Film Awards Watch

It Only Felt Like This...

2010-02-07T16:47:00.003-06:00

"Up in the Air" wins USC Scripter Award

2010-02-07T00:27:00.007-06:00

As expected, novelist Walter Kirn and screenwriters Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner win the USC Scripter award. This win - plus all the precursor kudos - gives Up in the Air the advantage on March 7.

As far as I see it, the only real competition Reitman and Turner face is the wild card nominee In the Loop. Who knew the Academy screenwriters saw it or read the damn thing? Not to down play any of the other nominated scripts - each is worthy of the Oscar, but the pull is definitely with Up in the Air.

So what does this do for the film's other nominations? Not much. Mo'Nique is too much of a sure thing for the ladies of Up in the Air to make any kind of plausible threat and George Clooney already has an Oscar - Jeff Bridges does not. And as talented as Reitman is as a director (32 years old with 2 directing nominations, 4 overall) he's going to have to watch (probably) Kathryn Bigelow make history. Not that he has a problem with it. And though Up in the Air was the film to beat in late November/early December, Avatar poked its head out and The Hurt Locker came out of nowhere to become the main event films. Ah, well...

Anyhow, congratulations to the "Up in the Air" trio, and good luck at the WGA on February 20.

82nd Academy Awards, or: "Avatar" vs. "The Hurt Locker"

2010-02-06T01:15:00.011-06:00

I updated the sidebar with the 82nd Oscar nominees as well as my current predictions, highlighted in red. Some categories seem pretty much locked (Supporting Actor and Actress, Visual Effects, Director, Adapted Screenplay), while others have some wiggle room (Picture, Actor, Actress, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing), and the rest are a toss-up - for me, at least. Yes, the guilds and precursors should have us all in the same mindset, but you can never be too certain about the AMPAS. They do like to throw a curve ball every once in a while and I think this year might prove that.

The acting and writing branches didn't go for Avatar, but it's the BIG movie with the MOST money. Can the academy actually pass it over for the top honor? I think so. True, the tech branches went for Avatar big time. Seven of its nine nominations are in the "below-the-line" categories. This was to be expected given the nature of the film. I think the real indicator is that The Hurt Locker showed up so many times. The Hurt Locker's cinematography, editing, sound mixing, sound editing, and surprise score nominations show vast support. Toss in Jeremy Renner and suddenly it becomes all too obvious that The Hurt Locker is the film to beat this year.

Although I know this is technically a 10 film race, it really comes down to Avatar and The Hurt Locker. As much as we Oscar-watchers may dismiss the notion when read in the mainstream media, it's true. Can Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds, or Precious win? Yes, but can they really win? I think not. The same holds true for the other five nominees, if for only because they lack the all important director nomination. Only three films - Wings (1927/28), Grand Hotel (1931/32), and Driving Miss Daisy (1989) - won Best Picture without their director being nominated.

Also going against Avatar is the fact that only Wings and Grand Hotel won Best Picture without a screenplay or acting nominations. That hurts its chances immensely. But James Cameron proved with Titanic (1997) that it's still possible to win the big one without writing support. I just don't see it happening this year. This decade the AMPAS has taken a liking to more intimate films, either in terms of story, character, or film making. Yes, Gladiator (2000) and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) were epics, but they were epics in the vein of David Lean - large scale productions with draw-you-in stories and characters you truly care about. Can the same be said of Avatar?

When you take it all in, The Hurt Locker has won guild and critic support where Avatar should have. The PGA should have been chomping at the bit for Avatar, but no. The DGA presumably should have been on its side as well, but, again, no. Thus far, only the HFPA - the Golden Globes - and New York Film Critics Online gave top honors to Cameron and his film (perhaps calling it an "experience" would be more appropriate, but so it goes...). We still have the BAFTAs yet to come, but either An Education or The Hurt Locker is your probable winner. I'm leaning towards An Education, if only because it's a British film and it's the BAFTAs.

Of course, there's still quite a bit of time until the Oscars ceremony and a lot can happen in a month. Maybe the WGA goes for Avatar - possible since who knows where the Inglourious Basterds votes might go to - and it cleans up at the BAFTAs. Then where are we? Still a two-film race, but perhaps more interesting than just the box-office juggernaut vs. the little war film that can. At least then the accolades, and maybe less so the money (yeah, right...) will help support an Avatar win. We'll find out on March 7.

