure is off because these kudos count for far less than the Oscars and Emmys, which are decided by peer and industry groups. Gervais lobbing potshots is not only appropriate for the affair, it's neccesary. Why else would we watch, if not for these kinds of shenanigans?

New Batman Villains - The WB has announced that two of the villain roles in the new Christopher Nolan Batman film, "The Dark Knight Rises," have been cast. Tom Hardy will play Bane, and Anne Hathaway will be the new Catwoman. I've seen "Bronson," and I'm sure Hardy will be fine as Bane, though it's a little disappointing that the character's Latin roots will probably be erased in the process. Hathaway's involvement is more interesting. She's known for her good-girl roles, and her ability to be charming and lovable even in her bleakest work, like "Rachel Getting Married." I don't think we've really seen the dark side of Anne Hathaway yet, and I'm very excited to find out whether she can do what Heath Ledger did with the Joker, and metamorpohse her sunny screen persona into something darker. The choice of Hathaway hasn't been too popular in nerdier circles, and among the many grumblers was one anonymous commenter who dismissed her for smiling too much. Oh, but it makes all the difference in the world if those smiles can show off sharper teeth. Good luck, Anne!

New Films Starring Black Actresses - Minority women and girls have always had the least amount of opportunity in Hollywood and representation onscreen, so it's gratifying to have the announcement of two new projects featuring black actresses in the same week. The first is a new version of "Annie," starring Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith's daughter Willow. The second, and the real shocker, comes from Clint Eastwood. He's announced his next film will be a remake of "A Star is Born," starring Beyonce Knowles. There have been the usual complaints about reboots and nepotism in response, none with much merit. Both of these properties have already been remade several times apiece, and having black stars will add some welcome new dimensions to the familiar stories. As for Willow Smith, she and her brothers have proven to be a talented bunch, and deserving of encouragement. Jaden Smith made a great "Karate Kid" and brought box office bank, so Willow trying on "Annie" is not just a good idea, but a reasonably sound investment.

New Roger Ebert Review Show - Hooray! I can't wait for the debut this weekend so I can weigh in on the performances of Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky. However, I encourage any show that aims to have real discussions about movies on principle. Also, Ebert got a new prosthetic, which I hope means we'll be seeing more of him in public in the future. He's still America's most beloved film critic, and I miss him.

Amy Chua and Tiger Mothers - Okay, this is last week's news and it's about a book - a book! - but the fallout is still going on and it's irresistible. From what I've read from the excerpts and the Wall Street Journal article, Chua is doing this Chinese mother thing all wrong. At the sight of a B+, my mother just sighed and told me that she was sure I could do better, and I turned out to be a perfectly respectable neurotic overacheiver.

Sacha Baron Cohen Will Be Saddam Hussein - Ha!

My Least Anticipated Films of 2011

There are lots of lists of the films that people are most anticipating to see in 2011. I have my own. But I figure, I'm going to be writing about those anyway in the future. Why not get the bad stuff out of the way first? What follows is a non-comprehensive list of the 2011 films that I currently have no desire to see, that it would take cash payment, personal relationship status, or heavy intoxication to make me lie through my teeth and say I want to see them. I have a feeling I'm going to end up watching a lot of them anyway, but I don't have to like it. Included below are some additional thoughts for the borderline cases, or where I just feel like driving the point home. And a final caveat - I really hope I'm wrong about all of these titles. Much as I enjoy schadenfreude, I know nobody sets out to make a bad movie.

"Just Go With It" - I like Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler is decent on occasion, but I can't help thinking that all the best jokes are in the trailer. And they're not very good ones to begin with. This year's crop of romantic comedies look just as bad as last year's. The biggest potential landmines include "One for the Money" with Katherine Heigl, "Something Borrowed" with Kate Hudson, and "New Year's Eve," the sequel to last year's "Valentine's Day." Oh, and Judd Apatow is making a movie about bridesmaids called "Bridesmaids." Gee, that's memorable.

"X-Men: First Class" - Have you seen the new stills that have been released for this thing? They're hideous. I like James McAvoy, Rose Byrne, Michael Fassbender, and director Matthew Vaughn, but this is a franchise that has been grasping at straws since "X-Men 3," and in a year crowded with eager new superhero movies, another campy prequel is not going to cut it. FOX should just give the whole sorry series a few years off and then reboot the whole "X-Men" universe. Or do something really risky and make that "Magneto" movie.

