Oscar Season

Scott Hardie | January 22, 2008
The annual contest returns.

Comments on the nominees this year?

Great list this year, imo. I'm rooting for Ellen Page and Paul Thomas Anderson. I was disappointed to see Surf's Up, more proof that the Animated Feature category is a joke.

Anna Gregoline | January 22, 2008
No comments yet, but I'm thrilled to see the Oscar contest again. Since I have a good record with this one. =)

Aaron Shurtleff | January 22, 2008
I tried to submit, but got an error. I'll try again from home. Once again, I know nothing about nothing, but, much like filling out a NCAA bracket, I can't resist the thrill of the random guessing!!

Lori Lancaster | January 22, 2008
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | January 22, 2008
I am not crossing the picket line, I will not enter this contest until the writer's guild settles!!!

Amy Austin | January 22, 2008
Ditto to Aaron & Lori... except that I did see Sweeney Todd, and I'm confident enough to stick with this one, too!

Amy Austin | January 22, 2008
Is the strike over?!?!

Scott Horowitz | January 22, 2008
No, I jsut like being funny... I just wanted laughs, of course I'm participatin', this is a great contest

Jackie Mason | January 23, 2008
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | January 23, 2008
I would have nominated 300 in the animated category. People pick on it for being macho war-porn, but Surf's Up? Seriously?

Steve West | January 23, 2008
I was very pleased with La vie en rose. Perhaps the writer's strike will have an anti-american backlash in the best actress category and others. The voters seem to vote in trends.

Scott Hardie | January 23, 2008
Lead Actress will be tough to predict this year. My gut says Ellen Page, but Marion Cotillard has the best reviews and Julie Christie is revered, and hey, Cate Blanchett ain't chopped liver. (Sorry, Laura.) Last year I ignored my gut (Alan Arkin) in favor of the buzz (Eddie Murphy) and regretted it, so I'm sticking with Page unless the buzz becomes deafening.

Erik Bates | January 23, 2008
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | January 23, 2008
[hidden by request]

Matthew Preston | January 23, 2008
Sweet merciful crap! I'm in the same boat as you Erik. I have seen exactly *1* movie nominated this year... "Transformers". Ugh, I'm going to have to do a lot of research this year to stand a chance. My Netflix account is about to get busy.

Eric Wallhagen | January 23, 2008
I believe I have seen NONE of these movies. Guess time GO!

Jackie Mason | January 25, 2008
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | January 25, 2008
Juno is terrific, but it might already be too late to see it. It's one of those very fragile movies that depends on the magic of discovery to create its mood, and if you see it after it's been declared Great or Important, that spell is broken. Think Lost in Translation or American Beauty. If you go, just try to enjoy it for what it is, and put the awards entirely out of your mind.

Amy Austin | January 25, 2008
Yeesh... Bourne Ultimatum is definitely *not* one that I'd want to see sitting up front -- I'm prone to motion sickness, and I think that would make me want to hurl! I understand the desired effect of this filming style, but my intense dislike of it is what made me completely eliminate it in the "Best Cinematography" category... watch it win just for that reason!

Lori Lancaster | January 25, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | January 25, 2008
Ha! Yeah, I remember when that whole "handy-cam effect" came into vogue -- which of those TV dramas was big on it? NYPD... or Law & Order? (can't remember, except that I didn't like to watch because it was so distracting) -- yes, it does have a that tension-building "Blair Witch" charm (another one I didn't see), but definitely not in a way that makes me lose myself in the momentum. I don't feel like it does much to enhance a movie, either -- unless done **very** selectively -- but it won't necessarily keep me from watching it... at least the first time! ;-D

Lori Lancaster | January 25, 2008
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | January 25, 2008
You know I still haven't seen Lost in Translation, even though I wanted to. I forgot about it (no surprise...I have the attention span of a caffeinated 4 year old) until you mentioned it again. I was thinking about seeing Juno, too, actually (my taste in movies is improving...HA!). I find it easy to put awards out of mind, especially since it sometimes seems (to me) like the awards don't necessarily go to the best film (or whatever) in a category, but the one with the most "buzz". Buzz doesn't necessarily mean impressive, I have found.

Also, isn't that Cloverfield movie another one that's been making people ill with the "handy-cam effect"? I think I read something about that movie having that effect on some people. You might not want to see that one either, if you're prone to motion sickness.

