Paula finds time to write while stuck in the NY blizzard.


1. "Chicago" was dazzling! I sat there with a big
idiot grin on my face the whole time, entertained
beyond belief. One of the best movies I've seen in a
long time. Each element - acting, direction,
cinematography, story - was firing on all pistons. I
truly hope for wins for the movie, Zellweger, and
Zeta-Jones. However: as much as I thought both Queen
Latifah and John C. Reilly knocked it out of the park,
I didn't find their performances neccessarily
award-worthy.

2. If Nia Vardalos had gotten a leading actress nom
for her movie, I would have Big Fat Greek shot myself.
C'mon! The movie was cute and funny, but was it
stellar enough for awards? Noooooooooo.

3. Idea: can we give out "make-up" Oscars for those
who should've gotten them already, and stop giving
noms/awards for less deserving work? (Think Denzel
Washington's win for "Training Day" - huh? - or the
Oscar Martin Scorcese will win for "Gangs...", a
sometimes brilliant, sometimes sloppy movie.)

4. Ed Harris was great in "The Hours", but he had only
TWO SCENES! How could this performance get nominated,
and not Dennis Quaid?! This is on par with
"Shakespeare in Love" beating "Saving Private Ryan"
for a Best Pic Oscar. He was robbed, for sure!

5. I'd personally have to tie Day-Lewis and Nicholson,
giving the edge to Nicholson if a gun was put to my
head. His performance was utterly winning and
heart-breaking. But gosh, Day-Lewis? He blew everyone
else off the screen, and riveted viewers to his every
word.

Let the games begin!


Scholz sounds off.


Hey Paul,

Nice look at the categories. Here are my comments based on what little I've seen/heard of this year's nominees:

BEST SONG:

Paul Simon will win for the "Father and Daughter" song in the Wild Thornberrys film. It's to counter his missed nomination of "Mrs. Robinson" from The Graduate.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

A Moore win would be satisfying, but there's a very glaring omission from this category.

Glaring Omission: "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart" by Sam Jones about the band Wilco and the making of their 2002 release "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot." Considering the unplanned, real life story that happened during the filming--record label asks for new album, record label hates new album and dumps band, band releases album online to rave reviews, record label subsidiary "buys back" album--and the honest moments throughout the entire black and white film, I'm amazed this didn't get included. Then again, 200+ rock critics voted "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" the top album of 2002 and Wilco didn't get a single Grammy nod, either (don't get me started on that....).

And Paul, not to dismiss all the terrific acting ability in the category, but didn't you used to say the Best Supporting Actress award often went to the "hottest woman to have sex with" from that category? I hear Kathy Bates got naked in About Schmidt just so she'd qualify. (Take that, Catherine Zeta-Jones!)

Now if you'll excuse me, I must return to cranking out the yuks or "comic gems" for Bruce Vilanch at the Oscar broadcast (mine so far are "Kidman's gonna win...by a nose!" "Nicholson again? Hey, Schmidt happens!" and "About A Boy was a smash hit among Catholic priests!" You read them here first.)

Steve Scholz

Mike with a comment


Glaring omission for best supporting actor: Gollem
from Two Towers.

Chris' take on the night


well, well, well... Not too many shockers but a lot of fun. Michael Moore's rant was hysterical! I've always hated when stars use that platform as an excuse to spout off about shit but his was different for some reason. I guess because he went all the way with it. He pulled absolutely no punches. Honestly though, what did the academy expect? Moore makes his living by stirring up the shit. And when you give someone like that a stage and a forum where he can reach millions in an instant he's going to take advantage. They shouldn't have expected, "I'd like to thank the academy..." Anyway, Roman Polanski was a shocker. There had been some bad press about Scorsese's apparent "shoe-in" and that hurt him I believe. It's just as well because it wasn't his best film but I still think it was an incredible achievement in film making. What did I tell you about Adrian Brody? I guess it goes to show you...when it comes to game shows, when in doubt the answer is China; for the Oscars, it's the holocaust movie. Just kidding. Anyway, I'm sure your rant is coming. I'm looking forward to it. By the way, do you get the 'Trio' network? All month there's a great documentary on called, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" which is all about the revolution in American cinema in the late 60s and early 70s. An amazing time for movies! Anyway, it's really great, hope you can see it. They're showing another special called "The Blockbuster Imperative" which talks about the impact the blockbuster has had on the quality of films made. Good stuff. Chris


And my response!


