Obligatory Oscar analysis!

Yes, especially when the movie in question (DREAMGIRLS) isn't very good. I'd love to see THE QUEEN take Best Picture, but I'll settle for THE DEPARTED. Anything but BABEL. And I'll bet the farm Marty's finally gonna win. Finally, PAN's LABYRINTH just has to take Best Foreign Film. It's extraordinary.

Oh no! The "Oscars" category on the sidebar now has entries!

I guess Cohen's Adapted Screenplay nomination comes because the film is based on the character Borat from Da Ali G Show. Or are they saying the film is based upon the actual show? Or a segment of the show?

It kind of reminds me of how Syriana was nominated for Original Screenplay when it was based off of a book or something.

Don't forget the "experts" who were predicting that the remake of "All the King's Men" was a sure thing. These were the same pundits who knew that "Jarhead" would be nominated the year before.

I'm with you every step of the way. This morning's nominees don't have me terribly excited - most of those that I (correctly) predicted are more popular than they are good (hint: I'm no fan of "Babel") - but the few surprises were at least the source of some silver linings. I'm enthralled that "Letters from Iwo Jima" got into the final five, and I'll be throwing my full weight behind it (as much as I do appreciate "The Departed" after a second viewing).

(Shameless self-plug to follow...) More of my thoughts here: http://projectionbooth.blogspot.com/2007/01/oscar-2007-part-ii-nominees-are.html

pacheco: I know... couldn't put it off any longer. At least once the nominations were announced there was actually something specific to talk about...

I would love to see:

Dench and Blanchett win. It reminded me of Katharine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor from "Suddenly Last Summer".

I would love to see Forest Whittaker finally win. He was just wicked, wicked, bloody good.

But I wouldn't mind seeing Queen Helen winning the big gold. After all, Ms. Dench already won for playing her ancestor!

How come Children of Men was overlooked it was so brilliant?

What about the Toronto Int'l Film Festival winner, "Bella" !?

RE: "Don't you love it when the conventional wisdom is just wrong?"

YES! It looks like there may actually be some suspense at this year's Oscars.

How did Pedro Almodovar and his film Volver get so badly overlooked? One nomination for Cruz was great but how is it not among the top 5 foreign films of the year. In my opinion it should be a contender for best picture, it is certainly a better movie than The Departed and, as fun as it is, Little Miss Sunshine. It is criminal that Almodovar continues to be overlooked. Also, I enjoyed Babel, but it is far from Inarritu's best work. Amores Perros was much better, but could it be the make-up Oscar rule this year?

What a strange selection of Oscar runners. Honestly, most of the movies under any of the categories I found to have elements that were outstanding, but that never worked for me as a whole (Babel, Letters, Departed, Sunshine -- haven't seen "The Queen"). It feels to me that no real chances were taken on films this year. Everything seems quite safe. They pick the safest indie to nominate. Sure, "Sunshine" was fun, but did it move me as much as "Pan's" or "Volver" or "Children of Men"??? No. Neither did any of the other nominated films. "Letters" was a more solid film than "Flags", but it still felt awkward, trying to mingle Japanese ideals into American moments. The movies that touched me or reached out to me as a viewer and film lover, this year were few and none of them. Where's del Toro as a director? I guess the film wasn't important enough. And that's the feeling I got from the over all oscar nominations this year. The "important" films filled the spots. "Babel" has that multi-tiered interracial storytelling like "Crash". "Letters" the view from the other side of the world, he we're all human, and it's Clint, the fact that it was much better than "Flags" makes it a shoe-in... pity anyone? "Sunshine" is Hollywood tooting it's own horn, much the same kind of feeling I got from "Sideways" getting nominated... the feel good dysfunctional indie of the year! Good for you Oscars! "The Departed", sure, entertaining. I only hope it wins because it doesn't have the pretense of being "important". Here's hoping "The Queen" is as good as everyone says it is -- I'm seeing it next week.

I'm just kinda bored by most of the nominations. Solid films, but ground breaking? "Pan's" should just win picture of the year on all levels.

Though I hope Rinko Kikuchi takes the darn thing from Hudson. Go Rinko! That's the only thing on this list of nominees I'm extremely passionate about.