Coming Back

2010-02-03T11:49:00.003-06:00

I was away for most of the year - not literally, just busy with life. My first son was born in September and it's been rather hectic getting life back on track and adjusted. I've also been occupied with school and work, so the blog suffered.

Anyhow, the current plan is to get back on the horse for 2010. I'll have some comments here and there for the 2009 Oscar race, but I'm going to focus my attentions on the real reason I wanted to start a blog: the history of the Academy Awards. I'm working on new articles/columns that I find interesting and hope you will too.

I know there's no one left (if if anyone was there to begin with) reading this, but I'll go ahead with it anyway. If you do pass by and like what you see/read let me and others know.

Thanks,
The Z

First Look Oscar 2010

2009-04-19T23:30:00.005-05:00

Here's a first look at Russell Crowe as Robin Hood in Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. It's been a while since either man played a part in the Oscars, but this film might have the chance to succeed in 2010. I'm a sucker for Crowe, plus with Cate Blanchett you can't really go wrong (hopefully...).

Recently Watched Open Thread

2009-04-07T22:10:00.005-05:00

This post is just to provide a place for anyone to comment on my recently watched films list. If there's anything you want to say about any film I've seen or you have one to recommend this is the place. The list on the sidebar will link directly to this post in case it gets buried.

"L'Avventura"

2009-04-02T21:29:00.003-05:00

One of my favorite films. If you haven't seen it I reccomend you do - you're in for a wonderful cinematic adventure and a film you won't soon (if ever) forget.

"Shutter Island" Teaser Poster

2009-03-29T01:07:00.003-05:00

I really can't wait for this one. The book was awesome, Scorsese is awesome, DiCaprio is awesome... It's all awesome.

Gandi and "Flash of Genius"

2009-03-28T12:48:00.009-05:00

Just watched Flash of Genius. It lays heavy on the sentimentality at times, and because of that could have been maybe 20 minutes shorter, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I'm a sucker for little guy vs. the world themes. Plus, I sometimes forget that Greg Kinnear is a good actor - see Auto Focus.

The film is about Bob Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper, and his fight to get properly recognized for his achievement. Some would call it a bio-pic, but if a film focuses on one aspect of its subject's life and not their whole life or larger pieces of it I find it hard to rally behind the bio-pic label. I don't know if there is a name for these types of films - slice of life, perhaps? - but they tend to be better than sprawling life epics. I think that's because smaller bits of some one's life are more relatable. With Flash of Genius, we all know what it's like to be tossed off and not given credit for our work. But with something like Gandhi, it's possible to get the feeling of "What the hell can I do to change the world?"

But then again, Gandhi was a different type of man than Bob Kearns, facing different obstacles and barriers, and so, as such, I think we are able to look at them differently. We appreciate that Kearns struggled to get his proper due and stick it to the man. But we admire Gandhi, knowing that once in a while there are great men in the world striving to make things better (he also stuck it to the man, too).

And despite their differences, both men accomplished the same goal - they changed the world. Gandhi revolutionized how a nation could gain independence by using non-violent methods (Gandhi did much more than this, I know, but for the sake of this article doing that alone is example enough of the type of man he was). Bob Kearns's invention changed the automobile and patent industry. These deeds are comparatively small when matched up with Gandhi, but I find it easier to relate to and understand Kearns.

For most of us, it's the little things that define us - having a family, owning our own business, getting a college degree. For others, it's leading a country to independence or freeing a race of people from slavery. I can't lead a country to independence. And I probably won't free people from slavery. And perhaps, because of that, I can't understand those great men. I can't find it in myself to feel who they must have felt to change society. But I understand Bob Kearns. He did one little thing that most of us (read: all of us) take for granted - he made it easier to wipe the rain from our windshields. One little thing. I think that's what we should aspire to do. Just one little thing. Sometimes that's all it takes to change the world.

Coulda Been a Contender: "Bullets Over Broadway"

2009-03-27T19:08:00.002-05:00

"Coulda Been a Contender" is an on-going series that will focus on films nominated for Best Director and other Oscars yet did not get nominated for Best Picture. This first article will feature Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway (1994).

