MOVIES: 2005 Oscar Nominations

Wow, before even updating today, I've got over 130 hits! Just a couple short weeks ago, I would've counted that as exceptional for a full day. With two updates. But I've been getting a steady and regular flow of new visitors here recently, thanks to a most kind and complimentary number of links (especially to my Golden Globes coverage) from many of you other bloggers. Such as Johnny Bacardi, House of the Ded (twice), the very interestingly named How To Be Free (and Save the World... Eventually), Crocodile Caucus, Precocious Curmudgeon, Blog THIS, Pal!, Thrilling Adventures, Clandestine Critic, Pop Culture Gadabout, Motime Like the Present, Fred Sez, and especially Cognitive Dissonance, which I don't think has linked specifically to me any time recently (as the others I mentioned have), but whose sidebar link to me has brought this blog more traffic than anything other than the Comic Weblogs Updates page, and Misty May's ass (I'm the #5 site on Google for that phrase -- yay me?).

To all of those above, to the always-supportive ACAPCWOVCCAOE, and to any others I may have missed because I'm a doofus, a most sincere thank you. It's a great feeling, knowing someone is out there looking at the crazy-ass things I write.

---

Enough of the blibbity-blab! On to the important stuff: this morning's Oscar nominations. You know, I actually considered getting up at 5:30 this morning and blogging the nominations press conference (announced by Adrien Brody -- who, much like David Schwimmer, is handsome... in an ugly sort of way), but, well... there are many things I will do for you, my brethren and sistren, but getting up at 5:30 ante meridian is a bullet I am not willing to take.

It's a relatively respectable list, as far as the Oscars go. At least the obligatory three-hour-plus period epic which dominates the nominations (The Aviator, with 11) isn't a total piece of dog crap, as many other recent films to fill that slot have been (like, say, I don't know, Gladiator? Or Titanic?). It could've been Troy getting all those nominations. Or Alexander. See what I mean? A respectable list.

So, here's some opinions, and some very early picks. You may do with them what you will.

• Best Picture
  
  There's always one film that nobody's seen, but somehow becomes an Academy darling, and this year that appears to be Finding Neverland. Now, I haven't seen it (duh -- nobody has); maybe it is a staggering work of genius, more deserving of a nod than Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But I highly doubt it.
  
  It's a two-horse race here. The Aviator, or Million Dollar Baby. Early indications seem to favor Aviator -- most nominations this year, Scorsese is way overdue, etc. -- but Baby is opening in wider release this week, and finding new fans, and I think the momentum is eventually going to swing in its favor.



• Best Actor
  
  This is the category I can most easily nitpick. Finding Neverland again -- Johnny Depp is wonderful, don't get me wrong, he is great. I'd go so far as to say that he's the best actor of his generation. That's right, I said it! (Wait, is he in Sean Penn's generation?) And I'm glad he finally broke into the Academy's good graces with last year's nomination for Pirates of the Caribbean. But he should more properly have been nominated for Ed Wood, or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, or Donnie Brasco, or Blow, or Before Night Falls. I fear the Academy will be making up for their oversights in his early career by nominating him too frequently, and possibly unjustly, in his later career, taking nomination slots away from more deserving performers. As they appear to have done this year.
  
  Who did he take a spot from? Well, Paul Giamatti, for one. Last year's exclusion of his performance in American Splendor is a classic, gigantic Academy blunder, one that is almost always made up for with a nod the following year, if the performer appears in anything with the slightest hint of quality. And yet, Giamatti gets shut out again this year, while his Sideways co-stars get recognized. Ouch. He must owe someone money.
  
  Who else? Jim Carrey. No, I'm not kidding! He gave a brilliant performance in Eternal Sunshine, one that (in all likelihood) was far more deserving of a nom than Depp's.
  
  Or Eastwood's. I love Million Dollar Baby. Love it. But it wasn't Clint the actor's movie. It was Clint the director's, as well as Hilary Swank's and Morgan Freeman's. I'm glad to see Clint nominated, but I would've been happier if his space had gone to Giamatti or Carrey instead.
  