"The Smurfs" - This year's "Yogi Bear." As a kid I loved "The Smurfs," and I would have welcomed a new "Smurfs" movie if it had gone back to the original Peyo comics for inspiration or its ad campaign was showing us images of the Smurf village or the woods or something familiar. But no, Papa Smurf and Brainy and Smurfette and all the rest are being converted into CGI and sent off to the real world, under the guidance of the director responsible for the live-action "Scooby-Doo" movies. Hank Azaria is playing Gargamel. It hurts just to type this synopsis.

"Your Highness" - I've already shared my reactions to the trailer for "Your Highness." Would I have gone to see a medieval fantasy adventure film starring James Franco, Natalie Portman, and Zooey Deschanel? In a heartbeat. Do I want to see a crass, lunkheaded spoof of one with Danny McBride schlumping around for two hours in search of a pot joke I haven't heard before? No. I'm really getting sick of the imbecilic, immature, man-child heroes that have taken over our comedies. At first they were kinda cute, but now they're just boring.

"Puss in Boots," "Happy Feet 2" and "Cars 2" - None of the films these sequels are following were good enough to warrant sequels. I feel a little bad for having a PIXAR film in here, though. Surely after their unparalleled run of successes, they're entitled to one obvious cash-grab sequel? Sorry, but no. I can't work up a shred excitement for the further adventures of Lightning McQueen and Mater the Tow Truck. "Puss in Boots" and "Happy Feet 2" actually get more benefit of the doubt right now because I haven't seen a frame of either one yet, but I'm sure they'll make up for that in no time.

And then there's "Fast Five" (That's the fifth "Fast and the Furious" movie), "Mars Needs Moms" (leftovers from the defunct ImageMovers Digital) "Scream 4" (inevitably to be followed by "Scary Movie 5"), "Big Momma: Like Father Like Son" (Yes, really), "Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World" (eight years after the last one), "5nal Destination" (Gesundheit), "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never," (insert obvious pun here) "Gnomeo and Juliet," "Johnny English Reborn," "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1," "Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chip-Wrecked," and of course, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon."

Sigh... It's going to be another long year.

Who is This Laurence Olivier Guy?

Sir Laurence Olivier. The name still conjures images of theater acting at its most erudite and unapproachable. This was the man responsible for making Shakespeare a mainstay of the silver screen as well as the stage, undeniably one of the most important figures in the history of Western cinema. And up until recently, I had no clue who he was.

Sure, I'd seen him in films before, usually as the villain. There he was in "Spartacus" as the evil Roman general, and in "Marathon Man" as a nazi dentist. He was one of the leads in the original "Sleuth," one of my favorite crime films, and a strong supporting presence in Alfred Hitchcock's spectacular "Rebecca." I'd come across plenty of references to Olivier when reading up on the lives of Vivien Leigh and David Niven. And his influence, of course, is inescapable. Kenneth Branaugh's career, for instance, often seems to be patterned directly after Olivier's. Yet I'd never seen the films that Olivier was best known for, the Shakespeare adaptations.

I decided to fix that. I recently sat down with "Henry V" (1944), "Hamlet" (1948), and "Richard III" (1955), the famous Shakespeare trilogy that Olivier directed and starred in. All three films are currently available on Netflix Instant Watch. I know I'd seen "Hamlet" a long time ago in an English class, but didn't remember much, and I've seen several other versions of "Hamlet" since then. Better to start over from the beginning. I spaced the films out over a couple of days - they don't run much longer than two and a half hours apiece, and significantly abridge the original plays, but the text is dense and I'm not as familiar with Shakespeare's "War of the Roses" tetralogies as I should be.

So, what do I think of Laurence Olivier now? As Bette Davis is rumored to have said of Errol Flynn, "Damn, he's good."

My biggest surprise was that Olivier turned out to be a tremendous director. His "Hamlet" is a moody, gothic piece, where the camera skulks around a chilly Elsinore Castle with the tormented Danish prince. "Richard III" makes the viewers complicit in the machinations of the murderous hunchback, as he has a habit of addressing the audience directly. And then there's "Henry V," which starts in the famous Globe theater with a lively period performance of the play, that slowly transitions into a full-scale epic cinematic retelling. Far from being the stuffy, formal, overly faithul adaptations I was expecting, the films livened up the material with plenty of action and a few gory killings here and there. I can see why they were so popular when they first hit theater screens in the 40s and 50s.

