I scored on 34 out of 40 of my predictions, or 85%, which seems like a pretty good success ratio to me. Where did I miss? For best picture, Capote and Munich slipped in ahead of A History of Violence and The Constant Gardener. In this case, I overestimated my own and the critics opinion of History as well as the potential backlash against Munich. As for Capote, it was on my list up to the moment I typed it, when I went with my gut and picked Gardener based on "buzz" and my instinct that Capote would be this year's overlooked prestige picture. The same explains my one miss in the best director category.

As for actors, I missed only by picking Russell Crowe over Terrence Howard for best actor, although Howard was my single "other contender", and I figured all along that if he slipped in it would be at Crowe's expense. Every year it seems there is one previously unknown performer, usually an actress, who gets great reviews and nabs his or her film's lone nomination. Although Hustle & Flow also grabbed a best song nom, Howard essentially fills this quota in 2006.

Finally, I missed a pair in the screenplay categories, placing Syriana on my adaptation list instead of original where it belonged and overlooking Munich for best adaptation. This I lay at the feet of the Writer's Guild, who, presumably due to a different qualification standard, tabbed Syriana as an adaptation. Without this false intell, I would have listed it in the original category over Cinderella Man and placed Munich in my final adaptation slot. If I take credit for this - and I am - it ups my percentage to 90%. Take away my last-minute loss of faith in Capote, and I'm up to 95%. Pretty good, I must say. Useless, but pretty good.

For the record, I have seen 10 of the nominated films, and will see at least one more (Crash) on TMN before the awards are handed out. Hopefully, I can figure out some way to see Munich, Capote, Syriana and Walk the Line in theatres over the next month. If I can, I'll have more of a rooting interest in the Oscars - the only awards show I watch - than at any time in the last dozen years.

* * * * *

Now that both John Manley and Frank McKenna have decided they don't want to lead the Liberal party, the field is much weaker and completely wide open. Although it's not so wide open that a guy like Joe Volpe could win it. No disrespect intended, but anyone who thinks Volpe is a future Prime Minister is probably a relative.

* * * * *

Last night in film class we watched the original King Kong. If you overlook the cheesy special effects (especially the quite comical head shots of Kong), which were revolutionary for their time, this is in some ways superior to Peter Jackson's recent remake. At half the running time, the story certainly moves much faster, and I don't think it hurts the film any. All the time spent on character development in the remake, and I don't feel it gave me any more of a sense of what drives Carl Denham than the original did in a few quick scenes. The Ann Darrow character benefited from having a more evolved back story in the remake, but it could have been done in less screen time. The remake Jack Driscoll is definitely superior, with a more adventurous side than the original, who tends to hide until danger has passed, but he was still an ineffectual romantic lead. The true romantic male lead in the remake is Kong, and the development of his character from more than a brute makes his commitment to Ann, which ultimately seals his doom, more believable. But the original is still a great film, and one can easily see what drew Jackson to it. The evocation of an unknown world, the sense of adventure, the beautiful girl in peril, the dashing (well, sort of) leading man, the rampant destruction of property - all things a young lad would be attracted to.