  Not that it matters. Jamie Foxx has got it sewn up. Most solid lock of all the major categories this year.



• Best Actress
  
  Possibly the biggest surprise inclusion (as opposed to Giamatti's surprise exclusion) in the major categories is Catalina Sandino Moreno for Maria Full of Grace. Enjoy the show, hon!
  
  Being Julia is another Finding Neverland. Nobody's seen it. Nobody's even heard of it. Jesus, Warren Beatty hasn't even heard of it! And yet, Annette Bening won the Golden Globe. Whatever. She's a contender here, but not a shoo-in.
  
  Imelda Staunton had a lot of momentum going into the Globes, but her loss to Hilary Swank took a lot of wind out of her sails. She's not out, but she's not the front-runner some critics would've had you believe less than a month ago.
  
  If Swank hadn't already won an Oscar for Boys Don't Cry, I might count her as the winner right now for Million Dollar Baby. But she has won, and she even beat Annette Bening (in American Beauty) to do it. It's petty and stupid, but the Academy often sees things like this and says, "Well, Swank was clearly better, but she's had her turn. Plus, she's young, and she'll get another chance." (Even though no one, especially me, thought she'd ever give a performance that great again.) I think (and hope like hell) Swank will win; god damn, she was awesome in that movie. But I'm gonna wait a while before putting any money on her.



• Best Supporting Actor
  
  Let's play "Process of Elimination!"
  
  Alan Alda and Thomas Haden Church, unfair as it may be, are always going to be thought of as TV actors. Very few ever truly escape that stigma (like, say, George Clooney). I'd really like to say Church could take it, but knowing the Academy's history, I just don't see it. They're out. (Especially since Church already lost at the Golden Globes, and Alda wasn't even nominated.)
  
  Jamie Foxx will win for Best Actor, so everyone will vote for him there, not here. He's out. [EDIT: Also, as I had to be reminded by Monty's Oscar nomination post, Foxx was a TV actor, too! Oops. I guess, the way I see it, he's shaken off In Living Color a lot more successfully than, say, Church has shaken off Wings. Hell, if you want to get really picky, Morgan Freeman used to be on The Electric Company, Ryan's Hope, and Another World, and Clive Owen has a couple British TV series under his belt. That said, it's only Alda and Church who still have the feel of TV-level acting about them, because they came to be so closely identified with their TV characters, Hawkeye and Lowell. In my mind, at least.]
  
  Morgan Freeman is solid, but his was a very low-key, unflashy role. Plus, Supporting Acting Oscars frequently go to younger, relatively unknown, less established performers. But... this award can also double as a Lifetime Achievement award, which means Freeman is definitely in the running. But... he lost at the Globes. He's not out.
  
  And that brings us to Clive Owen. Will he really repeat his shocking Globe upset for Closer? My early hunch is yes. But...
  
  At gunpoint, considering the Academy is stodgier in its Supporting Actor votes than its Supporting Actress votes, and given their selective short attention span (which means Owen's Globe win will be ancient history by the time they vote), I'd go with Freeman.

Isn't this fun?? We're almost done!

• Best Supporting Actress
  
  This is tough. The Academy loves tributes to film history, which means Cate Blanchett's turn as Katharine Hepburn is a strong pick. They love rewarding young first-time (and probably last-time) nominees in this category (think Marisa Tomei, Mira Sorvino, Anna Paquin, Tatum O'Neal), which means Natalie Portman is another strong choice. (Plus, she won the Globe.) They love sexually-charged performances from older actresses, so Laura Linney (god, is she really "older" in Hollywood terms? Afraid so) and Virginia Madsen aren't totally out of it. And the Academy loves pretending it's not racist, so Sophie Okonedo in Hotel Rwanda has a genuine longshot hope. (Though all those votes for Foxx will probably assuage their consciences enough to skip voting for her, too.)
  
  I'm gonna say Portman, but I really had to talk myself out of saying Blanchett.



• Best Director
  
  I'm with Ian in thinking Michel Gondry got robbed. He did a spectacular job with Eternal Sunshine, both visually and emotionally. But he did get robbed, so it's another two-horse race. Scorsese or Eastwood.
  
