No, not the movie. The thread count on the new sheets I bought. And yes, I know there are much higher thread counts. But this is the highest I've ever gotten for myself, and girllllllfriend, they feel goooood.
Speaking of 300
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Because Really, What This Story Needed Was More Bat-Shit Crazy People
I haven't written about this because it really hit me hard. The fact that one of the kids was Andrew's age and named Ethan is what got to me. So those of you who aren't from here haven't heard about it. But this, about the fine Rev. Phelps and the plans for the WBC to come protest at the funeral, made me break my silence.
See, you out-of-staters might not know it, but God apparently hates Iowa. First, there was the court that allowed gay couples to get married. Then, there was the state law prohibiting protests within 500 yards of a funeral. Finally, there is the fact that Iowa City is among the gay-friendliest cities in America.
(Really, we are. City law states that if a gay person asks us to perform a sex act with them, we have to do it. That's how gay-friendly we are!)
So God hates Iowa, and to demonstrate that hate, God - and I'm quoting here - "sent the shooter" as punishment for Iowa's sins. (Note: As anyone who can read could tell you, there was no shooter, no shots, and no shooting victims. Facts are funny things.)
Now, I don't want to get into the strangeness of someone professing to be a Christian apparently never having heard of the New Testament God (aka the friendly God). Nor do I want to get into the strangeness of God sending a hitman to kill innocent children as young as three. I mean, if God really was trying to send a message, especially a message about the evils of homosexuality, you'd think he send a hitman to take out some gay people. And not take them out in the way that Iowa City city law requires us to take out gay people - no, in the killing way of taking out people.
To me, if you want to use the logic that God targets the innocent to drive home how sinful we Iowans are to the ultimate extreme, you realize that God shouldn't just be targeting the innocent - God should be targeting those who actively protest against homosexuality. That would really drive home how angry God was at us. So, until someone takes out the entire Phelps family (again, not the good way of taking out), I'm going to assume that God isn't sending hitmen to kill Iowa's innocents.
Of course, the notion that Steve Sueppel was a hitman for God makes as much sense as any other theory people have put forward for why he did what he did. Let me reiterate what I said about the Virginia Tech shootings - as much as we want to see a reason, we won't. To quote the Rats of Boomtown, we can see no reasons because there are no reasons. The silicon chip inside his head got switched to overload and Sueppel went totally bat-shit crazy. It wasn't because of his legal problems, it wasn't because he didn't want his family to deal with the shame, it wasn't because of the harshness of the legal system - it's because he went crazy. We'll never know why - he made sure of that himself - but it doesn't matter why. All that matters is that he went nuts, two adults and four children are dead, and the Desperate Attention Whores from Kansas are coming to town.
In other words, no happy endings here.
See, you out-of-staters might not know it, but God apparently hates Iowa. First, there was the court that allowed gay couples to get married. Then, there was the state law prohibiting protests within 500 yards of a funeral. Finally, there is the fact that Iowa City is among the gay-friendliest cities in America.
(Really, we are. City law states that if a gay person asks us to perform a sex act with them, we have to do it. That's how gay-friendly we are!)
So God hates Iowa, and to demonstrate that hate, God - and I'm quoting here - "sent the shooter" as punishment for Iowa's sins. (Note: As anyone who can read could tell you, there was no shooter, no shots, and no shooting victims. Facts are funny things.)
Now, I don't want to get into the strangeness of someone professing to be a Christian apparently never having heard of the New Testament God (aka the friendly God). Nor do I want to get into the strangeness of God sending a hitman to kill innocent children as young as three. I mean, if God really was trying to send a message, especially a message about the evils of homosexuality, you'd think he send a hitman to take out some gay people. And not take them out in the way that Iowa City city law requires us to take out gay people - no, in the killing way of taking out people.
To me, if you want to use the logic that God targets the innocent to drive home how sinful we Iowans are to the ultimate extreme, you realize that God shouldn't just be targeting the innocent - God should be targeting those who actively protest against homosexuality. That would really drive home how angry God was at us. So, until someone takes out the entire Phelps family (again, not the good way of taking out), I'm going to assume that God isn't sending hitmen to kill Iowa's innocents.
