Oscar Nominations 2011

I know that I didn't get this thrown up there on Tuesday like about forty million other bloggers.  I apologize to all those people out there who rely on my pithy and insightful analysis.  But, I often like to weigh in after the initial storm surge of panicky comments.  That way I can 1) steal all the good stuff I already read and 2) come across as extremely timely and "of the moment."  It's really a brilliant strategy.  It also keeps me from having to be lost in the deluge of other opinions.  Instead, I can float onto shore like the last piece of wreckage from a rapidly sinking ship.

People are never going to be completely happy with the Oscar nomination process.  Even if there was a way to nominate every worthy candidate, there would be some loud mouthed blogger that Yogi Bear got overlooked for Best Visual Effects or something inane like that.  "Ashton Kutcher soooo should have gotten nominated for Killers."  I have heard a bunch of complaints this year, most of them centered around the one big problem I had as well.  I'll address that big glaring problem, and then I'll bring up my patented financial assessment too.

Christopher Nolan gets the shaft.  This was the biggest source of discontent out there.  How in the world did Nolan get passed over for Best Director for Inception?  I have no clue, either.  If I was voting for the Oscars (which, thank goodness I'm not), I would have a pretty simple way of assessing the directing award.  Would this movie be as good if someone else directed it?  Was this movie made good primarily by the acting?  Can the movie be separated from the director and stand strong?  Was the director's vision clear and executed well?  Was it the script, or the director's execution of it?  Those are some simple questions I would ask.  For some movies, you can see the acting is so strong, the director was almost irrelevant - kind of like how some football teams would win the Super Bowl with a monkey as a coach (1990s Dallas Cowboys, for example).  I kind of see that in movies like A Few Good Men or The Usual Suspects.  But, when you look at Inception, Nolan is all over that movie.  No one ever mentioned any of the actors for an award.  The effects were impressive, but they were critical to the story.  And, quite frankly, this movie wouldn't exist without him.

It would have been like James Cameron not being nominated for Titanic or Avatar.  He was essential to those movies.  HE was the most important element.  That was Nolan.  I think all of Hollywood recognized that - which is why even Hollywood types were stunned.  Hans Zimmer, who wrote the score for the movie, was very vocal about it.  Even the Coen brothers - nominated for True Grit - wrote they hoped they didn't take anyone's place.  Most entertainment people believe they were referring to Nolan.  He wrote the movie.  It was his vision, his execution.  Inception was the most talked about movie of the year.  It was a highly original, highly intelligent movie that made $294 million.  Read that again.  TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS.  It wasn't a franchise or a comic book or a beloved novel. According to all Hollywood wisdom, it should have tanked.  Instead, it was the fifth biggest movie of the year and the most talked about.

Nolan is a brilliant director.  He should have been nominated for his last four movies - Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, and Inception.  It's sad, but I doubt he'll get nominated for the next film either - Dark Knight Rises - since a superhero movie will NEVER win a major category Oscar.  I guess we'll have to wait to see if he ever gets his due.

Ten Best Picture Joke.  The ten best pictures nominations was supposed to open the category up to other deserving films (translation: more popular movies to make the show watchable).  While it has been good to see films like Up, Toy Story 3, Inception, District 9, and The Blind Side get nominated, there still is a very clear line between "the films that would have been nominated in years past" and "the other films that have no real chance of winning but that hopefully will bring more viewers."  Last year, the category was split between legitimate (Avatar, Hurt Locker, An Education, A Serious Man, Up in the Air) and the fillers (Up, District 9, Inglorious Basterds, The Blind Side, Precious).  This year is no different.  You have the starting five (Social Network, True Grit, King's Speech, Black Swan, Kids are Alright) and the other guys (Inception, Toy Story 3, The Fighter, 127 Hours, Winter's Bone).

So, is it really a benefit to add the five movies when they have no chance?  Really, only three films even have a chance this year - Social Network, True Grit, and King's Speech.  Adding other films doesn't really do much.  I'm glad that it allows Pixar movies to be nominated.  But it infuriates me that they still don't get the respect they deserve.  It almost seems like, with the expanded nominations, it guarantees that Pixar will NEVER win.  What more can they possibly do that they have done with their last four films?  Toy Story 3, Up, WALL-E, and Ratatouille were all deserving of serious consideration.  Now, it is like, "Shut up.  You got nominated.  What more do you want?"  Pixar, at this point, could make the Citizen Kane of animated films and not win.

Animated Shortchange.  There were not enough animated films to allow for the normal five picture category.  So, instead, there are only three films.  I understand the rules.  But it is a shame that it happened.  I think Despicable Me and Tangled both were deserving of nominations.  They just got caught up in a rule issue.  It's sad, too, because those two movies signified so much more than just a good kids' flick.  Despicable Me was an original film based on no franchise, children's book, action hero.  (Much like Inception.)  It was the seventh biggest movie of the year based completely on the quality of the movie and word of mouth (with $250 million gross).  That needs to be rewarded.  Tangled signified the return of Disney animation - NOT done by Pixar.  It was a very good movie.  It was funny, touching, engaging.  It had lovely music and was equally attractive to boys and girls.  Disney has needed a hit like that to show that they can pull off animated films outside of Pixar - which they certainly did.  Again, that should be rewarded.  (In my opinion, the more quality animated films the better.)

Financial Gripes.  The inflated Best Picture category has helped to bring the overall per picture average up - just like it did las year.  Bringing in big money films like Avatar, Toy Story 3, and Inception will do that.  But we still see a ridiculous obsession with low grossing movies in the acting categories.  I can overlook the infatuation with King's Speech because it has made $57 million, and probably will earn more, since it hasn't been in theaters that long.  Plus, from everything I've heard, it is just phenomenally acted.  I can even try to get past stuff like Kids Are Alright ($20.8 million) and 127 Hours ($11.3 million).  But then I start to have problems.  Winter's Bone generated just $6.3 million, but got a Best Picture and two acting nods.  Blue Valentine and its NC-17 rating earned just $4.5 million and one acting nomination.  Then you have Nicole Kidman's Rabbit Hole nomination ($1.3 million) and Jacki Weaver's Animal Kingdom spot ($1million).  Maybe people were drawn to the animal references.  I just don't understand how a picture gets a nomination when it barely generates enough money to cover the ticket costs for the Academy voters!  How in the word can people say those movies deserved anything?  NO ONE SAW THEM!!!  I have a real problem believing that everyone who voted for those people actually saw those movies.  The biggest joke, though, was Javier Bardem's nomination for Biutiful.  This movie has generated ZERO DOLLARS!  It is a Mexican film that has not even been released.  There have been some screenings.  Julia Roberts has campaigned for the film and has hosted some private screenings.  WHAT THE HECK!?!  How in the world can the Academy with a straight face nominate a movie that is not even out for the public to see?  To me, that is a real problem.  Who voted for this guy?  I know people love him and love Julia Roberts.  But that is not an accurate representation of the movies for 2010.  I know that a lot of people were unhappy with Mark Wahlberg being left out from a nomination for The Fighter.  Well, there was his spot right there.