  Eastwood won the Globe, and the Academy loves the hell out of him. Plus, he really did do some brilliant work. But, like I said above, Scorsese's overdue. Will this finally, finally be the year the voters say, "Let's give it to him already"? Or will he again be the Susan Lucci of the Oscars? (Man, Susan Lucci isn't even the Susan Lucci of losing awards anymore -- it may have taken her 19 tries, but she finally won).
  
  It's tricky. Some voters will say, "Clint was more deserving, but let's give it to Marty as a belated award for Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and 17 other movies he should've won for." But some others will say, "Give it to Eastwood; Scorsese can just settle for his film winning Best Picture." I'd be happy either way, but I'm gonna hedge my bets on this one. I picked Baby for Best Picture; I'm picking Scorsese for Best Director. The exact opposite of what the Globes said -- but what the fuck do they know?

Linkblogging

I'm falling back on the old standby that I've actually never used before. Here's a few other blogs that I enjoy.

Associated Comics and Pop Culture Webloggers of Ventura County, California, and Outlying Environs: the four people I know in real life, under the umbrella title invented by Mike, and listed at the top of my link section to the right. Recently, Ian has been deconstructing Chaykin, when he's not posting covers of bizarre and obscure motorcycle-themed comics; Corey continues to astound me with how many more bad movies he's seen than I have, including the Pat Morita crapfest Timemaster; Dorian has been making friends and raising the ire of the squares and the clueless with posts that dare to deflate both comics creators and comics fanboys; and Mike has been continuing his slow but inevitable domination of the blogging community, and soon, the world.

I dig Ken Lowery Presents: Ringwood, because Ken is so angry, he makes me look well-adjusted. Re: Hal Jordan's return: "Holy fucking god, has there ever been such a non-issue in the history of the world? It's pathetic, it's sad, we all know it, WE'RE MOVING ON NOW."

H & Mag's The Comic Treadmill has good, in-depth reviews of comics, and also is currently featuring a poll ("Who is the Identity Crisis killer?") in which one of the choices is "ACAPCWOVCCAOE". (We're losing to "Yoko Ono".)

Scott at Polite Dissent often investigates medical scenarios in comics for their real-life veracity, and also posts kooky nostalgia-related items on Mad Mod, or Wormy (remember Wormy, from Dragon magazine? You do? NEERRRRRRD!!! Oh, wait, so do I).

David Welsh at Precocious Curmudgeon doesn't watch as much TV as I do, but he tries. He also feels an appropriate level of horrified disbelief towards the John Byrne forum. And he will not be, as he recently suggested, the last comics-type blogger in the world to read Scott Pilgrim. I will.

Woody at The Sock Drawer often seems to be the only other comics fan aside from myself who also watches football. He's got a plethora of reviews of fan films around the web, and he ends each post with an unattributed quotation, so trivia buffs, try to be the first to comment with who said it and where.

I'm linking Ken C's Revoltin' Developments because he asked me to in his last post. Okay, that, and his current "Battle of..." between Tomb of Dracula #1 from 1972 and Tomb of Dracula #1 from 2004 is truly inspired.

Bill Sherman of Pop Culture Gadabout was the first person that I didn't personally know to link to this blog, so he's aces right from the get-go. His excellent reviews of various pop culture items were a partial inspiration for me to finally start a pop culture blog of my own. His recent anecdote about the behavior of Republican women at one Border's bookstore will make you grit your teeth, assuming you're not Republican yourself.

...Like Augie De Blieck, Jr. is. He has at times made his conservative leanings (which I strongly disagree with) known on his blog, Various and Sundry, and yet I still visit regularly. Why? Because it's a good blog, with insightful TV and DVD reviews and interesting links, and his politics don't change that one way or the other. He rarely mentions his politics (and has in fact recently established a separate blog to contain all political entries), but when he does bring them up, he retains his good nature and humor (as opposed to a certain other insanely hateful diatribe of a blog which I won't name here -- but its initials are Apologies Demanded).

There are many other blogs I read regularly (just look to the right), but that's plenty for now, I think. And please be reassured, even if you don't see my site's name on your referrer list, it's only because I'm visiting you via Comic Weblog Updates.