Chris -

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you after the Oscars. I thought the night was full of surprises.

Brody indeed was the biggest. I thought the fight was between Nicholson and Day-Lewis. Brody did win at Cannes and at two critic's awards so it wasn't too far fetched. Basically, you could've given it to anyone in that category and not go wrong (maybe Caine did the least in that he didn't emaciate himself, play against type or play twins).

Polanski and "The Pianist"'s script win were both surprising and happily so 'cause I thought if "Chicago" didn't win an award that night, it'd go to "The Hours". I thought "The Hours" was this year's "English Patient", an UNDERWHELMING awards magnet. Well, I'm glad the plan backfired and "The Pianist", a far better film, snuck up to snag a few big-time awards.

My favorite film of the year was "Chicago", so I'm glad that won. But isn't it odd that a film ("The Pianist") can win best actor, director and script, but not Best Picture? That's when the rule that everyone in the Academy votes for Best Picture comes into play. By the time they gave out Best Picture, "Chicao" had already picked up the most - five (but only one in a major category). So if you do the math, it was due.

People wanted Scorsese to win for his career. That's why O'Toole won. Unfortunately, if Scorsese doesn't deliver another BRILLIANT movie like "Goodfellas" (Costner should donate his Oscar to Marty), the Thalberg is all he may ever get. I thought this year Polanski and Rob Marshall both did a better job directing, although "Gangs" was impressive, considering it's huge scope.

I don't get "Trio", but I remember when my friend Adam was reading Peter Biskind's book "Easy Riders and Raging Bulls" on which, I have to assume, that TV series is based. It's supposed to be a great book, too, if you're interested. It's funny they'd follow up that series with one on blockbusters, 'cause it's "Star Wars" that ended that streak of brilliant seventies movies and stopped people from trying to make the Great American Movie and started them wanting to make the Great American Hit.

Please, please avoid "Dreamcatcher" - worst movie of the 2000 decade thus far. Horrible. Also bad is "Bringing Down the House" and "Basic". We're in the doldrums till "Matrix Reloaded", which I am absolutely STOKED to see. And I may have said this before, but if NY is still showing "Bloody Sunday" anywhere, it's a trememdously successful attempt to make documentary-style narrative. Brilliant. See it.

My response 2,the sequel


Hey Chris -

I posted a big e-mail recently about the Oscars at my website (let me know if you're not on the mailing list), but I wanted to respond to your e-mail as well (late though my response may be):

There was something about "Gangs of New York" that kept it from GREATness. Perhaps it was the sheer HUGEness of it all. The violence and muck of it all just seemed a bit too much, too overwhelming. But hey, it was an ugly time, you can't fault Scorsese entirely for that. But the big, sprawling ugliness of the movie probably kept it from reaching the slick, streamlined excellence of "Goodfellas". You said that the history was great, and I gotta admit that I didn't know alot about the draft riots of NY but I was blown away by the pure INSANITY that took over that city at that time. HOLY SHIT! The army was just bombing the fuck out of everybody and mowing the crowds down in the street!!! I'm currently nose-deep in books to discover more about that crazy time period.
Daniel Day-Lewis was absolutely AMAZING. It took this performance to remind me of the huge gap that he left in the five years since he was last in a major movie. He and Nicholson are neck and neck for me as far as Best Actor goes. Both incredible work, both incredibly different. Jack stretched out into new territory by not relying on "Jack" and the "Jack" charisma, but Day-Lewis OWNED the film and took alot of crazy risks.

I believe you said the same thing about Jack, and I give high praise to the film overall. It has the BEST ending of any film this year. The way they tenderly handled the letter he recieves from Ndugu and it's simplicity was just perfect. We were bawling like babies. Great supporting cast, too, and they all played their parts so REAL, it was refreshing.