Of course, the Oscars will never get it 100 percent right - just like the Grammys, Golden Globes, MVP races, and People's Choice Awards will always be lacking.  They involve people - people will opinions. The problem is that the people voting have different opinions than the vast majority of the people voting with their wallets.  And there isn't really a way to make those two sides agree.  I guess that is part of the fun of it all.  Hollywood loves ticking off the public with their goofy nomination process and Americans love to complain about the goofy nomination process.  It's what makes the Oscars so dang much fun.  Well, not for Christopher Nolan.

Oscar 2010 Recap

So the Academy Awards were last night.  It was supposed to be a retooling of the event, to bring viewers back and to remember them why they love the movies.  I watch the Oscars every year, so I wasn't going to be drawn in by some goofy tricks.  When the ratings are released today, we'll see how things went over.  Awards shows across the board have been up sharply this year, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Oscars have a huge rating for last night.  But, let's look quickly at the things they tried to "bring in more viewers."

• Two hosts - Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin.  These two guys are masters at Saturday Night Live.  They should be able to wing it and handle the duties of host, right?  Well, they had some truly funny lines, gags, bits.  But mostly it was awkward and completely dependent on the teleprompter.  Alec especially never looked at the camera.  You know how experts say that modern tools like cell phones and pdas have actually hurt our memories, because now we never have to memorize anything?  I think the teleprompter is like that to actors.  SNL is rife with this issue every week.  The hosts were okay, but no better than anyone else lately.  PLUS, they were upstaged by Neil Patrick Harris from the very outset.  NPH has already shown what a great host he is at the Emmy's and Tony's.  Just give him the Oscar gig and let him have it until he makes a mistake.
• A Tribute to Horror - Ummmmmm.  Okay, I know that Horror films are money makers and have huge fan loyalty.  But I, for one, detest horror films.  I don't watch them.  I have never been able to understand why people want to introduce those images and thoughts into their mind.  I think the real world can be horrifying enough.  I swear, the short clips of the Best Documentary category last night were terrifying enough to me.  Dolphin slaughtering, evil food producers, abandoned migrant children.  I don't need some scary guy with claws or a hockey mask to keep me up at night.
• More Focus on Best Acting Awards - This one I don't get.  The whole ceremony is basically Hollywood patting itself on the back.  It is a bunch of rich, talented, beautiful people celebrating how rich, talented, and beautiful they are.  There are 24 awards.  They all are supposed to be important.  And the "most important" are reserved for the end - Picture and Director.  In addition, for years, Hollywood has been shifting to where it isn't a stigma to be up for Supporting Acting awards.  We have seen big stars win the supporting awards.  It isn't supposed to be a stepping stone any more.  So, this year, the Best Acting nominees are brought out at the beginning and introduced.  They we got those ridiculous fawning speeches about each person - complete with long lingering shots of them listening to this ego-feeding.  AND we got the clips of their roles.  AND then they got named.  It seemed a bit like overkill.  Sure, Tim Robbins' send up of Morgan Freeman was funny.  But we also had to put up with Peter Saaarsengaaaaaaard, Forrest Whittaker,  and Colin Farrell.  It just seemed like a bit much - elevating those awards over everything else in the evening.
• "We're going to streamline the show!"  No more performing the Best Song nominees.  Instead, we are going to do a big dance number to emphasize the Best Score nominees!  (The dance was cool.)  And we're going to have five long fawning speeches.  And we're going to put the smaller award winners waaaaay in the back so that they have to walk forever to get on stage, and then look around trying to see how to get up on stage.  And we're going to have a really long memorial for John Hughes (which was touching) that ends with the on-stage appearance of a bunch of his famous stars.  (Was anyone else terrified by Judd Nelson?)  Way to streamline.
• Younger Presenters.  The show promised that it would be using newer actors to present awards - presumably so that flocks of teenagers would watch the show to see Taylor Lautner.  So they trotted out Miley Cyrus, Amanda Seyfried, Lautner, Kristen Stewart, Zoe Saldana, Anna Kendrick, Carey Mulligan, Ryan Reynolds, and Chris Pine.  Some of them did fine - some of them were VERY awkward.  Maybe they have always waited to use older actors because they wouldn't be quivering while presenting.  And, we also had to put up with the always-weird Sean Penn and Quentin Tarantino.  As usual, a complete hit and miss deal.
• History Making Awards.  They kept on mentioning how in the Best Director category, "We could have the first female winner or the first African-American winner  . . . or one of these white men oppressors could win."  That isn't what the said, but it came across pretty clear.  When they started doing that, I knew that Bigelow was going to win.  There was no way they were going to make that big of a deal over the potential for history making and then give it to James Cameron - the very definition of white male establishment.  It was like when Halle Berry was up for Best Actress and they invited all these African-Americans from history to the ceremony.  There was no way she was losing.  And I thought it was cemented by Barbara Streisand presenting the award.  It was kind of funny when she said, "For the first time, it could be a (gasp) woman."  You saw in her face that she wanted to add, "Which I should have won twice."  It is when a woman finally gets elected President - only having Hillary Clinton introduce her.  Kind of like that SNL sketch with Amy Poehler's Clinton and Tina Fey's Palin - where Clinton was incredulous at how the unknown Palin was further along that she was.  That was Babs last night.
• Ten Best Picture Nominations.  This was to open up the category and bring attention to some films that would normally be neglected.  This was supposed to give voters the chance to acknowledge some more popular films that usually would have been left out.  It was a shameless attempt to guarantee that some popular resonating films would be in play, bringing in viewers.  This is where I have to drop out of bulleted mode.

I am glad they expanded to ten films, if only so that UP could get the nomination it should have gotten anyway.  I addressed this in an earlier post, but this whole concept didn't really make a big difference.  Everyone knew that the five extra films (Up, District 9, Blind Side, An Education, Inglorious Tarantinos) had no shot at winning Best Picture.  In fact, it was a three film race all year.  The only films that had any chance at all were The Hurt Locker, Avatar, and Up in the Air.  And, this year, there was a legitimate big box office picture that already was going to be up for Best Picture.  They should have waited and trotted out the Big Ten in a year when the Top Five was a bunch of films no one had heard of.

Here's my beef.  The Hurt Locker is the lowest grossing Best Picture winner ever.  $14 million.  That means that maybe 1.5 million people saw the film.  How in the world can the best picture that came out in a year only draw 1.5 million people?  It just doesn't add up.  And The Hurt Locker wasn't a Christmas release that still will hang out in theaters for months after the ceremony.  It came out last Spring.  So it has had its chance.  It isn't going to add much more money to that total.  I just don't get how a movie that is good enough to be called the best of the year can resonate so poorly with viewers.  Something seems fishy to me.  I have always questioned the validity of Oscar nominations.  Shoot, I have tracked nominee grosses as far back as the year Titanic cleaned up.  I just have a problem with a movie winning Best Picture if no one saw it.  

I am NOT saying the highest grossing films should win - or even be nominated.  I don't want films like Transformers winning.  That is just ridiculous.  But, I honestly feel that if there is a movie with a huge box office that is ALSO a cultural hit and ALSO a high quality movie, it should be recognized for that.  This year they had a film like that.  LAST YEAR they had TWO films like that and completely ignored them (The Dark Knight, WALL-E).  They pulled the same junk on the first two Lord of the Rings films.  I know that people respond with, "This isn't the People's Choice Awards."  You're right.  But shouldn't the people have some choice?  I mean, you want us to go to the movies, support the movies, and then watch the awards shows - but our opinion doesn't matter when it comes to handing out trophies?  