So glad "Little Miss Sunshine" got in. It's the best movie of 2006. Abigail Breslin deserves her nod and I hope Alan Arkin beats out Eddie Murphy. Babel is overrated. Dreamgirls is not a very good movie.

The only categories that I'm truly passionate about are Best Adapted Screenplay (Children of Men), Best Cinematography (Children of Men), Best Foreign Language Film (Pan's Labyrinth), Best Documentary (An Inconvenient Truth) and Best Director (Paul Greengrass).

Speaking of foreign language films, how did the Academy overlook Puiu's "The Death of Mr. Lazrescu", the Dardenne Brothers' "L'Enfant", and ESPECIALLY Hsiao-Hsien's "Three Times". The foreign language category always puzzles me. How is it that critical favorites, which play (relatively) well here in the States get overlooked for these little-seen, mostly sentimental trifles?

Every year it seems the Academy has its share of welcome surprises and predictable choices. It was nice to see "Dreamgirls" not getting the best picture nod, if only for the reason that it shows that voters don't always cave into hype, despite doing so quite frequently. I have yet to see "Babel," so I can't comment on what seems to be overwhelming negativity towards it in the film blogging world. And it was nice to see Paul Greengrass nominated for best director.

But, like every other year, voters are very selective with what gets nominated and despite Roger's observation that the the Academy is becoming more diverse, it's still shutting out a whole world of films.

It was nice to see some foreign films get their due, especially "Pan's Labyrinth." But the whole foreign-language film nomination really exemplifies everything that is wrong with awards. Because "Pan's Labyrinth" is a foreign language film, does that disqualify it for Best Picture? If so, that is horrendously unfair and hypocritical. It has it's own category to qualify in, thus ruling it out of certain other categories. And someone please explain to me what the difference is between Best Picture and Best Director. Is it not the director's picture? By awarding a film Best Director, are we not labelling it Best Picture in a way?

I wrote at great length about these issues in my obligatory awards post, and how breaking down the "bests" in eacy filmmaking category really undermines the beauty of moving images, as if film elements can exist in a vacuum, independent of each other. Unfortunately, this mentality has corrupted the whole system into labeling a specific category for documentaries, foreign films, and animated films. I think the Best Picture title should be modified to Best Picture that's not an animated film, documetary film, or foreign film.

What surprises me is the Best Foreign Langange nomination for "Water". Great film, but didn't it come out in 2004? It's really old.

Yes... here it is.

"Water" (2005)

How can that be?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240200/

I loved :Little Miss Sunshine" and thought it one of the best comedies ever made...sad that the directors Valarie and Jonathan missed the nomination...no one has mentioned why the director for "United 93" got their spot...I know that "Little Miss" would never have been made if it wasn't for the perseverence of these two directors...they found the great ensemble cast, worked with the nominated screenplay writer to change parts of the script to make it fit with their vision...too bad, but I'm sure they'll have more opportunities, especially now that they'll actually be getting money to make their movies...

i tend to disagree with Ebert's BABEL assessment ("extraordinary"). the Pitt salute to multi-culturalism with shaky camera, fidgity editing and way too many close-ups, failed to impress. it was good in parts but had me rolling my eyes through half the film. the true best picture snub wasn't DREAMGIRLS, it was UNITED 93. Greengrass' heart-stopping film was the best received overall by critics this year...more best picture citations and more appearances on 10-best lists than any other film. too hard to watch? humbug! try BABEL!

For the questions about "Water," it depends on when the film has its theatrical premiere in the U.S., which is why films like Jean-Pierre Melville's "Army of Shadows," which was originally released in France, etc. in 1969 but did not premiere theatrically in the U.S. until 2006, are eligible for the Oscars, etc. and appear of various critic's top ten lists. "Water" is in the same scenario. I believe the exact stipulation is that it has to show in a U.S. theater for more than two weeks or something to that effect. You can look it up.

And nothing beyond Jackie Earl Haley for for Little Children !?
By the way, is it possible that the reason that Almodovar's masterpiece, Volver, was overlooked was the miscalculation in his overemphasizing Penelope Cruz!? IMHO, it was meant to be a superb ensemble piece.

My Thoughts

There were a few MAJOR dissapointments yet numerous other grand honors. Let me get the complaining out of the way....

Dreamgirls. No best picture or director nod. My word. Some argue that it "wasn't very good." Well, it was fun - it was uplifting, and it was exactly what I movie should be when you're just looking for a good time.