COMICS: Wed. 9/29/04

For someone who's listed on the Comic Weblog Updates page, I don't write about comics a whole awful lot. Well, here's some thoughts on yesterday's purchases.

Daredevil: Didn't read it.

Amazing Spider-Man: Didn't read it.

Invincible: Didn't read it.

New Frontier: Didn't read it.

No wonder I don't write about comics very much. By the time I read the damn things, it's irrelevant.

I did read all the Marvel 2099 books (and by the way, thanks a pantsload for putting them all out on the same day, Marvel! Way to serve the typical fan's budget best. Douchebags). I bought all five of them, because Robert Kirkman wrote them. Okay, I think I've finally been cured of that habit.

Not that they were all bad. Just that none of them were really spectacular. And I was surprised that all the issues were one-and-done. (I'm sure everyone else was aware of this, but I guess I don't really pay attention to much of anything that's happening in comics other than what I can see right in front of me on the shelves.)

I liked Punisher 2099 just for the fact that Kirkman followed up on the Punisher/Elektra love connection Garth Ennis threw out as a joke a year or two ago. So Frank and Elektra have a baby in 2038 (according to the dates on Cassandra's tombstone)? Let's see, Frank was in Vietnam, so, being extremely generous, let's say he was 21 in 1975. That would make him a proud papa at the age of 84! Take that, Tony Randall! Hell, forget Frank -- Elektra's the one who had to suffer through an octogenarian labor. That'll break a hip. Other than that little bit of backstory, I didn't much care for the issue, though. Even Pop Mhan's art, which I dig on SpyBoy, didn't really thrill me here.

Mutant 2099: The brain of Reed Richards in a Ben Grimm robot. That should have been a lot cooler than it was. I just kept thinking, why don't the Sentinels catch Reed and the kid, already? Reed's flying around in his jetcar, the kid's zapping Sentinels -- but they easily evade capture. And there's a gigantic mole people invasion right out in broad daylight, and no Sentinels show up? They're really pretty ineffective, aren't they? How the hell did they defeat every superpowered being on Earth?

Inhumans 2099: This had a very dark and interesting twist at the end, but I think it would've worked better for me if I knew who the hell the Inhumans were. I mean, I know who they are, I'm aware they exist, I've seen them in comics like Fantastic Four, and, I don't know, X-Men or Hulk, I guess, but they never really interested me. The only one whose name I knew was Black Bolt, and I didn't even know he had a brother. So, yeah, some of the impact of the ending was lost on me. Still: pretty cool.

Black Panther 2099: I know nothing of Black Panther. Does the current version often fight Doctor Doom? Seems like a bit of a mismatch to me, but whatever. And are the Sentinels confined only to America? You'd think, if they could've destroyed every single superhero, they could've gotten to Doom in Latveria, too. But again: whatever. And the issue as a whole? You guessed it: whatever.

Daredevil 2099: This was probably my favorite of the 2099s. I really liked the ending, where we learn Fisk is not just carrying on the tradition of Matt Murdock, he's carrying on his grandfather's as well, committing evil as the Kingpin and atoning for it as the Daredevil. How Catholic of him! And I liked that, in Kirkman's world, the original Kingpin eventually defeated and killed Daredevil. Good story.

So, all in all, I'd say this 2099 experiment was a bit of a failure. None of them were really designed to be continuing stories, but if they did turn into regular series, or if a generic Marvel 2099 title were launched, I doubt I'd buy any of them. Which is a failure in my eyes.

And I've learned to stop buying comics just because Kirkman's name is on the cover. Invincible and Walking Dead, yes. Anything else: doubtful. I mean, why the hell am I still buying Captain America? It's quite bad. (Although I have to admit, I kind of enjoyed the first issue of Kirkman's Jubilee. I'm a teenage girl, apparently.)

Bloggin' about bloggin'

I need to update my links list. But it's so damn tedious.

Firstly, I need to create a sub-category, as Mike has done, for the Associated Comics and Pop Culture Webloggers of Ventura County, CA and Outlying Environs (aka Dudes I Know in Real Life), which include Dorian, Corey, and Ian.

