Don`t you think that "Across the Universe" could be nominated for Cinematography and Makeup?

Why do you keep asking that?

I guess if I did, I would have them in the charts. But I actually think cinematography is more likely than make-up. It is a gorgeoous film, but I don't think it's gonna fly.

I think what irks most people (including me) about your NCFOM prediction is that neither you nor Tom O'Neil, nor anyone else has come up with a rational explanation for your prediction of a snub. It has the prehype buzz, an overdue filmmaker (two of them in fact), and nearly UNIVERSAL critical praise. The curveball of an ending doesn't seem to stop an incredible majority of reviewers from liking it just fine. According to rottentomatoes, the ratio of good reviews to bad are 24 to 1. You are a 4 percenter Kris.

So until there is some explanation, other than the supposedly unsatisfying ending, we have nothing else to go on. We have to assume you left NCFOM out because you didn't like the film.

I'm not saying you're an idealogue who pushes his favorite films with no regard for reality. We all know "Jesse James" and "Diving Bell" would be on your BP list in that case. However, I think your prejudice against the film has led you out onto a spindly little limb that will splinter once the globe and guild nominations come out.

I just saw "No Country for Old Men" this weekend on a trip to Chicago. Man, you weren't kidding about the weak ending. I haven't read other reviews of the movie, but is anyone comparing it to the first "Terminator" movie? The basic set-up seems very similar (killer with unearthly powers/no moral qualms goes about methodically trying to find the person he must terminate, using the clueless mother as a source of information on how to track the person down). I found Javier Bardem's character more annoying than anything. At least with Arnold in "Terminator" I understood why he was indestructable and why the mere earthlings kept underestimating him. I don't understand why everyone gives Javier Bardem's character so many opportunities for mayhem. This is Texas, for God's sake. Does no one else know how to use a gun?

I kept asking that because you didn't answer me.
Do I bother?

I'm saying it might be better to send an email, Daho, than constantly posting on entries that don't really address the situation.

Anyway, limey, your thesis is simply false and says more about you than it does about me. I loved No Country until the last act. Loved it. The performances are staggering across the board. But no, just because I didn't like the path it eventually took (an issue I have taken with McCarthy more than the Coens - there is no arguing against their craft, here) doesn't mean I translate that into Oscar predictions.

You'd do well to simply weed out that reasoning. I don't do that, whether you want to believe it or not.

As for a rational explanation, you need look no further than the fact that the big Academy screenin over the weekend had walkouts and people were getting up shaking their heads at the end, little to no applause over the credits, etc. I reported this at Variety, so yeah, I've offered a rational explanation.

Things can change, Charlie and Sweeney could suck completely freeing up two spots, etc., etc. But for now, I don't think No Country can make it there because it's leaving them cold.

Hopefully those who get up in arms about something as meaningless as OSCAR PREDICTIONS can soon settle down about it.

And FYI, the Globes have marginalized themselves in recent years. A nod there means nothing for Oscar (History of Violence). And indeed, the guilds will go for No Country in big ways, but that doesn't always translate to Oscar either (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, United 93, Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation -- all guild faves that missed out on Best Pic). So when the awards season pushed forward, No Country will look more and more like a contender. But that can be, and has been, an illusion.

FYI, Pete Hammond reported today on the same screening witht he following:

"As mentioned here last week, we hotly anticipated academy reaction to Saturday afternoon's "official" screening of "No Country for Old Men." About 400 or so turned up (a good crowd) and there was nice applause at the end for the director, writing and acting credits (Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin in particular), if not the picture itself.

One member told us she loved it and thought it was great filmmaking, while another had a mixed reaction and said he is not so sure it will make Oscar's top five."

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/columnists/notesonaseason/env-hammond-notes-20nov20,0,6508027.column?page=3

He was told there was "nice applause," I was told "very little applause." These things are clearly subjective, but an Academy member saying she doesn't think the film will make the final five flies in the face of all this universl acceptance that the film is IN, does it not?

And by the way, Pete's not predicting the film either:

http://webapp1.latimes.com/BuzzMeter/bmBreakdown.aspx#cat1530

I'm not up in arms, I just wanted to know your resoning. I've heard it, and I still think it's flawed.

Charlie Wilson's War has a HORRID trailer, and it looks like lazy sloppy work from each of the actors. I'll have to see more before I put it near my top 5 predictions.

Sweeney Todd looks great, but Tim Burton has had several oscar teases before (remeber Big Fish) and while I predict it will be nominated, I'm still a bit shaky on its chances.

And Juno... don't even get me started. Just because Little Miss Sunshine was the little comedy that could last year doesn't mean that there's a spot reserved for another "little comedy that could" this year. LMS gathered word of mouth buzz for MONTHS and scored a nomination mostly due to an agressive DVD screener campaign. Juno isn't being released until mid-December. Too little too late, even if it's good enough to capture the zeitgeist.

I think you're forgetting a few things here.

One: It doesn't matter how many people hate a movie, it only matters how many people LOVE a movie. What was the most hated nominee of the past few years? Crash, hands down. Then why did it win? Because people LOVED that movie as well.

The Oscars use a preferential ballot right? So let's say 55% of Oscar voters HATED the movie. Never want to see it again, couldn't stand it. BUT also consider that 25% of the people who watched the film LOVED it. I think, considering the widespread favorable reviews (96% on RT) that the hate number is astronomical, and given the weighted reviews (91 average on metacritic) the love numbers are a gross underestimation, but let's just hypothesize that is the case. That's still 1/4 of the voters who are going to put NCFOM at the #1 spot, which all but guarantees a nomination.

Two: Pre awards buzz matters... alot.

NCFOM has been on people's radars since Cannes. Now it's been released to resounding acclaim and will probably make a nice profit.

It's visible and expected. Some movies are nominated for that reason alone (Finding Neverland), but No Country has way more than that going for it, which I know you know. A History of Violence, Mullholland Dr., and trillions of other films that doubters have compared NCFOM to didn't have a quarter of the buzz as the Coen's film

So... the question is: Can the Oscars have a ceremony where they IGNORE No Country? Not a chance. The Academy has no problem snubbing invisible masterpieces (like Children of Men) but if they leave out one that is being loudly proclaimed my mainstream critics as a modern classic, then there's no way in hell they leave it out.

THREE: No Country is a film that grows on you.

If you had watched me get up from my seat, you would have seen me shake my head. You might have heard me complain about being confused at the final trajectory. But the thing is, I kept thinking about the film as I got on the metro to go home.

It was 30 minute ride home. I thought about the ending. I thought about the ending I wanted it to have. I thought about why I wanted it to end that way. I thought about how different a movie it would have been.

And by the end of the ride home, i concluded that I was wrong and McCarthy and the Coens were right. If there was a traditional thriller ending, or even a heroic/tragic/ironic showdown that it would have cheapened the movie down to the level that morons like Frank Lee have already placed it. (sorry dude, if you wish NCFOM was more like The Terminator then you're a freakin' moron) And I decided that this was one of the best films I've seen in a long time BECAUSE of the ending. And the film is even better upon a second viewing.

Point being: Initial reactions are not always reliable.

I doubt this will change your mind, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Keep in mind the words of Sasha Stone: Nobody knows anything.

Those are actually the words of William Goldman, used ad nauseam by Sasha. But, good points all around. We'll have to wait and see.