The last truly Oscar-worthy turn by Depp was his supporting role in Donnie Brasco. It'll be a fuckin joke if this long-time excellent actor finally wins the gold for such a maudlin, predictable piece of schmaltzy pap like Finding Neverland.

Wow. Are you people heartless?

I guess I just don't understand this line of thinking. Ok, you didn't like Sideways, you found it "damn boring" and don't get the appeal of Giamatti. All that is fine and well. Everybody's opinion is valid and movies are very subjective. But why would acclaim for a movie you didn't like make you hate it even more? How does that change the movie you saw?

There were plenty of movies this year that have received critical acclaim that I didn't care for. But I just scratch my head in wonder and move on. I don't dwell over them and decide that I hate them that much more because other people seem to really like it. Raging Bull is a good example for me. I didn't care for that film, thought it was merely ok. But when people go on and on about it and how it was robbed, I just shrug my shoulders. Different strokes my friend.

While I didn't connect too much with Finding Neverland, which apparently in digitalfreaknyc's opinion makes me heartless, I thought Depp gave a great performance worthy of recognition. This comparison to past performances is another thing about the Oscars that I don't understand. The local critics in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune actually went on and on yesterday about how this particular actor's performance wasn't as strong as their previous ones or how Scorsese's movies in the past have been better than The Aviator. My question is, who cares? Last I checked, these people weren't up against their past performances, but rather other performances and movies from this year. Claiming that an award is a joke because someone is getting recognized for work you deem inferior to that person's previous work just doesn't hold water for me.

Sure Goodfellas is better than The Aviator in my opinion. Yeah, Depp gave a better performance in Donnie Brasco than he did in Finding Neverland, again in my opinion. But what does that matter? It's The Aviator against Sideways, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby and Ray, not The Aviator against Goodfellas or Raging Bull. So if someone had an amazing performance in the past, they should never be worthy for a recognition in the future unless they manage to surpass that previous piece of work? I'm just lost in that line of thinking.

Eh, i can understand why you'd compare someone's work with their older work. It can be interesting to hear what a critic thinks of the Aviator compared to Goodfellas for example.

Quick Question: Was Infernal Affairs eligible for Best Foreign Film? I'm curious because I thought this movie was absolutely amazing and wish it would be nominated to gain a little more exposure.

I wasn't saying past performances can't be compared to current ones, merely that it makes no sense to factor those into deciding who deserves to win awards. I don't care that critics do it. It's when people say Depp shouldn't win for Finding Neverland because he was better in Donnie Brasco. The two roles have nothing do with each other when it comes to this year's Oscars and the same with The Aviator, Goodfellas and Raging Bull.

Young, yes. But Johnny Depp is a chainsmoker, so he may not around for as long as you might think. He might be going somewhere very soon if he keep it up.

I expect The Aviator to take Best Picture. It's a big Hollywood extravaganza and it's gaining momentum every day.

I do think that Million Dollar Baby will earn a director win for Eastwood, though (gotta never give Scorsese that director oscar - like Hitchcock) and Million Dollar Baby is a dead balls lock for Best Adapted Screenplay.

How can Jamie Foxx not win Best Actor? He's got hell of buzz, his movie comes out on DVD on Tuesday so it'll be fresh in voters' minds, and he gave an entertaining acceptance speech at the Golden Globes. Since most of the nominated films are dour and sad people will want to liven things up.

I don't understand how mediocre films like Finding Neverland and Ray are getting nominations for Best Picture when there are more obvious choices and much better films released. No nominations whatsoever for Kill Bill Vol. 2? No best picture nominations for Eternal Sunshine, Closer, Before Sunset, The Passion of the Christ, The Assassination of President Nixon, or Spider-Man 2?

Oh well. 2004 seems to have turned out to be another of those lesser Oscar years, when we'll look back over whichever of these five wins best picture and it will not compare favourably with the years flanking it.

Does anyone still think Gladiator was one of the best films of the past decade? Or the utterly forgettable Chicago?

Is it? It doesn't seem to have much momentum amongst Academy voters. At least according to Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeffrey Wells, who says; "I was there at the Producers Guild Awards ceremony last weekend when The Aviator won for Best Picture, and the enthusiasm factor was very low...very little applause...the level of enthusiasm isn't there and yet it's the kind of movie that people expect should be a Best Picture nominee...People vote for movies they love...that they can get excited about...and the fact is that admiration and enthusaism levels seem to be much higher for Million Dollar Baby than for The Aviator. People admire The Aviator but they don't love it."

Personally, I think The Aviator's best chance lies in its box-office takings between now and the Oscars. If it can up its current $73 million gross to get within spitting distance of $100 million then it'll be all but impossible for voters to ignore. Especially since there's no way M$B, which has only gone nationwide today, can equal that take in the time left. But then it apparently doesn't need to. David Poland reckons that just half that amount makes Baby a respectable box-office champ in the eyes of Academy voters. So if Clint's movie performs really well and The Aviator only so-so then I think Scorsese had better watch out. This weekend's gross for both films will make very interesting reading.

I guess I don't agree with you totally on it being a "lesser Oscar year." For me at least, three of the five films nominated for the big award are among some of the better films I have seen. I know it's become fashionable to rip on The Aviator, but I thought it was movie making at its finest on many levels. Great performance by Leo and mesmorizing for me at least on the storytelling level. Despite that praise, I'm still pulling for Million Dollar Baby or Sideways, both of which I thought were just flat out great films.

Oh, and I'm not a big Gladiator fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I know many people who are and I flat out love Chicago and don't find it forgettable at all. Was so happy the year Chicago won.