Speaking of Ian, his entries about his experiences at the SD Comic Con have been linked to by Mark Evanier's News from me and Heidi MacDonald's The Beat, which is pretty frickin' cool. I'm so jealous. Not only does he make the Con pilgrimage, but he's also getting linked all over the place for it. (Not as jealous of the links as Mike was [insert smiley face here], because I've actually had the distinction of being name-checked in Mark Evanier's blog, too, back before I had a blog to link to. If you click that link, I'm the only Tom mentioned on the page... and yes, that's my real last name. No jokes, damn your eyes!)

I also have to note which of my blog links are represented on the Comic Weblog Updates page, and which are not. I've been neglecting visiting those blogs which don't appear on the Update page, and that's just wrong.

Also also, I must take up Milo George's generous offer of amnesty from SquirrelNation (even though I think my position as Pope of the Holy Squirrel Empire may trump his secular rank of General), and add The Unofficial John Westmoreland Memorial Tribute Webring to my links, while I still can.

If only Blogger had an easier method of adding links than having to alter the template for my entire blog. Frankly, it's more trouble for me to change the links than it is for me to just bitch about it like this.

POTPOURRI

MOVIES: I don't think I made this entirely clear on my previous entry, but in addition to mocking the Showgirls special edition DVD, I also truly, sincerely covet it, and plan on buying it this weekend. Damn right!

COMICS: Because I'm now listed on the Comic Weblog Updates page (and proudly so, I might add), I kind of feel some pressure to post a little more frequently about, you know, comics. So, in the beating a dead horse department: Eightball #23.

When I posted about it a couple weeks ago, my entire review consisted of:

I liked it fine. It made me a little sad. Louie was kind of a dick.

And I wasn't kidding. (Well, not much.) I mean, it's a good comic. Very good. What little I've read of Clowes' stuff has had the rare ability to make me feel something when reading a comic (most often, melancholy and a squirming discomfort... which is probably why I haven't read more of his stuff -- those aren't pleasant feelings in large amounts). I think he's really quite an excellent comics creator.

That said, I don't get all the hoopla. The comics "blogosphere" (I'm still lacking a better, non-idiotic term) seems to have risen up as one and decreed Eightball #23 its new lord and master. As I said in that previous post, this comic is being as infinitely praised and minutely deconstructed as if it were a newly discovered James Joyce novel.

I don't see all that. It's very smart, very enjoyable, it makes you laugh, makes you cringe, it's an insightful look into a troubled mind. But it ain't Ulysses. Or even Watchmen. Is it better than most comics? Is it the best single issue of the year? Maybe, maybe. But even so, I can't see writing a thesis on it.

Maybe that's why I don't write about comics more often.

TV: Last night on Bravo I caught a repeat of Kathy Griffin's stand-up special, The D-List (which, by the way, isn't even listed amongst her credits on IMDb.com -- that's odd). Basically, from her vantage point as a minor, minor celebrity ("For a while I was hovering around the C-List, but once you do 'Celebrity Mole' it's straight to the D"), she talks shit about all the better-known and infinitely weirder celebrities she encounters in her professional life, from a weepy, John Lennon-quoting Sharon Stone, to a menacing, profusely sweating Whitney Houston, to a near-comatose Anna Nicole Smith. And I loved it. You know there are millions of sick and twisted stories about the Hollywood elite floating around, and Griffin is your direct access to those stories. The humor flows naturally from the bizarre people and situations; she barely even has to craft punchlines around them, they're so hysterical to begin with.

The caveat is, you have to be able to take Griffin herself in order to enjoy her storytelling. She's got a grating, raspy voice, an abrasive, aggressive, sometimes flighty delivery ("Oh I forgot to tell you this!!"), and a far-too-chummy attitude with the audience. I can see how some might be turned off right from the beginning, and never even give her act a chance. Personally, though, I enjoy the whole package, and I'd really like to see this turned into a series of specials. I'll bet she's got enough stories to produce a new hour at least monthly, maybe even a half-hour weekly.