The Academy Awards have become a bit of a bore in the last few years. There have been next to no surprises in the major categories, except for perhaps Marion Cotillard winning Best Actress in 2008 for “La Vie en Rose” or Alan Arkin winning Best Supporting actor in 2007 for “Little Miss Sunshine.” For the most part, it’s decided pretty early who’s going to win, which totally sucks, if you ask me. Of course, there are categories where there is a performance that clearly stands out above the others, but in many instances, people win their Oscars not because they’ve delivered something otherworldly, but because it’s their time, and they’re due, or other such nonsense. These aren’t lifetime achievement awards, and this isn’t a welfare system. If you give the award to the worthy party the first time around, there will be no need to “pay them back” later (cough, Al Pacino and Denzel Washington).

Take Tilda Swinton, for example. Do you know why she won the Academy Award for Supporting Actress? It’s because the voters knew that “Michael Clayton” was going to be shut out in every other category, so they threw Swinton a bone just so the movie walked away with at least one award. What the hell kind of logic is that? Did she really give the best performance or not? She was perfectly fine in the movie, but there was nothing extraordinary about it, certainly not compared to her hilariously stone-hearted harpy in “Burn After Reading.” Needless to say, the Academy’s predictability of late has led me to rebel, which is why on Sunday, I’d love nothing more than to hear the following five names be read instead of what we will probably hear.

Best Original Screenplay: Christopher Nolan, “Inception“

Current Frontrunner: David Seidler, “The King’s Speech”

“The King’s Speech” is a wonderful little film. It was #7 on my list of top movies of 2010. But that story has been done many, many times before, while “Inception” was so layered that it took 10 years for Christopher Nolan to finish it. Small stories are good stories, but when someone dares to, pardon the pun, dream like Nolan did here – and better yet, pull it off, which he does in spades – that should be rewarded. It would also serve as a warning shot across the bows of every action movie director that story matters, damn it, and to get rid of the jive-talking robots.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

I should add that that’s an estimate, and who knows how many young females may or may not escape the nation’s football obsession for what my old cinephile compatriot Keith Uhlich terms an “enjoyably trashy” film. Keith, writing for Time Out New York, was one of 36 Rotten Tomatoes critics to pay to get in to see the film over the weekend, and one of only two to have anything nice to say about it, backhandedly or otherwise.

Scrolling down a bit further on the Box Office Mojo weekend chart nobody, outside of some lower budget Oscar contenders, has much to be happy about. The James Cameron-produced 3D outing, “Sanctum,” came in pretty much as expected with an estimated and entirely lackluster $9.2 million for hit-deprived Universal. Now, if I was playing the expectations game the studio wanted me to play, I’d say it was a surprise winner because it beat the $6-8 million figure the suits were apparently low-balling with last week. In any case, none of that has any impact whatsoever on the film’s $30 million budget and the not small marketing costs. The critically dismissed watery cave thriller from Australia may do a lot better overseas.

The #3 film was “No Strings Attached” which somebody likes, even if I didn’t. It held pretty decently for Paramount in its third week. Its estimate is $8.4 million, and I suppose a decent Superbowl Sunday is very possible for this very female-skewing entry.

As for the fourth and fifth place entries, Weinstein’s “The King’s Speech” is hanging in there, royally, with $8.3 million estimate; Sony’s “The Green Hornet” is still well short of making back its $120 budget with $6.1 million estimated for this week and a roughly $87 million total. I don’t usually talk that much about marketing costs, but it’s important to remember that they’re significantly larger than actual filmmaking costs and, for a movie like “Hornet,” undoubtedly enormous — though there’s always merchandising profits to consider.

Last week’s #1 God v. Satan thriller, Warner Brothers’ “The Rite,” sank down to cinematic purgatory this week with a larger-than-average 62.4% second weekend drop, earning an estimated $5.5 million and change in fifth place. The former #3 entry, “The Mechanic,” about a taciturn hit-man and his hot-headed protegee, endured a very typical 53% drop for the second week of an action film. It earned a not-so-killer $5.37 million estimate for the revived CBS Films, which is still waiting for its first real hit of this incarnation.

As predicted back on Thursday night, the PG-13 exercise in exorcist hi-jinks, “The Rite,” lead the weekend and gave Warner Brothers #1 bragging rights. It was not the prettiest victory, however. With roughly $13.8 million in grosses, it was either at the low end or even slightly below the numbers that were trumpeted before, with some estimates going up to $20 million. Also,of course, in actual business terms being #1 is pretty meaningless except for the next weekend’s advertising.

