The Oscar 2009 Wrap-up: The Academy loves the chic-flick and says "The Musical is back!"

For all of you who want the chic-flick back, I promise that this is my Academy wrap-up. Please feel free to give me your opinions about what you enjoyed and didn't enjoy or if you even considered watching it, in the comments section.

4.5/5 BABY!: How excited was I, that all my predictions were spot on, if you count my half prediction for Sean Penn. Even if you don't, it is still pretty good. Now that I look back on it, I really should have known. The Academy loves the minorities and I'm sure wanted to express their support for gay marriage. I really wanted to kick myself after. Though, I will say that this was a fairly easy year to predict, so I'm a little lucky. Congratulations to all the winners!

Best Dressed: Shockingly enough, Miley Cyrus. There were some incredible dresses all round but she had great hair and jewelery to match. I was way impressed! Also some shout outs to Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz and Taraji P. Henson who all looked stunning.

Shock moment: No, it wasn't Ben Stiller as a certain "retired" actor during Cinematography (way inappropriate) or Jack Black's dig at DreamWorks (bitter much?) or even the amount of times they showed James Franco and Sean Penn making out (yes, we get it, you homo-loving sons of guns), it was the In Memoriam montage that featured greats like Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack and one of my favourites, Paul Newman, but didn't feature one of the night's winners. Where was Heath Ledger's picture? Where was his chance to, yes for a second time, to get an applause and be recognized not only for his work as the Joker but for other roles? Shocking, indeed.'
note: I realized after this post that they featured Ledger in the 2008 award show because he died in January of that year. This year featured people who died from March 2008-February 2009, I'm assuming. I am still mad about it though!

Tribute to the Musical: Once again, luck is on my side. I think it's fate that I recently decided to dedicate a post to, as, host, Hugh Jackman sang, "The Musical is back!". But I known people will complain because The Oscars is not The Tonys and maybe they shouldn't have tried to be. What do you really expect though? Jackman is a many-time Tony host and a theatre-man so really, what else could he have done other than sing and dance? Make fun of Brangelina so more? I loved the show as a whole: the pacing was better than usual, the performances were interesting and the sets were a feast for the eyes. I was also really impressed by the organization; the process of making a film gave the awards and presenters a new twist and the genre montages were so much fun. Everyone must watch The Comedy Montage, it may have been the best, non-award winning, moment of the night. Also check out MSN Movies version of the night's best and worst moments.

Chic-Flick Moment: What a personal, heart-warming and chick flick like way to present awards to the nominated actors! My mom and I were gushing about it the whole night. Shirley MacClaine made Anne Hathaway cry, Kevin Kline saluted the late Heath Ledger and Sir Ben Kingsley gave a Oscar-worthy tribute to Mickey Rourke. What a great year to be nominated!
Not only was Edward Cullen...uhmm, sorry I mean, Robert Pattinson a presenter, but he introduced the chic-flick moment of the night along with musical-girl Amanda Seyfried: The Romance Montage. This moment inspired the wrap-up post because, take a breath everyone, The Academy is acknowledging chic-flicks. I say chic-flicks and not chick flicks because, if you saw it you would notice the quality of the films that were chosen (mostly Oscar winners or nominees and then promotion for other 2008 and 2009 movies). It may have been my favourite moment of the night.

Do Chic-Flicks get nominated?: Obviously not all. But take a look at this year's nominees and winners: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a love story that spans over time and is made to touch the hearts of us all. Plus you cry your eyes out and isn't that what skeptics say girly movies are? Or even The Reader, which at first seems like a basic World War II film, but essentially tells the story of love affair between two unlikely people and the effects of it afterwards. You can also look at the big winner, Slumdog Millionaire; a movie about a kid who really only wants to see the girl he loves again. I say the rules are about the same as any other genre; comedies and action flicks are just not going to cut it (Dark Knight, anyone?), no matter what kind, and if there is enough drama to call it a Drama that it just might have a chance. Throw in a heavyweight director and similar actors and you might just have yourself a winner!

FUN FIND: For those wondering about The Academy Rules, there is definitely more. I, myself, came up with two or three more just watching last night's show. For another take, check out the gallery-accompanied, How to Win an Oscar from MSN.

The 2009 Oscar Predictions of a Chic-Flicker: The Frenzy starts 7pm EST on ABC!

This is the second part to my Oscar frenzy. I'm sure you are all excited and even though it's a little last minute I thought, what better way to keep my predictions going, than divulge my hopes and predictions for the Oscars? There have been some really interesting movies nominated and while I haven't had the pleasure of seeing every single one, I think some of my predictions have merit. Keep in mind The Academy Rules from my first Oscar post. I'll be borrowing the style of who will win versus who should win based on some of my Academy Award knowledge, experience and preference.

And finally to the predictions....

