Top 5: Best Picture Noms
by John Nolte
With the Academy Awards just a few days away, here’s a list – from best to worst — of the films nominated for best picture along with links to their Big Hollywood reviews. Last year when critics called 2007 a great year for movies, I thought to myself, “If that’s the definition of ‘great’ what’s ‘lousy’ gonna look like?”
Well, that would be 2008.
1. Slumdog Millionaire - The likely winner for Best Picture is certainly a respectable, and at times invigorating and touching piece of storytelling, but it misses the quality which most defines a great film and that’s in making you want to revisit it as soon as possible.
2. Milk – Sean Penn’s performance transcends all the America hating, fascist loving, pretentious “reporter” stuff we rightly ridicule him for, and he deserves the Oscar for it (though I’m rooting for Mickey Rourke). Unfortunately, the film itself is a surprisingly run-of-the-mill biopic that gets sillier and more obvious as it rolls on.
3. Frost/Nixon – A couple strong, central performances can’t save what is the second most pointless film of the year. A liberal fantasy set to a television movie script no one will remember next week.
4. The Reader - As morally illiterate as its protagonist, but also a thematic miss more interested in touching all the Oscar bases (Holocaust, illicit romance, disability, time jumps…) than telling a focused or compelling story. In other news: It worked.
5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - And now we come to the most pointless film of the year. A movie about absolutely nothing which uses every one of its 166 minutes to prove it. The shame of it is that lost in all the insignificance is Brad Pitt’s best performance. I can hear the pitch now: “It’s like Forrest Gump if Forrest Gump had sucked.”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
62 Comments
I liked Benjamin Button (I absolutely loved the first teaser trailer for the film set to Saint-Saen's "Aquarium") but afterwards I realized I had a few problems with it (despite watching the film misty-eyed for almost half the running time – call me a wuss but something about the film still spoke to me).
As far as Fincher goes, I think 2007's Zodiac was a better film all around. I'm in no rush to see The Reader and I'll probably Netflix Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, and Frost/Nixon when they're released on DVD/Blu-Ray.
And yes, I wish The Dark Knight had been nominated but I think we all knew that wouldn't happen, either because of politics or because (stuffy elitist voice) "comic book movies can't be nominated!"
As I indicated in another thread, I'll probably keep the Oscars on in the background for the tech awards. I'm rooting for ILM to win best FX for Iron Man (I still can't believe Transformers lost the FX Oscar to The Golden Compass). And I'm interested to see who's in/out for the In Memorium montage.
I am getting mixed reviews on slumdog. Some people say it is an uplifting story and others tell me it's way too depressing. Since I have Netflix I will probably wait for this one to hit the small screen.
Actually, Slumdog was a technical masterpiece, and if it wins Best Picture, it will be the first Oscar winner to be shot entirely with digital cameras.
Oddly enough, after seeing it, I immediately wanted to see its stylistic cousin City of God, the best movie of this decade in my opinion.
Not really sure how anyone would consider it overly depressing. It's a very uplifting story.
got to disagree there. Button was the best of the 5 by far.
Notle's exactly right when he says no one will remember any of these movies. I liked Slumdog Millionaire and it is certainly the best of the nominated films but I doubt that its all that memorable. People will remember Danny Boyle going Bollywood and the whole novelty aspect of it but I doubt the film itself will be timeless
Two main reasons Dark Knight wasn't nominated:
1. The last 20 minutes were an unfocused, incoherent mess.
2. In order to get a BP nominee, you have to get more #1 votes than all but four other movies. You could show up on 90% of the ballots, but if they don't list you as #1, you won't make the nomination cut. The exact same quirk in the nominating process arguably kept Dreamgirls and Cold Mountain out of the mix in past years.
Dark Knight should have ended 30 minutes earlier.
Still waiting on the next list of the movies you're most anticipating, John. Please hurry, I'm starting to think there aren't any films worth anticipating.
The Dark Knight didn't get nominated because it is an excellent conservative film. Saying that it didn't get nominated because it didn't "get more #1 votes than all but four other movies" is a catch-22. "It wasn't nominated because it didn't get enough votes." Well, duh. The reason why it didn't get enough votes is because the elites in charge of voting wouldn't vote for such an outstanding conservative film.
