Official Academy Awards Blog

Ok, so we are going to lay it down like this....i don't know why i said that, i just wanted to sound cool i guess. Anyway, i have been contemplating writing about the academy awards and my brilliant thoughts about them for sometime but i didn't want to give anything away for when i do my justademy awards next monday. But i have to. Way too much stuff boiling in my brain. I have to write it down or it's going to drive me nuts. So i am going to give my four cents (yes, my opinion counts for four cents instead of two, simply because it's worth more) but i am not going to give away my winners and favorites and stuff like that. Ok.

**Warning: This blog contains adult content. Now you can't be offended. I warned you.**

So to start out we must just establish right away that this is the worst year for nominations on record. They are an absolute joke. Now that i have seen just about every movie from last year that is worth seeing so many obvious biases are proven with the nominations. Bias number 1. Can't nominate a "super hero" movie for best picture. Why? I don't know. Just can't. The Dark Knight is easily one of the best five films of the year. If you don't want to give it the award that's fine, but to not nominate it is inexcusable. Bias 2. Kevin Bacon. They will never forgive him for footloose and his very large manhood (thanks for that wild things). His performance in Frost/Nixon is very impressive and is far superior to some of the nominees in that category. But we will get to that in a second. Bias 3. Clint Eastwood. This one isn't really a bias but it kind of is. The reason that it is is because they decided before his two films even came out this year (Gran Turino and Changeling) that no matter what, they were not going to nominate him because of all the attention he has received from the academy. I will expound on this in a minute as well. Bias 4. Make any movie about sensitive political issues, regardless of the quality, and you will get a best picture nomination. 3 out of the 5 nominees are political and one of them is an absolute joke. Bias 5. If your name is stephen daldry you will get nominated regardless. More on this in a minute. Let's move on and criticize the academy in each of the six major categories. This is going to be long. I hope you have plenty of time on your hands. Ooh, you may want to make a sandwich too....with spicy brown mustard.....and cheese.....on a crescent....and then bring it to me.

Best Supporting Actress: Not a lot to say about this but seriously, why on this planet is Viola Davis nominated?!?!? Freaking seriously?! She has ONE scene in doubt. Yes, i said ONE. And she doesn't even do a majority of the talking in that scene. In no world should you be able to put forth so little acting and get rewarded for it. The academy is notorious for this crap though. Last year they nominated the old lady from 'American Gangster' and she had a total of like 3 minutes of screen time, and did less than this lady. In 2005 they nominated William Hurt for 'A History of Violence,' he also only has one scene in that movie. Once again, nothing special. And in 2003 or 2002, i don't care to look it up, they nominate ed harris for 'The Hours' and, yep, you guessed it-one scene. It's ridiculous. And Penelope Cruz's performance in 'Vicki Cristina Barcelona' is nothing special. I would have nominated the girl that plays Rachel in 'Rachel Getting Married' over both of those two. But don't even get me started on that movie. What a waste of my time. I am pretty sure part of my soul died, as did my libido.

Best Actress: This category bugs me. The two front runners are Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep. Why? I could never explain that to you. First of all, I absolutely love Kate Winslet but her role in 'The Reader' isn't even a leading role people!!!! I guess they decided if they nominated her for 'Revolutionary Road' her role wasn't difficult enough to merit her defeating Meryl Streep, so how did they get around that? They nominated her for a holocaust movie. Nice work. But why would they do all of that? Because they all decided before hand that it was time to give Kate Winslet an oscar because she has been awarded so many times and never one. What a joke. She only got nominated because they uglied her up and she is naked through the entire movie and having an affair with a 15 year old boy. My biggest problem is that they are the two front runners. The obvious best performance of the year is from Angelina Jolie in 'Changeling.' Seriously. It will blow your mind. She really proved she can act and Clint Eastwood definitely brought that out. But why isn't she the front runner? Because she is not well liked in hollywood and has the image of a sex symbol and not a "real" actress. Her performance is so far above the other nominees it's ridiculous to even talk about. The best performances from these ladies goes like this: 1-Angelina Jolie, 2-Anne Hathaway, 3-Melissa Leo, 4-Meryl Streep, 5-Kate Winslet. Word.

Best Supporting Actor: This category causes fire ants in my pants. How on this earth did Robert Downey Jr. get nominated for a role that ANY comedic putz could have played. Seriously. Wow he can do a pretend black voice and be offensive. So can chris rock! This is one of the dumbest nominations of the year. Especially considering the people they passed over to nominate him. Kevin Bacon, Michael Sheen, John Malkovich, and Jason Butler Harner who will chill you to the bone as Gordon Northcott in 'Changeling.' Oh woo-freaking-hoo Robert Downey Jr. actually kept himself out of jail this year long enough to be in some movies so let's reward him for being a good boy. That's great if you want to do that. But give him a cookie, not an academy award nomination. Seriously, me and austin at game crazy do his stupid "black voice" all the time and we both do it pretty flawlessly. What more proof does anybody need that that nomination is unwarranted. And Michael Sheen's performance as David Frost in Frost/Nixon is one of the best performances of the year and i can't believe they had the chutzpah not to nominate him. Embarrassing. But nobody's performance in this category even touches heath ledger's so whatever i guess.

