Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Oscar Nominations

The Academy Award Nominations were announced today and were, for the most part, rather boring. I think the year in general was a poor one as far as movies are concerned.

Some quick notes:

  • Jamie Foxx scored two nominations! I'm sorry, but that's awesome. I loved him in Ray, but I adored him in Collateral and so wasn't expecting him to get a nomination for it.
  • Predictably, I'm thrilled that Natalie Portman got a nomination; same for Kate Winslet and Cate Blanchett
  • Annete Bening should not be nominated solely because she looks like Clay Aiken. Sure, the awards are about "performances" and "talent", but looking like a weird little wood nymph shouldn't be allowed.
  • Clive Owen still looks like a serial killer, and I'm sure on Oscar night, he'll look like a serial killer in a Prada tux.
  • Jim Carrey really can't catch a break, can he? And what's with the Paul Giamatti snub?
  • I love Johnny Depp, but...for Finding Neverland? Really? He wasn't bad, but he was just sort of...adequate.
  • Morgan Freeman is about as awesome as awesome gets. If Clive Owen wins over him, I will riot in the streets, or perhaps just make catty comments about him here.
  • And also, if Martin Scorcese winds up winning for The Aviator, I will be so upset. Because I love him, I love some of his movies more than is healthy (really, my Goodfellas love is only a notch below Trick Daddy's), but he really, really shouldn't win for The Aviator. Really.

    Besides the whole "acting" part of the Oscars, everybody knows that fashion is most important, which is why I need to say...

  • Natalie Portman, please pick a gorgeous dress. Your Golden Globes gown was hard to defend, yo, I want you to wear something glam.
  • Dear Kate Winslet, Back up off the Ben de Lisi, okay? You always look nice, but that's because you wear the same damn dress in different colors. Variety please! xoxo
  • I really, really hope Charlize Theron doesn't go tanning before the Oscars this year, because her whole Oompa Loompa in rhinestones thing was just bad. Oh, and also, Charlize? Your publicist's spiel about "She was just vacationing in Brazil, that's why she's so tan!" doesn't work so well when you were photographed the day before the Oscars looking fair skinned. Just sayin'.
  • I hope Cate Blanchett does something elegant and doesn't decide to be creative and play with polka dots again. Shudder.

    In completely unrelated and, yes, uninteresting news, Kanye West and Michael Vick were in my dream last night. I believe Sephora was involved...

    Speaking of Sephora, my love for Benefit is becoming alarming. I'm planning on writing to my representative to see if she could possibly make a bill allowing me to marry a makeup brand. Because I think I love Benefit even more than I do caramel macchiatos and that, my friends, is major.

    Mallory at 1/26/2005 12:43:00 AM

    2comments

    2 Comments

    at 10:04 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I think Marty's win is a foregone conclusion, unfortunately. They should just call such awards "The Paul Newman 'Sorry to Have Screwed You Over So Badly In the Past' Lifetime Achievement Oscar(tm)." I'm beginning to think that maybe the AA's should be given out five years after the movie's actual release to determine its actual historical worth instead of simply succumbing to the wave of hype.

    Paul Giamatti got screwed again, which proves that Hollywood would rather reward matinee idols and relics rather than, you know, good performances.

    -Jeff

     
    at 12:02 AM Blogger seanlmccarthy said...

    You are right, right, right and oh so right about Carrey, Jim. How can they like Miss Kate Winslet and not Mr. Carrey, when his performance in "Eternal Sunshine" was so spotless!?*#@ Paul Giamatti, me afears, did not lose in poker, but lost because as a character actor, Academy types simply cannot think of them as leading men -- whereas, they're overly adoring Johnny Depp. Not that he's not adorable, but as you correctly interpreted, his performance in "Finding Neverland" was not exactly overwhelming.

    As for Marty and the previous commenters' comments, yes the Academy does tend to be off by at least a year or two in recognizing brilliance. For a recent example of this, try the best acting category...1999-2001...after anointing Kevin Spacey's "American Beauty" over Russell Crowe's "Insider" and Denzel Washington's "Hurricane," the Academy turned around and rewarded Russell for "Gladiator" (ugh) in 2000 and Denzel in 2001 for "Training Day" (why?), which made even less sense for anyone who watched Russell Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind." But that's the Oscars for you.

    At least there is some method in that madness (as in, it's all political and sentimental, unless two actors/actresses completely split the vote to allow the lesser of five greats to win). Which is more than we can say about the Grammy nomination process. OK, I'm done now.

     

    Post a Comment