Bullets Over Broadway was released not long after the Woody Allen/Mia Farrow custody battle in which Allen's questionable relationship with Farrow's adopted daughter Soon-Yi was publicly exposed. The scandal, though, appeared to have had no adverse effect on Allen's career as Bullets Over Broadway tied Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) as his most Oscar nominated film, garnering seven nods, including Best Director and Best Original Screenplay for Allen himself, yet was ignored for Best Picture.

One could argue that the Academy does seem to hold a bias against comedies, but Four Weddings and a Funeral is a comedy and was nominated for Best Picture. With just two nominations - its other was for Best Original Screenplay - Four Weddings and a Funeral had the least number of nominations for a Best Picture nominee since Decision Before Dawn (1951). I, for one, am from the school of thought that is was Four Wedding and a Funeral that bumped Bullets Over Broadway merely for the fact that the other Best Picture nominee to not have its director nominated - The Shawshank Redemption - still managed six other nominations

The most probable reason Bullets Over Broadway was not nominated for Best Picture is that Academy members ranked it below Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction on their ballots. With the preferential voting system - as opposed to a weighted system - employed by the AMPAS, those ballots would already have been accounted. And unless Bullets Over Broadway was number one on enough of the remaining ballots any support on those first ballots would have been useless.

Other than Allen's two mentions, Bullets Over Broadway was nominated for Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Supporting Actor for Chazz Palminteri, and twice over with Best Supporting Actress for Jennifer Tilly and Diane Wiest, who was the only winner of the seven. Tilly was a surprise on nomination morning, but going into Oscar season Wiest was the heavy favorite. By the time the big night rolled around she had already won the SAG, Golden Globe, and various critics' awards including Los Angeles, New York, and National Society of Film Critics.

Unfortunately for Chazz Palminteri, he was up against the odds-on winner Martin Landau for his immortal turn as Bela Lugosi in Tim Burton's Ed Wood. Even if Landau wasn't the shoo-in that he was the other nominees included Samuel L. Jackson for Pulp Fiction, Gary Sinise for Forrest Gump, and Paul Scofield - a past winner for A Man for All Seasons (1966) - for Quiz Show. Landau was the right choice, but any one of the five actors nominated would have been a worthy winner.

Despite the fact that the costumes and sets were perfect for the 1920's, the Academy's ability to choose most over best was very evident in 1994. The period piece The Madness of King George, which takes place in England during the American Revolutionary, won Best Art Direction for it's equally impressive quality, but its quantity was too much for any other nominee - except maybe Interview with the Vampire - to overcome. As for the costuming, one would have to argue vehemently to persuade against The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert to change any minds about that choice.

Woody Allen had the burden of being nominated opposite Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction in the Original Screenplay category. And he also faced the steamroller that was Forrest Gump for Best Director. Having already secured the DGA and Golden Globe, Robert Zemeckis had his first Oscar in the bag. I don't mind Zemeckis's direction of Forrest Gump, but I do think that Allen, Tarantino, and Robert Redford for Quiz Show went the extra step with letting the writing and acting take center stage instead of showcasing the gimmick - that isn't the right word, but it's the first one that comes to mind - of inserting Tom Hanks/Forrest Gump into different historical situations. Besides, Allen did that in 1983 with Zelig - though what Zemeckis and his team did was vastly superior to Allen's attempt.

So, in conclusion, I think Bullets Over Broadway was tragically overlooked as a Best Picture nominee. Plus it's hard to debate that earning seven Academy Award nominations doesn't warrant a mention for the top prize, especially with a directing, writing, and three acting nominations to back it up.

Oscars in March

2009-03-27T10:19:00.005-05:00

I'm a little late on this, but the Academy Awards ceremony to recognize the film achievemnets of 2009 will be March 7, 2010, with nominations announce February 2 (Thursday again...). This will be the first March ceremony since 2006 when Crash upset Brokeback Mountain.

"And the Oscar goes to... Crash."

Both date changes were made to accomodate the Winter Olympics, which next year run the last two weeks of February in Vancouver. I prefer March Oscars - as I posted previously - even if it only happens every four years. I'm interested to see if the date change has such a great effect on the Best Picture winner as it did in 2005. Wouldn't that be something if the date change also signifies an upset?

