> Over at The Hot Button, David Poland suggests that Return of the King will be a powerhouse at next year's Oscars, especially since The Two Towers "only" got six nominations this year. He might be right, but it remains to be seen. The drop-off Oscar performance this year was expected, really; the question is, will people be pumped up enough about the third installment to propel it to grand achievements, or will there be more "been there, done that" to make its hold even shakier?

I think it's also worth noting that TTT is a weaker movie than the first one. I would not have nominated it for a Best Picture Oscar ("Far From Heaven," "Adaptation" or "Minority Report" would all have been much better in that slot). I also believe TTT is the weakest book of the trilogy, while RotK is the strongest. I think RotK has a decent shot, but it will largely depend on how well the movie is done. I think it's amazing to note that these movies are being nominated *at all.*

> And for all the buzz I've been hearing about Daniel Day-Lewis, I never heard much about DiCaprio in Gangs. Was his performance there more deserving than any of the five Best Actor nominees?

Definitely not. Day-Lewis deserves the Oscar, IMO, but not DiCaprio.

> Two of my favorite actresses working today are frontrunners in this year's Oscars. Julianne Moore became the first actress to be nominated in both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress in the same year. Nicole Kidman competes with her in the Best Actress category. Moore is the critical favorite, and Kidman seems to be the front-runner. It wouldn't upset me to see them split the two Oscars, but you know what would tick me off? Zeta-Jones winning in Best Supporting Actress, thanks to the Miramax marketing machine and the momentum of Chicago.

I don't think "Chicago" will pick up any of the acting awards. It's not really an actor's movie. "The Hours" is probably the best example of an actor's movie this year, and that's why I wouldn't be surprised to see it take the three acting awards it's up for. It's a movie that works only because of its performances. Chicago was lively and had dancing and music and whatnot that diminishes the "acting" required.

The other films I've seen that were actor's movies were "About Schmidt" and "Far From Heaven" so I consider those to be the real competition in acting. "Adaptation" also had some great, bizarre, complex roles, but I think they may be overshadowed by the movie's insane script. I'd say Nick Cage would have a shot, but not against Nicholson and Day-Lewis.

> Harvey Weinstein, head honcho at Miramax, is a marketing genius. Although Oscar campaigning dates back to the 1920s, Miramax is pretty much singularly responsible for raising the bar on Oscar campaigns, starting back in 1998. Weinstein has his name attached to four of the five Best Picture nominees. The fifth, The Pianist, is probably the least likely to win it.

I say Pianist is more likely to win than TTT.

> Strange omissions: About Schmidt, from Adapted Screenplay.

Yeah, I really don't get this at all. I'm not a huge "Schmidt" fan, but the movie works because of Nicholson and because of the script. Weird that it was overlooked. As much as I enjoyed "About a Boy" I'm not sure it's screenplay was superior to "Scmidt's." Weird. Actually, "Chicago's" isn't that great, either, but it sort of rode the wave.

Of course, the big glaring error is "Minority Report" getting shafted in this category. I have some quibbles with the adaptation, but it was still the most intelligent sci-fi film since "Dark City" and one of the more clever scripts of the year. I know movies with a lot of action in them tend to get overlooked for writing, but the chase scene with Cruise and the precog in the mall didn't just come from Spielberg's head on the set. Shame.

> But Treasure Planet *bombed* at the box office, plain and simple.

And it was pretty universally panned. I haven't seen it, but that's because only eight people did, and as near as I can tell seven of them hated it. Bah. This category is quickly becoming stupid. Last year "Final Fantasy" and "Waking Life" got ignored for "Jimmy Neutron." At least "Spirited Away" got nominated, but it seems that so long as your animated feature is clearly for children, it seems to get an automatic nomination. This is ridiculous.

> Another strange inclusion: Spiderman DOES NOT DESERVE BEST VISUAL EFFECTS. Yeah, Spidey webslinging his way through Manhattan looks good, but the vast majority of the CGI in that movie was so unconvincing as to break the suspension of disbelief.

Why was this nominated instead of "Minority Report?"

Weirdest category: Best Makeup, which has only two nominees: "Frida" and "The Time Machine." What the hell? What about "Two Towers?" Or "Adaptation" for the way Nick Cage and Chris Cooper completely altered their appearances? Even "Gangs of New York" would make sense here. "The Time Machine?!" HUH?

> Although Chicago seems a clear front-runner, and better poised for a sweep than any other film, my hope is that the wealth of diverse nominees gridlock, and the awards are nicely split. This year feels like 2000's race, which saw Gladiator, Crouching Tiger, and Traffic all taking away decently-sized chunks of glory. I hope that happens this year, if only because a close race deserves a close finish.

If you'll remember, last year was also pretty well split up, too. I'm really rooting against "Chicago" for Best Picture, but that may be because I'm still bitter over "Moulin Rouge," the best film of the past several years, getting completely ignored. On the upshot, no possible win this year can be as awful as "Gladiator" winning in 2000.

I think the safe money's on "Chicago" for Picture, but I think Scorcese may take Director. I'm really not sure.

Stephen