I understand not everyone can be nominated for best actor, but how can you exclude Paul Giamatti for Sideways? Thomas Haden Church got a supporting nod, and Virginia Madsen got a supporting nod also. Not to take away from what they have accomplished, but Giamatti's performace was just that much better and he gets nothing. Sideways is up for best movie, directing and screenplay and you can't even give your leading guy an Oscar? Did he not contribute to the success of the movie? I do feel bad for him, last year was American Splendor and this year is Sideways. When will the academy honor this guy??? [-X

Of course he was robbed. They wanted to honor Eastwood and Giamatti stood in the way...

Giamatti deserved to win last year for American Splendor.

He was very good in the film, on par with Eastwood.

If anybody should be mad about not being nominated it should be Jim Carrey, who is unlikely to EVER have as great of a role and as monumental of a performance as he had in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

I have a feeling the Academy just doesn't like him. I mean he was snubbed for Eternal Sunshine, Man on the Moon and The Truman Show which he all deserved a nomination for.

Miles was Sideways.

I don't understand the choice and when Eastwood loses, it will make even less sense.

Why just Eastwood? I mean he is part of an ensemble that got multiple acting nominations that is driving a huge BP contendor.

Why not just say like... Cheadle? ...or Depp?

If anybody needs to be left off the list, it is Depp... Great performance but definately not among his best.

Regardless it is the "Best Jamie Foxx Acting Award" this year.

Like Levy said, they wanted to honour Eastwood.

It doesn't matter in the end, though Paul deserved to be recognized, because Foxx will win. Im willing to bet on it.

I was very bummed Paul Giamatti was not nominated.

Again, I thought Johnny Depp was pretty good, but he didn't deserve to be nominated over Giamatti.

As I said some months ago. Sideways is the more successful version of American Splendor. Both films have much in common, bot enjoyed almost universal love from critics. American Splendor was almost completely snubbed, Sideways at least managed to garner five nominations, but Giamatti was snubbed once again.

I have a feeling the movie will be snubbed, it will be lucky to get anything, which is really, REALLY sad. The academy loves Scorcese and Eastwood way too much so I feel their movies will be cleaning house. I did see Finding Neverland and did enjoy Depp's performace, but I don't feel it was a top performace this year. Has anyone seen Hotel Rwanda? Is Cheedle that good?

Here is something about Paul Giamatti and Sideways that a critic has said:

As for Sideways, the NY Times hit the nail on the head. The reason most critics are praising it to death is because THEY are Paul Giammatti; middle aged, geeky, intellectuals, sitting around drinking wine, going through a midlife crisis. The fact that he gets a girl like Virgnia Madsen, gives them hope. It's kinda like their Rocky.

That's absolutely ridiculous. That article was a bitter and disgusting diatribe against Sideways clearly meant to depreciate it in the eyes of Awards voters. NYT sunk to a new low by publishing something like that. Not every critic is like Giammatti. How many of the female critics fit that description? Hell, how do loyal and Libs fit that description? The film has been widely praised by a broad spectrum of people, not just by a narrow group of critics that are apparently middle aged, geeks sitting around drinking wine.

I don't think you guys should be picking on Eastwood, he did (arguably) damn well deliver the best performance of his career and was truly worthy of the top 5.

Let me tell you who wasn't....

Johnny Depp: while he was great as he ALWAYS is, this performance, even with its subtless wasn't on par with his previous roles and it doesn not have all to do with him. I think the script is somewhat to blame as well. there is no climax in this movie!

Don Cheadle: I don't think there was any other actor that could have played the part better, but this year was just so freakin competitive, other great actors were sacrificed for him!

I would have to agree. I wasn't really picking on Eastwood. My point is, I think that Giamatti was way better than Depp and Cheadle. I would have just liked for Giamatti to have a chance at an Oscar. I think everyone can agree that he atleast deserves to be nominated.

Im telling you,the NY times is shit when concerning movies,their columnists are assholes.

Paul Giamatti did get snubbed again this year big time.The academy just do not like certain actors,like him,jim carrey,eddie Murphy ect... they dont like actors who are comedians.

I am shocked he didn't get nominated. Oh well, there's always Big Fat Liar 2.

I loved the shit out of Sideways, it's in my top five of the year, and the only movie I'd be happier to have win is Million Dollar Baby, and even then it's close. But Giamatti in my opinion was weaker then all the nominees (except maybe Depp, who was better in almost everything else he's done, including Blow and Secret Window) for Best Actor, and was definitely the weakest of the chief actors in Sideways. I just get sick of it when actors play the same role OVER and OVER again, and Giamatti has the role of being a schlub down to a T, but even when he did have a bit more dimension to that type of character, Madsen and Church both eclipsed him. He'll have his chance, just give him time. And I don't know what's up with all the NY Times hate. The article was meant to stir up opinions, I don't think he was attacking critics (he wasn't referring to everyone) for loving Sideways, but moreso citing the reason they liked it so much because Miles IS a critic, and really, I think it's perfectly fair reasoning. I always love movies I can identify with more, it's not a bad thing just a fact of life.

Was Miles a critic?

As a matter of fact, I thought Johnny Depp delivered his best performance to-date in Blow.

Anyone who thinks Eastwood deserved the slot over Depp think about this.

There are 5 or 6 actors who could have played the Frankie role in M$B, actors who also have the majestic seasoned presence Clint has. Prior to Eastwood's involvement, Arnold Schwazenegger of all people was attached (good thing he passed).

Who besides Depp could have played Barrie?

Well, that's not a good way to put it.

First off, the screenwriter stated that he had Clint Eastwwod in ind while writing the script, so there really could not have been much time for any other actors' consideration, especially since Clint is the one who started it all up.

Now onto the way you're saying it.

Basically you're saying that because no one else fit the role of Barrie, Depp did a better jon. Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to get what you're saying wrong. I hope I understood it right.

Just because Clint's character is less of a specialized character doesn't mean he didn't do as well as Depp.
That's like saying Angelina Jolie was a better actress than Annette Benning in Tomb Raider and Being Julia respectively, because I really can't see anyone else as Lara Croft.

And while we're on it. I think Russel Crow could have pulled J.M. Barry off.


I'm not necessarily attacking Johnny Depp's performance. It was one of the best of the year, not in the 5 best but somewhere there. The main reason why he isn't as good in my opinion as say another handful of actors this year has alot to do with the script. In my opinion, the script held Depp back because it never truly let the character develop. Other characters developed and changed, but Barrie more or less stayed the same, except for the fact that he fell for the widowed woman and her kids. There was more there to work with to make the character more dynamic or at least a bit more vibrant.

Again, he was one of the best, just not as good as the best of the best and this is a particularly competitive year, so go figure.

I'm also not saying Paul Giamatti was in the best of the best.

Gael Garcia Bernal
Ethan Hawke
Jude Law
Colin Farrell

All these actors, in my opinion were better or on par with Paul Giamatti. Though I thought Giamatti was better than Depp, I don't think he was better than my own top 5 best. But for the one nominated and excluding those who really had no chance, Giamatti did do better than both Cheadle and Depp.

Ewan McGreggor.

It wasn't a profession, but his personality was without question.

Agreed. I don't think it was some kind of a negative statement towards Sideways...

You brought up a lot of good stuff so I'll try to address it all.