Not that I'd recommend it anyhow. It's getting a lot of hype, but nothing of substance that I've seen yet. I understand that the nature of it is a mystery, but at least the previews could tell us something!!

Scott Hardie | January 27, 2008
I have friends who felt "cheated" by Bourne Ultimatum: They didn't like Supremacy since the hand-held photography was too distracting, but because it didn't conclude the series, they felt obligated to see Ultimatum, which they wound up disliking for the same reason. Huh? You don't have to see the sequel just because they made one, contrary to what the advertising may want you to think. I was underwhelmed by Shrek and thought the second was terrible, and now you couldn't pay me to watch the third or subsequent films in the series.

The movie I'm dying to see right now is Untraceable, which looks hilarious if you work online like I do. "The killer's website is untraceable!" "He got all the way into my wireless network!" "He hacked into my car's computer!" How many dumb statements can they cram into that movie? I gave a long presentation at work this week concerning Hollywood mistakes about Internet technology, and a whole section of it was devoted to the dozen or so idiotic misstatements portrayed just in Untraceable's two-minute trailer.

A decade later, I'm of mixed thoughts about Blair Witch. I still don't think it was very good, but I have to give credit to its originality; it really is unlike any other movie before or since, imitators notwithstanding. Yesterday I watched Dan Myrick's latest horror film Solstice, which is traditional and very very bad, and showed that what he and his partner pulled off with Blair Witch was a fluke: Not a good movie exactly, but the right movie at the right time.

Scott Hardie | January 29, 2008
I saw Cloverfield tonight and recommend it, but it's not the second coming as the buzz might have indicated. It's just a wild 85 minutes, and if you want to be a movie nerd and read more into it, you can. Once you see it, you'll understand why the previews couldn't tell you more.

If it helps about the shaky-cam: I was made terribly dizzy by Blair Witch where I sat in the fifth row due to a packed theater, and afterwards I had to lie down for an hour until the nausea subsided. For Cloverfield I had an empty stadium theater to myself, sat in the back row, and felt fine throughout. Viewing at home is probably even safer, but the surround sound is worth it.

For fun: See Cloverfield followed by 27 Dresses like I did. Same city, same landmarks, two very very different movies. :-)

Amy Austin | January 29, 2008
HA! Yes, I think 27 Dresses looks like cute entertainment... even though -- without knowing more than I've seen in the trailer, the premise looks to me like a wee bit of an exaggeration -- who the hell do you know that has 27 friends close enough to be in the wedding party... unless it's that she's some kind of Dolly Levi or something??? Did you find yourself just imagining the events of the other taking place elsewhere -- around the corner, maybe -- as you watched? ;-D

And I *always* enjoy a good empty stadium theater in which to watch a movie (who doesn't!), but if it was a packed house with Bourne or Blair forcing me to sit up front for the whole barforama experience, I think I'd have to turn around and ask for my money back or else another show! ;-P

Erik Bates | January 29, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | January 29, 2008
I can't view the clip from here, Erik, but I know *exactly* what you're talking about -- it goes hand-in-hand with that "handycam" effect we're discussing and is actually what I was referring to when I talked about it coming onto the TV scene sometime in the late 90s... only on dramas, though... I *hate* it! I don't like it, I'm distracted by it, and whatever it's supposed to do (heighten the drama, create melodrama... or more reality??? I don't know), it doesn't work for me except to aggravate... and, in fact, can have the opposite effect in that it might make me laugh!!! In light of this realization, I think I'm going to have to differentiate between the handycam styles -- all that running and jostling and quick zooming crap like in the Bourne series and Blair Witch can be... I don't know, the "BBcam" (in honor of these two movies, or... for "barfbag", or maybe... "I think I'd rather shoot my eye out with a BB gun"). And "the small zoom", along with bad-cameraman-as-spectator or private-investigator-films-his-day techniques can fall under, say, "the Gravitas Effect" (in honor of Stephen Colbert, who makes me laugh when he talks about having gravitas and does his Gravitas Off! with Stone Phillips). Whaddaya think? ;-D

Eric Wallhagen | January 29, 2008
Erik, I'm guessing that was an accident that just wasn't noticed... That was TERRIBLE.

Amy Austin | January 29, 2008
Like I said, I can't watch it from here, but I'm sure that it's every bit as bad as you say. If you've seen it as many times as I have (and probably Erik, too) then the conclusion is "no"... it isn't.