Here's another example - how do movies that have made just about nothing get these acting nominations.  Every year it happens - usually with a older actor.  I remember it happened with Peter O'Toole and the movie Venus a few years ago.  This year, the movie The Last Station earned TWO acting nominations - for Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren.  The movie had earned $355,000 as of the nomination.  It has earned $4.6 million now.  Seriously?  Of all the movies that came out last year, you are honestly going to tell me that two of the top twenty acting performances were in a movie with that little exposure?  You're going to tell me that enough people had SEEN IT when the nominations came out?  There are 6,000 Academy members.  Only the actors get to vote in acting categories.  You're going to tell me all the actors in the Academy had raced out to see The Last Station before the ballots were due?  Or did they just see that Christopher Plummer had done something they could nominate him for?  It doesn't add up.  Those numbers just don't add up!

So with the Best Picture issue, you have a monstrous movie up against a very small movie.  I haven't seen either film.  But, I've heard good things about both films.  I have heard The Hurt Locker was gripping and powerful.  I also have heard it was boring and stupid.  And I have heard Avatar was mesmerizing and jaw-dropping.  And I have heard the characters and story were weak and overpowered by the glitz.  So, you have movies with flaws all over.  (The only movie I didn't hear had a ton of flaws was Up in the Air.  The people I heard from about that said it was basically perfect.  Go figure.)  Somehow, the movie no one saw trumped the one almost everyone saw.  

Here is what I think of with movies when it comes to awards.  Not just, what was the best movie that year.  I also think, which movie is going to be remembered.  Which one is going to be memorable beyond this show?  This year, Avatar was the movie that was going to be remembered.  It made the biggest impact.  There were people ON THE RED CARPET breaking into interviews with Avatar people saying how many times they had seen the movie.  When does that happen?!?  The people at the Oscars had seen Avatar numerous times.  These voters were blown away by the film.  America was blown away by the film.  It took out the domestic box office record - something that people had wondered if it would ever fall.  It single-handedly legitimized 3-D movies.  But it left with 3 Oscars, one less than Terminator 2.  Huh?  How can a movie that has that much impact culturally, technologically, financially, and even in the industry walk away with just tech awards?  And then a movie that no one has even seen waltzes off with 6 Oscars.  It may have been the best movie (though I have my doubts), but I don't think it should have won.  

When it comes to the best movies, that is so subjective.  How do you differentiate between those movies?  All of them are good.  There are little things here and there.   But, you could make a case that any of the films could have won.  Look at a year where there really were some amazing nominees - 1994 for instance.  You had Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show, and Shawshank Redemption - with Four Weddings and a Funeral inexplicably weaseling its way in.  Which of those four movies was best?  Well, Forrest Gump won.  But was it the best?  I would say it was the fourth best.  Pulp Fiction influenced so many films after it.  Shawshank has emerged as one of the most passionately appreciated.  And Quiz Show, even though most people haven't seen it, is an unbelievable movie that actually become more relevant over time.  But how are you supposed to really decide?  That year, the voters went with the more profitable and more industry friendly film.  But this year, they did the opposite.  They had several good choices and went with the least profitable and least memorable film.  Yes, it will be remembered because it was the first female director to win Best Director, but will the film itself be remembered?  Unfortunately, it will probably be memorable for the same reason as Shakespeare in Love - for winning over a more deserving film.

Pixar's Golden Moment

With the recent Oscar nominations coming out, I have thought a little bit more about movies lately.  I will put my reaction to the nominations up soon, but I am still trying to decide what I think.  One particular thing I have thought of, though, is the fact that one of the nominations for Best Picture was Pixar's masterpiece Up.  Now, most of you probably know that the Academy expanded their Best Picture category to ten movies this year.  It was supposedly a way to harken back to the old days, when there were ten pictures up.  But, anyone who knows anything about Oscar, knows that it actually was a pathetic attempt to get more public interest in the flagging show by giving more spots to "popular films."  This can be translated as, "Our snooty voters keep on nominating movies no one sees and no one give a crap about, so we are going to put on a show that we want more accessibility to our awards."

I think it was one of those moves that was necessary after last year - where there were two extremely legitimate "popular movies" that got rejected YET AGAIN.  The Dark Knight and WALL-E deserved to be nominated.  There was a pretty big public outcry, so the Academy scrambled to make it right this year.  [A similar thing will happen with the idiotic NFL overtime rules as soon as some team loses a Super Bowl without ever touching the ball in overtime.  It will help if that team has a player named "Manning" on it.]  So, this year the Oscars have ten pictures up.  But the stupid thing is that everyone knows which movies would have been the top five, if there had only been five.  And the other ones don't have a shot in Hollywood of winning.  If it had been five films, then Avatar, Up in the Air, Hurt Locker, Precious, and A Serious Man would have been the nominees.  One popular film, one pretty well watched film, three whiffs.  But, since they added five more slots, then Blind Side, Up, District 9, Inglorious Offsprings-of-Unmarried-Parents, and An Eduction also got up for the big golden nude guy.

The last five films are just happy to be there.  It is really just a three movie race - it has been for months.  It is between Avatar, Up in the Air, and Hurt Locker.  So, the other seven get to dress up pretty and go hear Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin make jokes.  But, there is one interesting side story I have thought about from this.  Up scored a Best Pictures nod - the first Pixar movie to do so.  They have been nominated for, and regularly won, the Best Animated Film.  They also have been nominated for Best Screenplay a few times - a big jump for an animated film.  But they couldn't shake that animated Best Picture curse.  Up is only the second animated movie EVER to be up for Best Picture (1991 Beauty and the Beast was the other).  That made me wonder - if there had been ten nomination slots for the whole of Pixar's run, how many Best Picture nominations would they have?  It is an interesting question.  That made me think through Pixar's library, rank them from bottom to top, and see which would have had a chance for Oscar's highest award.  Because that is how I roll.

10. CARS (2006)
Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Song
Won: Nothing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field Deserving?  No

Breakdown: Don't get me wrong.  Being the worst Pixar movie is like being the third best Lord of the Rings movie.  It is like being the worst starter in an All Star Game.  Even the tenth place Pixar movie is better than 98% of all animated movies and 90% of all regular movies.  Cars was a great movie.  It was so fun.  My son and I had a blast at it and we had a whole garage full of cars from the movie.  It made tons of money, had the most merchandising opportunities, and is spawning a sequel.  It was fun and sweet and funny.  But it wasn't that original - the story was very similar to Doc Hollywood (something I pointed out, and that numerous others did as well).  It lost best Animated Feature to Happy Feet (?).  And there were about seven legitimate films that could have filled an expanded Best Picture category.

9. BUG'S LIFE (1998)

Nominated for: Best Music (no animated feature award that year)

Won: Nothing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field

 Deserving?  No

Breakdown: I think Bug's Life gets lost in the shuffle.  It was sandwiched between the two Toy Story films.  It is the lowest grossing Pixar movie (only a lousy $163 million).  But it is very entertaining.  Only, it is a lightweight film compared to the heftier Pixar fare.  It didn't get nominated for anything but score.  And there were too many other good movies that year.  Plus, that was the year that everyone in the Academy went absolutely insane and voted for Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan.  I'm getting angry just thinking about it.  Let's move on.