Of course, the notion that Steve Sueppel was a hitman for God makes as much sense as any other theory people have put forward for why he did what he did. Let me reiterate what I said about the Virginia Tech shootings - as much as we want to see a reason, we won't. To quote the Rats of Boomtown, we can see no reasons because there are no reasons. The silicon chip inside his head got switched to overload and Sueppel went totally bat-shit crazy. It wasn't because of his legal problems, it wasn't because he didn't want his family to deal with the shame, it wasn't because of the harshness of the legal system - it's because he went crazy. We'll never know why - he made sure of that himself - but it doesn't matter why. All that matters is that he went nuts, two adults and four children are dead, and the Desperate Attention Whores from Kansas are coming to town.
In other words, no happy endings here.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
We'll Be Right Back After A Word From Our Sponsors
I can't decide. Am I too damn old, or are there just an overabundance of absolutely unbefuckinglevieably idiotic commercials? Burger King seems to be the worst offender. I can't decide which is worse - the "We took the Whopper off the menu" series or the "Whopper Junior/Spicy Chicken visit other fast food places" series. The only people the latter series could appeal to would be the people who freak out when they're told they can't get a Whopper. The Coke Zero commercials with the Coke employees who want to sue Coke make my head spin as well. Who thinks these are funny?
And let's not forget the Cuba Gooding Jr. Hanes commercials. I see those and feel so sorry for the dude. I mean, he's basically reduced to shucking and jiving for the benefit of Michael Jordan. Still, he doesn't seem too embarassed. I guess once you've starred in Snow Dogs, everything else is a step up.
And let's not forget the Cuba Gooding Jr. Hanes commercials. I see those and feel so sorry for the dude. I mean, he's basically reduced to shucking and jiving for the benefit of Michael Jordan. Still, he doesn't seem too embarassed. I guess once you've starred in Snow Dogs, everything else is a step up.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Even More Things You Don't Expect Rachel Ray To Say
"I have a tendency to over-whack my meat."
Don't we all, Rachel Ray. Don't we all.
Don't we all, Rachel Ray. Don't we all.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Maintenance Issues
Changed my profile name back to Dweeze - too many Davids, and I hated being one of many. I figure I now have the best of both worlds - y'all now know me as David (if you didn't before), but I can still post as Dweeze. I like Dweeze - he's become a major part of me.
New Review
I've got a new review up at the Iowa City Theatre Blog - an ICCT show that's well worth seeing. Well, you only have today (Sunday) left to see it, so chances are you won't. But it was really good.
Monday, March 10, 2008
You Tube Fun - Stay Classy Iowa City Edition
Age of Aquarius - The 40-Year Old Virgin
Afternoon Delight - Anchorman
Let's Get It On - High Fidelity
School of Rock - School of Rock
Afternoon Delight - Anchorman
Let's Get It On - High Fidelity
School of Rock - School of Rock
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Thought For The Day
You know those commercials for Horton Hears A Hoo where the Steve Carrell character says "Putting Hoo in front of everything doesn't make it hurt less"? Well, it doesn't make it any funnier, either...
Saturday, March 01, 2008
You Tube Fun: F**king Matt Damon and Ben Affleck Edition
I don't think Sarah Silverman is as funny as she thinks she is, and I don't think Jimmy Kimmel is as funny as he thinks he is. But these? These are both hilarious.
And incredibly not safe for work.
And incredibly not safe for work.
Friday, February 29, 2008
It's Been A Great News Week
Remember how I said the story in the previous post would be tough to top? Well, that may still be the case, but it's not going to be because of a lack of trying. Thursday's PC brought us this gem:
Police said officer Ryan Wood was writing a possession of alcohol under the legal age ticket for Michael Roy Schroeder outside of One-Eyed Jakes. While doing so, two friends of Schroeder ran up to the scene.
Police say one of them, Michael Stanley Fabinski, 19, grabbed the ticket book from Wood, and the other man, identified as Michael Alexander Bakerdjis, 20, pushed the officer. Police say both men ran south on Clinton Street.
Wood caught Fabinski after he fell at the corner of Clinton and Washington streets. As Wood tried to place him into custody, police say Bakerdjis grabbed the officer to try to get him off Fabinski. Police say Bakerdjis also tried to pull the ticket book away.
Police say both men were then able to get away temporarily. According to police, Bakerdjis ran south on Clinton Street but Fabinski fell again while running across Clinton Street.
Wood placed Fabinski into custody, and while he was filling out the paperwork, police say Bakerdjis walked by and was spotted by another officer. Bakerdjis attempted to hide behind some bushes but was arrested.
Police say that while the officer was occupied with Fabinski and Bakerdjis, Schroeder fled the area. He was later found and arrested at Currier Hall, where he lives.
...
