Boy, what a disappointing list this year. I agree with a lot of them, but for the most part it seems that once again the academy is giving nods to films that they are expected to give nods to and ignoring 2005's many real achievments.

What does everybody else think?

I think they suck big time. Brokeback Mountain will win big and not because its a good movie. George Cloony will win because he is a Bush basher and King Kong will get a award for art direction or something.

How could they not give King Kong a best movie nomination?
Its no wonder Hollywood is not doing so well when they keep coming out with bad movies.

I did see Murderball was nominated.

Which films would you rather have seen nominated?

I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain yet, but everyone I know who has seen it says it's the best 2005 movie they've seen. Of the other best picture nominees, I've seen Munich and Crash. I agree with Munich, despite the fact that it had some minor problems in the last act. I liked Crash a lot, though I found it extremely manipulative.

I can't think of any other 2005 movie I've seen that should be nominated IMO. Maybe King Kong: it was great overall, but had so many problems, so much in it that was horribly stupid. I hope it teaches Peter Jackson not to fall too much in love with his special FX and remember that story drives a movie, not a 20-minutes dinosaur stampede scene involving minor characters. And maybe Batman... though it also had major problems.

I'm just glad to see Cashback nominated for best short. One of the best short movies I've ever seen. If you can see it, go for it. Georges Lucas must be pissed. His latest Star Wars isn't even nominated for Visual Effects.

It's tough because I see most movies on DVD, and I'm still catching up with 2004 releases.

I've seen Munich and Crash. I really thought Crash was overrated. Okay movie, but too melodramatic. Only a couple of strong scenes.
Munich really deserves one, although I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, or some of the other nominated movies, so I can't say Munich is better then them, but a very powerful movie anyhow.

I think they suck big time. Brokeback Mountain will win big and not because its a good movie. George Cloony will win because he is a Bush basher and King Kong will get a award for art direction or something.

How could they not give King Kong a best movie nomination?
Its no wonder Hollywood is not doing so well when they keep coming out with bad movies.

I did see Murderball was nominated.

I guess when you think about it,,,there wasn't much worth seeing.

"Brokeback Mountain" is worth seeing. Its strength is in a core of very heartfelt scenes that are tied together in a very laconic fashion. That and two excellent performances by Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams (really, everyone in that movie is good). I think it has received so much acclaim this year because it is a touchstone film. Similarly, "In the Heat of the Night" was a touchstone film for race relations.

I'm sad that "Syriana" was left off but I can figure it was because it was a movie about how the major characters are actually minor characters and the conflict is almost unknowable. Also, the voters probably thought they saw the same thing before and it was called "Traffic".

I have a sense that if Ang Lee wins for Best Director it will be because the Academy feels guilty for giving the Oscar to Soderbergh the year Lee should have won for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". This is not to say that his direction in "Brokeback" isn't good, it is, just not the overt stylish direction that begs for recognition. For that, I expected David Cronenberg to receive a nod for "History of Violence". His ommision on a list that still includes the obligatory Spielberg nomination is the most glaring. (At least there was a "History" nod for Adapted Screenplay) I was glad to see Bennet Miller get his first nod for "Capote". He really had a difficult job with "Capote".

The nomination for best actor is between Hoffman and Ledger. Hoffman is filling a bigger than life character while Ledger is more down to earth. If I was a cynical Academy watcher I would say that Hoffman would get it because he is playing such a character and has worked so hard to fill the real Capote's shoes and also that Ledger has a great future ahead of him. Hoffman may never get another opportunity to be Best Actor. But myself, I know no performance from film that shook me more than the scene where Ledger's Ennis is so destroyed by saying goodbye to his lover at the end of the summer that he collapses in an alley and only can beat the wall in frustration and self-hatred and loss.

I unfortunately only saw one performance in the Best Actress category. All I can say is that Kiera Knightely belongs among the nominations. "Pride and Prejudice" with better marketing and in any other year woud have been up there. It was a beautiful, lively film.

I'm happy that William Hurt received recognition for his supporting role in "History of Violence". He was so quirky and awesome. Amy Adams was really wonderful in "Junebug". Actually I would recommend everyone rent that this weekend. A really funny, weird movie. Did anyone know she was an English actor? Catharine Keener was the only heart in "Capote" - and she was good - but I didn't feel her character had a major part to play in that film.

"Paradise Now" in the best Foreign Picture category is a very special movie and will rate higher than most movies on my best of 2005 list. It is a much better movie than "Munich" which skirts the same subject matter. Why is "2046" not anywhere on the noms? The answer is simple. It was released very poorly and the Wong Kar Wei did himself no service by coming to festivals with an unfinished product. That said, I wish it was at least recognized somewhere.

What happened to Walk The Line for best movie?

I go for Hoffman for best actor

Are we not forgetting Jessica Simpson for best actress with a nice pair of cut off jeans?