I find it problematic when blanket declarations are made that Film XYZ "won't be remembered" in future years. For starters, let's allow at least a few years to pass before we declare the legacy to be dead. I think many of the stylistic and technical innovations in Slumdog (along with the Meirelles films and Wong-Kar Wei) are going to be very influential to filmmakers who are bored with the overly static compositions that you see in Ron Howard, and sadly, Steven Spielberg's later films. Slumdog simply looks completely different than any other BP nominee I can think of in the last 10-15 years.
Now, if Boyle's next film is an utter flop (like his unfortunate Sunshine), then maybe this will be seen as a flukey thing. Of course, if Boyle makes another winner…who knows.
Mr. Nolte, I agree with you on everything, except your belief that what defines a great film is desire to see it again. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Requiem For a Dream are all great movies, in fact all three are among the best ever made, in my opinion. But I haven't had much of a desire to see any of them again, simply because the subject matter is so tough to watch. But that doesn't lessen their quality.
I am so freaking tired of this canard. Please, produce me a SINGLE Oscar voter who went on the record and said that they didn't vote for Batman because it was a "conservative" film. Find me one.
Actually, the #1 vote issue is valid. The academy voters tend to be older people, and they simply weren't too jazzed up at either the genre or the film's presentation of it. The Warner people didn't do an effective enough job presenting their film as an artistic, and not just a financial, success.
Considering the number of people who lost their jobs when Time Warner went kablooey, it wouldn't be too implausible to think that a dislike of the studio itself swayed a couple of votes. Or the fiasco involving the Watchmen rights Warners forgot to legally purchase.
No, it can't be stupid things like that, it MUST be an industry wide conspiracy to keep a movie down for some George Bush allegory that literally no one but dead enders thought was there.
Lord, I'd hate to see how you guys are going to react to Watchmen…
For me, one of the single greatest films I ever saw in my life was Atom Egoyan's Sweet Hereafter, but I never ever ever ever want to see it again.
I'll never understand why people who believe that racism is widespread, subversive, and hidden find it so difficult to believe that any group other than conservatives are capable of ideological bias.
So in other words, you can't find an example of a single voter who said that they couldn't vote for the "conservative" Batman film? Why have any proof of a charge when you can just hurl it instead?
If you checked movie blogs like The Envelope or Awards Daily, the whole notion of TDK making the final five was considered highly unlikely because of the traditional bias against comic book/superhero films. It was only when some of the perceived contenders like Revolutionary Road, Changeling, and Doubt stiffed did the whole TDK/Best Picture talk start up again. The point is that despite the fanboy acclaim and box office, the general perception was that the film had soft support for reasons that had nothing to do with politics.
I said I "doubt" it will be remembered and then I stated what I thought might be memorable/influential from the film. I didn't pronounce any legacy to be dead and I didn't make any blanket declarations. Further, the things you referred to were technical and creative aspects of the film, not the film itself. Even poor films can be technically influential. But influential does not automatically mean memorable.
Yes, you did say that. So if the technical or creative aspects of the film are irrelevent to how it will be remembered, then what is required?
I actually am appreciative that of the five BP contenders, Slumdog was the ONLY one that wasn't made specifically with an eye towards Oscar (hell it almost went straight to DVD when Warner Brothers stupidly didn't know what to do with the film when Boyle turned it in). It was the least self-consciously "important" BP contender in a long time (as compared to a film like TDK that was straining at times to work in "important" moments).
Maybe its an issue of aesthetics, I happen to find films with technical innovations to hold up much better than flavor of the month dreck like Driving Miss Daisy.
I've said the same thing, especially with regards to Requiem For a Dream. My reaction literally was, "Great movie. I'm never going to see it again." (I also had the same reaction with Fight Club.)
And oddly enough, while I own it on Blu-Ray, I don't exactly have an urge to see The Dark Knight over and over again either. Don't get me wrong – I enjoyed the film and I will pop it in now and then but it's not a movie where I can just sit back and say, "Hey, I'm bored. Let's watch Dark Knight!" I can do that with Burton's Batman films though, just having them on TV in the background on a lazy Sunday. Dark Knight requires a little more mental energy on my part.
I kind of wish Requiem for a Dream had been slightly shorter…I felt beaten over the head after that one. Then again, the OTHER Selby movie, Last Exit to Brooklyn was so depressing it made Requiem look like a Busby Berkely musical in comparison. How Burstyn lost the Oscar that year is beyond me.