Borat. No best actor nod. What a shame. I would have loved to see Cohen's arrival and the comedic work was, in my opinion, superior than Whitaker's.

Bobby. No best original song. I wanted Aretha Franklin at the telecast!

Apocalypto. If Mel hadn't gone on his horrible rant this would be right up there in the big categories, but alas, it rests with a few minor nods. One must separate the art from the artist - which the Academy did not do.

HOWEVER, many of the nominations came as a pleasant suprise...

The Departed. Mark Wahlberg got a supporting nod...over Jack. Which is totally the right move - I actually hope he wins in this category.

Pan's Labyrinth. It is a beautiful epic, but I didn't realize it would pick up so many nominations. It deserves every one of them, including best screenplay. Stop complaining that it didn't get more - this is awesome for a foreign language film.

Blood Diamond. I am a real fan of this movie, and moreso the performances of Leo and Djimon Hounsou - both honored with nominations.

The Devil Wears Prada. It picked up the nominations where it deserved them - and none where it didn't, like I feared it might.

Little Miss Sunshine. Abigail's in. Wouldn't it be great if she won (even though I like two other performances over hers in this category) and the presenter said with a glum happy voice, "WHHHHERE'S OLIVE!!?" And the movie got nominated for other awards including BEST PICTURE. Oh yea!

Notes on a Scandal. I was sort of expecting acting nods for Dench and Blanchett, which they both got, but I was really pulling for Patrick Marber to get a screenplay nod, as well as Philip Glass to get a best original score nod - which they both thankfully did.

I am truly excited to see what this year will do - my only wish, if I could be granted one, would be for ANYTHING but the dreadfully overrated "Babel" to win best picture. It was a GOOD movie. GOOD movies shouldn't win best picture.

Overall I'm pretty happy with the nominations this year. Since the last installment of Lord of the Rings, it seems the Academy is spreading the wealth.

All five nominees for Best Picture are worthy films. I think the Foreign Language category was so strong this year that that's maybe why L'Enfant, Volver, the Death of Mr.Lazarescu and Cache were left out: all four of those movies are amazing.

I must make the criticism that it seems like Americans aren't so much into movies that take place outside of America. 'Babel' is a wonderful movie in every way; it takes place in America, Japan, Mexico and the Middle East, but it's really about listening and about feeling alone. The harshest words I read about that movie come from America, where perhaps the curiosity level is lacking. I'm half Canadian, half American, so I can't be accused of being anti-American; I'm just calling it the way I see it.

Forrest Whitaker may just take the Oscar for best actor, but I feel that Peter O'Toole ought to win, not because he's old, but because of the depth of his performance. Whitaker was amazing, but come on, it's a one-note performance, even if that one note was played marvelously.

I think we'll see a split this year: Babel or Letters for Picture, Scorsese for Director.

Despite not being from the US myself, I'm a bit bemused at complaints about the exclusionary nature of the Oscars: they've always been designed primarily to celebrate American (and often more specifically Hollywood) production, which is fair enough as a private entity. Look at the parochialism of the 2006 César nominations, for example, a parochialism written in to that organisation's by-laws.

By those standards, AMPAS is reasonably open-minded. Plus, really, we shouldn't get too worked about these things: with just one winner in each category, strange winners are bound to emerge each year for no better reason than human beings and their votes are strange beasts. Better to spend our time watching and celebrating the movies we love, irrespective of whether or not they appear on the nom lists.

Speaking of foreign language films, how did the Academy overlook Puiu's "The Death of Mr. Lazrescu", the Dardenne Brothers' "L'Enfant", and ESPECIALLY Hsiao-Hsien's "Three Times". The foreign language category always puzzles me. How is it that critical favorites, which play (relatively) well here in the States get overlooked for these little-seen, mostly sentimental trifles?

The nominations for Foreign Language film are based on submissions by various countries, one film per nation. Taiwan chose Blue Cha Cha as its entry this year, though with the complex multinational financing Hou is forced to raise for his films, it's doubtful it would have even qualified for the Oscars.

L'Enfant and The Death Of Mr. Lazarescu were submitted by Belgium and Romania for last year's Oscars, neither film was one of the five finalists, however.

I've been wanting to read the rest of this article, but when I click on the link, I get this message: "The requested page could not be found."