If the Academy insists on giving Scorsese his Oscar, I can accept it (although I think it should go to Eastwood by a mile). I just saw Million Dollar Baby and I think it's Eastwood's best film in a distinguished directing career and so far ahead of everything else for Best Picture. I will be very upset if it doesn't win. The lead threesome were all brilliant and I wouldn't be upset to see any or all of them win. This is that rare picture which will stay with me as long as I live.

I've seen all the Best Picture nominees except Ray and I like them all and I think they are worthy nominees. But M$B blows them away.

Come to think of it, there is actually a pretty good chance that Million Dollar Baby could win quite a lot of Oscars this time around. AMPAS voters every now and then like to honor an excellent "small" film, and Million Dollar Baby fits the bill perfectly. After all, last year AMPAS voters honored The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as a culmulative award for what is perhaps the most ambitious project ever put on film, so it's time for Oscar nods to a top-notch "small" film.

Jim Carrey continues to get screwed, he was amazing in man on the moon, and was perfect in Eternal Sunshine, I'm glad Winslet was nominated, however Carrey deserves it even more.

I saw Million Dollar Baby last night and am convinced that if it does not win, it will be a terrible disservice to the film industry. What a wonderful, thoughtful, engaging, entertaining, and heartbreaking film. No other film this year grabbed me and wouldn't let go, save for perhaps Vol. 2 and Spider-Man 2. I adored it. Hillary Swank's "Maggie" was without a doubt the best performance of the year, even topping Uma in Vol. 2. Clint was, well he was good ole Clint, always reliable. And Morgan is the best actor of his generation without a doubt, finally he's back to making quality work after his Ashley Judd years. Jamie Foxx doesn't hold a candle to Morgan. No other actress nominated had more heart in her performance than in one frame of Swank's work. And no movie nominated this year was better than Million Dollar Baby.

And let me just say that I think it's ridiculous that all of these biopics are getting all these nominations. Enough with this shit. Read a book people, find out what really happened. Why would people think that creating a performance on screen based on someone else is harder than creating a truly unique performance, such as Swank and Freeman. It's a travesty, there was far better work this year than Leo's over-the top Howard Hughes's or Jamie Foxx huggin the camera with Ray.

Oh and what a friggin travesty that Million isn't nominated for best score! What were they thinking. If it isn't big loud and abrasive it isn't worth listening too. Argh!

I now have a movie to root for this year, but I'm sure they'll feel all sorry for Scorcese and award his blundering 3 hours long ego-trip. *sigh*

That you don't know Howard Hughes's name leads me to believe two things: that you didn't see The Aviator, and that you have no idea what Howard Hughes was really like--which rather discredits your slam on DiCaprio's acting in that film, IMO.

Shit, meant Hughes, typo.

No I have no clue what Hughes was really like, but if I wanted to I'd read a book about his life. I saw the majority of the film before I couldn't take it any longer and walked out. Terrible trite film.

Clint Eastwood's score wasn't nominated because it was ineligible. The paperwork was submitted too late, and didn't make the deadline. Otherwise, it may have been a nominee. Also, Howard Shore's score for "The Aviator" was also ineligible, due to the fact that there was too high of a percentage of existing music sources included in the final score. The same thing happened to Nino Rota's 1972 score for "The Godfather." In fact, it was one of the final five nominees, but then was pulled out of it's slot and replaced with Charlie Chaplin's score for "Limelight," which ultimately won.

Jamie Foxx will win because he portrays a piano player. (See F. Murray Abraham, Geoffrey Rush, Adrien Brody)

You had me until this not-well-though-out statement. You're telling us they shouldn't base movies on real people when one can go read a book...but Million Dollar Baby is BASED on a book (as most films these days are). Actually, it's a short story in a collection, but same difference. So that kind of killed your arguement.

But I agree with you that Million Dollar Baby is the best overall film of the year...although Foxx's performance in Ray is just brilliant (Eastwood would be my runner-up pick).

I think playing a real life person (especially as one as well known as Ray Charles) is MUCH more difficult to pull off. Because you're acting within a KNOWN UNIVERSE. When you create your own character (or play one written for you) you have much more freedom in developling what the character is like...and if you hit a false note, the audience isn't as likey to notice.

But your still creating a character that people know. Anyone can do a Ray Charles impersonation. I don't see how creative that is. Your basing a performance on something that is readily available versus creating a unique and interesting character. I find the latter far more entertaining and well harder to pull off.

Besides the fact that not anyone can do a Ray Charles impersonation, Jamie Foxx brought that character to life. He didn't just impersonate him, he became him, bringing a realism and soul to what could've very easily been just a 2 hour imitation. The physical mannerisms and vocal stylings were just the beginning...he brought the character to life and we really believed he was the man he was portraying. The fact you think it's so easy to do an acting role based on a real life character just boggles my mind, because it's so far from true it's laughable. Imitation can be, at times, somewhat easy. But if you see Foxx's performance as Ray as merely imitation, then I think you're just missing 90% of his performance anyway. You can say you find the latter more interesting, but it's not necessarily harder to pull off, and I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find many actors who would agree with you. They're both challenging, they both bring their own difficulties. Foxx elevated a mediocre film to something better. I don't think it deserved a best pic nod, but his performance definately deserved teh best actor nod.

I've got no qualms with the actor nominees up there. They're all deserving.

No shit, but Foxx's performance was more than just a half-assed impersonation. Did you see the film? Personally I think it's a piece of shit but Foxx is commendable and worthy of all the accolades he has received.