Schroeder, who will be 20 next Thursday, was charged with PAULA, public intoxication and escape from custody, which is a serious misdemeanor. Kelsay said had Schroeder simply accepted the PAULA ticket and pleaded guilty to the charge, he would have only faced a $314 fine.
...
Bakerdjis, of 302 S. Gilbert St., No. 1226, is charged with two counts of interference with official acts, assault on a peace officer, obstruct prosecution and second-degree robbery. Assault on a peace officer is a serious misdemeanor; obstruct prosecution is an aggravated misdemeanor; second-degree robbery is a class C felony.
Fabinski, of 201 E. Burlington St., No. 1531, was charged with public intoxication, two counts of interference with official acts, obstruct prosecution and second-degree robbery. One of the interference with official acts charges is a serious misdemeanor.
Police said officer Ryan Wood was writing a possession of alcohol under the legal age ticket for Michael Roy Schroeder outside of One-Eyed Jakes. While doing so, two friends of Schroeder ran up to the scene.
Police say one of them, Michael Stanley Fabinski, 19, grabbed the ticket book from Wood, and the other man, identified as Michael Alexander Bakerdjis, 20, pushed the officer. Police say both men ran south on Clinton Street.
Wood caught Fabinski after he fell at the corner of Clinton and Washington streets. As Wood tried to place him into custody, police say Bakerdjis grabbed the officer to try to get him off Fabinski. Police say Bakerdjis also tried to pull the ticket book away.
Police say both men were then able to get away temporarily. According to police, Bakerdjis ran south on Clinton Street but Fabinski fell again while running across Clinton Street.
Wood placed Fabinski into custody, and while he was filling out the paperwork, police say Bakerdjis walked by and was spotted by another officer. Bakerdjis attempted to hide behind some bushes but was arrested.
Police say that while the officer was occupied with Fabinski and Bakerdjis, Schroeder fled the area. He was later found and arrested at Currier Hall, where he lives.
...
Schroeder, who will be 20 next Thursday, was charged with PAULA, public intoxication and escape from custody, which is a serious misdemeanor. Kelsay said had Schroeder simply accepted the PAULA ticket and pleaded guilty to the charge, he would have only faced a $314 fine.
...
Bakerdjis, of 302 S. Gilbert St., No. 1226, is charged with two counts of interference with official acts, assault on a peace officer, obstruct prosecution and second-degree robbery. Assault on a peace officer is a serious misdemeanor; obstruct prosecution is an aggravated misdemeanor; second-degree robbery is a class C felony.
Fabinski, of 201 E. Burlington St., No. 1531, was charged with public intoxication, two counts of interference with official acts, obstruct prosecution and second-degree robbery. One of the interference with official acts charges is a serious misdemeanor.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Gives New Meaning To "Room Service"
You don't expect to see the news story of the year in February, but it's going to be tough to top this:
A judge has denied an Iowa man's claim that he shouldn't have been fired for repeatedly requesting help to procure a prostitute.
Neil Jorgensen, 62, of Kalona, worked at Riverside Casino & Golf Resort and was given a gift certificate and free night's stay at the casino hotel to mark a year's employment.
After eating and drinking at a casino restaurant, he returned to his hotel room about midnight and later called hotel managers about hiring a prostitute. When managers refused to help him, he made a call to the adjacent resort and made the same request.
"The advertisement is that it's just like Las Vegas, so I thought I was in Las Vegas," Jorgensen testified at a hearing regarding his request for unemployment benefits.
Hotel workers were sent to Jorgensen's room to ask him to stop demanding prostitutes. When they arrived at his room, Jorgensen answered the door in the nude, human resources director Tim Donovan said.
Jorgensen was fired the next day.
At the hearing, Jorgensen said his actions didn't hurt the casino, and he said he'd received strong performance reviews. He also blamed the restaurant for serving him too much alcohol.
"I was absolutely plowed," he said.
Administrative Law Judge Terence Nice turned down Jorgensen's claim for unemployment benefits.
A judge has denied an Iowa man's claim that he shouldn't have been fired for repeatedly requesting help to procure a prostitute.
Neil Jorgensen, 62, of Kalona, worked at Riverside Casino & Golf Resort and was given a gift certificate and free night's stay at the casino hotel to mark a year's employment.
After eating and drinking at a casino restaurant, he returned to his hotel room about midnight and later called hotel managers about hiring a prostitute. When managers refused to help him, he made a call to the adjacent resort and made the same request.