JE: Thanks for the alert, Brian. The link was down, then fixed, then went down again and I don't know why. I just checked and it's working now...

I have not seen all the nominated pitures, but I was surprised that Emma thompson did not even rate a mention as a contender for a Best Supporting Actress nomination for "Stranger Than Fiction". I thought she was amazing.

How come long, boring movies that nobody really has much interest in seeing always seem to get the Oscar nominations, whereas well-made movies in the "non-serious" genres, like action-adventure or family films, seem to always get the shaft? My vote for Best Movie, by the way, would go to "Casino Royale."

Rinko Kikuchi's performance in "Babel" was riveting and extremely brave. Well deserved.

Eastwood? As Roger Ebert said, he's just improving with age.

Overall, I think the nominations were good. But, I'm really shocked that Djimon Hyounsoo got nominatined for Blood Diamond. Unlike his previously nominated performance in "In America", he had no depth in this role. He was extremely one-dimensional, had the same expression in the whole movie. Where was the acting?

I think either Matt Damon should have been nominated instead for the Departed or Brad Pitt for Babel.

is anyone else disturbed by the fact that The Good Shepherd was over entirely by the Academy? I thought it was an extremely well done,facinating and intellegent film.Instead, we have Little Miss Sunshine as a best picture nominee...a darling, quirky, funny little film, but "best picture"? Hardly.

Martin Scorsese, is America's greatest director. 'The Departed', although not Scorsese's best (Raging Bull is in my opinion), was a brilliantly directed, gripping glimpse into the world of the Irish Mob.

There have been several occasions when Scorsese has been denied the recognition he deserves. Hopefully, the academy will not make the same mistake again.

RE: "Just why editing honors seem to be an indicator of Oscar success is anyone's guess."

I remember seeing Frank Capra on Tom Snyder's old "Tomorrow" show on NBC a night or two following the Oscar ceremony at which "The Sting" was named best picture. Capra said he knew "The Sting" would win the top prize once it had won for its editing. He said the two prizes usually go together. Well, after hearing that, I started to pay close attention to both the nominees and winners in that category. I started to doubt Capra's theory the very next year when "The Towering Inferno" won the editing Oscar while "Godfather II," which did not score an editing nomination, won best picture. Then, "Jaws" won for editing in '75, "Star Wars" won for editing in '77, and so on. Best Picture and Best Editing have gone hand-in-hand only 14 times in the more than three decades since I heard Mr. Capra claim there was a connection. However, with the exception of "The Godfather Part II" in '74, "Annie Hall" in '77, and "Ordinary People" in '80, the Best Picture winner was also a nominee for editing. It seems an editing nomination does give a best picture nominee an advantage, but I, for one, no longer regard it as being that significant.

"As usual, the academy loves the British... Peter O'Toole, best actor, "Venus""

Peter O'Toole is Irish.

I'm mostly happy with the nominations this year. LOVE the diversity!

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about for Jennifer Hudson - yes, she has a phenomenal singing voice and puts in a good debut, but her performance is mostly one-dimensional, with a constant 'angry black woman' expression on her face. Hundreds of better performances have never been nominated, and yet for some reason she'll probably win.

With all the talk about omissions/snubs for "Dreamgirls" (picture) and "Volver" (foreign language), I'm shocked there isn't more 'outrage' over the omissions of "Children Of Men" (MY pick for Best Picture) and/ or "Apocalypto" (foreign language). I guess I can see why Mel hurt it's inclusion, but it DID get a few other nominations - so what gives? And truly, absolutely NO films affected me and stayed with me long after viewing like "Children Of Men" and "Pan's Labyrinth" (which did get it's share and should win!)

But what's with the lack of love for "Children Of Men"?

One thing is for sure, Hollywood can sure learn a lot from the trio of Mexican directors who really showed us how to make quality films this year.

(BTW, I'm a voting SAG member and will definitely vote for Whittaker & Mirren for the "King" and "Queen". The Oscars should probably follow suit this year, and you heard that phrase here first!)

I didn't expect it, but I wished Children of Men had done better. I thought it was far superior to the overrated Babel. As for the acting nominees, it's all over already with Mirren, Whitaker, Murphy and Hudson destined for golden boys, along with Scorsese.