Part of me wishes that Nolan would issue a Director's Cut of TDK that would make the last act a bit less choppy. The end of that film was an anti-climax that reminded me a bit of the letdown I felt after Two Towers (which was VASTLY improved by a longer cut).
Here is a great video on Benjamin Button vs. Forest Gump.
The similarities really are remarkable:
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/1/The-Curio...
Believe me, I understand that any reason for not nominating The Dark Knight was hyped up in order to ensure that Oscar voters had political cover. Every voter understands that they are not supposed to be biased, but that does not make them so. Here's the problem: you're assuming that Oscar voters are voting based purely on aesthetic values without any evidence. Now you're castigating me for suggesting that Oscar voters, being human, probably factor in some ideological bias, as humans are wont to do. Your claim is not more valid than mine. There is, in fact, more evidence in support of my position. There are about 5500 Oscar voters. These voters are Hollywood professionals. Hollywood professionals are overwhelmingly liberal. Even though the Oscars sends a note with the ballots telling people they should vote with an open mind, there is no safeguard except for the voter's own judgment against prejudice. Unless you believe that liberals, by virtue of being liberals, have overcome the human trait of prejudice (which is what liberals, being idiots, believe), you have to recognize that liberals are just as human as everyone else.
The difficulty of proving bias is that bias is only one factor. If there is bias for something, that just makes it more likely for that thing to happen. If there is bias against something, then that thing is only repressed to some degree, not eliminated. This means that there will always be examples of someone overcoming some bias against him or her. But that does not prove that there was no bias. So, yes, Gladiator and The Lord of the rings get their well-deserved awards.
But in Hollywood, a conservative has to do his or her job twice as well to be thought half as good as a liberal. Luckily this is not difficult.
Why are you guys so convinced that TDK is an ode to conservatism? John, you have yet to produce a single scintilla of evidence that TDK was snubbed for major nominations because of its "conservative" politics. Nothing. Nada. Zip. All you have done is regurgitate the same brain-dead talking points that conservative pundits have regurgitated in their echo-chambers.
You say that TDK was a victim of political prejudice………then PROVE IT with ACTUAL evidence. Not anecdotes, not assumptions. Prove it. You can't do it. But in the brain-dead world of the movement conservative, you don't have to rely on actual evidence when there's a conspiracy to obsess over.
"It's like Forrest Gump if Forrest Gump had sucked." John, that's one very, very, very funny (and brilliant) line. I'm still laughing about it five minutes after reading it! Thanks.
You have failed to produce a scintilla of evidence that Oscar voters vote based solely on aesthetic values (I can play that way too!). But since you evidently failed to read my comment: "There are about 5500 Oscar voters. These voters are Hollywood professionals. Hollywood professionals are overwhelmingly liberal… [L]iberals are just as human as everyone else." That is what is known as evidence. See the chain of logic? Oscar voters = liberals = humans = biased. It's circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence. More evidence than you've given.
Since I've given evidence in support of my position, it's your turn to provide evidence in support of your position. Prove that the Oscars have found a way to eliminate prejudice from voting.
I'll never understand why people who believe that racism is widespread, subversive, and hidden find it so difficult to believe that any group other than conservatives are capable of ideological bias. The most prejudiced people I've ever known have all been liberals. To paraphrase a movie, "They don't know they're biased."
As I noted before, in Hollywood a conservative has to do his or her job twice as well to be thought half as good as a liberal. Luckily this is not difficult.
Holy crap that's a funny video!
Are you kididng, that was a horrible movie. Total waste of time.
Ok, we're starting to have a circular argument. You're asking me to prove that something didn't occur? How does one prove a negative again?
On the other hand, you said that TDK was snubbed by liberal Academy voters who couldn't vote for a conservative film. Leaving to the side this notion that TDK is considered a "conservative" film anywhere outside of the National Review, I asked you to prove that this snubbing actually occurred for this actual reason. You say that liberal voters snubbed TDK because of its politics, and so far you haven't ponied up any proof.
Find me some voters who said that politics was their reason. Hell, find me some quotes from Christopher Nolan asserting that TDK is a politically conservative film.
