> I think it's amazing to note that these movies are being nominated *at all.*

You have a point there. And, true, The Two Towers was a weaker movie than Fellowship. On a tangent, I disagree that the *book* was the weakest (for the books, Fellowship is my least favorite -- an overlong first half, and an overlong stay at Rivendell [coupled with badly paced storytelling] don't leave much), but my favorite stuff in the book is all that follows Faramir, which isn't *in* the movie.

> I don't think "Chicago" will pick up any of the acting awards. It's not really an actor's movie.

Nonetheless, the push for Zeta-Jones is a hard one. If we can corrolate Chicago to Moulin Rouge times two in the minds of Academy voters, well, times two would have been enough to get Nicole Kidman an Oscar last year.

My concern is that Julianne Moore and Nicole Kidman will split the arty drama vote, and Chicago momentum will catch Zeta-Jones up in the wake. Hey, it worked for Chicago's screenplay nomination.

> Of course, the big glaring error is "Minority Report" getting shafted in this category.

Complaints about Minority Report's final act (IMHO misplaced) are prevalent enough that perhaps this killed its chances. Then again, more likely it was just glossed over because it was a science fiction blockbuster.

> [Best Animated Feature] is quickly becoming stupid.

Yeah. I *think* it's better than not having it at all, just because only Beauty and the Beast has *ever* had a good shot at any Oscars (outside the music categories), and now at least we can have something flawed instead of absent. I think the problem is more with America's mindset toward animation than the category itself. There is a disturbing mindset that animation is only ever for kids. For a while I was hoping that the influx of anime was going to dispel that myth, but, alas, the particular anime we import is mostly the silly kid stuff, which is even *more* disconnected from American adult audiences than the all-ages work of Disney and DreamWorks. Films like Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away get lost in the chaff.

> Weirdest category: Best Makeup, which has only two nominees: "Frida" and "The Time Machine." What the hell?

Yeah! I was going to mention this in my post but forgot. THAT IS WEIRD. Easily the most bizarre pair of nominations ever. The Two Towers should have had this one in the bag. Was there ANY make-up, other than standard movie stuff, in Frida? And was The Time Machine's nomination in keeping with the tradition of Best = Most Conspicuous?

Maybe the Academy thinks Peter Jackson hired actual hobbits and Uruk-Hai and did not require the use of make-up.

> Or "Adaptation" for the way Nick Cage and Chris Cooper completely altered their appearances?

My understanding about Cage's work in Adaptation is that there *wasn't* really much make-up to effect changes, and it was pretty much all Cage's acting that distinguished his two roles. True, or am I missing something?

> If you'll remember, last year was also pretty well split up, too.

True; I guess I don't think of it as a tight race because the Best Picture winner seemed likely from the start. Maybe that actually makes last year a closer match to this year: a likely mixed race, but with a clear front-runner to the top prize.

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

This is my bet, at least for now.