While I don't completely grasp what some of the technical award winners do exactly, I like having them included. They often times provide some of the best acceptance speeches in that they come off as far more genuine and they aren't thanking their agents, lawyers, accountants, etc.

Yes but he gives a shout out to the Academy Awards in his best known screen performance...

Hedley Lamarr: Men, you are about to embark on a great crusade to stamp out runaway decency in the west. Now you men will only be risking your lives, whilst I will be risking an almost certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

Tell me that wouldn't be a perfect sound bite at the Oscars!

RIP Harvey!

I can understand if you don't like the genre, so I'm not really going to say anything about the Batman movies other than that I disagree. But your comment on Penn as Milk I find utterly absurd. I haven't seen The Wrestler but from what I hear Mickey Rourke essentially plays himself. If it wasn't for his destroying his career I bet he either wouldn't have taken the role or wouldn't have been nominated for it.

I think Hollywood is desperate for a James Dean-esque type star and Ledger fits the bill. Perhaps my comment about Penn is a bit harsh, but Milk was just not a very memorable role or movie, in my opinion. Rourke has never been away from the movies. He is just not an actor that is celebrity fodder, like Pitt and Cruise. Rourke is an underrated actor that played Randy Ram quite well. Just because an actor is out in the public does not make them a good actor. If you ask me, I think actors like Pitt, Jolie, Cruise, etc. have ruined their careers because they have become these larger than life portraits and it is difficult to mesh them into a character.

Rourke certainly all but vanished from mainstream movies for at least a decade. To call him underrated after he's been feted nonstop for this role in what is at its core a corny, familiar "portrait of a loser" film for the last 2 months is hilarious.

Hollywood is not desperate for anything re Ledger. He's dead. The amount of revenue they can squeeze out of his corpse is limited.

Ditto that.

no, it's messy in different ways each time! The "superman" Planet Krypton tribunal of acting presenters!

All I am really saying is the Academy is no longer the "Big prize". It is, but it isn't. If I was an actor, I would rather have Gary Oldman, Jeremy Irons, Paul Newman, Mickey Rourke, etc...acting chops than Pitts, "My claim to fame is being the married/baby daddy to a strange Mother Teresa quasi actor or a crazed scientologist who marries a fomer teen star.

Be real, give me a good movie that is based on good acting and not celebrity fodder.

Have you seen Diner?, Have you seen Kalifornia?, Have you seen Cat On A Hot Tin Roof?, Have you seen Before Sunrise and Before Sunset?, Have you seen Contact? Have you seen Requiem for Dream?

I could list many movies that are not based on celebrity fodder. I mean give me a break, Robert Downey Jr. was nominated this year?

I dare anyone to defend that nomination!

Brad Pitt, in the right role, is a fine actor (eg, Fight Club).

I've seen Angelina Jolie in exactly one film. It's easy to ignore anyone you wish to, sort of the way Hollywood treats every other country's cinema as a ghetto, shunted off as a sideshow.

I may be the only gay person who hasn't seen Milk, but I do intend to check it out soon. I'm just tired of biopics, and tired of great actors turning into mimics to win Oscars. That said, I've heard Penn is very good in the role. Rourke was extraordinary, however, in The Wrestler. That was acting at the highest level. I agree about Ledger. Very sorry he passed away, but does that performance merit an Oscar? Really? Winslet finally received her due, though was this her best performance? I guess the Academy couldn't let her go another nomination without some sort of acknowledgment. I also agree about Penelope Cruz, and liked her in Volver. I couldn't bring myself to see this new Woody Allen film, though. Is it any good?

Nope...maybe the second. I haven't seen it either.

Me too. I am waiting for it to come out on video. But will see it.

Finally saw Slumdog Millionaire. Was a very good movie- but Oscar worthy- ehhhh....

I read the book recently while on vacation and flying. The book was terrific.

oh, SM was definitely "OSCAR-WORTHY."

ie, crap.

I'll eventually see it. The bf really has no interest in seeing it. The only reason for that is becuz, as I mentioned some time ago, he lived thru the Milk era in SF as young gay man. When he found out that the film ends w/ his assassination--& doesn't cover the aftermath of the trial--he felt that the film is only telling some of what truly happened. He's passionate about the community's outrage after the verdicts. & I'm sure Van Sant looked @ the possibility of adding that slant, & more time to the film, but chose against it @ the end. I'm guessing, because I haven't seen it, that Van Sant wanted the film to simply focus on his life. It could have also been that the studio execs decided that the film would "work" better w/out the aftermath. Perhaps someone here knows the reason why. Honestly, based on others post here, I'd rather see The Times of Harvey Milk documentary. Actually, I just found it in its full-length on Hulu.

Edit to add:

Watched it. Loved it! Wow, powerful! Btw, the bf would walk in every now & then, reminisce, & fill me in w/ his personal account (ie, he was @ that march, heard that speech, his friends had to almost physically restrain him from going out & participating in the riots, etc).