Faux Pas, I have to disagree with you vehemently with two points you brought up in your "Oscar Nominations Game!" post.

One, that Tom Hanks was basically playing Tom Hanks in a war film. Not true at all. It was a subtle performance, but downright stunning in its complexity. He deserves an Oscar more for Saving Private Ryan than for either of the two performances he won one for in the past. He may not win, though, because the Academy basically likes to award overacted performances these days, or at least performances of disturbed or mentally retarded people. But in Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks did something truly amazing. He created a realistic and compelling portrait of an ordinary guy under extreme circumstances -- with a performance that did NOT draw attention to itself. There was no hand waving -- "Hey, Academy! Look! It's *ME*, in a really great performance!" It's not just Oscar-worthy acting, it's better. Whether he *will* win or not is a wholly different question.

My second objection also has to do with Saving Private Ryan. I sympathize with your complaint that things have to explode to get the sound awards. That's not always true, but it sure seems like it's more true than not. Armageddon deserves a Razzie for sound, IMHO -- it was obnoxious and unrealistic. But Saving Private Ryan deserves to win just for the D-Day landing scene in the beginning. I've never been in a war, but never has the sounds of battle felt more realistic. Soldiers who were there described the chaos on the beach much as SPR shows it. Gunfire and explosions happening at random, then something would explode near you, and your hearing would be knocked out for a while. People would bark orders you couldn't hear. Then your hearing would recover only to be knocked out again. The sounds in SPR simulate that effect startlingly well, and should win not just by process of elimination but because it truly deserves it. Best Cinematography is deserved for nearly the same reason.