"The advertisement is that it's just like Las Vegas, so I thought I was in Las Vegas," Jorgensen testified at a hearing regarding his request for unemployment benefits.
Hotel workers were sent to Jorgensen's room to ask him to stop demanding prostitutes. When they arrived at his room, Jorgensen answered the door in the nude, human resources director Tim Donovan said.
Jorgensen was fired the next day.
At the hearing, Jorgensen said his actions didn't hurt the casino, and he said he'd received strong performance reviews. He also blamed the restaurant for serving him too much alcohol.
"I was absolutely plowed," he said.
Administrative Law Judge Terence Nice turned down Jorgensen's claim for unemployment benefits.
Monday, February 25, 2008
So How'd I Do?
Not too bad. I only missed one of the top 8 awards, though I missed it by a mile, saying, and I quote: "Cotillard won the Golden Globe, but that was the foreign press - she doesn't stand a chance here." Nice predicting, Dweeze!
On the next tier, I missed Documentary Feature and Foreign Film, but got the other three categories - Animated Feature, Animated Short, and Documentary Short. That brings me to 10 of 15.
I took a beating in the bottom tier, getting only Best Original Song and Best Art Direction. (Who knew Bourne Ultimatum would take home more Oscars than any film other than No Country? Well, I must have had an inkling, cause I did say with regards to Film Editing: "I wouldn't be surprised to see Bourne win this, though.") That's 2 of 10, bringing the over all total to 12 of 25.
Anyway, on to next Oscar Season!
On the next tier, I missed Documentary Feature and Foreign Film, but got the other three categories - Animated Feature, Animated Short, and Documentary Short. That brings me to 10 of 15.
I took a beating in the bottom tier, getting only Best Original Song and Best Art Direction. (Who knew Bourne Ultimatum would take home more Oscars than any film other than No Country? Well, I must have had an inkling, cause I did say with regards to Film Editing: "I wouldn't be surprised to see Bourne win this, though.") That's 2 of 10, bringing the over all total to 12 of 25.
Anyway, on to next Oscar Season!
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Dweeze's Fearless Oscar Forecast: Put A Fork In It, We're Done
Director:
Paul Thomas Anderson - There Will Be Blood
Ethan Coen and Joel Coen - No Country for Old Men
Tony Gilroy - Michael Clayton
Jason Reitman - Juno
Julian Schnabel - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Without a best picture nomination for his movie, Schnabel doesn't stand a chance. Even with a best picture nomination, Reitman doesn't stand a chance. With two much better films out there, Gilroy doesn't stand a chance. Yes, once again, we come down to No Country vs. There Will. So let's hold off.
Picture:
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Let's sweep through these - I enjoyed all five of these films, which is the first time in a long time I can say that about all the Best Picture nominees. But it really is a two-horse race. Atonement didn't get a director nod, Juno is a comedy, and Michael Clayton had the unfortunate problem of being released in a year with two much-better pictures.
Here's the thing about these two films. No Country is a great film. There Will is a very good film with a great performance. Take Daniel Day-Lewis out of There Will, and it doesn't climb anywhere near as high as it does. On the other hand, as good as Bardem is in No Country, he could be replaced without affecting the film. Yes the ending is unsettling, providing us with no sense of closure; it's supposed to be. Violence is unsettling. Real violence, not the make-believe kind we usually see on screen. The effects of real world violence often give us no sense of closure. The funny thing is, I don't think it's any less detached or unemotional than most Coen brothers films. It's just that, here those qualities work to add to the disquieting sense of the movie. It is a powerful, beautiful film that deserves to be the Best Picture of 2007.
Should Win Director and Picture: No Country for Old Men
Will Win Director and Picture: No Country for Old Men
Paul Thomas Anderson - There Will Be Blood
Ethan Coen and Joel Coen - No Country for Old Men
Tony Gilroy - Michael Clayton
Jason Reitman - Juno
Julian Schnabel - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Without a best picture nomination for his movie, Schnabel doesn't stand a chance. Even with a best picture nomination, Reitman doesn't stand a chance. With two much better films out there, Gilroy doesn't stand a chance. Yes, once again, we come down to No Country vs. There Will. So let's hold off.
Picture:
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Let's sweep through these - I enjoyed all five of these films, which is the first time in a long time I can say that about all the Best Picture nominees. But it really is a two-horse race. Atonement didn't get a director nod, Juno is a comedy, and Michael Clayton had the unfortunate problem of being released in a year with two much-better pictures.