Jim: Am I the only one who noticed the curiously combined title, "Flags of Iwo Jima," in this sentence of the longer piece posted at RogerEbert.com?

"Pan's Labyrinth" -- with six nominations, including cinematography and Best Foreign Language Film -- should be considered the most honored film that doesn't have a Best Picture nom (even though it's no more of a "foreign language film" than BP nominees "Babel" and "Flags of Iwo Jima").

--I'd recommend fixing that, although readers apparently haven't caught on.

Just a quick note - Peter O'toole, like Cate Blenchett is not British, he is Irish (thus has never been knighted.

I still do not understand the big deal with Little Miss Sunshine. When I went to see it I was expecting originality and a sold film but I got neither. The scene when the father died was right out of Lampoon's and certain scenes were overstated. I would like to know how this movie made it to this category?

Let's not create controversy where there isn't one. DREAMGIRLS, NOT getting a best picture nod is not an oversight. Neither its director, lead actors, or screenplay got nominated, instead mainly technical awards and three, count 'em, three! nods for Best Song. So the "nomination count" is a little misrepresented. Come on everybody, let's pay attention here.

I'm looking forward to watching the Academy Awards, but NOT ELLEN DEGENERATE.

What a way to spoil a great show!

I was disappointed that A Scanner Darkly was not nominated. Is the animation category limited to children's movies? I thought the film was outstanding,the performances were right on. The rotoscope over live action method was fascinating. Maybe the subject matter was to controversial?

Not one nod at all for Rocky Balboa?

An underwhelming year, at best. The AMPAAS is proving more and more irrelevant each year. Eight nominations for "Dreamgirls," though none for best picture. Sad. No best director nomination for Alfonso Cuaron for the best directed film (and film itself) of 2006: "Children of Men" - especially glaring omissions. "Letters for Iwo Jima" should be in the foreign language category, not best picture. Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris should be in the best director category. So should Bill Condon. He made a stunning film musical that was truly cinematic while not ignoring the origins from which it came: the stage. And the AMPAAS continued their willful ignorance campaign by not nominating "United 93" for best picture. Apparently, if a film is too honest ("Leaving Las Vegas," "Brokeback Mountain"), it should be avoided as best picture of the year (no matter if a film sweeps critics' awards). If it is banal, insultingly simplistic, and only pretends to be honest ("Crash"), then a film is in. Last year's debacle encouraged me to question the vailidity of the AMPAAS; this year, they solidified it. Perhaps it's best to stop the awards season with the NYFCC - the rare group whose membership knows what it's doing.

The only Best Picture nominee I'm happy with is Little Miss Sunshine. I disliked Babel, admired The Departed and The Queen (but don't think they're Best Picture worthy), and haven't seen Letters from Iwo Jima. My personal top ten list is the following, and I would have been happy if any of these would have been nominated:

1. Perfume: the Story of a Murderer
2. When the Levees Broke: a Requiem in Four Acts
3. Little Miss Sunshine
4. Tristram Shandy: a Cock and Bull Story
5. Conversations with Other Women
6. Jesus Camp
7. A Prairie Home Companion
8. Pan’s Labyrinth
9. The History Boys
10. Children of Men

It would have been nice for Robert Altman to at LEAST get a nomination for A Prairie Home Companion, but everyone knows Scorsese is going to get the Oscar.

I'm very glad to see Jackie Earle Haley was nominated for Little Children, and I'm kind of hoping he wins. Markie-Mark was great, and so was Alan Arkin, but I think it's just tough competition.

Interesting nominations indeed! But no mention of Robert Altman - the Academy has slighted and ignored him both in life and in death. At least the Academy still has the chance to right similar wrongs afforded to Martin Scorsese.

I know very well that I am in the minority on this one but I have to say it: While I enjoyed "Little Miss Sunshine," I do feel that the film is hugely overrated. To me, it felt like just another "dysfunctional family film" where every character is fully defined by their indie-film sanctioned quirks and not really by any humanity. I just didn't care that much about any of the characters. But, so many people loved it, including critics, that I wasn't surprised to see it nominated for several Oscars. What truly irks me to no end is the nomination of Meryl Streep! I am sick to death of Streep being nominated just because she's Maryl Streep and not because of her work. Let's be honest. "The Devil Wears Prada" is shallow, one-note, and trite and Streep's character and performance are one-note and trite as well. I just cannot believe that many people believe that Streep's work in that film was on the same level as the other nominated performances. Good Lord, don't let her win!

