Oscar Nominations Fallout

Overlooked?

Overall, I think Catch Me If You Can was overlooked. Great script, perfect sixties ambientation, good acting.

I also expected LOTR The Two Towers to get more nominations.

Didn't deserve a nom?

Spirit. Boring animation.


Mortal lock to win an Oscar?
Frida, for make-up. (I mean, are they really going to give an Oscar, and not a Razzie to The Time Machine?)

Bowling for Columbine, documentary.


Dark horse?

The Crime of Father Amaro, film in foreign language.
The main reason? It criticizes the Catholic church on sex and corruption. And that has been an issue in the news.

I didn't expect that LOTR TT would get any acting nominations but I was very surprised that Jackson didn't get a Director nod, especially after his first one last year. While you can make a case that the other directors successfully brought their vision to the screen, I don't think that you can say that all five did so more fully or convincingly than Jackson. (On a related note, it is an absolute crime that cinematographer Andrew Lesnie did not get nominated for LOTR TT, especially after he won for Fellowship. If anything, I thought the camerawork on TT was even better than Fellowship.)

At the same time, if there is a mortal lock in the majors, I would have to go with Scorsese for Best Director. A few weeks ago, I would have predicted Nicholson as even more of a no-brainer, but now it appears that Day-Lewis may make a race of it (if not actually split the vote).

Another mortal lock: Roman Polanski will not be in the Kodak Theatre on Oscar Night. Take that one to the bank.

To me, the biggest surprise of the day was how well Gangs of New York did. While not a bad movie, I certainly didn't think it deserved a Best Pic nom (I could think of five or six more deserving films). But I should have known better with Miramax pushing their usual buttons behind the scenes.

As for a dark horse, I'm holding out hope that Ice Age and Lilo & Stitch will split the voters (into Fox and Disney camps) and the infinitely better Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (Spirited Away) slips through to a much deserved win or Animated Feature.

The most overlooked picture was definitely "About Schmidt", especially the screenplay which did not get a nom in Best Adapted Script category. Peter Jackson should have been nominated for LOTR - I have always felt that the writing and director awards should automatically go to the flick that wins Best Picture....

Least deserving? "Gangs of New York", without a doubt. Kenneth Turan in the L.A. Times said it best: "A conceited film that can, with enough time and money and non-stop advertising can publicity be sold as something it is not, namely a substantial motion picture." The script was hopeless (despite the big name writers) and with the exception of Daniel Day-Lewis, the acting was so-so at best, probably because the actors had nothing to work with. If Scorcese wins Best Director it will be pure sentiment. To be fair, however, I did come out humming the sets.

There is no "mortal lock" to win, nor is there a "dark horse", unless it would be LOTR. My own personal favorite is "Chicago" - original, beautiful to look at, fun, fun, fun!

P.S. - I think the Academy should give a special Award each year to the picture with the highest gross for that year. Despite cineasts and critics who disparage the big summer blockbusters like Spiderman, it is called show BUSINESS after all!

"Chicago" will probably clean up. It's the sort of glitzy fare that wins Oscars. "Gangs of New York" is far too dark. And that's why Scorsese has never been Best Director. Talk about an injustice!

1. Richard Gere in 'Chicago'.

2. None undeserving.

3. D D-Lewis in 'Gangs'. They should just send it to him right now.

4. Julianne Moore to win both Best and Best Supporting.

PDiddie, I love your dark horse. I don't think it has a penguin's change in hell of happening, but it would be a huge highlight for the evening.

But I can't agree with you about Gere though. It's a betwixt and between role...not big enough for the big nom and too big for the supporting one. The producers got greedy thinking they could score acting noms in all four categories and Gere took the hit for it.

Spirited Away and Bowling for Columbine are my two locks.

You think Spirited Away is a lock, Larry? I'd love it if it happened but do you think the Academy voters actually bothered to seek it out?

Also, I hasten to point out that the Academy has not been kind to Roger Moore in the past (though a generally liberal Hollywood may forgive his past documentary trangressions and reward his generally anti-gun movie).

Spirited seems to be getting attention and hopefully it says something that it made it to the final five. I mentioned Columbine because it has been popular overseas, with the Cannes award as well, but it would be a political statement for Hollywood to reward it with an Oscar, especially if a war is going on in late March.

Richard Gere was definitely robbed. If John C. Reilly deservedabest Supporting nod for CHICAGO, so did Gere, even more so.

GANGS OF NEW YORK was overly recognized, as others have said. It would be really ironic if Scorsese won Best Director this year for that miserable tripe to make up for all the years he didn't win it for better efforts.

I predict a sweep for CHICAGO. Any takers for that bet? It will win in all the major categories it was nominated in, starting with Best Picture.

Do I have to ask which nominee you would have left off in order to honor Gere, larry?

And I'd take that Chicago bet. I think it will take Best Picture, but I think it could be shut out everywhere else. Moore or Kidman over Renee Z., Cooper over Reilly and maybe Streep over Zeta Jones and the Queen (CZJ has the best shot of any of the Chicago cast). And even though I really think Marshall deserves to win, I'm guessing like a lot of people that Scorsese gets his career Oscar.

1. LOTR 2
2. Gangs of NY
3. Nicole Kidman and Day Lewis
4. Meryl the queen