Call the doctor, 'cause my jaw hit the floor . . .

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has always had a fiercely independent streak. At the end of the day, it doesn't always matter what success a film's had at the Guild awards or at the Golden Globes. If the Academy likes it, it's in. If not, too bad.

I actually considered getting up to see the nominations this morning. Then, I saw that they were going to be at 5:30 AM. Like that's going to happen. Besides, I don't have cable, so that ruled it out anyway.

The nominations have a TON of things missing, and I'm really surprised that they snubbed some of the films and performances that they did. Here we go . . .

• Not having Clint Eastwood in the Best Actor category is a travesty. He could have WON this award for his performance in Gran Torino. I have never seen him better, and to see him snubbed was not something that I expected, especially considering the fact that he's usually an Academy favorite.


• The Dark Knight gets shut out in the Best Picture race, while The Reader gets in? I have mixed feelings about this, as I like both films. I can take solace in the fact that I called The Reader as my #1 dark horse for the #5 slot. Still, while it's not the single greatest movie made this decade, as some would have you believe, I really thought that the Academy would recognize The Dark Knight.


• What might actually be the biggest surprise is NO SALLY HAWKINS in the Best Actress category!!!!!! She's gotten so much acclaim for her performance in Happy-Go-Lucky, and I think it's ridiculous to think that she missed out on this. I thought with her Globe win that she'd be in for sure, and I even thought that she'd be a major contender.


• Kate Winslet finally ended up in the right category for The Reader, but it's still surprising. That category (Best Actress) is going to be a slugfest this year. In the end, I'm really ok with her not having been nominated for Revolutionary Road, as she gave a better performance in The Reader, which was a MUCH better film.


• Michael Shannon squeeked in in the Supporting Actor category for his role in Revolutionary Road but Leonardo DiCaprio gets shut out in the Best Actor category? I don't get it. Shannon was annoying, gimmicky, and overstated, while DiCaprio created a very complex character. He deserved better.


• No Vicky Cristina Barcelona in the Best Original Screenplay category? You think Woody Allen just MIGHT have deserved the slot that went to WALL-E?


• No Bruce Springsteen in the Best Original Song category? The Academy can nominate up to 5 songs, and they only come up with 3? Unbelievable.


• Slumdog Millionaire gets 10 nominations. 10? Really? You'll probably hear a lot more from me in the future on this, but, while it's a really good film, I don't think all this hoopla is entirely warranted.

Stay tuned to the site over the next several weeks. We'll keep you posted on any breaking developments.

Oh, I've got a light . . .

Clint Eastwood is a god among men, man among boys, and, at 78, could still kick just about anyone's butt in 10 seconds flat. Ask most movie buffs who holds the title of greatest living American filmmaker, and most would pick Martin Scorsese. Since the passing of Robert Altman, it's hard to argue with that choice. However, I think Clint's on the shortlist, and, furthermore, might just be knocking on the door.

For the first time since 2004's Million Dollar Baby, Clint found a project he believed in enough to star in it. Previously, he'd said that he was done with acting and even turned down the lead in In the Valley of Elah, a role that Paul Haggis had written especially for him. (not to worry, Haggis had one heck of a backup plan) I went into Gran Torino with mid-level expectations, and came out blown away.

Clint is a rare breed of filmmaker and one that I think deserves to be considered an auteur. This distinction is one that is normally afforded a filmmaker with a well-defined visual and thematic style whose films are clearly recognizable as "theirs." That said, Clint Eastwood is probably not the first person who comes to mind when thinking about who is or isn't an auteur. From a visual standpoint, Clint's films are very naturalistic. I get the feeling that he could care less about impressing the audience with a nifty shot or camera trick. Instead, his focus is always on serving the story, which, I'd argue, is exactly where it should be. It's on these grounds that I really feel that he deserves the "auteur" label. In most cases, his films are small in scope in that they deal with only a few characters who are usually ordinary people. The real riches are in the emotional landscape he chooses to explore. I challenge you to find a Clint Eastwood film that doesn't feel like a Clint Eastwood film.

Gran Torino is no exception. I went into the film not expecting a great movie, and was completely surprised. I'd been interested in seeing it since seeing the first trailer, but felt that the material seemed formulaic and might come across on the corny side. My initial assumptions have some grounds, but, in large part, Gran Torino's strengths wipe out its weaknesses.

The film's single greatest strength is the performance of Clint Eastwood. I think he deserves serious consideration for an Academy Award nomination. It's one of the finer performances I've ever seen him give and one of the year's best. One of the things I like most about the film is the way it doesn't sugarcoat Walt Kowalski, the main character. He's a racist, pure and simple, and, to be honest, isn't a big fan of a lot of white folks either. It's refreshing to find a character like Walt who doesn't get sanitized and made politically correct. Then, when his perspective starts to shift, the changes are natural and feel as though they've been earned. This is unique, because a lot of films err in this area by trying for certain types of character development without building the character enough to sustain those changes. As a result, the changes feel false and clumsily tacked on. A lot of filmmakers would do well to watch this film and take notes . . .

Another of Clint's trademarks comes into play in Gran Torino to great effect: the sucker punch. He's a master of lulling the viewer into thinking that he/she's watching a certain type of film, creating a false sense of security, and then blindsiding him/her with a sudden shift in tone and thematic content. I wouldn't spoil it for the world, but there's a moment in Gran Torino that will almost take your breath away. It's perfectly set up by the film's humor, one of its unexpected strengths. I spent the first hour and a half laughing and enjoying myself (and enjoying my friend's reactions to Walt's behavior. Priceless.) and then after that moment occurs, I knew I wasn't in Kansas anymore and the stakes had just gotten monumentally higher.

As most people go through life, they mark different time periods by certain occasions. I've almost always marked my years by movies and I'd have to say that Clint Eastwood's made for some oustanding moments in my cinematic life. With Letters From Iwo Jima, I knew I'd seen one of the greatest films about war that I'd ever seen. With Million Dollar Baby, I knew my life had been changed by one of the greatest films I'd ever seen. Gran Torino doesn't quite get as high up, but I wouldn't worry, 'cause it gets a distinction of its own. It's just one of the year's best films.