The #2 movie was last week’s topper from Paramount, “No Strings Attached.” It earned $13.4 million, falling a significantly better than average 31.8% in its second week, indicating good worth of mouth. (Which, since I kind of hated the movie, kind of annoys me. Why are you people saying good things about it?) The attempt at raunchy but adult romantic comedy will be breaking $40 million total by tomorrow, which is pretty decent considering that veteran director Ivan Reitman kept the budget to a modest $25 million.

“The Mechanic,” which I’ve been covering here and at our sister site, performed not-horribly for the revived CBS Films with $11.4 million and change. It’s very reasonable budget for an action film, $40 million, means that it’s another modest success for star Jason Statham. I nevertheless agree with Bullz-Eye reviewer David Medsker that Statham deserves better. The original 1971 version of the film also deserved better, though even I have a hard time arguing that an action-inflected meditation on the nature of modern day evil like the original would do any better. Still, I wish they had cut the budget by half and kept it closer to the blunt spirit of that film or, failing that, increased it by one-third and just made a silly action-movie that was fun. Instead, it’s kind of a neither fish-nor-fowl situation.

“The King’s Speech,” which expanded significantly in terms of theater count this weekend, failed to generate the surprise some said might be in the offing. It did pretty much exactly the kind of solid and stately business one would expect from a figurehead and came in at a very solid and respectable $11 million or so. It was in 5th place just barely behind “The Green Hornet” which, at about $78 million so far, still has a ways to go to match its $120 million budget.

Unlike other notables, writers are still allowed to be a little mysterious. Indeed, other than the fact that he wrote several widely acclaimed movies, an episode of the legendary television series “Route 66,” some plays, and directed a few movies, very little information is available online about Lewis John Carlino.

Carlino is probably best known as the director and writer of 1979’s “The Great Santini,” a beloved sleeper about a military family based on a novel by Pat Conroy and featuring one of Robert Duvall’s greatest and most bombastic performances. “Santini” is, however, one of the more conventional films in the Carlino cannon.

In 1966, he adapted a novel by David Ely into John Frankenheimer’s famously eccentric paranoid science-fiction thriller starring Rock Hudson, “Seconds.” Less well remembered are his non-“Santini” directorial efforts. “The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With the Sea,” a bizarre and intense 1976 drama based on a book by Yukio Mishima, and “Class,” a 1983 comedy in which Jacqueline Bisset has an affair with brat-packer Andrew McCarthy, the best friend of her son (Rob Lowe). In between, Carlino also wrote the acclaimed fantasy drama, “Resurrection” starring Ellen Burstyn. After 1983, Carlino stopped directing movies entirely and his credited writing work declined dramatically.

Now a soft-spoken seventy-something intellectual, Carlino met with a group of writers to discuss a remake of one of his best known films, “The Mechanic.” The 1971 original starred Charles Bronson as a troubled but ultra-stoic hit-man who tries to end his isolation by taking on a protegee (Jan-Michael Vincent), even though his last hit was on the young man’s father (Keenan Wynn). Despite its action film trappings — including a nicely accomplished quarter-hour dialogue-free opening set-piece — it’s an often chilling look at men who have embraced death and cruelty. Bronson’s character does have a “code,” but it’s not a moral one. His aim is to embody an amoral version of existentialism that might be familiar to readers of Albert Camus’s “The Stranger.”

The new version, which stars Jason Statham and Ben Foster as the cool-blooded killer and his more hot-headed mentee, keeps enough of the original story and dialogue that Carlino is a credited screenwriter on the film. This time, around, however, Statham’s character is less vicious and the movie hits a number of more familiar action-flick beats. Viewers looking for traces of Camus will have to go elsewhere.

So, one of us asked, did Carlino like the new version? Since this was a press junket organized to publicize the new film, of course, he said, “yes,” but there was more.

“So much of that movie is the spectacle of it. A lot of times in films that are made now, that have a lot of special effects and stuff, the characters seem to get lost. So, the film becomes a film about effects. Here, what they were able to accomplish is [that] they kept the human relationship very central to the story while all this visual circus is going on around you. I think [screenwriter] Richard [Wenk] and the director, Simon [West], were able to meld those two elements and keep it really personal, at the same time providing this big visual entertainment for the audience. It’s kind of unique.”

Getting a bit deeper into Carlino’s career, why did he direct only three movies?