Is it all a vote on aesthetics or style? Of course not. Many times there are "makeup Oscar" votes like the one that was believed to have given Paul Newman his award in 1986 and Scorcese the other year. An anonymous voter on TheEnvelope.com called "Deep Vote" said that he voted for David Fincher for Director because he personally knew Fincher and had never met Danny Boyle. Age bias factors more in the Actress categories than anything else (Helen Mirren was the first actress over 40 to win Best Actress in nearly 15 years the year she won). Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine said publicly that even though they hadn't actually SEEN Brokeback Mountain, they weren't going to vote for it.
The big films for 2009 will be Michael Mann's Dillinger pic, Peter Jackson's Lovely Bones, Scorcese's Shutter Island, James Cameron's Avatar, and Eastwood's Mandela pic.
I'm so glad to hear that others think that. I was enjoying the movie, but I kept feeling like they just didn't know how to end it.
You're asking me to prove a negative by demanding I prove that fairness didn't occur. So how am I supposed to prove a negative?
Not only that, you specify that the only evidence you will accept is a specific statement from an Oscar voter. Further, you say that because I don't have that one, specific evidence, I don't have "any" evidence.
I've given evidence, just not the single type of evidence you've declared to be acceptable. And I'm not asking you to prove a negative; I'm asking you to prove a positive. Prove to me that those liberals who constitute the majority of Oscar voters do so completely objectively. Unlike you, I'm willing to listen to whatever evidence you have to offer. I'm not going to try to constrain you to one specific type of evidence which I know doesn't exist.
I do this because I'm not a liberal, so I'm willing to listen with an open mind to those who disagree with me. Also, not being an idiot, I'm willing to allow myself to be persuaded by the evidence.
Your point about some influences on Oscar voting is perfectly valid. Ledger's Oscar, for example, is absolutely for Brokeback Mountain. And because he died. But mostly Brokeback.
Your claim that oscar voters are superhumanly able to eliminate all traces of ideological bias within themselves is far more extreme than my claim that they are as subject to bias and prejudice as any of the rest of us. As such, your claim is the one which needs more proof.
This reminds me of when someone superimposed two Nickelback songs to show how they rip themselves off: http://www3.telus.net/jefmil/2005/02/Nickelback%2...
That reminds me of when someone superimposed two Nickelback songs to show how they rip themselves off: http://www3.telus.net/jefmil/2005/02/Nickelback%2...
That reminds me of when someone superimposed two Nickelback songs to show how they rip themselves off: http://www3.telus.net/jefmil/2005/02/Nickelback%2...
[...] Big Hollywood wrote an interesting post today on Top 5: Best Picture NomsHere’s a quick excerptWith the Academy Awards just a few days away, here’s a list – from best to worst — of the films nominated for best picture along with links to their Big Hollywood reviews. Last year when critics called 2007 a great year for movies, I thought to myself, “If that’s the definition of ‘great’ what’s ‘lousy’ gonna look like?” Well, that would be 2008. 1. Slumdog Millionaire – The likely winner for Best Picture is certainly a respectable, and at times invigorating and touching piece of st [...]
Up top there's a link to something or other about poor ratings for the Academy Awards.
Is this a mystery? The linked article touched on it.
Why would anyone watch the academy awards when the nominees are all movies, or actors in movies, that no one saw?
Figure Button has the most people who actually saw it and have an opinion. Slumdog after that. But to actually get involved, to actually be engaged in watching to see who wins… you probably have to be one of the people who saw at least three of those movies, so what is the movie-going total of the third one down the list on ticket sales?
If they want *numbers* for viewing the Awards, they should have a rock 'em sock 'em duel between Dark Knight and Iron Man, tag teaming WALL-E.
You haven't provided evidence that TDK was snubbed for being "conservative". You have simply said over and over "Hollywood liberals hate conservatives". That's not proof, that's a talking point. If I repeat over and over that Hollywood hates people named Nolan, therefore Nolan was snubbed for Best Director for that reason?
When did I say "Your claim that oscar voters are superhumanly able to eliminate all traces of ideological bias within themselves is far more extreme than my claim that they are as subject to bias and prejudice as any of the rest of us"
When did I say that?
Actually, I never said that Hollywood liberals hate conservatives. What I did say is that Hollywood liberals are biased against conservatives. My opinion is supported by more evidence than yours is, though I am willing to concede that it falls short of what I would consider definitive proof. However, I bask in the warm knowledge that I have arrived at my conclusion through logical deduction instead of irrational rejection of evidence that leads to a conclusion which I don't like.