I am disappointed that "Stranger Than Fiction" seems to be the forgotten film of the year. At a minimum, this film deserved recognition for its screenplay.

Children of Men was the most disappointing omission for me. I've never felt the same amount of peril from any battle scene as I did with this film. I was flinching from fear of being shot in my seat. I also thought the Abu Ghraib references and the immigration message would appeal to the voters.

Speaking of conventional wisdom, I was expecting Volver vs Pan's Labyrinth in the foreign language category competition, but I forgot about the one country-one film rule. Now we have another good reason to get rid of that rule.

I don't see anyone posting about The Proposition yet. I know many people are passionate about this film, but like myself, I suppose few voters actually saw it.

CORRECTION: Eight time Oscar nominee Peter O'Toole was born in Connemara, County Galway, Ireland. Please let's not call him British - his is Irish.

He ensured that both his daughter Kate and son Lorcan were born in Dublin. His elder daughter Patricia was born in England, a mistake which O'Toole regretted, famously saying: "Pat was born in Britain, the poor thing."

Jim-

About your comments about "Borat" being mostly improvised--There is a great article from "Written By" at the WGA site (http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2274) that goes into great detail about exactly how much of "Borat" was written/planned. Some of it was even accurately anticipated by the writing team before they actually shot it, so Cohen could react with their scripted lines. Here's an excerpt from an insanely interesting article:

"Written By wanted to pay homage to this unique approach to comedy. The Borat team obliged our request to publicly expose the fact that their work is written. It is ironic that a film so often referred to by the media as unscripted has writers writing on preproduction, during production, on location, postproduction, and even scripting original Borat bits for each of Cohen's many television appearances."

"Ant Hines: Constantly we're there because it's a really different process since we're reliant on bookings. We're in Memphis and say, well, a sports event has fallen through. Instead, we will have to go to a formal dinner. And then all of a sudden, you've got the idea, but you haven't necessarily got the jokes. So we're sitting there on a daily basis, constantly catching up and writing all the way through.

Sacha Baron Cohen: And at the end of every day, we have a writing session; we go over the next day's stuff. It's exhausting sometimes, when you've been in character for 10 hours."

It is just interesting to me that DREAMGIRLS is considered, in these posts, not to be a good film. I won't say anything about race, but...(now watch as many non-blacks go on a tirade about how it has nothing to do with race, and why do you want every category and this many black people got nominated and blah, blah, blah...)

Anyway, the best picture of the year is not on the list of nominess either, and that's "LITTLE CHILDREN," which is an amazingly complex character study with wonderful performances, including the Oscar nominated Kate Winslet and Jackie Earl Haley. I would also have like to see Phyllis Somerville and Patrick Wilson mentioned as well.

Hooray to Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy, the sublime Helen Mirren, the incomparable Forest Whitaker, Adriana Barraza, Alfonso Cuaron's few mentions for the exciting and riveting "Children of Men," Cate Blanchett and Judi Dench, and Mark Wahlberg.

I am looking forward to this telecast!!!

Jim (or anyone else who can answer this!),

I have looked everywhere for an explanation as to how Letters from Iwo Jima can be nominated for Original Screenplay, when one of the 1st credits to roll at the close of the film (and easily looked up on IMDB or wiki or just about anywhere else -- INCLUDING IN THE CAST AND CREDITS INFORMATION FOUND IN YOUR OWN REVIEW, JIM!) is that the film is BASED ON THE BOOK: "Picture Letters from Commander in Chief" by Gen. Tadamichi Kuribayashi (played by Ken Watanabe in the film) and Tsuyoko Yoshido???!!! What the hell?!

critikal: I can only guess. I don't know if the "Letters From Iwo Jima" script ever went through Writers Guild arbitration to determine that it qualified as a creative fictional work separate and apart from the book (kind of like "Syriana"). The film does give a credit to the book, but I think it's "inspired by" or something like that. I can't find the exact wording. The screenplay itself, according to the credits is "based on" a story by screenwriter Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis.

Jim,

Thanks for your guess. It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Borat is based on a character previously produced or published, but not any actual plot, settings or dialouge - and it gets an Adapted Screenplay nom. Letters actually uses situations and dialouge taken directly from material previously published and it gets the Original Screenplay nom.

and p.s. I saw the film yesterday and it clearly said "Based on...", not inspired by.