Speaking of REAL acting, "Bloody Sunday" has HIGHLY impressive acting. The film is made documentary-style, but never seems gimmicky. The actors are to be commended for this as much as the director. Nothing is stagey in the film and it works brilliantly. Great film. I hope to post some more reviews soon, but I'll sum up some high-profile flicks:

CHICAGO (****) - Best film of the year.
THE HOURS (**) - A completely underwhelming awards magnet. This year's "English Patient".
NARC (***) - Hot shit movie with the second-best ending of the year. AWESOME performances by Liotta and Patric.
UNFAITHFUL (*1/2) - Don't bother, despite Diane Lane's risky performance. It's dreary shit.
THE RECRUIT (***) - Better than I expected. Smart, slick and well-acted.
25th HOUR (***) - FULL of good actors. A must-see for ALL New York-ers.

Talk to you soon,

Paul

Melissa's feelings



The 2003 Oscar rant -

I do always look forward to your rants - they add such spice to my days!
But anyway, I DID see Y Tu Mama Tabien, and I would recommend it strongly.
Very unexpected, non-American, laid-back style. And was Monsoon Wedding
nominated for anything, or am I a year too late there? That has become one
of my all-time faves, right up there with Amelie and Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Dragon. It has some downright magical moments.

So thanks for the rant!
Love to you both (and this is my new Email address, I'll add yours to my
book...), (Melissa) Makael Newby

have you seen my big fat greek wedding? you must!

Mary on the Oscars


Hi Paul,
I'm only finding time to read the Oscar Rant a bit at a time. Yesterday
it was the leading and supporting actors of both sexes, today it's the art
direction and Directing. Arghhhhhhhh! I can't believe you aren't in there
swinging for Frida!! Unbelieveable directing by Julie Taymor, and I can't
TELL you how incredible the art direction is!! I mean, it's JULIE TAYMOR!!!
Her approach is so unique, so vivid. I'm amazed that this film got made --
Hollywood being the antithesis of unique and vivid usually!! Please take
another look.
Humbly,
Mary

Mary, part 2 (She really loves "Frida")


No, no, no Paul -- The woman in Frida was the real winner (Salma?) (I even
saw it twice and for me that's really something!)
Love you anyway,
Mary

Erika takes exception with my "Two Towers" throwaway line


what the hell?
two towers was an amazing movie
did you ever read the books?
peter jackson may have been snubbed this year
but if the academy does not give him the award next year
something stinks in la-la land
not only did mr jackson cover all the storyline bases that all the rings fans adore
but he made an interesting and beautiful visual world
don't even get me started on the miracle that is gollum
underwhelming my ass!!

This crazy Aussie friend of mine on my reviews


I haven't read it yet, but I am pretty fucking sure that your wrong!

Dayve, my Oklahomeboy, breaks it down.


RE: Your Oscar rant: I’m in no position, really, to concur or object to the majority of what you’ve said. Although, I read your entire piece with great interest and appreciation. I look to your insight and discernment to help us out with what we’re going to rent for the next 3 months. In truth, I’ve been terrible about getting to the theater this year, for a host of reasons. (B/T/W, props to you for raising the travesty of last year’s snub of “Amelie”...I thought that was one of the most inventive, charming, inspired films, ever.) Unfortunately – or fortunately, depending upon your take - I spend far more time in front of the little screen than the silver one.


I’ve not given a lot of thought as to why that is (is the caliber of releases ever-declining and increasingly homogeneous?....Am I suspicious of pack mentality that causes some mediocre pablum to be lauded as “the year’s runaway hit!” in a mere 2 weeks’ after its release?...Do I wait for your “Rants” and “Raves” to give me the true guidance I need before heading to the DVD rentals?....Dunno.) Perhaps it’s just the sheer convenience of discovering rare, true favorites on TV that I can return to, time & again, and know that I’ll be richly rewarded with zero inconvenience, each time, and I’m not 9-10 dollars poorer for the experience. Maybe that’s a lame, uninspired cop-out. (I thought “Signs” was the most fun I’d had watching a film since....well, I can’t remember when....Yes I do: “Bowling for Columbine”...But it took me 7 months to finally see it, and threats of bodily harm to spur me. And I almost missed Columbine... Maybe I just procrastinate too much...).


Back to Movie List