Never Smart

Another late entry!  I set my alarm for 0500, it went off, I turned it off, and went back to bed.  Woke up a little after 0700.  This is how it goes.
The Devil's Food cake will be baked this morning.  Yum.  I'm also going to be making eggrolls for dinner.  I'll make a bunch and freeze some for later.
I also printed off my W-2.   All I need now is the one I get from Social Security.  Hopefully this year will be like last year and I'll get bunches of cash back.  We also get the first of our 2 yearly bonus checks in late March.  Right now we are the #1 store in the district.  If that holds, that check will be almost as tasty as the cake I'm baking.  If the $$$ stars align, I might invest in a Fenix 6.
Oscar nominations are out.  For some reason I thought they were going to be announced tomorrow.  I was wrong.  There had been a time when I felt I had to request the day off, they were that important.  Not nearly so much anymore.  I saw "Joker" leads the pack with 11 nominations.  I really didn't like that movie.  However, because of those 11 nominations viewership of this year's Oscars will be up.  A lot of people went to see "Joker" and liked it... let me paraphrase myself... I thought it stank.  I had no sympathy for the main character what so ever.
I am going to see "1917" tomorrow night.  It got 10 nominations, including one for director Sam Mendes, he won for "American Beauty."  I didn't like that movie either.  Depressing as hell is what it was.  A funny thing about "1917," is that it didn't get an editing nomination...  That's because it was filmed without edits.

Remember how the Idiot Jerk was going to save coal mining jobs.  Well, he lied to all of those coal miners.  What else is new? Coal fueled power plants are shutting down fast.  What does that mean for miners?  Job loss.  He has lied to so many people and Republicans just can't believe they, themselves, are integral in keeping his lies alive.  No one ever said they were smart, selfish and greedy as hell, but never smart.

The Oscars, losing to political correctness

I saw that the Academy Awards are going to be more politically correct, no doubt because Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith decided to boycott the ceremony because there weren't enough black nominees.  This is funny, I think, especially after seeing Janet Hubert smacking Jada back, saying among other things, that if Will Smith wants to whine about not getting a nomination, he should do it himself.  Of course, if Will did complain he'd need to totally avoid using that silly accent he failed at in "Concussion."
And, if they're going to be politically correct, they need to be so across the board, which means not only Black nominees, but Latino / Hispanic as well.  In fact, there need to be more Latino / Hispanic nominees then Black nominees because there are more Latino / Hispanic people living in this country then there are Black people.  They are not only our number 2 minority, they are the fastest growing minority, in fact, they outnumber the 3rd largest minority group by 1.34%.

Race / Ethnicity	Number	Percentage of U.S. population
Americans	308,745,538	100.0 %
Non-Hispanic White	196,817,552	63.7 %
Non-Hispanic Black	37,685,848	12.2 %
Non-Hispanic Asian	14,465,124	4.7 %
Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native	2,247,098	0.7 %
Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	481,576	0.2 %
Non-Hispanic some other race	604,265	0.2 %
Non-Hispanic two or more races	5,966,481	1.9 %
Hispanic or Latino	50,477,594	16.4 %

So, if the Academy wants to embrace diversity, they need to embrace it fully, and not just with one particular ethnic group.  Or, maybe people just need to take a deep breath and a big step back and stop whining.  The Academy doesn't give nominations to good films, they give nominations to films that are outstanding.  There are hundreds of films that are good, and make money, and still don't get nominations.  And there are outstanding films that never get a nomination.  This is how life is, deal with it.

The Revenant has no money shot

I went to see The Revenant last night, as did quite a few other people; since it received 12 Oscar nominations the theater was packed.  Described as brutal, I have to say that the beginning was, as was the end... however, the 2 and a half hours in between was a lot of pretentious, artsy fartsy bullshit with lots of problems.
Problem one is time:  The bear attack - it's lush, it's green, there are leafy plants all over the place and ten minutes later it's snowing, and for the rest of the movie there is snow (deep snow) on the ground.
Problem two is location:  At one point a character says that something is about 13 miles away.  Now, I'm going to drop you down in a very snowy landscape without a map and see how close you get.
Problem three is what I call the serendipity of meetings:  In this vast, snowy wilderness, characters seem to be very lucky when it comes to meeting other characters in what are supposed to be random meetings.  They're not.  They're essential for moving this long, long story forward.
Problem four is predictability:  You know what's going to happen, and I'm not just talking about the revenge aspect.  At one point DiCaprio intervenes in another character's story line and you know exactly what's going to happen at the end of the movie.  People get shot and, sadly, you know they're going to get shot before they actually die, other wise the story falls apart.

And then there is DiCaprio, bearded and expressionless.  In a lot of his scenes he doesn't talk and, unfortunately, as they used to say back in the 60's, he doesn't emote very well. He has no money shot where he takes you heart and twists it into a knot.  His problem is you don't really care about him as a character, let alone a human being.