The Academy needs an enema.

Thanks, Jim!

Here's a question: Does anybody out there know why "Little Children" has not received a wide national relase? I only live in Madison, WI and it has not arrived here at all. Also, for some strange reason, we just received "The Last King Of Scotland" one week ago. A friend that runs a video store wondered if fewer prints are being made these days but otherwise was equally confused with this glaring omission of "Little Children" from our screens.

Adam Beach so deserved a nomination for Flags of Our Fathers. His performance was the only thing I found interesting and alive in that film. Once the Letters movie was relased ahead of time, its like anything from the first film was forgotten.

Bill, Scott: Actually, "Little Children" did very well, with three big nominations -- for Adapted Screenplay, Actress (Kate Winslet) and Supporting Actor (Jackie Earle Hailey). That's more impressive, to me, than all eight noms for "Dreamgirls," which got two for supporting acting, three for songs, and three in below-the-line categories (art direction, costumes, sound mixing).

The most surprising thing about Mr. Ebert's commentary was the comment that Cate Blanchett is "technically" Australian" what does that mean? She was born in Australia, was trained in Sydney, has a home in Sydney, began her career in Sydney,and, with her husband has accepted directorship of the Sydney Theatre Company, starting next year. Like the US we stopped being a colony along time ago - doesn't Mr. Ebert remember. PS I loved "Babel" and hope it wins

I can't believe that Pirate's Dead Man's Chest didn't get nomminated for anything since it was the top grossing movie of the year.

Sounds like none of you saw UNITED 93...hands down the best movie this year. The critic's agree. And it looks like the Academy failed to even consider CASINO ROYALE, which is as good if not better than QUEEN, DEPARTED, LETTERS and way better than BABEL or SUNSHINE. What a pity.

If Justice is served or not, I love Oscar.

i want see the predictions of Mr. Ebert!!

JE: He'll be making them soon at RogerEbert.com, for the annual Outguess Ebert Contest.

Right move Ryan Gossling, wrong move Mark Wahlberg. As usual Wahlberg did nothing special. That spot should've gone to Pitt or Sergei Lopez for Pan's, best screen villian in recent years. While reading about Marricone's honorary oscar, I noticed mention of him working on a score for Italian film, Leningrad. Could this be from the script written by Sergio Leone before his death?

Good call on, Lopez, Juan. He was almost as good as Ariadne Gil. I finally was able to see "Pan" here in Michigan (and also "Children of Men") and I'm happy to say you people haven't steered me wrong. My previous top 10 list is officially obsolete. Just a comment on "Last King of Scotland": Whitaker was as good as advertised (I disagree strongly with the earlier comment that he was one note) but overall the movie seemed like something made for TV in the seventies. I hope his performance can rise above the film and get him an Oscar. It reminded me of Felicity Huffman in "Transamerica" or Charlize Theron in "Monster" for the way he stood so high above the rest of the picture.

Babel and Pan's Labyrinth are hands down the best movies of the year, although I was pleased to find so many good films this year. Blood Diamonds should not be forgotten either. I would consider Pan's Labyrinth the best film of them all in the sense of the most original and best accomplished visually, directorially, musically, story-wise, acting, dialogue, and as a complete work. It reminded me what magic the art of cinema was supposed to offer.

It's bewildering to me that Children of Men didn't garner more attention with the academy. Without a doubt Cuaron displayed the finest direction of last year and, in my opinion, many years; visceral, assured direction that has become rare.
Scorcese and Eastwood know how to make a movie to be sure and there were a number of solid films but nothing stood out as vital filmmaking to me except C.O.M.

Although it appears that Leonardo will not get the Oscar, I would be delighted if the Academy recognized his exceptional acting in The Departed. One can see his acting ability and presentation growing in front of the viewer's eyes. He has nowhere to go but up.

Jim, really. I'll repeat this question: Are you gonna leave "Flags of Iwo Jima" in your piece on RogerEbert.com? Surely you didn't intend to make that slip, right?