Thanks for Coming: "Atlantic City"

2009-03-23T21:11:00.022-05:00

"Thanks for Coming" is an on-going series that will feature a Best Picture nominee that failed to win any Academy Awards. This first installment will feature Louis Malle's Atlantic City (1981).

"It used to be beautiful...what with the rackets, whoring, guns..."

DIRECTOR:
Louis Malle

SCREENWRITER:
John Guare

STARRING:
Burt Lancaster, Susan Sarandon, Kate Reid, Robert Joy, Hollis McLoren, Al Waxman, Michel Piccoli

OSCAR NOMINATIONS:
Picture, Director - Louis Malle, Actor - Burt Lancaster, Actress - Susan Sarandon, Original Screenplay - John Guare

Atlantic City has long been one of my favorite films. I've always loved the dreamy, ethereal feeling cast upon the gritty, real world of the characters in the film. It's that dream-like quality that carries the film and its theme - everyone in Atlantic City wants something more than what they have, but what they want is but a dream, a fantasy that is always just out of reach. Another prominent theme of the film is that of letting go of the past, in any way possible, and opening up to a second chance.

Atlantic City opens with a silent scene of Lou (Burt Lancaster) watching Sally (Susan Sarandon) wash herself with lemons (ah, the lemons...). All at once the theme of dreaming and wanting is illustrated. Lou wants Sally, dreams of her. And like so many things in "Atlantic City" she's so close and yet so unattainable.

Meanwhile, Dave (Robert Joy) and Chrissie (Hollis McLoren) trek across the country. Dave has stolen some cocaine from a phone booth and hopes to sell the dope once he and Chrissie get to Atlantic City. Dave is Sally's estranged husband and ran off with the now-pregnant Chrissie, Sally's sister. Dave caused Sally some trouble in Las Vegas, so she came to Atlantic City to rid herself of him and start anew. Yet he finds her and Sally is unable to escape her past.

We next see Lou as he takes care of Grace (Kate Reid), a former beauty pageant contestant whom Lou watches over as a favor to Grace's long-deceased gangster husband. Grace always reminds Lou of what she was back when she first came to the city and never hesitates to put him down. They are what Atlantic City was - they had their chance and are now whithering away, but a new generation, represented by Sally and the building of new casinos, are what the city is to become.

I don't intend to give a full synopsis of the film, but I feel that the first few scenes wonderfully set the film on course towards its ultimate conclusion. Atlantic City is all at once a grim look at a down-on-its-luck city and its people trying to rise back to previous glory and a modern-day fairy tale - a magical place that can transform you into what you want to be. For Lou, it's to be the gangster he always thought he could be. For Sally, it's to be more than just a small-town Canadian girl. And in the end, they get what they want.

Unfortunately, come Oscar time, Atlantic City got nothing. Going into Oscar night, Warren Beatty's epic Reds led the way with 12 nominations followed by On Golden Pond with 10, Raider's of the Lost Ark with 8, Chariots of Fire with 7, and Atlantic City with 5. Reds was the heavy favorite entering the night, but the low-budget British Olympic film Chariots of Fire surprised all to win Best Picture.

Burt Lancaster, in what I consider to be his career-best performance, lost what should have been his second Oscar (previous win was for Elmer Gantry, 1960) to Henry Fonda in On Golden Pond. Fonda's victory has long been accepted as a sympathy/sentimental win as it was only his second acting Oscar nomination. It was Lancaster's fourth Oscar nomination after From Here to Eternity (1953), Elmer Gantry, and Birdman of Alcatraz (1962).

Susan Sarandon lost her first of five nominations to the legendary Katharine Hepburn in On Golden Pond. It was Hepburn's last of her record four wins and 12 nominations. Louis Malle's only Oscar nomination and flawless direction were overshadowed by Warren Beatty's epic Reds (if anything, just for mere scope and size of the film), and Best Picture winner Chariots of Fire prevailed in the Original Screenplay category.

For my Oscar ballot, I would have unashamedly gone with Atlantic City all the way. Nothing against the other nominees, but this film really holds well almost 30 years later. Plus it speaks to universal truths - we all want to be something more, have a better life, and be who we always thought we'd be.

"On the boardwalk in Atlantic City, we will walk in a dream..."

This Week...