Scott Hardie | January 30, 2008
Good one, Erik. I dislike the "slow zoom," when the actor begins a monologue or just plays a scene in contemplation, and the camera very slowly creeps forward over the span of a minute or two, so gradually that you only notice when the objects on the edge of the frame slide off. It's as distracting as any zoom, but it doesn't have the good manners to be over with quickly. I'm reminded of Gene Siskel's biggest pet peeve, moviegoers who very slowly opened their crinkly candy bar wrappers in an attempt not to disturb their neighbors – they can hear it anyway, and it disrupts the movie, so you may as well be loud and get it over with quickly.

Amy Austin | January 30, 2008
Heheh... YES! -- on both counts... Have you ever been doing something else during the "slow zoom" (like being on the computer, for instance) and looked away for a moment, then looked back? "Whoa! Did his head just get a lot bigger, or is it me?!?! "

Jackie Mason | January 31, 2008
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | January 31, 2008
the first show I remember using it was "Homocide Life on the Street" For that one or two seasons it worked on that show because it was part of the series and it wasn't the only way they filmed.

Jason Melo | February 24, 2008
i'm excited for this contest!

Amy Austin | February 25, 2008
And... down by two already!

Amy Austin | February 25, 2008
Woohoo... at least I won't finish with nothing!

Steve West | February 25, 2008
Where's Sal Monetti? He had a good streak going.

Amy Austin | February 25, 2008
I'm #7!!! That may be the best I ever do!!!!! ;-DDD

Amy Austin | February 25, 2008
Hybrid 707... cute.

Amy Austin | February 25, 2008
Wow... one of my least confident predictions (Taxi to the Dark Side) -- one that I wanted to change -- and it won! Much too late to save me, of course... but I think this will be my best PTO to date, and that's nice. ;-)

Amy Austin | February 25, 2008
Looks like Steve Dunn's win... good job, Steve. ;-)

Steve Dunn | February 25, 2008
Thanks Amy! This is the first time I've put any effort into researching all of the categories. I guess it paid off...

Aaron Shurtleff | February 25, 2008
Damn! That Steve Dunn is a super success at everything he does around here!

He must be on the 'roids!

Ster-, not hemorrh- ;P

Congrats to Steve Dunn!!

Steve West | February 25, 2008
Steve Dunn is my hero.

Amy Austin | February 25, 2008
Sounds like a case of 'roid rage to me... ;-D

Scott Hardie | February 25, 2008
Steve, you've now won the goo game and the Oscars contest. There's one more game on this site, beckoning for your participation... :-)

Seriously, awesome performance. This was a brutal year for many players. Playing the numbers against my instincts helped me (I had no idea Sweeney would take Art Direction) and hurt me (I shoulda had Cotillard), and surely I'm not the only Oscar-prediction junkie scratching his head tonight, still trying to figure out what just happened. Good TV show, great set of results, very fun year in the contest.

Everybody go see No Country while it's still in theaters; the Dolby surround sound means a lot to the plot.

Erik Bates | February 25, 2008
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | February 25, 2008
Thanks everyone. Scott, I think perhaps your extensive movie knowledge held you back. I must confess I haven't seen any of the movies nominated in any category. All my picks were based on reviews, prediction markets, and what everyone else was picking. In previous years I tried to pick upsets and failed miserably. I was in last place last year! This year I tried to pick favorites. I think Tilda Swinton was probably the key pick... and I very nearly changed it to Ruby Dee at the last minute. Ultimately, though, I didn't think someone could win with only five minutes of screen time.

Erik Bates | February 25, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | February 25, 2008
Hmm. If I had known that (five minutes of screen time), I'd have picked Tilda, too! Obviously, I didn't know Jack or his alias about any of it... I only happened to have seen *one* nominee when I made my picks (Sweeney Todd... no wait -- I'm sorry... Bourne Ultimatum, too), and even without seeing the others, I was sure of at least one win for it (Art Direction & perhaps Costume Design). Wish I would have had more faith in Bourne, but I was just sure that Transformers would be bringing something big on sound or effects.

I also happenened to see The Savages long after my picks (which reminds me that I also saw Charlie Wilson's War) and thought Laura Linney's performance good, but not good enough. I really wanted to change that one to Marion Cotillard, per Scott's original hunch (and *especially* once I saw the clips), but I had already sworn not to go around changing anything due to falling back on the entry order -- for all I knew, that would be my saving grace! I continued to hope for Laura Linney anyway, though, just because I think she's a fine and underappreciated actor (and it would have been a terrific upset! ;-D).

