Oscar sees double in 2010

Hollywood will congratulate itself twice as much in 2010, thanks to yesterday's announcement that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will double the Best Picture field from five to 10 nominations at next year's Oscar ceremony.

"After more than six decades, the Academy is returning to some of its earlier roots, when a wider field competed for the top award of the year," said Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis. "The final outcome, of course, will be the same – one Best Picture winner – but the race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies from 2009."

It's a strange move for the Academy, and one that is almost certainly a response to last year's Oscars, which were criticised for overlooking acclaimed genre fare like The Dark Knight and WALL·E.

The last time 10 movies were in the running for Best Picture was in 1943, when Casablanca took home the award. The following year saw the field restricted to five nominees, an imposition that's been in place ever since.

While mainstream films like Pixar's Up – currently enchanting critics the world over – are likely to benefit from the new rules, the widened field will probably only result in the inclusion of a couple of token popcorn flicks that, while critically hailed, have a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning. Such additions may, however, popularise an awards ceremony that is increasingly under fire for only recognising a certain type of film, which may be precisely what the Academy has in mind with this revamp.

In wonder at Alice...

I try to keep this blog for review-ish posts and my Twitter feed for pointing out odd nuggets of pop culture that catch my attention. However, I couldn't resist highlighting these stunning pieces of concept art for Tim Burton's upcoming film, Alice in Wonderland.

If ever there was a story seemingly tailor-made for Burton's eccentric style, Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland must be it. The kooky director looks to be on top form here, coming off the back of the fantastic Sweeney Todd.

In a word, the art is breathtaking. These character images perfectly capture the bizarre dystopia dreamt up by Carroll for the Alice books.

Be sure to check out USATODAY.com for an interactive look at some of the artwork for the film.

Burton's Alice in Wonderland is a live action/stop motion/motion capture adaptation set 10 years after the original stories and sees the title character return to Wonderland with no recollection of her first adventure there. The usual Burton stalwarts are all set to appear, including Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman and Christopher Lee. They are joined by Mia Wasikowska as Alice. The film will be released in glorious IMAX 3-D.

Brokenclaw (1990)

Yes, folks, it's another ho-hum 007 novel by John Gardner. Admittedly, Gardner himself cited Brokenclaw to be possibly his weakest Bond novel, written as the novelist was recovering from major surgery.

It's hard to argue with Gardner's assessment, as Brokenclaw manages to be a pretty forgettable James Bond adventure; it's evident whatever passion the author had for the character during For Special Services, Icebreaker and his other early, more exciting efforts, is on the wane.

Here, Bond comes up against the enigmatic Brokenclaw Lee, who my paperback copy rather lamely describes as "half-Chinese, half-Crow Indian, all evil". Gardner takes a leaf out of Fleming's book (that book, specifically, is Goldfinger) and has our favourite secret agent first encounter the villain purely by chance while on leave in Vancouver.

Brokenclaw gets off to a pretty dark start, as Bond helplessly witnesses the death of an FBI agent at the hands of the villain's henchmen, but it soon slips into more formulaic territory. 007 is teamed with a token girl and the pair go undercover to infiltrate Brokenclaw's mob in a bid to stop him from selling top secret British submarine technology to the Chinese government.

Gardner's Bond is a more two-dimensional character than Fleming's, possibly because of the success of the more simplified film incarnation. Brokenclaw's supporting cast is a decidedly mixed bag. While the title character is one of Gardner's better realised villains (even with his kooky deformity: two right hands), Bond's lady ally Chi-Chi is entirely unmemorable. 007's boisterous American ally Ed Rushia gives the proceedings a shot in the arm, and the novel does benefit from being devoid of any contrived plot twists, a hallmark of the Gardner instalments.

The novel is nearly salvaged by a gruesome final act in which 007 and Brokenclaw withstand horrific torture alongside one another as a test of endurance. While it would be unjust to draw a similar comparison with reading Brokenclaw, it's clear that Gardner's heart just wasn't in this one.

Star Trek (2009)

In the wake of the bland and forgettable X-Men Origins: Wolverine, J.J. Abrams' Star Trek is refreshing proof that there's still life in the old prequel/origin concept.

The punchy title of this, the eleventh entry in the Star Trek series, reflects the confident, stripped-back nature of the film. Gone are the unattractive roman numerals, indicating an impenetrable byzantine storyline, along with the confusing subtitles referring to incidents and characters that further alienated casual viewers.

Star Trek (re)introduces us to Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Dr Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban), Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldaña) and the rest of the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise as they meet for the first time at the Starfleet Academy.

However, the gang's first mission puts them to the ultimate test when they come up against a band of time-travelling Romulans (lead by Eric Bana's Captain Nero) hellbent on destroying Earth by using a drill containing an element called red matter that will open up a black hole when placed in the planet's core. Or something. To be honest, it's too convoluted to even bother taking the storyline seriously.

Despite this, the reimagined Trek (re)creates an entire universe that isn't worlds apart from our own. Wisely setting much of its action on Earth, Star Trek is populated by flawed heroes. Kirk, for instance, is strong-willed but cocky, while Spock is constantly conflicted by his mixed heritage.

The cast do a superb job of resurrecting classic characters, embodied for decades by the same actors. Pine and Quinto are particular highlights; neither opt to ape their predecessors, but both manage to retain the key elements that made the characters so iconic in the first place. Leonard Nimoy gives a heartfelt but contrived cameo as an older Spock, providing a neat link to the franchise's roots. Simon Pegg's hyperactive Scotty and Bana's forgettable Nero may be the only casting bum notes.