Best Supporting Actress
Who should win: I think this may be the most even grounded playing field. The movies aren't outrageously popular and neither are the performances. Each of these actors have mostly been overshadowed by other performances in the films. I think Amy Adams, nominated for Doubt, is fantastic, but I would of rather have seen her win for the incredibly unlikely Enchanted.

Who will win: There seems to be some in favour for Penelope Cruz for Vicky Christina Barcelona but she of course suffers from rule #6. Marisa Tomei from The Wrestler is also predicted, but is already a winner even though there is some controversy over her first award that seemed to be a result of rule #7. Also Taraji P. Henson for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Viola Davis for Doubt have been predicted but suffer from rule #2. I think it might be Cruz's year.

Best Actress

Who won't win: Melissa Leo for Frozen River for the same reasons as Jenkins and Langella in the Leading Man category. I'm sure she's a fabulous actress but I just don't see it happening. Also, Angelina Jolie because she is already a winner, the Brad Pitt reasons and the fact that the public was even shocked by her nomination for Changeling. She just might be our rule #7 but there are other possibilities out there as well.

Who should win: This is a strange scenario because before Kate Winslet won both the Supporting and Leading Actress Golden Globes people couldn't stop talking about Anne Hathway in Rachel Getting Married. I thought this was very exciting because someone unexpected might be the big award winner this year. But now I'm not so sure it'll be this one because of rule #2.

Who will win: Some people say Meryll Streep for Doubt and some say Winslet for The Reader. But I am still holding out hope for Hathaway. Honestly though, I know it will be Kate Winslet, because she is not a winner yet and has accumulated quite a few nominations over the years. She's really one of my favourites and has been deserving to win for quite a while. She is the example of rule #4. I'm almost positive it'll be her year because Meryll Streep is a phenomenon with over a dozen nominations and a few wins. They can't give it to her every year even if she is the greatest living actress.

Best Actor

Who won't win: I think Brad Pitt was pretty incredible in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The poor guy gets so much flack for being pretty that people seem to ignore how good of an actor he is; because of that and rule #2, he will not win this award. I think he's also too popular in the world right now to win because there seems to be a separation between Hollywood and The Academy. Most unfortunately, this movie was not completely accepted by critics and audiences. I also don't think Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon or Richard Jenkins in The Visitor have a shot in hell because they are not well known enough and neither were their movies. It's sad because it doesn't mean they weren't fabulous, just that they have been overshadowed by other things than performance.

Who should win: Sean Penn for Milk. I haven't even seen it and I'm about 99.9% sure. He's has never been bad in anything and the guy just seems to be better than a lot of other people, a lot of the time; but because of rule #3, I'm not sure he will. The Academy is known for not liking him, since he tends not to show up even if he's nominated. He also doesn't promote his movies a lot and gets in trouble with the law. People also thought he had been jipped for years until he won in 2003.

Who will win: I honestly think it's between Penn and Mickey Rourke, who made a stunning comeback in The Wrestler. But because of rule #2, I'm not completely confident in his win either. His case is a little different because he is an older actor who has always been respected for great performances. He also won the Golden Globe, which doesn't exactly mean he's a shoe-in, but definitely gives a little perspective. I am also worried about rule #4 from reviews that solely focus on his performance and not so much on the movie itself. Ebert predicts Penn but wants Rourke to win. We'll just have to wait and see.

Best Supporting Actor

Who won't win: Most likely Philip Seymour Hoffman because he has won recently and people seem to be picking Meryll Streep for Doubt instead. Michael Shannon for Revolutionary Road just fades into the background. Unfortunately Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder, even though he astounded me and everyone else. People were shocked by his nomination and though he deserves to win, he won't because it's a Ben Stiller comedy. If he does win, it might just be the greatest thing ever! This is a great category, in which I am very invested, with very worthy nominees.

Who should win: This is the one category where I believe my emotional and my logical choices are the same(check out Ebert). It has to be Heath Ledger and if it's not I'm gonna be really mad about it. He literally blew my mind in The Dark Night and I don't think it matters how good everyone else is, because he was so unique. The public and critics also made a big fuss over the lack of nominations for the movie, especially Best Picture, so they have to give them something. The critics believe his only competition is Josh Brolin for Milk who, as far as I'm concerned, can wait until next year.

Who will win: The unfortunate thing is that the reason Heath will mostly likely win is because he died. It is his second nomination and his last chance to win and if the Academy wants to please the public and look like nice people, they will give the award to his family. It's sad because it shouldn't be about that. He was incredible and that's why he should win. They would be risking a bad response if they chose this award to be their rule #7. But if they do, it should be Downey!

Best Picture

Who won't win: As films in general, none of Milk, The Reader or Frost/Nixon seem to be big favourites. These movies seem to be respected mostly for the performances and not so much for every other aspect of film. I believe any of these choices would be worthy candidates.