And also speaking of... having seen both of Philip Seymour Hoffman's fabulous performances, I'd have to say that I thought his Savages role was far more Oscar-worthy. While I enjoyed both a good deal, I had no intention of picking him over the other nominees. I was more tempted and intrigued (i.e., "surprised") by Casey Affleck's break-through nomination, but am glad I went with Bardem... another of Scott's picks that felt "right" to me. (Incidentally, one of my other follow-Scott's-lead picks was Taxi to the Dark Side which 1) didn't feel right with me, because 2) I was leaning toward Sicko, and 3) I went with it anyway, while Scott jumped on the Sicko wagon, and Taxi won! That was one of the fun moments of the night for me (sorry, Scott! ;-D)

The only other picks that felt like "sure things" to me were the Best Original Song (I've heard Falling Slowly played extensively on the local indie station, I liked it and had a good feeling for it), along with the big category picks of Daniel Day-Lewis for Best Actor (his speech said it all) and Coen bros./No Country. All told and not knowing a thing, I still did better than any of my previous years, so I'm pretty proud of myself. ;-)

Anna Gregoline | February 25, 2008
I'm grateful to be in the top 10. I knew going into it I just wasn't going to do well this year - didn't have a good vibe on the thing.

Amy Austin | February 26, 2008
Being that #14 is my best standing ever, I'm duly impressed by anyone in the top 10, and I'd be grateful to be there, too!

Scott Hardie | February 26, 2008
I wish I'd stuck with Taxi to the Dark Side, but I didn't switch to Sicko; I knew Michael Moore doesn't get much love from the establishment. He made a good point recently: Five years ago he was booed off the stage for the famous "shame on you, Mr. Bush" acceptance speech where he decried the war, and this year, three of the five nominees are being celebrated for criticizing exactly that same war. Someone could make his identical speech today and be applauded or even cheered for it. He was ahead of his time.

Amy Austin | February 26, 2008
Oh! Oops... sorry -- my faulty assumption after our chat on the topic!

Scott Hardie | February 26, 2008
It's all good. I don't want to come off sounding like a snob, like "*I* would *never* predict Michael Moore!" I just didn't in this case.

Part of my downfall was following too many online prognosticators instead of my own instincts. Sound mixer Kevin O'Connell has famously received 20 nominations and 0 wins, but certain analysts were convinced of a Transformers sweep this year, and the technical categories aren't always easy to predict, so I trusted them that his work for Transformers would finally win him an Oscar. Think about it: The guy has lost 19 friggin' times and I still predicted him. That's just not listening to common sense.

I knew Julie Christie didn't have it, despite what people said. Same thing happened ten years ago: She was nominated despite a lesser performance in Afterglow, everybody said "the Academy loves Julie Christie!" and she became the overwhelming favorite, then she lost to *Helen Hunt* of all ignominies. But I couldn't decide whether to follow my heart with Page or my brain with Cotillard, so I crunched the numbers. Statistically, my best odds of winning the contest laid with Christie. I predicted her, knowingly getting on board a sinking ship. What was I thinking? Sometimes having a formula can hold you back as much as help you.

Every time I fail to place high in the contest, I tell myself I'm going to start trusting my instincts over the numbers (happened last year with Eddie Murphy over Alan Arkin), but every year I forget that wisdom.

</snob>

Amy Austin | February 26, 2008
heh -- I hear you!

Steve Dunn | February 26, 2008
Haha, Michael Moore doesn't get love from the establishment. You crack me up.

Let's see. He won best documentary for Bowling For Columbine in 2002, beating out Winged Migration and Spellbound, two films that share the dual virtue of being: 1) actual, you know, documentaries; and 2) good.

In 2004 he was embraced by the Democratic Party establishment for Fahrenheit 9/11 and sat next to Jimmy Carter at the national convention. The only reason he didn't win the documentary Oscar that year is because he refused to submit it in that category, preferring instead for it to compete for Best Picture. This is a film most notable, by the way, for darkly intoning that 9/11 might have been an "inside job" and showing lots of pictures of Bush family members alongside people in turbans. Instead, Born Into Brothels took home the Oscar, a film very much in the Michael Moore tradition of being more about the filmmaker than the subject. Like a less honest (and less good) version of Super Size Me. Tupac: Resurrection should have won.