JE: Thanks, Christian. It's fixed. (For some reason, the first time I fixed it the correction wasn't replicated on all the servers.) I can't believe how often I find myself typing "Sands of Iwo Jima" -- the title of the 1949 Allan Dwan picture starring John Wayne -- before I correct myself. "Letters From Our Fathers"/"Flags of Iwo Jima" -- guess that's unconsciously a way of acknowledging that the two titles combine to make one film!

The most surprising thing about Mr. Ebert's commentary was the comment that Cate Blanchett is "technically" Australian" what does that mean? She was born in Australia, was trained in Sydney, has a home in Sydney, began her career in Sydney,and, with her husband has accepted directorship of the Sydney Theatre Company, starting next year. Like the US we stopped being a colony along time ago - doesn't Mr. Ebert remember. PS I loved "Babel" and hope it wins

============

Just wanted to quote this.

I do quite like reading English reviews, even though Mr Ebert is "technically American".

Offensive, no?

Hands down, the best film of the year is "The Departed"; strike that, its one of the best films in years.

I loved all the films in the best picture category ACCEPT "Babel". Good movie (3 stars out of 4), but far far from being great. It's worth a DVD rental but not the price of a movie ticket. Good message, but impossible to watch at times. The most overrated film of the year.

"Dreamgirls" was not that good; supporting actor should be Djimon Hounsou or Mark Wahlberg, and supporting actress should be Abigail Breslin.

The overlooks- Jack Nicholson and Leonardo DiCaprio for "The Departed"; "Casino Royale" for best song; Ken Wantanabe for actor. And yes I agree with all those who say that "United 93" should be in the best picture category.

Best film- "The Departed". Runner up- "Letters From Iwo Jima".

I honestly hope Kate Winslet finally wins. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

What is "Letters from Iwo Jima" doing as a Best Picture nominee? A major battle from WWII and the most Japanese soldiers we ever see in one scene is 20? 30? This movie doesn't have the scale or the sense of a major battle being fought by men who are vastly outnumbered and who are torn between their duty to their country and the futility of what they've been asked to do and die for. I felt like I was watching a handful of guys who somehow managed to miss most of the battle, while getting involved in skirmishes now and then. It is a crime that this picture took a nomination that should have gone to "Dreamgirls," "Children of Men," "Pan's Labyrinth," . . . .

don't believe in them. never go to see them.

I am pretty sure that Helen Mirren will win the Oscar for
Best Actress for the film The Queen, Jennifer Hudson
will win Best Supporting Actress for Dreamgirls and
Forest Whitaker will win
Best Actor for The Last King of Scotland,but in the Best
Supporting Actor category
the Academy may lean in the direction of Alan Arkin rather than Eddie Murphy
because Alan is older and may not have one in the past.
In the category of Best Directing, I hope the
Oscar will finally go to
Martin Scorsese because he
truly deserves it for The Departed as well as many other past films he directed. I do not believe he has ever received an Oscar in the past for his earlier work and he is over due for one.
I believe the Best Film should be "The Queen" especially for Helen Mirrens performance, the
cast of supporting actor, the editing,the directing,etc.
The film really stands on
its own above the others.

How much solid science need come out before monuments to Junk Science such as An Inconvenient Truth finally gets tossed into the garbage? Ebert is NOT a scientist...neither is Gore, but there is nothing like a liberal cause that 'feels' right to get Ebert's juices flowing.

One motion picture that I can not believe was overlooked....was "Quncintera"..or was it released in '05?

'Don't you love it when the conventional wisdom is just wrong?'
hilarious thing to say considering that it looks like the winners are gunna line up nice and predictably as jennifer hudson, eddie murphy, helen mirren, and forrest whitaker.
what a shame.
would love to see leo win as he got ripped off for gilbert grape and looks like he will again.
saw the qunne and hated it - just like a bbc drama on tv.
didnt get the fuss about babel - emporers new clothes if you ask me.
the departed would be my pic for best film.
love the oscars but this year just looks predictable and disappointing...

This is a page devoted to the Oscars, not a place for those with other agendas to crudely flame Ellen De Generes or to insult the fine, scientifically-based film made by former Vice President Gore, with the help of a number of well-known atmospheric scientists. I can only assume the writer was speaking for the oil lobby, some members of which have been known to be extremely threatened by information on Global Warming trends, and who have been proven to be spreading disinformation in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Enough said. I hope the "hate speech" about Ms. Degeneres will be removed...it is unworthy of anything associated with Roger.