Carlino hesitated a long time before answering. “Something happened in my personal life, in my family, a tragedy that made me not able to pursue my career as a director any more, but I still kept writing. It was just not in the cards any more.”

In a rare show of good taste by some of the journalists there, no one followed up with a question about the nature of the tragedy, although we all assumed it would be something that could be easily researched. We were wrong. I have as much morbid curiosity as anyone, and as far as I can tell, Carlino’s private tragedy, whatever it was, remains entirely private.

Still, one of us wondered if Carlino had any regrets in terms of preferring the solitary life of the writer to the more gregarious and public work of a director.

“I liked directing. Of course on [“The Great Santini”], it was a great privilege because of the people around me that were brought into that film. Wonderful, wonderful actors.” The cast also included a very young Michael O’Keefe and a thirty something Blythe Danner.

The Italian woman who’d been asking all but one or two of the questions so far, next asked the name of Carlino’s favorite writer. The answer was Herman Hesse, author of such fantastical philosophical novels as “Steppenwolf.”

I asked if Carlino had ever thought about doing a film version of one of Hesse’s books.

“Yes, I did. Early on I wrote a script. I was in a partnership with another gentleman to do ‘Siddhartha,'” Carlino said, referencing the Hesse novel about a character whose life in some ways mirrors that of the Buddha. “Conrad Rooks did it, but not my script. It’s a perennial great story, even more important in our times. It really should be done as a contemporary film.”

Since, unlike most of Carlino’s other films, the original “The Mechanic” was a wholly original work, just where did it come from?

“Oh, God. You know, everybody talks about gangsters, crime and stuff like that. But, as a writer, I’m really curious [about] what goes on in somebody’s mind. You can talk about the act in the abstract, but when you deal with it in actuality, how does a person make that adjustment in their mind and go home at night and play with his kids and be with his wife? That curiosity, as a writer, led me to do a lot of research on killers and their methods, that sort of thing. I thought it would be really interesting to do a character that, because of the work he does, is locked in such isolation that he’s desperate for a relationship.”

Someone else asked if Carlino thought that theme was maintained in the new version.

There was some hesitation before Carlino spoke again. “I’m not sure that they did it that well. Maybe not,” Carlino said, accurately enough.

In general, how did Carlino feel about the way his script had been rewritten?

“I thought that Richard did some really interesting things with it. As I said, the central issue of this is that, if somebody is so desperate for a relationship, which was the original, that he has to train another assassin. The irony is the better you train him the more capable he is of killing you and he has one agenda and you have another agenda — I thought they really maintained this really well. The difference of this material was that it was much more complex in terms of the Ben Foster character. In my original, it was just a question of one-upmanship. In this one, he has all this anger and no place to put it until he learns that Bishop [Jason Statham] was responsible for the death of his father. It’s not going to go in that direction….I thought it was really a much more complex approach to the character he had created…”

What does Carlino think of remakes generally?

“I’m mostly disappointed in them. Maybe that’s a bit unfair because, usually if I’m really concerned about a picture that I really like, then, because of my age, I have a certain set of cultural values that I attach to the original that I don’t find in the remakes. But that doesn’t mean they’re not as effective in this culture.”

Speaking of culture, with all the technological changes that have impacted the movies, what does Carlino think of the current state of the cinematic art?

“When I see a movie, whether I see it at the theater or I see it at home theater, my experience is like everybody’s experience. I just put the disc on, or I go to the movies. I sit there in the dark and I say ‘take me.’ That’s my requirement, ‘take me.’ That’s the reason why [movies] exist. I see two things happening in the film industry. There’s a danger of the technology outstripping the human factor so that you get a lot of cartoon stuff. For me, in the culture that I grew up with it’s all about relationships and behavior. The technology, at times, can really enhance that and make a wonderful experience for you.”

“On the other hand I’m so pleased and optimistic that these things can exist side-by-side. When I see a movie like ‘The King’s Speech‘ — wow. Everybody tells you can’t do a drama, they will never be successful. Every time I pontificate about how I feel about something, somebody comes along and breaks the rule.”

Asked about what movies “took” him this year, Carlino named a few others: “The Fighter,” “Black Swan,” Charles Ferguson’s documentary “Inside Job” and the underrated English historical-political comedy, “Made in Dagenham.” From there, we moved on to what Carlino is writing these days.

“I’m working with small independent company out of Seattle on an adaptation of a book called ‘Losing Nelson’ written by Barry Unsworth. I just finished a script for that and we’re hopefully that together. As you know, it’s hard in today’s market to get an independent drama [made].”