Who should win: As much as the predictions are pretty much unanimous, I was still blown away by The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. There was not one bad performance in the bunch and it had one of my favourite and the greatest actresses of all time, Cate Blanchett. I was disappointed that she wasn't nominated this year but she has quite a few nominations and a statue to her name. But in this case who will will is probably who should.

Who will win: Everyone seems to say Slumdog Millionaire and I agree. It's a really fantastic film and it's great that it was so small, with such a little budget and that it grew to be loved by so many people. It's also amazing that an foreign film is being recognized as one of the greats. But I will say my emotional choice is Benjamin who stole my heart.

For more information and some other predictions check out Ebert's discussion of a guy who does it all by numbers, Moviefone's predictions by photo gallery, The Guardian's Film Blog picks, Jay Stone's CanWest thoughts, and just about every other movie site or critic you can think of. Basically I want to say that, don't think it's bull when the nominees say "It's really an honour just to be nominated" because I'm sure most of them mean it. They know just as well as you and I that the award is not always given to the best actress or best director of the year because ultimately, the award is voted on by human beings. People with preference and bias and opinion that cloud the whole event. So I say they all win because they get to go, hear their name aloud next to the word's best and show a small clip of their movie to one of the biggest audiences of the year. I can't really blame the Academy because I think they are so many best films, actors, directors, etc. They gotta decide somehow.

And the Oscar goes to...not exactly who you might think

This is not exactly in the chick flick area but the night of the 81st Academy Awards is the most important movie night of the year, so I think dedicating a post or two to it makes sense. Expect some of my Oscar predictions in the next post, but I thought the reasoning behind my predictions might be better understood if I explained my understanding of the Academy. I'm no expert but I do have some strong opinions, facts and tidbits to share about what I think these awards are really about.

The Academy Rules:

1. Just because a actor should win doesn't mean that he or she will win. The Oscars are all based on politics. Shocking, I know. This is the reason for the "Who should win versus Who will win" list that is used by many a reviewer and critic.


2. It is unlikely for an actor to win an award with his or her first nomination. For example, Johnny Depp was nominated for Pirates of the Caribbean (2003) and did possibly the most incredible performance of his career. Instead it went to Sean Penn in Mystic River (2003), one of the most amazing actors of this age, but he also had three nominations under his belt. It was just not Johnny's time to win and now that he has three nominations under his belt, his time may be coming. It may also had to do with the fact that it was a Disney film where he played a comedic character, which does not gain points with the ever-so-serious loving academy. It wasn't that Penn's performance wasn't good enough to win; it was, but it is not all that counts in the votes.

3. It is unlikely for an actor to win if they have won the previous year. One of the most heartbreaking examples that had me, at 15, screaming in shock at the television was when Russell Crowe was robbed by Denzel Washington. This is difficult for me to talk about because it is a definite rant topic. Russel Crowe didn't win for his mind-blowing performance in A Beautiful Mind (2001), because he had won the year before for Gladiator (2000). This brings me to my next rule.

4. When an actor has been nominated many times, they like to eventually give them an award even if someone else deserves it more. Denzel Washington had been nominated four times before and because he is such a loved actor, people believed he was jipped by the Academy. He had previously won for Supporting Actor in Glory (1989) but the two categories do not seem to overlap. This also leads to the next thing I know.

5. There is known to be certain themes in the kinds of recipients that recieve the awards in a certain year or in general. The year Denzel won, so did Halle Berry for Monster's Ball, the first African-American woman to win for Best Leading Actress, as well as being the year that Sidney Portier won the Honourary Award. These people are incredible actors but it seems like the Academy was trying to make a statement more so than celebrate great work. It is also known that the Academy seems to award beautiful women who make themselves uglier: Halle Berry in Moster's Ball (2001), Nicole Kidman in The Hours (2002), and Charlize Theron in Monster (2003).

6. It is less likely that someone will will for a lone nomination. Basically, someone is less likely to win if they are the only good thing about the film and if it is not-so good and you just happen to be fantastic in it, it still makes you look bad by association. I think this might have also happened to Depp in 2003.

7. The Academy usually likes to surprise the audience with an unlikely winner just to shake up the show. So many predictions are made by reviewers and critics that it seems that just to make the show interesting they have to give the audience something unexpected. Some may think this is cruel to say but you can just wait and see. People thought that last year's Best Actress winner was going to be Ellen Page in Juno, which would have been well deserved, but she suffered from rule #2. Instead Marion Cotillard was the shocker for La Vie en Rose. There are a few possibilities for those this year as well.

All of this being said, I have stayed up to watch them every year since I fell in love with movies and will continue to do so until something catastrophic happens and my brain is rewired to change the way I am.

Coming up next are the Oscar predictions...