8. MONSTERS, INC (2001)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Song, Best Music, Best Sound Editing

Won: Best Song

Ten Picture Best Picture Field

 Deserving?  No

Breakdown: It was a very beloved film and another raging box office success for Pixar, raking in $255 million.  And it was a very original, fun film that poked fun at decades of monster movies.  Brilliantly done and acted.  But it didn't even win Best Animated Feature in the first year of that award - being topped by a superior and even more creative Shrek.  So how could Monsters, Inc be up for Best Picture - even in a ten film field.  Shrek would have nabbed that spot, though.

7. TOY STORY 2 (1999)

Nominated for: Best Song (no animated feature award that year)

Won: Nothing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field Deserving?  No

Breakdown: It was one of the best sequels of all time.  It firmly put Pixar on the map as a consistent force.  But, it wasn't the earthshaking event of the first Toy Story.  And it hadn't moved into the powerful film realm of the later Pixar offerings.  On the other hand, it was a very weak year for movies.  American Beauty won.  There weren't a lot of movies to make up a ten movie Best Picture roster.  It wasn't a great year for movies - so Toy Story 2 did stand out.  Plus it was the first Pixar movie to top $200 million.  But it didn't get the Screenplay nod - which is always my Oscar code for "Pixar should be up for Best Picture."  So, I don't think that I can say it would be nominated - but it would be close.

6. INCREDIBLES (2004)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

Won: Best Animated Feature, Best Sound Editing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field

 Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: One of the best superhero movies ever was doubly cursed in its attempt at a Best Picture nod.  It got slammed for being animated and slammed for being a superhero movie.  It was the same curse that hurt Iron Man and The Dark Knight as well.  But the Incredibles was a phenomenal movie.  It made big money ($261 million), appealed to adults BIG TIME, and showed a very different side of Pixar.  It got the Screenplay nomination - which is what the Oscars always give to Pixar movies instead of Best Picture nominations.  But this year was a great chance for Pixar to sneak in with the film.  Only twelve movies were represented in the big categories (Picture, Director, Actor/Actress, Supporting Actor/Actress).  Usually there are about sixteen films.  That means that there were not a bunch of deserving movies floating around.  Incredibles made just about every top ten list there was.  And there wasn't a clear frontrunner for Best Picture.  In a ten picture field, it would have been hard to overlook these heroes.  

5. TOY STORY (1995)

Nominated for: Best Music, Best Song, Best Screenplay 

(no animated feature award that year)

Won: Special Achievement Award for New Technology

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: Toy Story shocked the movie industry.  It was such a departure from anything before - and it basically marked the death of traditional animation.  It was such a big deal that John Lassiter received a special achievement award - something to acknowledge how huge a movie is to the industry.  And, this also started a precedent that the Academy used on five Pixar movies.  In lieu of a deserved Best Picture slot, they get a Best Screenplay nomination.  Toy Story was an amazing movie.  It was touching and funny and gorgeous.  If the roster was expanded to ten movies, it would be easy to see Toy Story snagging a slot.  Remember, this is the year that Il Postino and Babe both RECEIVED nominations.  The Usual Suspects, Twelve Monkeys, Se7en, Dead Man Walking, and Leaving Las Vegas all got left out.  I think that the 10 spots would have actually gotten those five, plus Toy Story, in  - while knocking out one of the two dumb nominations.  Braveheart still would have won.

4. RATATOUILLE (2007)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Music, Best Sound, Best Sound Editing, Best Screenplay

Won: Best Animated Feature

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: Ratatouille should have been a disaster.  It was the third lowest grossing Pixar film (a pathetic $206 million).  They couldn't merchandise it to death, because it was a bunch of rats.  But, when you stripped down the product tie-ins, the inevitable theme park attraction, you had a very special movie that was so moving and tender.  It began what has actually been the glory days of Pixar - three movies in three years that all legitimately deserved a Best Picture nominations.  But they actually all deserved that nomination in a field of five - not just a field of ten.  All three got Best Screenplay nominations, Top ten rankings, raving reviews.  I remember thinking that Ratatouille was easily one of the best movies out there.  And it was a pretty weak year for movies.  It easily could have taken Juno's spot in the five picture field.  And there is no doubt it would have been in with a ten film field.  And, I am still not convinced that it wasn't the best film of the year.  

3. FINDING NEMO (2003)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Music, Best Sound Editing, Best Screenplay

Won: Best Animated Feature

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: Nemo took Pixar to the next level.  It still is the highest grossing Pixar film - over $330 million.  The film itself was touching and heartbreaking and hilarious and very special.  This was the first Pixar film that really stirred debate over whether an animated film could make it into the big show.  (There is that Screenplay code nomination.)  I remember that 2003 was a pretty weak year for movies because the third Lord of the Rings movie was coming out.  The first two had been nominated and passed over.  And it was pretty well understood that the third one was going to win everything - which it certainly did.  So a lot of studios pulled their movies out of that year.  Aside from the five nominated, only Cold Mountain and House of Sand and Fog were close to getting nominations.  There was no way Nemo was going to win, but then again neither were the other four movies that made it.  Nemo definitely would have been in the top ten - and realistically should have bumped Seabiscuit out of the top five.  

2. UP (2009)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Music, Best Sound Editing, Best Picture, Best Screenplay

Won: Nothing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: Pixar finally lucked out with the expansion to a ten film field.  Did it deserve its spot?  Oh, yes it did.  When you compare it to the other films, it easily deserves to be there.  I honestly think it was good enough to be in a field of five.  The first ten minutes of the movie was as good as most movies I have seen.  I could have walked out after the opening scenes and felt like I had seen a great and touching film.  The rest of the movie was even better - exciting, emotional, funny, thoughtful.  And I'm glad it got the nomination.  Would it have gotten a spot in a field of five?  Nope.  It would have gotten its Screenplay nomination and gone on its way.  And this year it has no chance of winning Best Picture.  But at least it finally broke its way into the club.

1. WALL-E (2008)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Song, Best Music, Best Sound, Best Sound Editing, Best Screenplay

Won: Best Animated Feature

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: For the first half of WALL-E, there was hardly any dialogue.  It was mostly just electronic noises as means of communication between two robots.  But there has hardly been a movie that communicated more.  It was a touching movie about love and loyalty and responsibility.  It was a warning to us to be careful with our planet.  The movie was beautiful and touching and glorious.  And it got robbed.  It didn't just deserve to be in a ten movie field.  It deserved to be in a five movie field.  And it deserved to win.  The two best movies of 2008 didn't even get a nomination - The Dark Knight and WALL-E.  The Reader was relentlessly depressing.  Benjamin Button got a C from tons of media outlets in their reviews.  There is no good reason why WALL-E got left out except that it was animated.  It is my personal favorite.  I think it was better than Up, but the score between the top four Pixar movies is separated by decimal points.  A ten film field would have easily put this movie into play.  And with the movies that wear actually nominated, it may have pulled off an upset.  It deserved to.