That was followed by some more chatter about the contrast between the unprecedented availability of films via Netflix and other services and the fact that most filmgoers are, at best, slow to catch up with older films. For example, the original version of “The Mechanic” can be viewed via Netflix streaming, which is how I caught up with it. (I have since learned that at least one of the DVD versions available may be a poorly re-edited chop-job, so caveat emptor.)

We then found out that, alas, that we weren’t going to get any funny or interesting anecdotes about original “Mechanic” Charles Bronson. Bronson was, as Roger Ebert learned, one strange, strange dude. Carlino, however, only met him once and they apparently just talked about the script.

I took the opportunity to ask about what struck me as the remarkable aspect of Carlino’s “The Mechanic.” The first film was, as I’ve mentioned, extremely blunt about what it means to be a hit-man and makes no attempt to make these two professional murderers sympathetic. Carlino discussed how the newer film, which is considerably glossier, goes out of its way to “humanize” its leads.

“There is some attempt to make them sympathetic…It’s a hard line to follow. It’s a real tightrope. How do you do that, with what’s going on,” Carlino said, alluding to a scene where, trying to extract information from a criminal, Jason Statham’s character puts the crook’s daughter’s hand into a garbage disposal and says he’ll turn it on if he doesn’t get his information. We are led to believe it is no idle threat.

“The character does anything to accomplish what he needs to accomplish. That’s just it. What’s really interesting about this movie is that [screenwriter Richard Wenk] makes this statement which I thought was really good. He says ‘Watch out for vengeance, it’ll get you killed.’ That was a kind of throw-away line, but it’s a really important line because that’s how the movie ends up. In the original, the first time you see him at home, do you remember what he’s doing?” Carlino asked.

Neither I or another writer there who was a fan of the original could answer precisely.

“He’s got a big art book in front of him. He’s looking at the triptychs of Hieronymus Bosch. He’s turning the pages and you see all these grotesque figures in hell and the torments that they’re suffering…That’s a nice opening statement for that character…”

Those who remained confident that “The Social Network” remained the favorite for an Oscar sweep despite it getting beaten out in the number of Oscar nominations by two films, were given a sharp jolt because the winner last night was not David Fincher, but the extremely talented fact-based-drama specialist Tom Hooper of “The King’s Speech.” Count me among the surprised.

I’ll save for later why I still think the Oscars’ are either movie’s ball game or could easily be a sort split decision. However, in an amusing not quite coincidence, “Social Network” star and Oscar nominee Jessie Eisenberg had a small surprise of his own to reveal as he hosted “Saturday Night Live” last night.

Let’s see Colin Firth pull that off with King George VI. Also, Mark Zuckerberg can’t complain that he was misrepresented in terms of height, at least. H/t Nikki Finke.

The winner in the best documentary DGA category, by the way, was Charles Ferguson of the hugely acclaimed “Inside Job” which might actually guarantee that it won’t win the Best Documentary Oscar, because that’s the way the documentary category often rolls. We’ll see. For you TV fans, I’ll post/paste the complete list of DGA Awards (nice wins for Mick Jackson and Martin Scorsese,) after the flip.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film for 2010:

TOM HOOPER, The King’s Speech (The Weinstein Co.)

Mr. Hooper’s Directorial Team:

Production Manager: Erica Bensly

First Assistant Director: Martin Harrison

Second Assistant Director: Chris Stoaling

This is Mr. Hooper’s first DGA Feature Film Award Nomination. He was previously nominated for the DGA Award for Movies for Television/Miniseries for John Adams in 2008.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Documentary for 2010:

CHARLES FERGUSON, Inside Job

Representational Pictures, Sony Pictures Classics

This is Mr. Ferguson’s first DGA Award nomination.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Movies for Television and Mini-Series for 2010:

MICK JACKSON, Temple Grandin (HBO)

Mr. Jackson’s Directorial Team:

Unit Production Manager: Scott Ferguson

First Assistant Director: Philip Hardage

Second Assistant Director: Shawn Pipkin

Second Second Assistant Director: Kayse Goodell and Richard E. Chapla Jr.

Additional Second Second Assistant Director: Glen Moorman

This is Mr. Jackson’s fourth DGA Award nomination. He is a three-time winner of the DGA Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Movies for Television and Mini-Series with Indictment: The McMartin Trial (1995), Tuesdays With Morrie (1999), and Live From Baghdad (2002).