This year, Moore duly collects his nomination for Sicko. This somehow means he does NOT get love from the establishment?

I watch documentaries almost exclusively. I've watched hundreds of them and there are currently at least 50 in my Netflix queue. Here's the problem with Michael Moore: his movies are not documentaries! They are propaganda. He blatantly manipulates facts and images as tools of political persuasion. Worse still, all his movies are ultimately about Michael Moore himself, all his madcap adventures, his courageous stands for truth and justice, how very much he cares. It worked with Roger & Me and he stuck with it. The scene in Bowling for Columbine where he leaves a photo on Charleton Heston's doorstep and poignantly walks away, even pausing to brush away a tear... come on. Give me a break.

Oscar LOVES this stuff. An Inconvenient Truth won last year. Anyone who's seen that movie knows it's at least as much a commercial for Al Gore as a film about global warming. Plus, it presents a nonsense doomsday scenario that no reputable scientist thinks is likely to happen (Manhattan underwater!)

In my opinion, Michael Moore gets waaaaaay too much love from the establishment. His films aren't even that entertaining. Meanwhile, actual good documentaries are completely ignored. This year for example, one of the best I saw was King of Kong, about a guy trying to break the all-time high score on the arcade version of Donkey Kong. It had a perfect protagonist/antagonist dynamic and explored the thriving but generally unknown subculture of competitive arcade gaming. That's what documentary filmmaking is all about.

King of Kong did not get nominated. Sicko got nominated. Michael Moore gets plenty of love.

Whew! Hmm, I guess I'm not really a fan of Michael Moore!

Scott Hardie | February 26, 2008
All true (except maybe the global warming part; I'm no expert). I guess I was speaking in reaction to predictors who were convinced he had an automatic win just because he's Michael Moore; end of discussion. That might have been true when he peaked six years ago, but it's not the case now. I think he refused to submit F9/11 for Documentary because he knew it was too polarizing to get nominated. (See, he's not the only one who can invent conspiracy theories.) I was surprised to see Sicko even come up as a nominee. I hereby rephrase my statement as: "Michael Moore is overrated, but he doesn't get sufficient love from the Academy to win Oscars just because he's Michael Moore." Satisfied? :-)

Other good docs we should rent?

Kris Weberg | February 26, 2008
I still disagree with you on what constitutes a documentary, Steve; Triumph of the Will is a documentary and it's also propaganda, in the same way that a collection of outrageous and wrongheaded opinion columns or Hunter S. Thompson's author-centric "gonzo journalism" are classed as nonfiction. Documentary is simply nonfiction film, and in that regard Moore's films count.

Nor do I agree with your take on Fahrenheit 9/11. The film does not suggest that 9/11 was an "inside job," but rather that the Bush family's business ties to Saudi Arabia induced them to make deliberate errors and give special treatment in their response to the atttacks. Too, the majority of the film is given over to criticism of the Iraq War, and much of that comes from the mother of a soldier killed in that conflict. Moore was praised in reviews at the time for removing his personality and presence from the second half of the film to let her speak. None of this speaks to the factual accuracy of the claims Moore makes in the film or the ham-handed and one-sided fashion in which he makes them, of course, but some of what you're discussing is simply not in the film as I recall it.

I do agree that Moore is part of the liberal establishment and the entertainment industry establishment, though. I also think his cultural moment more generally has long since passed; SiCKO didn't get much attention outside the predictable circles, and the days when Moore could make bank on the big screen seem to be over too.

Your blast against An Inconvenient Truth...well, I'm not entirely sure how you film a lecture presentation by Al Gore without focusing on, uh, Al Gore. He's lending his name, fame, and influence to a subset of the global warming theory, and I imagine putting himself front and center is meant as much to put a well-known face on the issue as anything.

There's also an argument that King of Kong, while a good narrative, isn't documenting anything terribly important. As pleasant a story as it might tell, is there a pressing reason I should care about who holds the world record for play on a 27-year-old arcade game?

Steve Dunn | February 27, 2008
Scott, yes, I agree with your revised formulation.

Kris, I'll respond to a few points in order.

1) I'm not really invested in debating the definition of documentary. I'm fine reformulating (ala Scott) to concede that Michael Moore makes documentaries, but they're not the sort of documentaries I like.