One final thing about Pixar movies.  A way to judge their Oscar-worthiness is to think about how that movie would look if it was live action and not animated.  How would that film have been received?  I know that can't work with the toys and bugs and cars.  But the basic story, applied to people.  How woud that have gone over?  I think that when you do that, you can see just how robbed Pixar was.  If Up was live action, I can guarantee that Ed Asner would bee looking at a Supporting Actor nomination.  If Ratatouille was live action, the story of a young restaurant worker and a homeless guy instead of a rat, it would have been seen as a powerful tale.  Finding Nemo - if it were people, a father searching for his lost son - would have had tons of acting awards too.  Personally I like the ten movie field because it gives movies like Pixar films a shot at Best Picture recognition.  Now, if we can just convince the voters to give them a shot at the trophy.

Oscar 2009: The Nominations

Every year in each major sport, there are end of year awards. The most prestigious award for the players is the Most Valuable Player. This is supposed to be the biggest individual award for any player to receive. Each year the debate rages over whether the award should reflect the "Best Player" or the "Valuable Player." Should it be the player whose team needed him the most or the player who just had the best year? This is what passes for a debate in the sports world. Why? Because the sports industry gets it. Reward the most deserving. Even in years when the best player gets passed over (every year Michael Jordan didn't win, every year Steve Nash or Karl Malone did win), at least the winner had a big year.

Now, if the sports world were the Oscars, then the MVP would not go to someone like Peyton Manning or Michael Turner or Tom Brady. It would be fought over between two punters, a long snapper, a middle linebacker, a punt returner, and a tight end. Are those important positions? Yes. Might those people have had a good year? Sure. Should those positions ever in a million years be named MVP? No freaking way.

Yet, every year the Oscars comes down to a battle between movies no one has seen. As I mentioned last year in my nominations review, I keep track of the Oscar nominations. I look to see how much money the Oscar nominated movies make. Allow me to share with you this year's crop of films vying for the naked golden man.

• Best Picture - $37.36 million (avg)
• Director - $37.36 million (avg)
• Best Actor - $30.04 million (avg)
• Best Actress - $16.66 million (avg)
• Supporting Actor - $139.24 million (avg)
• Supporting Actress - $37.2 million (avg)
• Overall - $79.4 million for the 13 nominated films

So, how does that rank with last year, which was one of the worst years in movie history as far as money making goes? Glad I asked.

• Best Picture - $43.32 million (avg)
• Director - $37.28 million (avg)
• Best Actor - $24.12 million (avg)
• Best Actress - $24.38 million (avg)
• Supporting Actor - $34.5 million (avg)
• Supporting Actress - $45.20 million (avg)

So, for Best Picture, this year is the worst year since I've been keeping records - that was 1998 by the way. $37 million average? Are you kidding me? That means only about 4 million people saw those films. How good can these movies be? I can honestly say I not only have not seen any of the films, but I have absolutely no desire to see any of those films. Now, some may say that the Supporting Actor and Overall numbers don't look too bad. Allow me to rain on that parade.

The late Heath Ledger was nominated for his insane portrayal of Joker in The Dark Knight. This movie took in $531 million by itself, which obviously threw off the numbers. After all, The Dark Knight took in more than THE OTHER 12 MOVIES combined. Yes, its $531 million take was higher than the $504 million that the other movies took in. Now, it is my opinion that if Ledger has not died, he would not have been nominated. That may seem cold to say, but it is true. That is a role that has been passed over so many times in the past (Jack Nicholson in Batman 1989, Robin Williams in Aladdin, Val Kilmer in Tombstone). Those were Supporting parts that so dominated the movie they made the main characters look silly. But they all missed out. And if Ledger had not died, he would have been passed over also. So if his spot was replaced with, say Michael Sheen from Frost/Nixon, the Supporting Actor number drops to $34.8 million and the Overall number plummets to $42 million - which would have been right down at the bottom of the last decade.

It is pointless to even get worked up about this any more. As I said last week, this was Hollywood's chance to get back in touch with the movie-going public. Sure, Benjamin Button made over $100 million, but do you know anyone who loved this movie? I knew people who said it LOOKED amazing, but no one who loved the movie itself. And the Academy tossed its quirky Supporting pick at Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder - mainly to acknowledge his amazing year. If they were truly gutsy, they should have given him Best Actor props for Iron Man. When 2008 is thought of in the future, the movies that will come to mind will be Iron Man, Dark Knight, WALL-E, maybe Mamma Mia if you live in England. And, just like other movies from years past that had a huge impact on film (Bourne Identity, Ratatouille), those movies that actually will stand the test of time will be tossed to the side by the Oscars in favor of ones that no one will even remember. I really think this will be the year that ratings just hit rock bottom. How can the average American even care any more?

Nominations are Coming

First of all, yes I have been away for a while.  It is hard to sit down at the computer and write when you keep falling asleep.  It is also hard to drive when you keep falling asleep.  But that is a different and far more disturbing point.

The topic that has awoke me from my blogging slumber is the movie award season.  As I have stated numerous times over the years, I love movies.  This year, I was able to watch quite a few films.  And I actually enjoyed most of them.  I have watched the awards thus far with a jaded eye.  I want to care, but I know what is going to happen.  And, as the Oscars are about to announce their nominees, I am torn between what I expect and what I wish for. 

If you go through the archives of this blogs, you will see that I have researched the Oscar race for a number of years.  I looked at how much money each film made, the box office vs. awards, and popularity of films.  In recent years, the Academy has been following a disturbing trend of rewarding films no one watched and ignoring ones that people saw.  The argument has always been that the popular films are not worth awards.  In return, people are abandoning the Oscars by the million - since it only deals with movies they couldn't care less about.  

HOWEVER, this year it is completely different.  This is the year for the Academy to decide its future.  There are actually several wildly popular movies that deserve awards.  WALL-E is one of the best movies I have ever watched.  The performance by Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man (and many say in Tropic Thunder) was amazing.  And, even though I STILL haven't seen it, $500 million worth of people think a little movie called The Dark Knight may have been worth a thought or two.  Legitimate award contenders AND box office monsters.  We haven't seen that since Lord of the Rings.  

So the Academy is at a crossroads.  It could do the right thing, which would be reward mainstream films for also being amazing.  WALL-E and The Dark Knight for Best Picture.  Christopher Nolan (maybe even Ben Stiller) for Best Director.  Downey for Best Actor and/or Best Supporting Actor.  Obviously, Heath Ledger for Best Supporting Actor.  I'd even go for Meryl Streep for Mamma Mia.

OR....

It could do what it usually does (and probably will do).  It could nominate Frost/Nixon, Revolutionary Road, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, and Doubt for Best Picture.  (You are so going to be impressed if that is right.  Are they good films?  I'm sure.  But NO ONE FREAKING WATCHED THEM.  We'll see acting nominees from Rachel Getting Married and The Wrestler and Gran Torino and Benjamin Button .  And the big films, IF they get squat, will get a screenplay nomination or the technical awards.  

It is pathetic.  1994, to me, was one of the best years ever for movies.  The Best Picture nominees would have all won in any other year (Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show).  Critical AND financial success was evident everywhere.  But now, I wonder if that could ever happen.  Would an Academy voter be able to see past Gump's $300 million take and cultural impact to nominate it?  Or would it be TOO popular?  I know that if the big films get jilted this year, expect the ratings to nosedive.  The average moviegoer will once and for all consider the Oscar as highbrow, narcissistic back patting.  And they would be right - although, typically, the Oscar wouldn't pay any attention to that popular opinion either.