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Dramatic Series for 2010:

MARTIN SCORSESE, Boardwalk Empire, “Boardwalk Empire” (HBO)

Mr. Scorsese’s Directorial Team:

Unit Production Manager: Harvey Waldman

First Assistant Director: Chris Surgent

Second Assistant Director: Takahide Kawakami

Second Second Assistant Director: Patrick McDonald

Additional Second Assistant Director: Sal Sutera DGA Trainee: Jamiyl Ihsaan Campbell

This is Mr. Scorsese’s eighth DGA Award nomination. He won the DGA Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature film in 2006 for The Departed, and was previously nominated in that category for Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980), Goodfellas (1990), The Age of Innocence (1993), Gangs of New York (2002), and The Aviator (2004). In 1999 Scorsese was presented with the Filmmaker Award at the inaugural DGA Honors Gala and he won the DGA’s highest artistic honor, the Lifetime Achievement Award (for distinguished achievement in film direction) in 2003.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Comedy Series for 2010:

MICHAEL SPILLER, Modern Family, “Halloween” (ABC)

Mr Spiller’s Directorial Team:

Unit Production Manager: Sally Young

First Assistant Director: Alisa Statman

Second Assistant Director: Helena Lamb

Second Second Assistant Director: Matthew Heffernan

This is Mr. Spiller’s first DGA Award nomination.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Musical Variety for 2010:

GLENN WEISS, 64th Annual Tony Awards (CBS)

Mr. Weiss’ Directorial Team:

Associate Directors: Gregg Gelfand, Robin Abrams, Ricky Kirshner

Stage Managers: Garry Hood, Peter Epstein, Andrew Feigin, Lynn Finkel, Doug Fogel, Jeffry Gitter, Dean Gordon, Phyllis Digilio Kent, Arthur Lewis, Joey Meade, Tony Mirante, Cyndi Owgang, Jeff Pearl, Elyse Reaves, Lauren Class Schneider

This is Mr. Weiss’ seventh DGA Award nomination. He won the Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Musical Variety in 2007 for The 61st Annual Tony Awards; and was previously nominated in this category in 2008, 2006, 2005, 2002 and 2001 all for the 62nd, 60th, 59th, 56th and 55th Annual Tony Awards.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Reality Programs for 2010:

EYTAN KELLER, The Next Iron Chef, “Episode #301” (Food Network)

Mr. Keller’s Directorial Team:

Segment Director: Stephen Kroopnick

Stage Managers: Tom Borgnine, Seth Mellman

This is Mr. Keller’s second DGA Award Nomination. He was previously nominated in this same category in 2009 for episode “201” of The Next Iron Chef.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Daytime Serials for 2010:

LARRY CARPENTER, One Life to Live, “Episode #10,687” (ABC)

Mr. Carpenter’s Directorial Team:

Associate Directors: Tracy Casper Lang, Teresa Anne Cicala, Anthony J. Wilkinson, Jen Pepperman

Stage Managers: Alan Needleman, Keith Greer

Production Associates: Nathalie Rodriguez, Kevin Brush

This is Mr. Carpenter’s seventh DGA Award nomination and all for his direction of One Life to Live. He won the Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Daytime Serials Award for One Life to Live – “Episode #9947″ in 2007, for “Episode #8849″ in 2003, and for “So You Think You Can Be Shane Morasco’s Father” in 2008. He was previously nominated for that series for “Episode #9686″ in 2006, “Episode #9385″ in 2005 and “Episode #8655″ in 2002.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Children’s Programs for 2010:

ERIC BROSS, The Boy Who Cried Werewolf (Nickelodeon)

This is Mr. Bross’ first DGA Award nomination.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Commercials for 2010:

STACY WALL (Imperial Woodpecker)

Rise, Nike – Wieden & Kennedy/Portland

First Assistant Director: Bac DeLorme

Second Assistant Director: Steve Del Prete

Second Second Assistant Director: Kenny Hanson

Really?, Microsoft – Crispin Porter & Bogusky/Boulder

First Assistant Directors: Miles Johnstone, Doug Halbert

Second Assistant Director: Michael Brawer

Slim Chin & D Rose, Adidas – 180LA

First Assistant Director: Dave Dean

Second Assistant Director: Carl Jackson

Handshake, Nike – Weiden & Kennedy/Portland

First Assistant Directors: Miles Johnstone, Scott Metcalfe

Second Assistant Director: Michael Brawer

This is Mr. Wall’s first DGA Award nomination.