I did like Tom Hardy, who's nominated for a supporting Oscar, but is a lead actor in this film.  His running dialogue scenes are the only thing which really made this watchable.

An indicator of what the audience around me thought:  they were leaving their seats before the end credits started.  In fact, as soon as it faded to black, people started getting up. This was a mass exit from the theater, and in the long walk to the lobby I didn't hear one word of praise.  I did hear people saying "it was too long," or variations of those 4 words.  No one talked about the violence, the brutality, or the panoramic vistas because not one of those things gave the audience what they paid for: the money shot that makes it all worthwhile.

Gyllenhaal and the wrong parts

We have a local theater which plays films that are on their 2nd release,  so if you didn't get a chance to see something the first time it played in the area, you get a 2nd chance, and, since I have connections, I get in for free.  Anyway, my connection called yesterday and told me "Night Crawler" with Jake Gyllenhaal was playing for the next week and asked me if I'd like to go.  My response was "thanks, but no thanks."  I know there are a lot of people out there who would never turn down a free movie, no matter what was playing.  Not me.  I saw the trailer for this movie a while back and decided then and there it was not for me.  To be honest, old Jake creeped me out.

In spite of the blurbs on the poster the film is not considered "a classic," nor "a masterpiece."  You also have that catchy line beneath the title "if it bleeds, it leads,' which tells you exactly where this movie is going.  I suspect he did this film to show how "Oscar Worthy" an actor he is, because you know he really does want to win an Oscar.  In fact every role Jake Gyllenhaal has taken on in recent years seems to have only one goal, nabbing him one of those golden statues.  If he were to look at all of the Oscar winners, he'd see that strategy rarely works.  Later this year, if we want, we'll get to see him in "Southpaw," where he plays a boxer.  If Robert DiNero won for "Raging Bull," why shouldn't Jake win for "Southpaw?"

He needs to learn that it's not the part you play that wins you the award, but rather how well you play the part.

Producer's failure

There's a lot of finger pointing going on right now regarding the film "Selma," and its failure to garner more then one Oscar nomination.  Personally, I feel those fingers should be directed at the producers for bungling the timing of the release so terribly.  Last year saw 2 films with black casts receive multiple nominations, of course "The Butler" was released in the spring and "10 Years a Slave" in late August, which gave them months to generate good 'press.'  This was not the case with "Selma," which was released to 19 theaters on 12/16, expanding to 22 theaters for the first week in January, a time when its Box Office actually declined.  The Box Office did pick up on 1/9 when the film was released nationally, but by then most of the Academy voters had already sent in their nominations.  Another issue compounding the last release mistake was the fact that DVD's of the film were not sent to Academy voters ahead of time.  The producer's excuse was that the film was released too late for them to do that.  What were they thinking?

There was a time when many of the nominated films were released late in the year, mostly because the studios wanted to make sure they remained fresh in the voter's minds.  Then a little movie called "The Silence of the Lambs," which was released on Valentines day in 1991, went on to sweep the Grand Prix of Oscars (Actor, Actress, Director & Film).  It proved that memorable films, those which truly merit awards, are not easily forgotten.  And, of course, this doesn't mean films released late don't get nominated, look at "Into the Woods" and "Unbroken," however it does indicate that if you release late in the year, you need to go deep and wide into the nation.  Twenty two theaters isn't going to get you squat.  The movie industry waits for no one.  It is constantly moving forward, because even now there are people thinking of next year's awards.

Oscar, Eddie, and the Crappy Cadillac ads

Oscar nominations came out this morning and it didn't take long until the 'snub' word started making the rounds.  In fact this word gets bandied about so frequently most people fail to realize it's one of the most primary definitions of "sour grapes."  No individual should get a nomination because they're female, or Black, or Hispanic, to do so would mean bowing down to the god of Political Correctness, and that's a fail.  The awards are about quality, not about getting a nominations because you're a minority.  Believe me, a liberal Hollywood is far more fair then a conservative Hollywood, and a vast majority of the Academy voters are liberal.  I can't even imagine what the nominations would be like if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences were run by the GOP.
Anyway, if you want to see how the nominations stack up this should take you there.  Just be careful, be very, very careful, other wise you're going to be stuck watching a shitty Cadillac commercial.  When you get to the website only click on the 'nominee' button.  Should you want to watch a trailer for any of the nominated films be forewarned, you will have to watch a shitty Cadillac commercial before the trailer begins.
The Best Actor nominations are, I think, the most interesting simply because 3 of the actors are playing 'real life' people.  Historically, the Oscar has almost always gone to the actor or actress playing a 'real life' person, no matter how outstanding the other performances were.