Oscar 2008: The Reaction

Well, this proves one thing - don't take me to a gambling facility and hope that I am any help.  I got four right.  Out of 24.  That is just pathetic.  I guess that is what happens when you have not seen anything that got nominated.  Although, the "expert" on Yahoo! Movies only got 12 of 24 right.  What's his excuse?

I can understand the idiocy when it comes to stuff like Art Direction (which I got right on Yahoo! and wrong on my blog - I apparently switched them.  Good move, Staples.  What did the SAT teach you?  Go with your first instincts.)  But, when it comes to technical awards, when I have actually seen some of the films, how do you miss those?  In my picks, I said that I though Bourne Ultimatum should have won everything it was up for.  And it did.  But I didn't pick it.  I overthought it.  I also used that same logic with Original Screenplay - pointing out how the ultimate winner should win, but then picking something else.  And best song.  I pointed out how having three nominations hurt Dreamgirls, but then picked Enchanted to win.  On my Box Office Mojo picks, I said the ultimate winning song "Should Win."  In fact, if I had actually picked my "Should Win" picks on Box Office Mojo, I would have gotten seven right.

So I am an idiot.  And I guess I have no right to even criticize the awards, so I won't.  The only beef I had was with Visual Effects.  It was the only category that I had seen all the nominees.  And there was no way Golden Compass should have won.  There were some great things in there - the fighting polar bears, the flying ships, the battle scene at the end.  But Transformers had to create all the robots digitally and make them look real - which they were VERY real.  And Pirates had so many effects - the maelstrom, Davy Jones, the multiple Jack Sparrows.  Whatever.  You don't get to gripe if you can't even get half right.

I was even off on the length of the show - by 36 minutes.  But, see, I was basing that on if Michael Moore had actually won...

Live Blog of the Oscars Has Died

Well, I wanted to live blog the Oscars.  But, thanks to the ineptitude and ignorance of Brighthouse Cable, that is not going to happen.  Our cable has been out for two days.  No one knows why.  The technician is coming tomorrow.  Until then, no television.  Somehow, though, our Brighthouse Internet works.  Weird.

But, as I just checking a running tote board of the Oscar winners, I realized that I suck at prognosticating.  I'll give my reactions to the awards this week.

OSCAR 2008: The Predictions

Well, the Oscars are just two days away.  That's right, two days until the nation apathetically looks up at their television screen, stares at all the pretty people for a couple minutes, and then watches the Bassmaster's Tournament on ESPN2.  I can honestly say that I have never heard less excitement about an Oscar telecast.  That should do wonders for the ratings.  I already explained why this buzzlessness is going on (I think I just created a word) back in my Nomination Reaction posting.  Either the industry needs to start making "Good movies" people care about or make the movies people care about good.  

That all being said, here are my Predictions.  Ordinarily, I would predict the major awards, since I wouldn't have a clue on some of the categories.  This year, though, I am in the unique position of not knowing diddly doo about anything.  Of all the fifty-seven movies nominated, I have seen six (Ratatouille, Bourne Ultimatum, Enchanted, Transformers, Pirates 3, Golden Compass).  Just over 10%.  So, all of my predictions are pretty much guesses.

BEST PICTURE: Michael Clayton

I know, this isn't even on the radar right now.  But here's one word for you: Crash.  Just a couple years ago, nothing was really jumping out at anyone.  There were some movies that were being touted as big things (Brokeback Mountain), but nothing was head and shoulders ahead as best picture.  This year is the same thing.  There are people who hated There Will Be Blood.  Most people hated the end of No Country for Old Men.  So, just like with Crash, people will go with the movie with all the actors everyone loves.  

BEST ACTOR: Daniel Day-Lewis

Everyone loves him.  The only person with a shot to upend him is Clooney.  But if the voters gave George's movie the nod, they won't feel bad shafting him.  Plus he won two years ago.

BEST ACTRESS: Julie Christie

No clue what the heck her movie is about.  I just know everyone is talking about how great she did.  There isn't enough buzz for Linney.  Ellen Page is too young and cute to win (her victory was the nomination, as they say).  And the voters wouldn't dare give Blanchett the award twice for playing the same person.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Javier Bardem

Two reasons.  One, he is supposedly really creepy and bad guys are hip recipients lately.  Two, it is to make up for his movie getting screwed over.  (Or, if I am way off, it is part of the sweep for his film.)  The sympathy goes to Hal Holbrook.  I just think sympathy won't go far enough.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Ruby Dee

People are torn between Amy Ryan and Cate Blanchett.  Which bodes well for Ruby Dee.  This is a case where sympathy may go far enough, since there is not a clear front-runner.  The one wild card is how many votes were cast after Heath Ledger died.  If some people hadn't voted yet, they may have voted for Blanchett out of respect for Ledger.  (Seriously, these clowns think that way.)

BEST DIRECTOR: Julian Schnabel

The apathy strikes again.  Enough people feel weakly enough that he could sneak through like he did at the earlier awards.  The nominees are not the "A-List" guys who usually rule - no Eastwood, Spielberg, Scorcese.  So there is not a huge amount of emotional voting - except for the Coen brothers.  I hear that everyone loves them.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY - Michael Clayton

I would love to see Ratatouille win, since it should have been up for Best Picture.  But that would be a huge stretch for an animated film to win.  My second choice would be Juno.  I mean, how often will we have a chance to have Diablo Cody (former stripper) on stage for an acceptance speech at the Oscars?  I just think this is part of the apology to Clooney for him not winning.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY - There Will Be Blood

It has to win something besides Best Actor.  And this would get an award for Paul Anderson.

BEST EDITING - No Country for Old Men

This will actually get the Coen brothers an award, since they are Roderick Jaynes.  

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY - No Country for Old Men

It looks like something that would win this.

BEST ART DIRECTION - There Will Be Blood

I am entering into Guess Mode right about now.

COSTUME DESIGN - Atonement

They made a really big deal about the clothes in Atonement.

MAKEUP - Pirates 3

I just can't see anyone giving an Oscar to an Eddie Murphy comedy for anything.

VISUAL EFFECTS - Pirates 3

I watched two of these.  I just can't see Michael Bay winning an Oscar, even though digitally creating 50 foot tall robots is impressive.  But that maelstrom was incredible in Pirates.

SOUND - No Country for Old Men

This seriously reminds me of Crash and Brokeback Mountain.  Brokeback cleaned up all the tech awards and then got nothing on the big stuff.

SOUND EDITING - No Country for Old Men

Personally, I think Bourne should win everything it is up for.  But that usually doesn't happen.

ORIGINAL SCORE - The Kite Runner

Don't ask me why.

ORIGINAL SONG - "That's How You Know" from Enchanted

The movie has three songs nominated.  That usually is a good sign.  But, sometimes it just means getting three shafts.  Ask Dreamgirls.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE - Ratatouille

If it does not win, that would be an oversight on par with Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespeare in Love.  I'm serious.  That is how much superior Ratatouille was to everything else.  It would be a "Top Five Greatest Snub" level mistake.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM - Mongol

I don't know.  But, more importantly, I don't even care.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE - Sicko

This could also go to No End in Sight.  This is the year - you can feel it.  People are itching to be very political this year.  With the election and the economy.  They want to have someone come up and take a huge shot at Bush and everyone.  Who better than Michael Moore, especially with Castro's resignation?  