2009-03-21T13:01:00.002-05:00

I apologize for not getting to any new posts as I had intended - lots of school work and other things going on. Nonetheless, this week should see the first installment of the "Thanks for Coming" series, which will focus on films nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture but went home empty-handed. Then later this week should have the first of many "Coulda Been a Contender" columns, which will feature films nonimated for a slew of Oscars but not getting mentioned for Best Picture.

I've got the films lined up and notes already written - it's just a matter of putting everything together. "Thanks for Coming" should debut on Tuesday, the 24th, and I hope to post "Coulda Been a Contender" on Thursday or Friday. Please stay tuned!

"Away We Go" Trailer

2009-03-17T00:15:00.011-05:00

It'll probably come out eventually, so here goes nothing: I'm a huge Sam Mendes fan. Every one of his films is a journey I want to experience over and over again - living the mundanity with the marines in "Jarhead," discovering the beautiful in the everyday things in "American Beauty," connecting with your father in "Road to Perdition," and learning that sometimes a dream is but a dream in "Revolutionary Road."

I don't know what to expect with Mr. Mendes directing a comedy, but the trailer has given me reassurance that he knows what he's doing. Plus, "American Beauty" was full of humor - not laugh-out-loud humor, but very poignant, true humor, which this new film seems to aspire. Nonetheless, I'm now looking forward to "Away We Go" with much anticipation.

"Shutter Island" and the New Academy

2009-03-09T23:42:00.011-05:00

I've just finished reading Dennis Lehane's "Shutter Island." What an exquisite piece of work. Hopefully screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis has created an adaptation worthy of her source material. I don't have any doubts about that seeing as Martin Scorsese wanted to helm the project.

I do question the Oscar-potential of the film as the novel's narrative doesn't scream Academy Award. But it seems lately - the past 10 years actually - that the Academy has made a decided swing in what can be considered "Oscar- bait." After almost a decade of honoring sweeping epics throughout the 90's there has been a greater variety of Best Picture winners this decade: an old fashioned swords and sandals flick, a movie musical, a fantasy film, a gangster movie, a cat and mouse thriller, a film with a third of its dialogue in Hindi... Not to mention the fact that the past 10 years have had seven contemporary-set films (this varies as to how one wishes to define contemporary).

It used to be you'd pick the longest, most costumed movie of the year and have a safe bet at the Best Picture winner. There has been a change of the tide, but it's probably impossible to predict which way it will go. If anything, it seems the critics are the ones to look to. If they like a film it'll probably get nominated if not win - see "No Country for Old Men," "The Departed," "Slumdog Millionaire," "Million Dollar Baby"...

Perhaps though, the truncated Oscar season has influenced that pattern more than anything. If you now have four weeks less to watch X-amount of movies before filling out your nomination ballot which ones will you watch: those you know nothing about or the ones that got good reviews? 2009 marks the 7th year of February Oscars. From 2003 to 2008, "Crash" is the only Best Picture winner not to score more than 90% on Rotten Tomatoes (75%) and also ranks the lowest on IMdB's top 250 (#209) and Metacritic (69) among the winners from those six years. (I won't go into any reason why "Crash" won over "Brokeback Mountain," but perhaps another time...)

I, for one, am not a fan of the short Oscar season. I liked having until mid-February to see possible nominees and then until the end of March to see the true contenders. But if a short season is the price to pay for having an eclectic list of Best Picture winners it might not be too bad after all.

What to Expect

2009-03-06T17:51:00.004-06:00

For anyone interested in what I have planned for Film Awards Watch, here's the scoop. I've started on a few series of articles about past Oscars and films which will (hopefully) start getting posted next week. Right now I have four article series that each have a vast source of material. Once they start popping up be sure to comment on what you like, dislike, enjoy, etc. I really want to use readers' comments to make this blog the best it can be.

"Public Enemies" Trailer

2009-03-05T09:55:00.002-06:00

The Film Experience's Challenge

2009-03-02T12:54:00.009-06:00

This post is in response to Nathaniel's challenge over on The Film Experience. My pics aren't as candid, but we do what we can with what we got.

This is a rather generic pic, but what gets me is that there's the theatre in the background, Orson Welles in the foreground, and no other people. Were they all behind the photographer? Or in the theatre already? Or not even caring?