Here's the thing about these two films. No Country is a great film. There Will is a very good film with a great performance. Take Daniel Day-Lewis out of There Will, and it doesn't climb anywhere near as high as it does. On the other hand, as good as Bardem is in No Country, he could be replaced without affecting the film. Yes the ending is unsettling, providing us with no sense of closure; it's supposed to be. Violence is unsettling. Real violence, not the make-believe kind we usually see on screen. The effects of real world violence often give us no sense of closure. The funny thing is, I don't think it's any less detached or unemotional than most Coen brothers films. It's just that, here those qualities work to add to the disquieting sense of the movie. It is a powerful, beautiful film that deserves to be the Best Picture of 2007.
Should Win Director and Picture: No Country for Old Men
Will Win Director and Picture: No Country for Old Men
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Dweeze's Fearless Oscar Forecast: Return of the Fearless Oscar Forecast
Getting near the end, so let's just dig in.
Best Actor:
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones - In The Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
This might be the easiest category to call the whole night. In any other year Clooney would probably win, but Day-Lewis walks away with this one. It's impossible to imagine There Will Be Blood being anywhere near as good with anyone else, and equally tough to imagine any other actor who could have pulled off the part. Day-Lewis is onscreen for almost the entire film, and he holds the audience's attention from beginning to end.
Should Win: Day-Lewis
Will Win: Day-Lewis
Best Actress:
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie - Away From Her
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney - The Savages
Ellen Page - Juno
Blanchett already won for playing the character, so it'd be gaudy to give her a second statue. Linney racks up yet another nomination without a win. (Call me Laura!) Cotillard won the Golden Globe, but that was the foreign press - she doesn't stand a chance here. Which brings us to Christie and Page. Christie gets to play ill, which is usually an Oscar-shoe-in for a man, though not so much for a woman. Page is great, but young - voters might regard her as having many more chances for a win later in her career.
Should Win: Page
Will Win: Christine
Best Actor:
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones - In The Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
This might be the easiest category to call the whole night. In any other year Clooney would probably win, but Day-Lewis walks away with this one. It's impossible to imagine There Will Be Blood being anywhere near as good with anyone else, and equally tough to imagine any other actor who could have pulled off the part. Day-Lewis is onscreen for almost the entire film, and he holds the audience's attention from beginning to end.
Should Win: Day-Lewis
Will Win: Day-Lewis
Best Actress:
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie - Away From Her
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney - The Savages
Ellen Page - Juno
Blanchett already won for playing the character, so it'd be gaudy to give her a second statue. Linney racks up yet another nomination without a win. (Call me Laura!) Cotillard won the Golden Globe, but that was the foreign press - she doesn't stand a chance here. Which brings us to Christie and Page. Christie gets to play ill, which is usually an Oscar-shoe-in for a man, though not so much for a woman. Page is great, but young - voters might regard her as having many more chances for a win later in her career.
Should Win: Page
Will Win: Christine
Friday, February 22, 2008
Dweeze's Fearless Oscar Forecast: Episode Four A New Hope
We all know the drill by now, right? Right? So let's get to it.
Best Supporting Actor:
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook - Into The Wild
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
I've seen three of the five performances, and of the ones I've seen, Javier Bardem is the clear favorite. Indeed, it seems as though he's been the favorite since No Country came out. The only person who has a chance is Hal Holbrook. Two reasons why: First, it's the only major nomination for a film a lot of people loved. Second, as a lifetime acheivement award for Hal.
Should Win: Bardem
Will Win: Bardem
Best Supporting Actress:
Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
Ruby Dee - American Gangster
Saorise Ronan - Atonement
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
Ruby Dee has the all the things in her favor that Hal Holbrook does in the previous category, but she's barely in the movie. I think Blanchett cancels herself out here and with Best Actress, plus she's already got a statue. Ronan, as good as she was, might as well not even be in the race. That leaves us with Ryan and Swinton. Both play unsympathetic characters. Ryan's character is an absolutely unapologetic druggie. Swinton's is a total mess pushed into horrific acts. Either would be a great choice. Swinton takes it though, solely because more people have seen the film and it's the best chance for an award for the film.
Should Win: Ryan
Will Win: Swinton
Best Supporting Actor:
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook - Into The Wild
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
I've seen three of the five performances, and of the ones I've seen, Javier Bardem is the clear favorite. Indeed, it seems as though he's been the favorite since No Country came out. The only person who has a chance is Hal Holbrook. Two reasons why: First, it's the only major nomination for a film a lot of people loved. Second, as a lifetime acheivement award for Hal.