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT - Sari's Mother

For this touching profile of Mrs. Tom Cruise - Katie Holmes.  It uncovers the secrets behind her bizarre relationship with head whackjob Cruise.  What?  Oh, SARI'S Mother?  Whatever.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT - Even Pigeons Go To Heaven

You have to love that name.  

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT - The Tonto Women

It's about time that the Lone Ranger's sidekick got his due - even if it is about the lives of the women BEHIND the legend.

CEREMONY LENGTH - 3 hours, 51 minutes

See you for the live blog.

Hot Steaming Fresh Oscar Response

Can you believe it?  The Oscar nominations just came out and I am already here to discuss them.  You have to really be impressed with my commitment to this site.  (Oh, by the way, you like how I managed to fail to put up the Weekend List in just my SECOND weekend of doing it?  That is dedication.)  Where was I?  Oh yeah, commitment.  I just happened to time it right, and catch the nominations right after they were read.  So, here are my thoughts. 

PPPPBBBBLLLLBBBLLLLLTHHHPPPPP!

Yes, that is a word.  Go look it up.  Seriously, though, this is RIDICULOUS!  Last year, I wrote an amazing post about my feelings on the lame Oscar nominations.  I read it again this morning - you should too.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

You done?  That was fast.  Did you catch the whole thing?  Hmmm?  Even the Pirates joke?  That was funny, wasn't it?  Yup.  Oh, yeah, back to THIS YEAR.  So, I pointed out last year about how the ratings have been horrible for the ceremony because the nominees are stuff no one cares about.  Well, if you liked last year's post, here comes the lame sequel.

I once again did my number crunching on the nominees.  And this is how it looks:

Best Picture - $43.32 mil (avg.)

Director - $37.28 mil (avg)

Best Actor - $24.12 mil (avg)

Best Actress - $24.38 mil (avg)

Supporting Actor - $34.50 mil (avg)

Supporting Actress - $45.20 mil (avg)

Overall - $29.7 mil for the 19 nominated films

Like those numbers?  And the sad things is that they are skewed by American Gangster ($130 mil and 1 nomination) and Juno ($90 mil and 3 noms).  Last year I pointed out how seven times recently a category was below $40 million.  This year FOUR categories are - and the entire average is UNDER $30 million.

Again, these are totals at the time of the nominations - and these will go up some.  For examples, Juno will probably go over $100 million soon.  And a few others will get some more money (There Will Be Blood).  But again, I ask the question, "Who is watching these films?"  How can you tell me that the movies nominated in the big six awards COMBINED should be out-earned by the two highest grossing movies of the year?  Again, I am not saying that Spiderman 3 should have been up for Best Picture.  But, what about Amy Adams in Enchanted?  Or what about The Bourne Ultimatum?  That movie was the THIRD HIGHEST REVIEWED movie of the year, when critics and moviegoers were combined.  Where is it today?  What about the highest reviewed movie of the year on rottentomatoes.com?  That would be Ratatouille.  It, of course, is up for best animated film - and it did scored a Best Screenplay nom.  But, shouldn't a movie that is that well received have a shot a Best Picture?

This was the lowest grossing year from the last ten years for nominations - while being the biggest box office year ever.  I am so confused as to how there is such a wide gulf between movies now.  Critics and voters love movies that people don't want to see.  And they deride the "mass-marketed summer atrocities" - which make hundreds of millions of dollars.  Honestly, I hope the writer's strike is still going so they cancel the Oscar telecast.  Otherwise, it will probably pull in its lowest audience ever, and will just be a boring testament to the complete lack of consensus between the people who think they matter (critics and voters) and the people who should matter (ticket buyers).    

Ummmmmm

I know. All eight of you had rushed to this site hoping my Oscar blog was up. Well, here's what happened. I sat down prepared to watch Oscar. I had my computer ready, and then it happened. I had been feeling somewhat ill the whole way back from Tennesse. My stomach was hurting really bad. Once I sat down and relaxed, it was like my body let the stresses of the last two weeks go and I crashed. I got very cold, and very disjointed. When eight o'clock rolled around, the last thing I wanted to do was watch the ceremony. So, I waited until Heather got home (9:30pm) and started then. I saw the whole thing, but I didn't feel up to doing a play-by-play job. Instead, here are my thoughts about the show.

- The ratings were 39.1 million - just a smidge over last year. I called it. No one cared abot this year's ceremony or films - and so they didn't watch.

- Almost four hours? Are you joking? Every year they try to cut the speeches shorter and shorter, but they they insist on inserting meaningless bits. They could have left off the 50 Foreign Film video, the Actors playing Writers video, and the Human Sound Effect Symphony (which was cool but pointless). The shadow dancing troupe was okay, and their stuff was short. The other time suckers are the Humanitarian Award and Lifetime Achievement Award. First, some big shot announces the person, then we see a video about that person with the same stuff we just heard, and then we hear the recipient talk about the same stuff. This year they threw in Celine Dion to drag it out more.

- I always find it ironic that the Academy is so unrewarding of comedy, but then relies so heavily on it during the Oscars. The song with Will Ferrell, Jack Black, and John C Reilly was absolutely hillarious. Jerry Seinfeld was incredible in announcing the Best Documentary category. And Ellen, well...

- I laughed much harder at most of Jon Stewart's stuff. EW.com pointed out that Seinfeld was so good, that it looked like an audition for hosting next year. I looked over at Heather while he was on stage and said, "Why hasn't he ever hosted?" Ellen was fine, but her monologue was just like her opening to her show. It wasn't big like the Academy Awards should have - and the song & dance routine was very disappointing. Some of the bits worked, but so did some of Letterman's.

- How did Alan Arkin win over Eddie Murphy? I thought that award was almost cruel. Everyone had been telling Murphy he was going to win for months. He had won everything else. And then out of nowhere, WHAM. Some guy wins for playing a crotchety old man. I saw Arkin's performance and didn't think it was any better than one of a dozen "old guy roles" I have seen. Murphy seemed like they had just been jerking him around. I kind of think they were.

- Happy Feet over Cars? I don't think so. That was just plain stupid. There is no way that should have happened. Cars was one of the ten best films of the year. There is no way that it should have lost. It was bettet in every category of judging - most ground-breaking, better animation, better story, better movie. At that point, I was furious.

- Forest Whitaker has always been a solid actor, with a good nature. But please, don't ever give him a mic again. What the heck was he talking about? I can't even begin to understand.

- First the Red Sox win, then the White Sox win, then Peyton Manning wins, then Martin Scorcese wins. Man, the universe must really hate Cubs fans.

- I was really expecting the show to run a disclaimer at some point, "This broadcast is a paid advertisement for the Democratic National Convention." Or have Al Gore pop up after one segment to say, "I am Al Gore and I approved this message." Good night, nurse. I knew that he was going to win Best Documentary. But the whole Leo & Al Love Fest 07 bit was kind of ridiculous.

- The bit with Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Meryl Streep was very very funny. It was crazy to see Streep instantly transform herself in her movie character in the audience with just a stare. She really is a great actress. But if you saw her pre-show interviews, she also appeared to be on some kind of illegal substance -- totally zoned out.