Anything with Hitchcock and "Psycho" is especially interesting to me. Throw in a semi-nude Janet Leigh and I'm made in the shade, my friends - made in the shade. What I love about these two is that you can't see Hitch's face and leaving the full story further draped in wonder - could we expect any less from the master of suspense?

I'll end with Miss Jane Fonda, alone on the set of "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" I'm guessing this was taken during the filming of the final scene. I've always had a crush on Jane and she utterly broke my heart in "They Shoot Horses." This pic captures everything that I love about the film and her character - just beautiful.

Oscar Outlook 2009

2009-02-27T15:27:00.023-06:00

The first predictions of any Oscar season are always the same - a shot in the dark.

Most times we can't even predict what will be nominated in October or November, so any predictions coming out in February or March can't be taken too seriously. But, as any fervent Oscarwatcher will tell you, it's just to much fun to not look out to the year ahead. My predictions are pretty much what everyone else's predictions are - you look down the list of upcoming releases and latch on to the films that appeal to you. There's no science, history, statistics, or anything else that can make year-ahead predictions make sense, let alone work.

With that being said, here is a brief look at my year-in-advance 2009 Academy Awards predictions for Best Picture. I was going to do every category, then just the major ones, but I think focusing on Best Picture will make it easier for everyone involved. And if you don't care for any commentary you can take a look at the side bar for a category-by-category view of my predictions.

Best Picture
Agora
An Education
Public Enemies
Shutter Island
The Tree of Life

For year-ahead predictions it's always easiest to begin with Best Picture. I actually like a dozen or so movies to compete for the five slots, but you can only have five. Agora looks to be the type of film the Academy likes: epic, love story, historical, exotic locale, foreign-born director... On paper it seems to hard to pass up. But it does have a "seen it" feel that hearkens back to 2000 Best Picture Gladiator.

An Education seems to fit the token British film slot. It also struck a chord at Sundance which can't hurt it's chances. It does, though, come from an unknown Danish director (Lone Scherfig, who is also female...), so it's hard to judge what Oscar potential it may have.

Of all the films coming out in 2009, Public Enemies seems to have the best shot at getting Oscar recognition. With a big-name cast (Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard), a well-respected director (Michael Mann), and based on historical events it's hard to ignore - even this early in the year. At this point in the year the only deterrent may be the Summer release date.

Like any cinephile, I would be remiss to not include any new Martin Scorsese film in my predictions. And Shutter Island proves that no, Mr. Scorsese can no longer make a film without Leonardo DiCaprio. Not that that's a bad thing (see The Aviator, The Departed), but unless the film's fantastic the partnership my get stale with the Academy. The film is based on a novel by Dennis Lehane (Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone), whose works have become potential Oscar fodder. If anything keeps Shutter Island from being an Oscar nominee it would be due to Scorsese finally getting Oscarred for The Departed back in 2006.

At one point in his career, Terrence Malick did not direct a film for 20 years. This year he gives us his third in 11 years. I can't say I know what The Tree of Life is about, but the fact that it's Malick is all that matters for me. Malick's films don't tend to get seen by many people, but with Brad Pitt starring - who arguably helped The Curious Case of Benjamin Button gross more than $120 million domestically - that may change this year.

So there you have it. And I'm not including Nine, Amelia, The Road, Mandela (or whatever Eastwood's film will eventually be called), Taking Woodstock, and many, many others. Of these five predicted nominees, I'm quite sure that only one, maybe two, of these films will be nominated for Best Picture, let alone any Oscars. But that's the fun of this. Please feel free to comment and add your thoughts. And also let me know what you think (so far) of the blog.

Welcome

2009-02-25T20:17:00.002-06:00

First Post

2009-02-24T15:34:00.001-06:00

Hello to anyone who somehow happens to stumble into this blog!

Like so many others in this modern age I'm starting a blog about films and film awards - mainly the Oscars. I also intend to focus on Oscar history, trivia, patterns, trends, statistics, etc. While the Academy Awards is the principal purpose of this blog I'll also include thoughts and commentary about the movies I see - both those with and without Oscar potential.

I hope to post once a week until the Oscar season starts to heat up and then up to maybe three or four times a week. If you have any questions or comments for me in the initial stages I would be more than appreciative.

The next post will look at possible contenders for the 82nd Academy Awards and my current predictions.

Thanks again for stopping by and please check back in few days.

~The Z