Michael Clayton was dull. I don't understand people's enthusiasm for it. Plus, what was up with those horses?

i was also surprised by the fact that i like most of the nominations: although i'm afraid that a) "there will be blood" will be overlooked in most of these categories and b) that "atonement" will win due to the academy's traditionally conservative (artistically, not politically) tendencies.

having said that, a few more things:

- "juno," while perfectly fine, is really now a kind of ridiculous bandwagon -- see "little miss sunshine" for reference. i wish more comedies received academy nods, but those comedies should be "darjeeling limited," not "juno."

- look, i realize i'm a geek, but how could they nominated "SURF'S UP" and not, say, "THE SIMPSONS MOVIE?!" for best animated feature.

i haven't liked "the simpsons" in YEARS -- and the movie, after having watched it several times now, is a significant triumph for a show that recycled itself so many times i lost count in 1998.

i have not yet seen "persepolis," but i'm guessing "ratatouille" will -- and should -- win. i'll see "persepolis" at some point.

I did not like The Simpsons Movie, and I laughed a lot less than I did with the Knocked Up, Superbad, and Juno triumvirate.

Juno has its flaws, but I thought it was better than Little Miss Sunshine and The Darjeeling Limited.

I hope you are wrong about Atonement, although you're probably not.

Pretty decent noms all in all. Johnny Greenwood is the biggest oversight. That score was amazing. I guess it was just to untraditional. Sure Juno was a bandwagon pick, but they always nominate one of those films. And at least it was a lot better than LMS.

In the old days my favorite films were usually not even nominated. Now, my two favorite films of the year (No Country, Blood) as two of the favorites. How about that.

Oh, and the standard for animated feature is so low. But I am glad The Simpsons movie did not get a nom. Those hacks that make that show don't need anymore pats on their backs. That is what has led to the horrible thing that is called the Simpsons nowadays. The movie wasn't bad, but nor was it good.

LA Anthony, Greenwood's score wasn't ignored, it was disqualified for having too much music not written specifically for the movie. See the link in the post.

Ah, I see. Me not so smart. Also, that sucks.

you are all (both) very wrong about the movie. it is very, very good. and holds up on multiple viewings. so, shut the fuck up.

also, how can you say "juno" was better than "darjeeling limited?" don't you know that if your opinion is different than mine, it's wrong?!

seriously, "juno" is funny and cute -- but it's a cookie-cutter comedy.

I did not think Juno was cookie-cutter comedy, whereas I did think Darjeeling was cookie-cutter Anderson.

Except for Adrien Brody. His character was great, the best Anderson character since Tenenbaums.

Which was the best Anderson character in Tenebaums?

Also, doesn't "the best Anderson character since Tenenbaums" simply means there were no great Anderson characters in The Life Aquatic?

Yes. Yes it does.

Several characters in Tenenbaums would qualify.

Oh, was The Darjeeling Limited supposed to be a comedy? I thought Anderson just spooged all over some film and put a sitar over it.

Wow.

it may or may not have been cookie-cutter anderson. what it WAS, was better than life aquatic.

also, lorelei can't seem to say things lately that don't irk me. work on that!

actually, as much as life aquatic was a failure, willem defoe was pretty good.

i think your annoyance and my glee at Lorelei's comments enjoy a precise correlation.

Zodiac was enjoyable. I don't recall the 'subtle' special effects.

hear, hear

Did you click the link in the Zodiac post? I'll reprint it here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TT491ctM8Kk

jbg: I have been working on it, and I'm glad to see that I'm having some success.