- The pre-show was excrutiating. The four interviewers for ABC made the E! team look brilliant. Speaking of E!, it is funny how badly Joan and Melissa Rivers would get slammed for being so ignorant of stuff - part of the reason E! canned them. Because Ryan Seacrest screwed up everything while talking to the people. He was funny and witty as always, but just as dense.

- When exactly did Mexican cinema go from being a joke to being the toast of the town? It was really interesting to see the trio of Mexican directors (Del Toro, Cuaran, Inaturru) before the show. That was the only insightful interview, when they were likened to Coppola, Spielberg, and Lucas - who then came out later to present Best Director. Well it would have been insightful if the interviewer had not said, "You all remind us of another trio of directors from a few decades back - Coppola, Ford, and Lucas."

Those were my quick opinions. Hopefully this year of movies will be different. I am excited about a lot of the films - this summer looks absolutely insane. My prediction is that 2007 will be the biggest box office year ever - by far. I think we may see four $300 million films, with a chance that some or all of those could bump over $400 million. Maybe the Oscars will be able to gain some relevance again on the heels of what should be a huge box office year. Of course, that will require them involve some movies people watched.

Moviepalooza

YAY! It is the Super Bowl of Movies. It is Oscar night, and I surprisingly got back from Chattanooga three hours early. Soooo, I actually get to live blog the Oscars tonight. The one catch is that when my family gets home from Jacksonville, I will pause the show. But I still am going to do my best to live blog.

Also, you can check my Rotten Tomatoes site and find TWO NEW MOVIE REVIEWS. That's right - two whole movies (Ghost Rider and The Prestige). But, when you read them there is a surprise as to why I was able to fit both films into a short time period. So don't miss it.

Check back in later for the Oscar Blog!

And the Nominees Are . . . Lame

I know that all of you faithful readers have been anticipating my take on the Oscar nominees. In fact, I have been asked that very same question more than two times in the last month. Well, you don't have to wait any longer. I am putting this up today, because one week from today is the actual ceremony. I will be doing a running diary of the show, but a little delayed because I'll be on my way back from Chattanooga that day.

ABC is stressing right now. You know why? They are worried about how badly the Oscar telecast is going to do in the ratings next week. The Oscars used to be one of the most watched shows of the year - if not the most watched. But it has been losing viewers like crazy. Last year, 38.8 million people watched the show. In 2005, 41.8 million watched it. 2004 had 43.5 million viewers. In 2003, 33.1 million tuned in. 2002 there were 41.8 million. Before that, the lowest had been 37.2 and 37.8 million in 1986 and 1987. The highest ever was 1998, when 55 million watched Titanic sail off with a boatload of gold men. The telecast continues to change hosts, limit speeches, have more coverage of the dresses (preferably the ones with little coverage), and build more ornate set designs. But the number continue to drop like crazy.

Want my suggestion? How about having some nominations that the average movie watcher gives a darn about? I'm not saying that the awful Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Eyeshadow should have gotten nominations. But come on? I did a study of the Oscar nominations since 1998 - taking a look at the Big Six categories. That would be Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress. I did some averages - looking at each category and the overall averages. Here's what I found.

Last year - the horrible rated show - the overall average for films in those 30 nomination slots was a whopping $40.2 million. Keep in mind, that was after the Oscar telecast when the movies got bumps in box office. The average for best picture was $49. Not a single picture made $100 million. The year before? Overall average $43.5 million; best picture $80.3 million. Maybe that explains the ratings drop? Yeah, I think so. These films being nominated have not been seen by most average Americans - like the ones watching the Oscarcast. Look at the big viewer years - there are films that people cared about -- Lord of the Rings, Titanic, Saving Private Ryan.

So this year? Well, what do you think? These numbers were as of the nominations - so they have probably changed a little. The overall average is $43.7 million. The Best Picture nominees average just under $49 million. Only one film in the Best Picture race (The Departed) made over $100 million. Only three more films nominated at all in the Big Six made $100 million (Dreamgirls - barely, Pursuit of Happyness, and Devil Wears Prada). Instead, we have a bunch of wimpy independent films that have box office numbers like the only people watching them were voters.

It is ridiculous. Letters from Iwo Jima had sold $2.6 million in tickets and is up for Best Picture and Best Director. $2.6 million? That is like 260,000 people. Are you kidding me? The best picture all year only drew 260,000 people? If it was really the best, wouldn't more people want to see it? Honestly, I never even saw that it came to Orlando - not to any theater I frequent. How could anyone in good conscience vote for a movie that made less in its whole run than a big movie can make on the midnight shows the night before release? I don't think that all of the movies have to be huge money makers - but there needs to be some kind of popular response. t

The other categories are not much better. Peter O'Toole's acting job in Venus was so amazing that it sold $1 million in tickets. Ryan Gosling's in Half Nelson was almost four times more inspiring as it brought in $3.8 million. Who watches a film if it only makes a million dollars? All told FIVE FILMS with nominations in the Big Six made under $10 MILLION. Give me a break. I can somewhat understand that some of the acting nominees may not have huge box office. Can you really hold Forrest Whitaker responsible for the fact that no one wants to see Last King of Scotland? For years, the acting nominees will honor supreme efforts - even if no one sees that film. In the last ten year, seven times the average of the nominees in one acting category was below $40 million. This year accounts for two of those. Of the six categories, all averaged less than $50 million except Supporting Actor. Last year was virtually the same story (4 of 6 under 50 mil).

What's the point of all of this? The Oscars are becoming a boring event because they insist on honoring films that no one cares about. The world of movies has become split into categories. There are the popular, high-grossing films with little critical interest or recognition. There are the small, low-grossing films with high critical interest and recognition, and low public interest. Then there are the mid-range films no one really cares about. Very rarely does a movie crash out the category it belongs in. The Lord of the Rings series was so good the critics could not ignore it, so it got nominations (but very few awards, if you really look at it). The Departed, A Beautiful Mind, and Seabiscuit are a few critical darlings that somehow got a lot of money. But the general rule is that films that are popular are not going to get nominated. For example, Batman Begins was an extraordinary film. Most people put it on their Top Ten list. But it was not going to get any big nominations. Are you honestly going to tell me that it was not as good as Capote? How would you even know? No one saw it. And another film that year that got shafted in the Best Picture category was Walk the Line.

Think about over the years some of these films that got passed over because they were big money films. The Matrix in 1999 - it was better than three of the Best Picture nominees. LOTR got shafted on the first two films and wasn't rewarded until the last one in the trilogy. What about Daniel Craig this year for the new Bond film? Matt Damon for The Good Shepherd? Unless it has that "indie" feel - or if it has one of the major Oscar sweethearts (Meryl Streep, Judi Densch, Cate Blanchett, Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks) it is not getting a chance. Even I have gotten bored with the whole Oscar process - and I love movies so much. I know that nothing I've ever seen will get nominations. This year, I had only seen two of the nominated films. So, what do I care who won? I bet that opinion is going to be echoed all over the nation next Sunday.

You want predictions? Here are my predictions.
Best Picture: Babel
Best Director: Martin Scorcese for The Departed
Best Actor: Forest Whitaker for Last King of Scotland
Best Actress: Helen Mirren for The Queen
Best Supporting Actor: Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls
Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls
Best Animated Film: Cars
Oscar Neilsen number: 35.7 million - First place for the week (barely over American Idol