I'm the one who said "Your claim that oscar voters are superhumanly able to eliminate all traces of ideological bias within themselves is far more extreme than my claim that they are as subject to bias and prejudice as any of the rest of us", which is how I would summarize your opinion. If my summary of your opinion is mistaken, please correct me. I'm dying to know if you disagree with that statement. For my enlightenment, please inform me of any and all ways with which you disagree with that conclusion.
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, do you think FOX News is biased?
Dude, clearly you're going to believe what you want to believe. But you couldn't be any more mistaken on your take on TDK either being "conservative" or the victim of a dastardly liberal plot against it. Not to mention the end of the film was terrible.
Bale's batman "voice" tanked the movie unfortunately. Not saying he's not a good batman- he's probably my favorite – but the growling was too forced and Ledger's Joker seemed so completely natural that the contrast, especially in the last 30 mins, was distracting.
*I don't exactly have an urge to see The Dark Knight over and over again either*
Gotta be honest, I have it and I throw it in just to watch Ledger's Joker scenes. The scene where he comes out of the hospital and thinks his explosives have malfunctioned is brilliant physical comedy. The best part of DK was I never once said "hey thats Heath Ledger playing the Joker" as opposed to the first Batman attempt, where it was Jack Nicholson being Jack with makeup. Not saying I Didnt like the performance but Ledger was spot on. I'm sorry he won't end up with Best Supporting – 100-1 odds atm.
Also (and I hate to say this), I didn't consider DK to be a conservative movie. Maybe I missed the nuance but …
Now Taken was a conservative movie. And awesome. If you have't seen it and you like action and revenge flicks, I highly recommend it.
The simplest evidence of which I am aware that TDK is conservative is that liberals hate it with a passion.
I never said there was a liberal plot; I said there was bias. I'll never understand why people who believe that racism is widespread, subversive, and hidden find it so difficult to believe that any group other than conservatives are capable of ideological bias.
So, since you don't dispute it, I'm going to assume that I accurately summarized your opinion.
Liberals make it look so easy to live without logic or rationality. I have to admit, sometimes I'm sorely tempted to give in to liberalism and just stop thinking independently. Instead of offering evidence to support my conclusions, I could just denigrate people who disagree by implying they are loony and everything they say is wrong because I say so. Instead of listening, I could just tell them over and over that they don't have any evidence. It's so much simpler to always place the burden on others to prove their beliefs instead of taking any initiative or responsibility for your own, isn't it?
Wow… that's actually pretty cool. Wouldn't have guessed you could superimpose two crappy songs and come up with one good one, but that's exactly what that sounds like.
"Total waste of time." Hmmn. We see a young girl sexually abused by her father build the strength to take a stand without the support of her community. One of the "Saw" movies qualifies a bit more for "total waste of time."
So, where was the liberal bias three years ago when one of the most beloved and award-lavished films Brokeback Mountain llost Best Picture?
I really enjoyed TDK, and I do think that their are conservative undertones, I don't think thats why i didnt' get the nod, I think its society's generally negative view on all things comic related.
And matt, you are spot on with Ledger's Joker being so right that you don't consciously realize its Ledger when you're watching the movie. And he plays the character so well that it does overshadow Bale's good job as Batman. I suppose its hard to find that balance, if Ledger had toned it down, it probably wouldn't have been as good, but if Bale had toned it up, it might not have played as well. And while I liked the Burton Batman, the quintessential batman/joker duo for me, until I saw Dark Knight, was Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamil in Batman: The Animated Series. Conroy still dose a better Batman voice the bale, but you need more then just the voice for live action.
Now that is an excellent question. I'm glad someone around here is capable of at least discussing facts. It seems, though, that a lot of people misunderstand what bias is. Bias is when one side is granted some level of preferential treatment. For example, if one race is granted preferential treatment over another race, it does not necessarily mean that only that race ever gets hired or promoted. It just means the race discriminated against must display a degree of skill sufficient to overcome the degree of bias. That's how the saying that "a woman must do her job twice as well as a man in order to be thought of as half as good" originated. The reason Brokeback was so popular in the first place is because it was about gays. If it had not been, it would never even have been considered for the nomination. Bias does not ensure a winner; bias just makes it easier for the favored group to win, to the degree that the bias exists. Sometimes, the favored group gets so accustomed to being favored that they interpret a lack of favoritism as bias. This makes bias not only very difficult to measure, but difficult to prove at all, especially since we all have our own individual biases.