As an actor, Olivier lives up to his reputation. His performances as Hamlet and Henry are big and exciting. His thunderous Saint Crispin's Day speech in "Henry V" is the best one I've ever heard. And he doesn't just stab Claudius at the end of "Hamlet," but leaps off a platform and tackles the evil king to floor before running him through. I preferred his quieter moments though, getting existential with Yorick's skull as Hamlet, and delicately wooing the French princess as Henry. This is where he gets to be funny and subtle and charming, and he's terribly good at all of it. There isn't a moment where Olivier doesn't seem to be giving these roles everything he's got.

But far exceeding either of those previous outings is Olivier's transformation into Richard of Gloucester, one of Shakespeare's great misanthropic bastards. With a fake nose, affected limp, and some good costuming, suddenly he's unrecognizable. And oh, the odious ambition and the twisted jealousy and the seething self-loathing coming off of this man! Sometimes Olivier goes well over the top, but he is so much fun to watch as Richard. It's no wonder that everyone wanted Olivier for villain roles in his later career. "Richard III" was the hardest of his films to get through, but it was worth it for the finale, where all of Richard's bad deeds finally catch up to him on the battlefield, and Olivier gives him a really great death scene.

And now I want to see his King Lear and his Othello and his Shylock. I want to see his Mr. Darcy in the 1940 "Pride and Prejudice," and his Heathcliff in the 1939 "Wuthering Heights." Because now I know what Laurence Olivier is capable of. Now I know what Kenneth Branagh and every other Shakespeare-loving actor out there has been trying to live up to for the last six decades, with varying degrees of success. I've seen better Hamlets. I've seen better Henrys. But there's no question that it was Olivier who set the bar, who was the touchstone and the starting point for so much of Shakespeare on film. That's why he's important. That's why he's remembered.

I'm so glad I finally got to know him.

Getting Stung by "The Green Hornet"

I feel sorry for any fan of "The Green Hornet" who went to the new Seth Rogen reboot hoping to see a faithful take on the character, who originated in a radio program and then went on to star in movie serials, comic books, and a television show in the 60s with Van Williams and Bruce Lee. Oh, the general premise and the fine details are the same. A newspaper man named Britt Reid gets the bright idea to fight crime as a superhero, with the help of his trusty manservant Kato. However, this isn't a straight adaptation but a merciless skewering of the original "Green Hornet" and certain elements of the whole superhero genre. It's very, very funny, but I'm sure many of the Hornet's existing fans were wincing.

The primary difference here is that Britt Reid is a buffoon. Played by Seth Rogen, who also had scripting duties with Evan Goldberg, Britt is an immature, egomaniacal, self-aggrandizing, slacker frat-boy who inherits a media empire from his departed father James Reid (Tom Wilkinson) and resents him for it. His intentions are pure and he tries to make good by becoming a crimefighter, but Britt can barely go five minutes in the movie without making an ass of himself. Chief among his bad habits is constantly taking credit for the work of Kato (Jay Chou), who does the bulk of the fighting, builds the cool cars, and invents all the neat gadgets for the Green Hornet. All of Britt's insights into criminology come from from his extremely overqualified secretary - does anyone still call them secretaries? - Lenore (Cameron Diaz), who Britt obliviously insults and sexually harasses during their interview.

In such fashion, Rogen and company none-too-gently poke fun at all the problematic elements of "The Green Hornet" lore. As a comedy, the movie works gangbusters. It's a lot of fun, has wonderful energy, and the visual gags and action sequences are a blast. But as a superhero film, even a comedic superhero film, "The Green Hornet" is hard to swallow. The biggest problem is Rogen. As hard as he tries, he's never credible as a heroic person, but merely someone who's posing in the role. Rogen's inherent likability kept me rooting for him to make this character work, but I think Britt Reid was changed too much. Making him ineffectual, insensitive, and oblivious to the contributions of the people around him is one thing, but this Britt is such a crass, mean-spirited, petty guy, with a bizarrely R-rated vocabulary for a PG-13 film (how did they get this past the MPAA?!), you seriously start to wonder why Kato and Lenore put all this effort toward helping him and don't get fed up with his antics a lot earlier.

To their credit, they do get fed up. All the characters around Britt work just fine. Jay Chou and Cameron Diaz put in good performances here. Chou is especially good as Kato, though in some of the action scenes I think his role bears more resemblance to the "Pink Panther" Cato as opposed to the "Green Hornet" Kato. And I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention the villain of the piece, Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz), a traditional black-suited baddie confounded by a sudden proliferation of image-conscious, gimmick-happy rivals. His resulting midlife crisis and awkward attempts to turn himself into a supervillain are hysterical. I wish they'd done more with the idea and more with Waltz.