Best Actor: This category is basically correct with the exception of Richard Jenkins for 'the visitor.' The only award this movie should have been nominated for is the dullest movie ever made on this or any other planet that nobody should be subject to. Shoot me. And he does a good job, but absolutely nothing special. Cue Clint Eastwood snub #1. This nomination should have gone to Mr. Eastwood. He is awesome in Gran Turino and really earned this nomination. And the award better go to Mickey Rourke. His performance in 'The Wrestler' is absolutely amazing. It seems like he isn't even acting, but rather he is that character. I am telling you, it is insane. One of the most heartbreaking, hearfelt, emotional, and beautiful performances you will ever see. I did realize though, that it may not be all of that if you don't know the life story of Mickey Rourke. His fall from grace and all that good stuff. Anway, his performance absolutely broke my heart and gave me chills when he was speaking on the mic at the end of the movie. I understand why everybody is asking where the character Randy "The Ram" Robinson ends and where Mickey Rourke begins. And now i know why he can't answer that. I can't say enough about this film. It's beautiful. And Mickey Rourke didn't even get paid for this movie. The budget was so little and he isn't a draw at all anymore in hollywood that they couldn't afford to pay him. The one selfish part of me though is annoyed because now there will be Mickey Rourke banwagon jumpers. I have loved him for years thank you, even though he has only been in two good movies in the last twenty three years, and both of those came in the last four years. Anyway, if it ever comes on tv, don't miss it.

Best Director: This category is plain ridiculous. Remember stephen daldry that i mentioned earlier? Yep. He is nominated for 'the reader' and nobody can ever justify this. The academy obviously has a love affair with this guy. Why you ask? Well thank you for asking i shall now tell. Because this wank has only made THREE movies and ALL THREE have been nominated for best picture and ALL THREE times he has been nominated for best director, and NONE of the three movies are good. Billy Elliot (yep, dance around in your little tights fairy boy), 'The Hours' (drinking cow urine is more pleasant than this movie), and 'The Reader,' which if you value the time that you have on this earth at all, don't watch this movie. Love affair with good ol bloke Stephen Daldry. Nothing impressive about any of these three movies or the directing within them. Cue Clint Eastwood snub #2 and/or #3. Yep, he gets two snubs here because he should have definitely been nominated for either 'Changeling' or 'Gran Turino.' Both of these films are absolutely fantastic and wonderfully directed. I can understand an argument for not nominating him for Gran Turino because some of the supporting actors do lousy work and that can be attributed to the director but there is no argument for not nominating him for Changeling except for the one previously stated in the introduction. And one of the biggest snubs of all time is not nominating Christopher Nolan for The Dark Knight. One of, if not the best direction of the year. This film looks fantastic in every way shape or form. It flows well, is well acted, the transitions are natural and fluid. There is no reason he should not be nominated. And how the cow pie does darren Aronofsky not get nominated for 'the wrestler?' Wake up you hypocritcal morons. Absolutely fantastic. Ye all bunch of crackers. Not you readers, the academy.

Best Picture: Remember those fire ants in my pants? Yeah, they get real crazy on me in this category. Some of the biggest snubs in the history of the best picture category and a couple senseless nominations. Cue Eastwood snub #4 AND #5. Both Gran Turino and Changeling should have been nominated. Especially changeling. That movie is ridiculously beautiful, and even more ridiculously accurate. I loved how the critics tried to give this movie bad reviews so they could justify not nominating it. Not one of them has an argument as to why this isn't a brilliant film. Because it is. They said things like, "this movie is too dramatic and emotional for the times. With the situation of the economy and the state of America, we need happier material." Oh sorry the filmmakers wanted to tell a story about a horrible event that happened to a lady in the 20's and 30's. You're right, her hardship is an incredible inconveniance. Let's put away all the history books and not talk about that stuff either, becuase it isn't all cream puffs and rainbows. Actually, the only critics that didn't like this movie belong to rottentomatoes.com which is a website i strongly urge people to avoid. You wanna talk about fourth and fifth rate critics trying to pretend like they are in the game, then go read the pretentious crap on this website. This is the least credible site on the web. Hate it. Anway, i am yet to encounter any real person that doesn't just follow the critics around with every little thing that doesn't love Changeling. It's beautiful and heartbreaking and very historically accurate (as we know is a huge rareity in hollywood.) Then we have the dark knight getting snubbed. What the crap people? You all know how i feel about this and i have blogged about it before so i won't go into it. Then we have the beautiful and almighty film 'The Wrestler.' This is beautiful filmmaking at its finest. Such an honest, heartfelt, fantastic movie. The academy likes to pretend that they award originality, but tell that to the director of the Wrestler Mr. Darren Aronofsky. He has made three absolutely fantastic movies (Pi, Requiem for a dream, and the wrestler) and has been overlooked every time. All honest, brutal, and original films. There is no way this should have been passed over. Let's see, the reader sucked and how many films were better this year. Gran Turino, Changeling, The Dark Knight, The Wrestler, Revolutionary Road, and i am sure there are more. Those five films are so much better and so superiorly made it's not even funny. All five of those are also all better than Frost/Nixon (Which i do really really like so it's nomination is ok), Milk, and Slumdog Millionaire. I feel Slumdog is ridiculously overrated, but maybe it's just because i saw it after all the hype.... Either way i think the academy got caught up in the feel good story of the little movie that could and that's why so many nominations. Danny Boyle absolutely deserves his directing nomination for it though. It's very very good. But the movie is just good. For me.

There you have it. Take my four cents and cherish it. And the academy awards are this sunday people. That leaves you only six days to fill out your ballots and email them to jesse or me at jessekaylaws@yahoo.com or justinbbv@yahoo.com. We want you all to participate even if you are just blindly guessing. Fill them out. The winner may get a cookie cookie. And bragging rights, and that is the most important. Come on, doesn't the thought of beating me just turn you on a little bit? But Jesse is the defending champ so she is the one to beat, not me, so stop picking on me. And, i did give some really good hints in my above words of wisdom. Pay attention and you too can become a jedi movie master. Wow, that is sign number one that i must stop. Amen.