Steve Carrell's DuPont was too wacko crazy in a creepy sort of way.  Benedict Cumberbatch's was too sympathetic.  Eddie Redmayne's Stephen Hawking is a survivor, besides, Mr. Hawking is probably going to be in the audience on the night of the awards (won't that give the tear ducts a squeeze?).  So, I suspect it'll be Eddie walking home with the gold.

Oscar nominations - no snubs just sour grapes

The Academy Award nominations were revealed yesterday morning and true to form, for me, I slept in and didn't check them out until yesterday afternoon.  Now, don't get me wrong, I like the Oscars, in fact it is the only award show I ever watch.  It's always interesting to see actually gets nominated.  A lot of people out there don't realize how much money is spent to get an invite to the party, so to speak.  Voting members of the Academy are hit with an avalanche of PR.  Some times it works, some times it doesn't, and when it doesn't one of the first words to be spoken with bitter chagrin is 'snub.'  Every year we hear this whine from stupid people who don't know the definition of the word.  What they really should be saying is "I'm a bad sport and I'm pissed."

Webster defines 'snub' as "to treat with disdain or contempt especially by ignoring."  Notice, the emphasis is on either 'disdain' or 'contempt,' not 'ignore.'  If you think the voting members of the Academy think Tom Hanks is contemptible and that's why they didn't nominate him you've got your head up your ass.   Hollywood loves Tom Hanks, most of his films tend to make money.  They don't look at him disdainfully, they think he's a nice guy.  The simple truth is when the votes were tallied to nominate Best Actors, five other people had more votes then he.  There's no snub there.

The sad truth is most people don't know who the nomination process works.  Here it is simplified:  Actors nominate actors, writers nominate writers, directors nominate directors, and so on and so forth.  Every body gets to vote for the Best Film nomination.  There are a lot of names, the one actors is several pages long.  Everyone who is eligible is on that ballot, even Johnny Depp.  That's right, if you were a voting member of the Academy and you wanted to, you could give Johnny a vote in the Best Actor category for his stunning performance in "The Lone Ranger."  You can be he gave himself a vote.

So when the Nominations are revealed and you hear some one claim to have been snubbed, or people whine that a certain film was snubbed, you have to remember this nothing more then shitty sour grapes.  Remember the shit storm of sour grapes Leonardo Di Caprio threw when he didn't get a nomination for Titanic?  He was so upset at not getting nominated he publicly announced he wasn't going to be attending the ceremony.  Like... did he think they really cared?

Oscar Nominations: beating the hell out of snub

So, the Oscar nominations came out yesterday and once again there are a slew of complaints of potential nominees being either overlooked or snubbed.  I always have to laugh at these since most of the whiners simply have problem dealing with the number issues.  There are only so many votes to go around.  Just because your favorite doesn't get enough votes to receive a nomination doesn't mean he was snubbed.  To snub someone to to purposefully stop that person in his tracks because you don't like that person.  By any other name, snubbing is just being rude, or possibly hateful, or maybe viciously angry.  "Lincoln" received twelve nominations, had it only received eleven, with no nod to Spielberg, that would have to be considered a snub.  People need to understand the Academy nominates ten films but only five directors so that means five directors are going to get the shitty end of the stick.  Are they being snubbed?  Hell no, they just got less votes then the five who were nominated.  The truth is people don't want to be considered losers so rather then admit to that they take a bat and beat the hell out of the 'snub.'

One of the biggest and loudest whiners of all time was Leonardo Di Caprio when he failed to get a nomination for "Titanic."  His problem was he believed his own press, that all those millions of people going to see the film did so because of the love story.  This is pure horse shit.  The world loves disasters and Hollywood understands this quite well; they've been making mega bucks off of them for years.  I went to see "Titanic" with a date and I can tell you, walking out of the theater afterwards, we were not having a heart to heart conversation about the love story.  Hell no, we were talking about how neat it was to watch that ship sink.  Of course no one would ever want to admit that, so the love story became the hook.  Watch the movie again and you'll realize how wooden Di Caprio's performance really is.  He didn't get a nomination because the real star of the movie was the Titanic itself, not him.

Clint Eastwood complained that he'd been hobbited by Peter Jackson's win for "Return of the King."  Only a man who talks to chairs would have failed to realize Jackson got the Oscar for directing a 17 hour (if you count the extended version) magnum opus.  Still, for Eastwood it was a snub.  

Last year Meryl Streep won Best Actress and a lot of "people" thought Viola Davis had been snubbed. This is horse shit, too.  These "people" evidently don't know their Oscar History.  Any actor who gives a good performance playing a real person, whether living or dead, is an odds on favorite to have their name called on Oscar Night.  So, if you're an nominated actor up against a Margaret Thatcher or a Truman Capote you might as well go and enjoy the evening for what it is and remember, you're not being snubbed.

My predictions for Oscar night?  Lincoln will get eight, Les Miz will get three and The Avengers will win what ever it's nominated for because it made so much money.