Finally, my pretentious movie fan credentials require me to talk about the director, Michel Gondry, whose wildly inventive visual style was a hallmark of his past pictures like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Be Kind Rewind." Here, we get Gondry-lite. There are a few scenes that are recognizably his work, and I'm guessing a lot of the neat gadget ideas and action sequences came from him, but most of the movie doesn't feel like Gondry. While this proves that the director is capable of churning out mass-market entertainments like everyone else, which should be good for the budgets of his future projects, I can't help wishing I could have seen a version of "The Green Hornet" where Gondry really let loose and did it his way with all the cardboard and toilet paper and oversized puppets.

But there's no use in reviewing the film that wasn't made, especially when the film that was made was a perfectly good watch. Ultimately, I don't think there's all that much wrong with "The Green Hornet" except the title. The film was a good satirical takedown of the concept of "The Green Hornet," and might have been even better if they'd taken the joke farther, but it didn't really work as a reboot of the franchise. There was too much smirking for that, and not enough heart. And that's the thing about superheroes - brains and brawn can be compensated for, but they gotta have heart.

Why the Rebuild of "Evangelion" Isn't a Reboot

I saw "The Green Hornet" over the weekend, but that's not the franchise title I want to talk about today. Instead, I have a slightly older title in mind, one that I had written off sight unseen a few years ago - the feature film remake of the "Neon Genesis Evangelion" anime series, titled "Evangelion: 1.11 You Are (Not) Alone." For the record, I saw "1.11," the DVD release with a few extra minutes of footage, not the "1.01" theatrical release.

"Evangelion" was one of the major anime titles of the 90s, a massively popular, influential, and controversial story of giant robots, teen angst, and sinister Christian theology. It was produced by Studio GAINAX, famous for being founded by a pack of dedicated anime fanboys aiming to revolutionize the industry. And to an extent, they did. "Evangelion" was considered a watershed title that defined an era and introduced anime to many Western viewers. Anime fans of a certain age all know the characters on sight, even if they never watched a frame of the twenty-six episode television series or the two follow-up films.

When I heard that GAINAX, was planning to remake the series, I wasn't expecting much. At the time the "Rebuild of Evangelion" project was announced in 2002, GAINAX hadn't had a hit in a while. The studio had always leaned heavily on "Evangelion" merchandise, and there were other "Evangelion" projects like video games and manga trotted out every few years, aimed at milking the franchise for all it was worth. In the interim, I'm happy to report that "Tengan Toppa Gurren Lagaan," a thoroughly enjoyable new giant robot show, became a smash in 2007, giving the studio something else to fiddle with.

But on to the reboot. "You Are (Not) Alone" is the first of four planned "Rebuild" films and covers the material found in the first six episodes of "Neon Genesis Evangelion." What surprised me about the new feature was not the changes from the original, but the relative lack of changes. The series is essentially recreated, practically scene for scene, and largely using repurposed or painstakingly copied character animation from the original show. I knew "Evangelion" well enough to spot new animation and any deviations from the original script, but there weren't many instances of either.

This is not to say that the new "Evangelion" is a simple re-edit of the existing material. Nearly every frame has been heavily retouched or enhanced. Backgrounds have been replaced, details added, and CGI used to add more interesting dimensions to the fight scenes. All the enemy "Angels" have been redesigned for greatly pumped-up battle scenes. What's really impressive is how seamlessly the old and new elements have been combined. If this was the first time I'd seen "Evangelion," I wouldn't have been able to tell which bits were from the original and which were not.

After sitting through "You Are (Not) Alone," I'm not sure the film can really be called a reboot since so much of it really is taken directly from the original source. Yet at the same time so much has also been changed, it felt like I was seeing certain familiar events for the first time. The film's climactic battle with the Sixth Angel had the most new material and was a huge improvement on the original. The closest thing I can think to compare the effect to is the "Special Edition" versions of the "Star Wars" trilogy, if George Lucas had added twice as many new scenes, ten times as many new effects to existing scenes, and then re-edited half the film.

Using a new term, "rebuild," feels appropriate for "You Are (Not) Alone," and I can't help wondering if this approach could work for other films. Since "Evangelion" is purely animation and so much of it centers around these big, wild fight sequences, obviously the techniques it employs wouldn't be as effective for something like "Star Wars" or even "Beauty and the Beast." Still, this could be a good example for filmmakers currently trying to revamp classic films by converting them for 3D or enhancing them with new CGI effects. I don't think the "Evangelion" rebuilds or any of these other reboots and reissues are necessary, but if the studios demand them, something like "You Are (Not) Alone" seems to do the least amount of damage by preserving the old while indulging the new.