Rich in the themes that often dominate J.J. Abrams' TV work – chiefly, destiny – Star Trek's script ingeniously uses its central plot device of time travel to create a parallel timeline that effectively wipes clean anything made canon in the old Trek, and creates great potential for future instalments. Sure, the action and special effects dominate, but Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman's script ensures things move along so swiftly – and with enough humour – that the whole affair is never anything other than fun.

Yes, the geeks-only Star Trek franchise has been given a terrific Casino Royale-esque reboot. But whereas Casino Royale injected new life into a series that was still bringing in the big bucks, J.J. Abrams' Star Trek successfully reinvigorates a franchise that had previously appealed only to an increasingly narrow audience.

And once Leonard Nimoy delivers that immortal voiceover from the original Star Trek series during the film's final reel – like Daniel Craig's triumphant delivery of 007's famous introduction at the end of Casino Royale – it's evident that the series has truly become reborn.

The Chaser become the chased (updated)

Satirical comedy team The Chaser have landed themselves in the media's bloodthirsty spotlight once again thanks to a sketch on last night's episode of The Chaser's War on Everything.

The sketch in question spoofed the Make a Wish Foundation in the form of a mock advertisement for a Make a Realistic Wish foundation, in which the dying wishes of children were turned down in favour of more practical gifts.

The backlash against the comedy troupe now seems to be in full force following last week's episode – the first new show in 18 months – which drew criticism about nearly every segment, most of which was ridiculously misguided.

Likewise, most of the complaints levelled at last night's show seem equally misjudged. It's daft to believe that The Chaser team created the sketch in anything but an absurdist sense, eliciting humour from the blackness of the subject matter and nothing else.

Criticisms have been as varied as charity foundations claiming it will make viewers think twice before enlisting their services to children being upset at the broadcast. Of course the show's creators aren't dissing the work of such charitable organisations, and of course they aren't mocking terminally ill children. The comments also raise the question of why children are being allowed to watch post-watershed programs.

Most of all, though, it beggars belief as to why those complaining would continue to watch a show with a history of pushing the envelope and generating controversy and, in doing so, submit themselves to be so easily offended. Vote with your remote.

I first saw the sketch on Tuesday at the taping of last night's episode – you can catch my brief audience cameo about 17 minutes into last night's show – and would never have imagined the sketch would generate this kind of response. Of course, the media know how to create an outrage; the questions aimed at Chaser member Craig Reucassel during a media scrum this afternoon were as biased and unbalanced as they come. Likewise, was our Prime Minister ever going to express anything but disdain for the sketch, despite never having actually seen it?

It's unlikely the hubbub will end here. It's nothing new, after all – who could forget the reaction to the infamous Eulogy Song? And with a further eight episodes to go, there's little doubt that the media will continue to stoke The Chaser's fire for the sake of shifting more papers, scoring more website hits and grabbing higher ratings.

Update (5 June 2009)

Looks like it's the ABC who has voted with their remote – the broadcaster has pulled The Chaser's War on Everything for the next two weeks pending a review of the show's editorial process. The comedy team have responded to the ban on their official site: "We're disappointed by the decision and we don't agree with it."

In their apology, however, the team state what should have been obvious as they explain why the sketch was unworthy of the scuffle that erupted surrounding it.

We never imagined that the sketch would be taken literally. We don't think sick kids are greedy and we don't think the Make a Wish Foundation deserves anything other than praise. It was meant to be so over-the-top that no one would ever take it seriously.

Precisely. I'm largely opposed to censorship in any form, and this ban sets a dangerous precedent whereby any potentially edgy (and thus, potentially offensive) comedy could be considered unfit for broadcast. It's another victory for politically-correct moral crusaders, bent on taking any kind of free will out of the public's hands and transforming the country into a nanny state as a result of knee-jerk reactions designed to provoke drama. Of all the ills of the world to fight against... Where will it end? Even when the forcibly watered-down Chaser's War On Everything returns in two weeks, I suspect it won't be then.

Personally, I'm a big fan of Charlie Brooker's counter-complaint solution, concocted in light of the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand ruckus late last year, which beautifully speaks for itself...

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to establish "Counter-Complaints": a method of registering your complaint about the number of knee-jerk complaints. And one should cancel out the other - so if 25,000 people complain, and a further 25,000 counter-complain, the total number of complaints is zero. It might lead to a lot of fruitless button-mashing, but at least we can keep our shared national culture relatively sane.

Just When We Are Safest (1996)

A couple of months back, I wrote of how I often associate the book I'm reading with where I obtained it. That I bought Reg Gadney's Just When We Are Safest in a tiny bookstore in a small English town on a typically rainy day is particularly fitting, given the spy novel's grim, British setting.

The first – and apparently, only decent – instalment in Gadney's Alan Rosslyn series, Just When We Are Safest is a far cry from the overblown adventures of 007 and other fantasised spies. Instead, Gadney presents a still-muddied post-Cold War world in which the British secret service is mired in rivalry and corruption.

When Rosslyn, fresh off the back of the arrest of one of the IRA's most dangerous criminals, witnesses the brutal murder of his lover, Mary Walker, he becomes entangled in a terrorist plot aimed at the very heart of MI5.

Just When We Are Safest's characters are well drawn, with Gadney spending a surprising amount of time fleshing out his key antagonist, Anna McKeague. Rosslyn, meanwhile, is a wonderfully conflicted character, battling a case that's becoming increasingly personal.

It's a largely character-driven story, as Rosslyn treks over the British countryside interrogating suspects on the trail of his lover's killers. Gadney is proficient at capturing the novel's moody, sullen atmosphere; there's virtually no levity here. The book's climax, in which Rosslyn wades through murky sewerage in an attempt to access MI5's Lambeth headquarters undetected, is an apt culmination of this bleak, dark and often brilliant spy thriller.