Hollywood!!!

I would have given "Broken Flowers" a nod for original screenplay. It's probably just my opinion as a writer but I find it fascinating to watch a story told through character emotions and subtext.

The film "Bee Season" was remarkable IMO - mostly because it is an intense and unsuspected film.

I loved the cinematography in Jarhead, and coming from such a disjointed book it was a tight story. And Peter Saarsgard held his own as a supporting actor.

Lord of War also had amazing cinematography and an awesome screenplay; some of the best monologues I've heard this century.

I rented "Crash" last night and I was underwhelmed.

A handful of good performances knitted together in a series of superficial preachy stories. Happenstance I can handle, even an urban fairytale. But I couldn't help but feel that if Haggis had limited himself to around three storylines he would have been able to put more depth into those instead of skipping around to seemingly cover every single racial division in L.A. I don't live in L.A. so I have no idea how scary or divisive that city is but it was too much to see all that come together in one movie. To me it felt about as real as "24", which is fine, but I don't see "24" winning any Academy Awards.

Crash-- pissed me off. Manipulative & preachy, tired stereotypes... but heck, maybe L.A. is a hotbed of unending, blatant racism. (Funny how divided the critics are on this one... really a love-hate deal)

King Kong... I'm more surpised that it opened so strong and then died out. Then I realized that I have no desire to see it again and I'm not waiting for the DVD (heck, I rented War of the Worlds again, just to see the amazing tripod entrance again... used the fast forward a lot on that rental..)

In hindsight, Kong was just too much & too long. Yes, the first hour was good & enjoyable, but not something to sit through again. Supposedly PJ's next flick is "The Lovely Bones", and we'll see just how strong he can be with performances over effects. "The Academy" loves to say "hey, we took care of you before"...

To suggest Clooney got a nod for "Bush Bashing" is ridiculous... "Good Night" was more than a great film, it's true story that was told well on every level, and has a lot of bearing on today's politics. And his performance in "Syriana" showed how much a great actor can convey without dialogue.

As for Munich... well, it's an old saw that Hollywood is "run by the Jews". Jeez, is that true? Personally I don't care, but I know a LOT of pro-israel types and a WHOLE lot of the extreme right hated it for suggesting the Palestinians are human beings with some valid reasons for their rage, and for suggesting that there's a lot of moral grays in the black & white world of the "war on terror". Surprised me to see it there politically, but I felt it's worthy of being seen as a top-ten for '05. A flawed, but overall fantastic, film.

I thought Kong was tremendous entertainment. Probably the most entertainment for my ticket price this year. A classic for effects and production but not so much a lasting classic. That said, there was a movement to recognize Kong because people felt that "Best Picture" meant "Best Production".

On "Munich" we can't stray too far on this because Chris wants DVInfo to be politics free. I'll just say that all jews are not the same. There is a tremendous divide over Israel that also fits many right-wing / left-wing divisions in the U.S. political world. That is why you see many Jews for and against "Munich". By the way, I can't pass up an opportunity to plug "Paradise Now" again.

and that's why I love this board is I don't have to worry about political fires. I am sick of it as a STORYTELLER. Leave Michael Moore to the Michael Moores. IMHO

Sin City deserved nods, but unfortunately art direction/cinematography doesn't count when you do it with a computer (so it seems)

I have been very disappointed (not surprised) to see Ang Lee go home with... everything. I was not impressed with his approach to Brokeback Mountain.

The performances and script are very good, although I hope that Phillip Seymour Hoffman wins best actor for his breathtaking work in "Capote."

and I am very thankful Batman Begins was only nominated for cinematography.

and that's all I have to say about that.

Sometimes you have to wonder about the Academy in the past too.
-How come Val kilmer has never won anything?
-would someone please inform the Academy that Robin Williams is just an average performing actor "at best". I think they are just impressed that he can cage all that annoying nervous-hyper energy long enough to say a line.
-how did Kim Basinger ever win anything for her tiny, "nothing special at all", LA Condidential role. Talk about getting by on looks alone.
-Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire????? Who cares if "Show me the money!!" was the catch phrase of that decade. Show me the Oscar worthy performance.

Just my opinion, don't get mad.

I agree with you Steve, I think a lot of times the academy only goes with what they are expected or supposed to go for, not necessarily who truely deserves it.

I've always been offended that Fight Club was ignored for Editing, Cinematography, Sound and Screenplay. I know a lot of people hate it, or say they hate it to better their image, but there was some serious craft put into that film.

Fight Club is in my top Ten!!!! Loved it!!

There have been so many parodies of Brokeback Mountain, I don't have to go see it:).

Not to mention, it has brought rough denim jackets and stetson hats back in style. Hey, is that jacket you're wearing from the "Broke Back Mountain collection"?