2) Fahrenheit 9/11 clearly implied that the WTC attack was an inside job. He's explicitly stated that he thinks it might have been an inside job. Google "michael moore inside job" as a starting point. As I recall from the film, it hinted at a vague but elaborate conspiracy involving a Unocal pipeline, Arbusto Energy, the Carlyle Group, James Bath, James Baker, various Bin Ladens, and an overarching emphasis on the suggestion that if the USA increased its defense spending, Bin Ladens and Bushes would all get rich.

3) Regarding An Inconvenient Truth, it's actually easy to film a lecture presentation given by Al Gore without interspersing a dozen infomercials about his childhood, his sister's death from lung cancer, his entire political history, and various other self-aggrandizing topics unrelated to the ostensible subject of the film - global warming. Having said that, hey, it is what it is. I know a lot of people who think that waking people up, or calling their attention to what is perceived as an important problem, is more important that responsibly conveying accurate information. I disagree with those people. An Inconvenient Truth is my grandchildren's Reefer Madness.

4) Regarding King of Kong, I respect your desire to contemplate only weighty political issues, if that is your desire, but I do not share it. I enjoy the heavy stuff sometimes, but more often I am drawn to explorations of human life. Desires and aspirations, moral judgments, passions, thrill of victory and agony of defeat and all that sort of thing. I am particularly drawn to documentaries about little-known subcultures and competitions because they explicate universal conditions (determination, confrontation, frustration, triumph) as experienced by very weird people. This, plus music, explains why I like American Idol.

Scott, here are some of the best documentaries I've seen. I'll start with the weird competitive subcultures and then branch out. The first three are about word games - all are excellent.

Word Wars - competitive Scrabble players
Spellbound - spelling bees
Wordplay - crosswords
King of Kong - Donkey Kong world record quest
Murderball - wheelchair basketball

Mondovino - wine business
Style Wars - NYC graffiti taggers
Freestyle: The Art of Rhyme - freestyle rappers
Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room
9/11 - French brothers' documentary of the first responding fire house
The Eyes of Tammy Faye - Tammy Faye Baker
5 Films About Christo and Jean-Claude - Christo
Metallica: Some Kind of Monster - Metallica's struggle to record an album, with help from their performance coach/therapist
Standing in the Shadows of Motown - the Motown house band
Talking Heads: Stop Making Sense (this is a concert video, but I think it's the standard bearer for the genre)
DiG! - two indie bands filmed over several years as they attain different levels of success
Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine - Kasparov's final match against Deep Blue
Marjoe - tent revival preacher turns hippie and explains how it's all a fraud
The Five Obstructions - combination of a film about filmmaking and showings of the films that are made, very interesting

Steve West | February 27, 2008
Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt won the Oscar about 10 years ago and remains one of the best documentaries I've seen. Five very different lives affected by AIDS, each represented on the AIDS quilt. It was unavailable for rental for a long period because of some legal action (details of which I am unsure) but it is available for purchase now so renting it also should be possible.

Steve Dunn | February 27, 2008
Thanks for the rec, Steve. I'll check into that.

I forgot another one: The Weather Underground. It's about the Weather Underground, a radical group in the 1960s that bombed a few buildings (even Congress!) and robbed a bank, maybe an armored car. A couple died.

Most of them are now respectable citizens - I think one is a professor, another was a Jeopardy champion. One is in prison for killing a guy while robbing a bank with the Black Panthers. All are bright and very insightful about the pros and cons of 60s radicalism. Worth a look.

Steve West | February 27, 2008
Yeah, check it out if you can find it - I'd be interested in your opinion. Maybe your next Thorough Movie Review!

Scott Hardie | March 7, 2008
King of Kong is at the top of my queue now. I've followed the updates since, such as Wiebe's attempt to win back the world record the other night in Vegas. The movie is going to need a sequel eventually.

I've only seen about a third of those (Spellbound was great) and heard good things about another third, so you've given me a good list of rentals. Thanks.

Scott Hardie | March 25, 2008
King of Kong was a lot of fun, and had a lot to say about human nature. Thanks for the recommendation.

The Academy cut it off from a nomination when their committee left it off the short list of eligible documentaries. (link) I don't know enough Oscar history to know the reason for the committee's existence; probably there to demarck the line between fiction and nonfiction. But it has denied a long parade of worthy documentaries over the years, most notoriously for Hoop Dreams.

Scott Hardie | March 26, 2008
I also noticed that Steve Wiebe lives in Redmond, Washington, the home of Nintendo of America and the city where Donkey Kong was invented, but this isn't mentioned in the film or any reviews that I noticed.