Looking at my Oscar predictions ballot today, I see total carnage. My worst outing in several years.
I got the obvious ones, but missed the more contentious categories, like Best Supporting Actor. I sensed that "Lincoln" was weak (Ang Lee should have been an obvious pick over Spielberg for director) and Tommy Lee Jones was vulnerable, but figured voters would choose veteran Robert De Niro, or Philip Seymour Hoffman, who was fantastic in "The Master." Instead the award went to Christoph Waltz. His second in four years.
I like Waltz, the amusing Austrian ham/hobbit with the impish smile, who harmonizes so nicely with Tarantino's musical dialgogue. But voters see a stature to his Tarantino collaborations and cartoon mash-ups that I don't see, and have elevated him to a level that feels inflated to me.
Waltz now has as many Oscars (albeit supporting) as Brando, Nicholson, De Niro, more than Al Pacino.
If I'm going to give a guy two Oscars, I'm picking Philip Seymour Hoffman, so he could have as many as Dustin Hoffman. Still, I didn't object to Waltz' Oscar the way this critic objects to Best Picure winner "Argo," or this critic ripped Seth McFarlane's un-gallant job as Oscar host.
I think the latter lady has a point. Hollywood seems not to have noticed that the teen boys are off playing "Warcraft," that women are its primary audience. Look at the way Melissa McCarthy is pimp-slapping Bruce Willis, Stallone, Schwarzenegger at the box office, the way women drive some of the big tentpole franchises, "Twilight," or "Hunger Games." Look at how well "Silver Linings Playbook" is doing next to any rapidly deflating action title. Look at any weekly top-ten box office ranking for the past year or so, you're going to see a list weighted toward movies that appeal to women.
We saw your boobs? Yes. On stage. With microphones.