Seabiscuit was the most painful movie I watched this year. At no point did I find it the least bit entertaining (well, William H. Macy did a good job). It is the most utterly predictible, boring, and hokey film I have ever seen. If it wins Best Picture, I'm pretty sure I will have a heart attack.

Anyone know why City of God didn't get a Best Foreign Film nod? I thought that was a surprise, considering the three other nominations.

My pick for most overlooked, or really, ripped off, person? Paul Giamatti, for American Splendor. Best performance by an actor I saw all year, bar none, and zippo. Couldn't they have moved someone like Johnny Depp into supporting actor, bumped out one of the mediocre performances from that category, and put Giamatti in? American unSplendor.

I disagree with those that think Sofia Coppola is only directing because she is a Coppola. Might be some true in that but her work has been very interesting so far.

She is much more concerned about atmosphere and mood than any other American director I can think of.

Plus: great, great musical taste

What I don't understand is how Seabiscuit got nominated. Not only the movie sucked, but neither the director nor any of the actors got a nomination.

I agree with Jason. It's too easy to say Sofia only got her film made because she had the Coppola last name, but lots of people in Hollywood are working there because of their parents/relatives/etc. Of people nominated for Oscars in the past (some winners), think Anjelica Huston, Zooey Deschanel, Kate Hudson, Jane Fonda, Peter Fonda, Angelina Jolie, Michael Douglas...

Also, her film was well-received not only by the Academy, but many critics and the public (though maybe a limited one) as well. Some think it's bad, but some think Mystic River is one of the towering achievements of film in recent history and I personally think it's okay. Who knows what the longevity of Sofia's career will be, but the fact that she did write, direct, and produce a film that struck a chord in many does mean something.

And above all, the Oscars are in no way the best gauge of what talent is - it's what Hollywood thinks talent is. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they never give an Oscar to Alfred Hitchcock or Cary Grant, or, currently, Martin Scorsese or Robert Altman, or recognize scores of females working behind the scenes.

sofia - questionable talent - & she's definitely ridden the coppola coat-tails & slid into similar ego-excess as her progenitor. completely over-rated, but then power & name certainly work in this town.

Sofia made a very good film, regardless of her last name. When I exited the theatre after seeing Lost in Translation, the last thing on my mind was how great The Godfather was (or how bad Jack was). Certainly quite a few of the Academy members know her and her family (name one industry that doesn't work like that), but the quality of the film still stands on its own.

What a pity the 'In America' soundtrack / song wasn't nominated. The film itself should have got a nomination as well. (It's surprising how much of a real disappointment it is when the composer's a friend. Normally all this Oscar baloney's just some fun.) The theme song was up for a Golden Globe but lost to the damn hobbits.

I saw "In America" last night and was blown away. That the academy would nominate "Seabiscuit" in its place is further proof that the organization is either without taste or on the take. I dunno.

ooh! i'm very excited about the barbarian invasions' screenplay nom. perhaps i will break my own record and watch in excess of ten minutes of the oscars this year.

I'm a bit confused about the lord of the rings being nominated for best orginal score. I thought last year the academy had ruled that the second movie was not eligable because it was not 100% orginal (some music comming from the first movie). Did I miss something?

sofia - questionable talent - & she's definitely ridden the coppola coat-tails & slid into similar ego-excess as her progenitor. completely over-rated, but then power & name certainly work in this town. go ahead & read "easy riders, raging bulls" for reference.

Tatum O'Neal is indeed the youngest Best Supporting Actress winner. The Academy used to hand a special award for "best juvenile performer" (officially known as the Honorary Juvenile Award), which was discontinued in 1960. If we go by this award (which I don't), then Shirley Temple is the youngest recipient. She was 6 when she won an Oscar in 1934 for "outstanding contribution to screen entertainment in the year 1934." She made 12 films that year, or thereabouts.

Anna won for Best Supporting Actress. And I think Tatum O'Neal, winning Best Supporting Actress for Paper Moon, is the youngest.

Wasn't Anna Paquin 11 or 12 when she won an Oscar?

I'm torn on the animation award. Would Nemo be nominated for Best Picture if there were no separate award for it?

Also, I like the nod to Seabiscuit. Nothing too flashy, just a good-looking movie with a solid story and solid casting. Nothing jumps out as "the greatest thing you've ever seen," but it doesn't really fail on any level. The story is simple, and very American - but I like that about it.

Seabisuit was the soggiest piece of hackneyed treacle I saw last year. Perfect for a best picture nominee. If Bill Murray can summon up some more of that dry wit for his inevitable Oscar acceptance speech then that alone will be enough to justify sitting through the Academy self-congratulation fest.

Did anyone else get the impression that Murray was expressing some frustration from working with Wes Anderson on the new movie when he made that glib remark at the Globes? Unless they've changed the working title to "Death Ship."

For me, I was hoping that "The Station Agent" would pull out some nominations for Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Original Screenplay. However, that "American Splendor" got an Adapted Screenplay nod is one of a few nice surprises (such as Benecio Del Toro's for Best Actor, Shohreh Aghdashloo for Best Actress, and "The Triplets of Belleville" for Best Song).

And although "Finding Nemo" is a (justified) lock for Best Animated Film, I like the fact that "The Triplets of Belleville" was also nominated (strangest movie I saw last year). However, how the hell "Brother Bear" got nominated (were there NO other animated films last year?) is beyond me.

1. Do these nominees follow the Zapf distribution? It seems like they're either mega-blockbusters or tiny independent films. Granted, many so-called "indie" films are made by the studio-owned mini-majors, aka Dependents, but still.

2. I'm burning through like $10/day on Google ads for people who misspell Sofia Coppola. She's now famous enough to have her name spelled correctly. I'm sure the kids from Spellbound would agree, if they weren't all in some rehab program for washed up child stars.

3. Is Cold Mountain the first movie edited with Final Cut Pro to be nominated for Best Editing?

re:doshin. i agree...its not necessarily about whether you use cg, but the complete process. LOTR had nice cinematography, but so did alot of other movies last year. i actually thought that the cinematography was more conservative than the first one.

Yah, Cinematography is not only shooting, but development and post prod as well. Movies that have won or been nominated in the past, like Titanic use PLENTY o' CG or digital post prod. It's more about the finished product. Special effects aren't limited to the Minas Tirith/Mount Doom variety.