Should Win: Bardem
Will Win: Bardem
Best Supporting Actress:
Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
Ruby Dee - American Gangster
Saorise Ronan - Atonement
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
Ruby Dee has the all the things in her favor that Hal Holbrook does in the previous category, but she's barely in the movie. I think Blanchett cancels herself out here and with Best Actress, plus she's already got a statue. Ronan, as good as she was, might as well not even be in the race. That leaves us with Ryan and Swinton. Both play unsympathetic characters. Ryan's character is an absolutely unapologetic druggie. Swinton's is a total mess pushed into horrific acts. Either would be a great choice. Swinton takes it though, solely because more people have seen the film and it's the best chance for an award for the film.
Should Win: Ryan
Will Win: Swinton
Thursday, February 21, 2008
You Tube Fun: The Gourds Gin and Juice
A very nice mash-up of the original Snoop Dogg Gin and Juice video with the Gourds cover of the song. This may be the best cover version of a song in the entire history of cover versions.
Return of the Prodigal Bloggers
Both Greenman and Side Notes have returned to the blogosphere (and to my links), Side Notes with her quick comments and insightful analysis, Greenman with a very funny, very obscene You Tube clip. We all play to our strengths...
Dweeze's Fearless Oscar Forecast Episode Three: Attack of the Oscar Forecast
Change in format for the rest of the posts. I'll list all the nominees, with an attempt at commentary on most.
Original Screenplay:
Juno: Diablo Cody (An almost universally-loved film with almost no chance of winning any other award.)
Lars and the Real Girl: Nancy Oliver (Welcome to the ranks of it's an honor just to be nominated.)
Michael Clayton: Tony Gilroy (Same analysis as Juno - everyone loves the film, but it might get shut out the rest of the night.)
Ratatouille: Brad Bird, story by Jim Capobianco and Jan Pinkava (A great film, but by this point it's already won all the awards it's going to get.)
The Savages: Tamara Jenkins (Have a seat with Ms. Oliver.)
Should Win: Diablo Cody
Will Win: Diablo Cody
Adapted Screenplay:
Atonement: Christopher Hampton (Welcome to shutoutsville, Atonement!!)
Away From Her: Sarah Polley (Welcome to Anhonortobenominatedville, Sarah Polley!)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: Ronald Harwood (Have a seat over there by Ms. Polley, Mr. Harwood!)
No Country for Old Men: Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
There Will Be Blood: Paul Thomas Anderson
Okay, the first big battle of the night between the two front-runners for Best Picture and Best Director. I'll leave my thoughts on the merits of the two films until later. If I can. I mean, if I have a clear opinion as to which of these two films is the better film, and I don't know if I can separate that opinion from my opinion on the screenplay.
You know, I can't. I've made several attempts to do so, but can't seem to manage it. So let's just go with the prediction.
Should Win: No Country for Old Men
Will Win: No Country for Old Men
Original Screenplay:
Juno: Diablo Cody (An almost universally-loved film with almost no chance of winning any other award.)
Lars and the Real Girl: Nancy Oliver (Welcome to the ranks of it's an honor just to be nominated.)
Michael Clayton: Tony Gilroy (Same analysis as Juno - everyone loves the film, but it might get shut out the rest of the night.)
Ratatouille: Brad Bird, story by Jim Capobianco and Jan Pinkava (A great film, but by this point it's already won all the awards it's going to get.)
The Savages: Tamara Jenkins (Have a seat with Ms. Oliver.)
Should Win: Diablo Cody
Will Win: Diablo Cody
Adapted Screenplay:
Atonement: Christopher Hampton (Welcome to shutoutsville, Atonement!!)
Away From Her: Sarah Polley (Welcome to Anhonortobenominatedville, Sarah Polley!)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: Ronald Harwood (Have a seat over there by Ms. Polley, Mr. Harwood!)
No Country for Old Men: Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
There Will Be Blood: Paul Thomas Anderson
Okay, the first big battle of the night between the two front-runners for Best Picture and Best Director. I'll leave my thoughts on the merits of the two films until later. If I can. I mean, if I have a clear opinion as to which of these two films is the better film, and I don't know if I can separate that opinion from my opinion on the screenplay.
You know, I can't. I've made several attempts to do so, but can't seem to manage it. So let's just go with the prediction.
Should Win: No Country for Old Men
Will Win: No Country for Old Men
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