Is the new "Evangelion" better than the original? It's a different beast, with a narrative that emphasizes different things but doesn't shed as much of its episodic nature as it probably should have for a feature. I certainly liked the new film and I'm anticipating the future ones, though I have to wonder how much of this is due to my nostalgia for the series. On the other hand, no reboot ever managed to evoke so much nostalgia from me for its original source material - because so much of the rebuild IS the original source material!

We've certainly entered an interesting new age in cinema. If this catches on, I wonder what they'll rebuild next?

Golden Globes Liveblog Part 2

Continued from the previous post...

6:36 PM - Gervais intros the presenters for Best Foreign Language films as only he can. Olivia Wilde shows up wearing an observatory. "In a Better World" from Denmark takes the prize. Haven't heard of this one.

6:38 PM - Helen Mirren presents "The King's Speech" nomination clip. Now this is a proper introduction.

6:40 PM - Best Actress in a TV Series Comedy/Musical goes to... Laura Linney! Yay! But she's not here. Awww.

6:46 PM - Ooh, Jane Fonda is here. To present the "Burlesque" nomination clip. Eeesh.

6:48 PM - Best Actor in a TV Series Comedy/Musical. Go Jim Parsons! Sheldon is triumphant!

6:50 PM - Jeremy Irons, sounding deathly ill, presents Best Supporting Actress - and it goes to Melissa Leo for "The Fighter." This speech should win her points come Oscar time.

7:01 PM - Matt Damon is presenting the Cecil B. DeMille award to Robert DeNiro. This should be fun. Damon does a terrible Pesci, and I'm glad he didn't try to do Jodie Foster. On with the clip package!

Man, DeNiro was great in "Raging Bull." I love that they're including some of the more obscure titles - "Awakenings," "This Boy's Life," "Midnight Run." The plug for "Limitless" was pretty sad though. And only two seconds for "Mean Streets"?

And DeNiro speaks. He gets in digs about "Little Fockers," the HFPS, 3D conversions, and Homeland Security. Heh. One of his laugh lines got bleeped, which makes me twitch. And DeNiro points out more missing obscurities that I am now obligated to watch.

7:11 PM - "Gnomeo and Juliet" looks terrible.

7:13 PM - "The Tourist" has its clip presented by Megan Fox? I thought she was persona non grata after "Jonah Hex."

7:14 PM - Here come the big guns. Best Director time. David Fincher wins for "The Social Network"! Looks like this is finally his year. Easily the most well-written speech of the evening. The camera-people at this show really need to pick their reaction shots better. Why are we looking at the cast of "Glee"?

7:18 PM - Best TV Show Comedy/Musical goes to... "Glee." No surprise considering the earlier wins. As with all the other TV awards, this would have been for the 2009-2010 season, not the current one. And the acceptance speech was cut off to go to commercial. Oh well.

7:25 PM - Alicia Keyes? Oh, she's here to present the clip for "Black Swan."

7:26 PM - Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical Film, aka the Johnny Depp category. Paul Giamatti wins for "Barney's Version," probably the most dignified choice and it'll get an underseen film some attention. So, best possible result. Giamatti's giving the five-second-delay a workout here. Someone get this man some more Godiva chocolates!

7:32 PM - Joseph Gordon Levitt presents the "Inception" clip. Is it just me or is he a little wired?

7:34 PM - Best Actress in a Drama Film. Portman takes it! She and Bening will be battling it out for the Oscar. Portman's got the better speech, and the whole drama of the baby bump on her side. And "Sweet Lips" Kunis, huh?

7:37 PM - Gervais is back to introduce Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. I think this is the first time I've seen these two together in real life before. Best Film, Comedy or Musical, goes to "The Kids Are All Right." Not a shock, since it had no competition whatsoever.

7:46 PM - We're getting down to the end and the room is getting restless. Gervais is still going strong though. Here's Sandra Bullock to hand out the Best Actor award for Drama Film. This is Firth's to lose - he wins! Great performance, and Firth is due for a statue. Good for him for thanking David Seidler, the screenwriter enjoying a major career comeback with this film.

7:54 PM - The resurrected Michael Douglas is here and has the room on its feet. Best Motion Picture, Drama, goes to - "The Social Network." Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield have to be verbally prodded to go onstage. The Facebook film juggernaut rolls on.

7:59 PM - Ricky Gervais gets the final word. "And thank you to God, for making me an atheist." Oscar nominations are announced next week and the fun will really start.

Goodnight everybody!