cool Giamatti trvia: his father was Bart Giamatti, former Yale President, and the MLB Commisioner that banned Pete Rose.
For those of you who have seen Sideways, a good chunk of it was filmed in my hometown of Lompoc CA, and in the surrounding wine country.
In My Opinion. DanHiggsBeard, That is some cool trivia. I remember being shocked when I read that a couple of years ago. I've always been a huge fan of Giamatti, ever since Safe Men. Seems like a great guy.
Best Motion Picture of the Year - Aviator Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role - Jamie Foxx for Ray
Collateral was okay. It was a little too gimmicky for my taste. What is interesting, though, is that I read somewhere that Tom Cruise originally signed up for the movie because he thought he could get an oscar for doing this kind of character. But Foxx ends up getting it instead.. that must suck for cruise.
I think that Lord of the Rings should win again, for reminding the audiences just how badly the movies sucked this year! But seriously folks, Giamatti's performance in Sideways was awesome, and how he didn't even get nominated leaves me flabbergasted. BTW, was he nominated for American Splendor?
I have not seen Million Dollar Baby so I'll exclude all of it's nominations from my predictions. Best Picture: THE AVIATOR (Miramax) - Best film of 2004 hands down. Achievement in Directing: Martin Scorsese for THE AVIATOR (Miramax) - Martin Scorsese is the master and nobody can compare to him as a director. Best Actor in a Leading Role: Jamie Foxx for RAY (Universal Pictures) Foxx is the front runner and should win best actor. Best Supporting Actor: Thomas Haden Church for SIDEWAYS (Fox Searchlight) Not really too impressed with anyone from this category. Best Actress in a Leading Role: only saw ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett for THE AVIATOR (Miramax) Her Catherine Hepburn was scary.
Jamie Foxx absolutely deserved both nominations, although he had more screen time than Tom Cruise in "Collateral"; but often it's not the screen time but the perception of which role carries more weight. Paul Giamatti got prison-raped. Screwed again after no nomination for "American Splendor." Maybe the Academy doesn't think it's tough to play schlubs? Jamie Foxx for "Ray," Hillary Swank for "Million Dollar Baby," Virgina Madsen and Thomas Haden Church for "Sideways," Scorcese or Eastwood for director, "The Aviator" or "Million Dollar Baby" for Picture.
ugh, the aviator with the most nominations? seems like the classic borefest that critics just love. now not that it wasn't well made or that i hated it (really like the hearings) but the first our and a half or so (especially the hepburn part) was downright boring. i remember when it ended (it was long) someone in the audience raised their hands and yelled "YES!" and almost the whole theater laughed because you could sense everyone felt the same way. now i suppose someone will say that's just your typical dumbed down audience or something silly like that but it certainly didn't blow me away to the tune of 11 nominations.
I still havent seen it yet but am not particulary suprise that it could be boring. While i really like some of his films, Scorsese has made a lot of boring movies that critics seem to love. IMO The prime example being Raging Bull.
completely agree and the movie itself should have got a nomination but for me Garden State is the film that completely got robbed, maybe not enough people saw it, the Zach Braff writing, directing and starring it for me was at least the equal of the Damon/Affleck effort with Good Will Hunting