Which is why I say that in Hollywood, a conservative has to do his or her job twice as well to be thought half as good as a liberal. Luckily this is not difficult.
I can't disagree more! I loved the ending. Felt it was perfect.
I disagree about Slumdog, I saw it again a week later and still loved it. Really fantastic movie. The rest I don't give a rats ass about and still can't believe Button was nominated.
2007 was a great year, the only best picture nominee I didn't care for was Michael Clayton and there were many other fantastic movies that could have been nominated. No Country is one of my favorite movies ever, seen it a couple times after seeing it in the theaters and it never gets old.
I htought the last act was cramped, but I thought the ending was perfect. And none of that erases the often brilliance of the first two hours.
Dural…agree with you. Slumdog was a fantastic movie and I think one of the main reasons you arent rushing to see it again is that the subject matter is indeed raw and at times, hard to sit through but it still resonates and, to me, that is the sign of an Academy Award winner. Honestly, how many of the winners have you actually gone back and watched more than once in a week? The rest of the films are really dumb excuses for nominated films and it wouldnt be the Academy Awards if a film like Milk wasnt nominated.
Slumdog is my least favorite of these, the only one I actually dislike. MIlk is the best, but it's only pretty good for the reasons stated. I liked Button more leaving the theater than I do now. Agree that it is shallow. Frost/Nixon does some nice things, but it's inconsequential. The Reader I haven't seen, and I do not particularly want to.
This is one list I can't elaborate on. Haven't seen any of them and am not likely to. I was briefly interested in Benjamin Button and wasn't sure about Frost/Nixon, but thanks to reviews from Mr. Nolte, I opted to save my five bucks in each case.
Dan_O, That was so freaking hilarious! I remember the first time I saw the ad for BB, I thought that sounds sort of like a FG kind of thing. Boy, did I ever get that one right!
Brisco_County, I have to admit I like the Nickelback THYR song, but, yeah, they were definately a 1 trick pony group.
Kevin Conroy & Mark Hamil have become the standard setters for Batman/Joker and you can see a lot of their influences on the new movies. For instance, B:TAS was the first time we saw Batman disguising himself down to his voice. (one of the best scenes is in the opener, he's talking as Batman with Alfred, then someone calls Bruce Wayne and he answers the phone, in the bat-cave with Wayne's voice) To hammer the point even further, in the Batman: Gotham Knight DVD (which supposedly is the bridge between Batman Begins & TDK) who is doing the voice of Batman? Kevin Conroy. So it's no surprise they had Bale use two different voices in his role, but I wish they had worked with him a little more on his Batman one.
Hamil, meanwhile, made the Joker's laugh bone chilling and iconic. So for a trailer… they have no lines except for the laugh of Ledger's own Joker.
The two are returning again for the Batman: Arkaham Asylum video game.
Boring comments all.
Liberals hate TDK with a passion? And you're basing that on what again?
I enjoyed Gotham Knight, I thought it was a good filler for what happens between the two movies. And as an avid video gamer I was excited to hear that Conroy and Hamil will be back for the new game.
If you watched the animated Justice League: Unlimited, there is an excellent scene in "The Once and Future Thing, Part 2" where you have Batman and Old Bruce Wayne (from Batman Beyond) interrogating a gang member. I think it shows why Conroy's voice is quintessential Batman.
Same here. I wanted to see Slumdog, but didn't get to it. Didn't even want to see the others. My daughter saw Benjamin Button and thought it was great, so that's one 16 year old vote.
So what is there to talk about?
And what reason is there to watch the Academy Awards?
As I understand it the way the votes are tallied, TDK could have been the #2 choice on 3000 ballots, and Reader the #1 choice on 10 ballots, and the Reader would get the nod. It's simply a bad accounting system.
So what is there to talk about?
When it comes to current Oscar nominees, not much.
And what reason is there to watch the Academy Awards?
None, unless you're a big fan of Hugh Jackman perhaps. I have no objections to him as the emcee, but the Oscars carry too much baggage to make watching it worthwhile.
You must be logged in to post a comment.