OVP: Supporting Actress (2000)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2000)

The Nominees Were...

Judi Dench, Chocolat

Marcia Gay Harden, Pollock

Kate Hudson, Almost Famous

Frances McDormand, Almost Famous

Julie Walters, Billy Elliot

My Thoughts: Surprises aren't really a thing in the Oscar acting races anymore, not like they once were.  Today, you might go in knowing you're going to win (Robert Downey Jr. this year), knowing you might win (Lily Gladstone this year), or knowing you won't win (Sterling K. Brown this year).  But there was a time where technically anyone could win, and what a thrill that was (the real ones will know what I just did).  In 2000, we had one of the bigger upsets in the acting races we've encountered in our My Ballots, when Marcia Gay Harden pulled off victory over far likelier contenders that year.

Let's start with Marcia.  For those who don't know, in 2000, you could've made a serious argument that Harden was in fifth place even among the nominees before she went on to win.  She got her victory through being just that good.  Her Lee Krasner is a fascinating composite onscreen.  We see the ways that Harden navigates being a wife, a female painter (in a time where they got ignored), and someone who understood the financial opportunity that came with marrying one of the great artistic minds of the 20th Century.  Adding in a fantastic bit of accent work, Harden becomes very hard to beat if you actually see her movie.

That said, her chief competition at the time was impressive too.  One of her biggest competitors was Kate Hudson, who roared into movie stardom (just like her mom) with Almost Famous, and like her mom, got an Oscar nomination to prove it.  I think people's attitudes toward Hudson in the years that followed (where she hit stardom, but not superstardom and never did something this good again) have clouded their tastes on this performance, which is really wonderful.  She embodies the beautiful hipster, trying to cling to those who are actually experiencing fame, knowing (but never showing) that this will only last while her youth continues.  It's a tragic, but very real performance, and the soul of the film.

The other competitor for the win was Judi Dench.  Just two years after her Oscar win, she was a serious threat for victory in 2000 for Chocolat (and easily the closest that Miramax came to getting that film a statue).  Her work here is pleasant.  It'd become the prototype for the "sweet old woman" roles that Dench would milk as a proper movie star in the next couple of decades, but it hadn't been established yet so it feels much fresher.  I do think that this isn't worthy of Oscar, even if it's good acting-it's a bit too paper thin, especially in her character's bigger moments.

Julie Walters is another renowned British character actress who made it into this field, and her work in Billy Elliot is also solid.  I will admit to a soft spot for both of these actresses (I'll watch anything they do), but I don't think that Walters is quite as good as, say, her costar Jamie Bell in this film.  She gives us a lot of what we'd expect from Walters (a surly disposition masking a kindly heart), but it doesn't give us quite enough more.  I wanted more hints at how she missed her own opportunities, how she also dreamed of getting out, to add more dimension to her character.  But, again, a fine piece of work that it's hard to get mad about Oscar citing.

Frances McDormand is arguably the best actress of these five women, but I do think she has the least to do in her nominated performance, and more importantly, the least impact on her film.  Her concerned mother has some humor which McDormand can ring, but it comes across as a bit one-note, or at the very least sharp as she imbues the "anxious mother who doesn't understand" character with little nuance.  It's possible that this nomination cost Hudson her win with vote-splitting, but I'd not entirely be convinced anyone looked at this and said "one of the year's five best" without it actually getting a nomination.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Hudson, and the same lineup as Oscar save Harden, who was pushed out for Catherine Zeta-Jones (Traffic).  SAG gave their statue to Dench, again against the Oscar lineup without Harden (here it was Kate Winslet in Quills who got the nomination).  BAFTA gave their statue to Julie Walters (see what I mean about Harden being a surprise) with McDormand, Dench, Lena Olin (Chocolat), & Zhang Ziyi (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) as the nominees.  In sixth place, I think you could make a few arguments here.  Zeta-Jones was obviously in the running, but at the time she was facing something of a "too-much-too-soon" backlash (she's always been an old school "give good quip" sort of movie star, and that has occasionally hurt her with a press that wanted a docile princess-type).  So it was likely either Winslet or Connie Nielsen (Gladiator) nearly making it, both the primary female character in an all-male, Oscar-cited cast.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I have no such prejudices against Catherine Zeta-Jones (I don't want relatable stars), and would've nominated her splendid work in Traffic, showing how deep her talent could get two years before Oscar could no longer deny her.

Oscar’s Choice: Like I said above, Marcia Gay Harden pulled off a big upset against Dench & Hudson, a win that has aged pretty well by my estimation.

My Choice: In a very close race (both of them will show up in our My Ballot article in the next week) I will select Marcia Gay Harden over Kate Hudson, as I think she has more notable character work in her choices, but either would've made a good winner.  Behind them are Walters, Dench, and then McDormand.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does everyone agree with Marcia Gay Harden as the Oscar victor, or do people want someone else in retrospect?  When was the last time you feel we had a truly left field acting winner?  And was it Zeta-Jones, Winslet, or Nielsen in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2000: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2000

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Supporting Actress (2003)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2003)

The Nominees Were...

Shohreh Aghdashloo, House of Sand and Fog

Patricia Clarkson, Pieces of April

Marcia Gay Harden, Mystic River

Holly Hunter, Thirteen

Renee Zellweger, Cold Mountain

My Thoughts: We're moving into a better Best Supporting Actress field today after a disappointing Best Supporting Actor field yesterday.  This was a statement I said in 2018, and honestly it could be a matter-of-fact in virtually every year.  Oscar, for reasons unknowable to me, has distinctly better taste with supporting women than men.  But I'll also admit right here that while there are some treasures in this lineup (and lord knows we've got some talented actresses), you're going to see in a week with My 2003 Ballot that I went a completely different direction with 2003's field, and am a bit confused why this was the lineup that Oscar became so enamored with.

Patricia Clarkson, for starters, was better in other actual films in 2003, much less in her long career, which to date has only somehow elicited this one nomination.  It isn't entirely Clarkson's fault-she is instructed to dislike a young woman who spends all of the movie making Thanksgiving, and in the hands of an actress like Katie Holmes (a blank slate of a performer, and not in a good way), that's all she is, which makes Clarkson's animosity feel badly-tuned.  But Clarkson can't find a way to find a prickly chemistry with Holmes, so crucial to the movie, and as a result this feels like (at best) an attempt at a great performance.  It also feels like a situation where Oscar was tired of a beloved character actor not being in their good graces, and gave her a nomination as compensation even if she hadn't earned it (for that specific film).

This might also be how Renee Zellweger won.  It's easier to understand Zellweger's performance and its appeal.  The actress, at the peak of her fame, is given the role of a scene-stealing cowgirl with a soft side, and she lays into it hardcore.  There are moments to like here; Cold Mountain is a very good movie but occasionally a dry one, with Nicole Kidman not always landing her "white tower maiden" role, and Zellweger provides needed comic relief.  The only problem is that she's far too broad, and spends too much time scenery-chewing.  Zellweger at this point in her career clearly was desperate for an Oscar (two back-to-back losses will do that to a person), and you get the sense that her winning here was less on its merits and more the Academy crying "uncle" for a performance which, while not good, was at least memorable.

At the time it felt like Zellweger's biggest competition was probably Shohreh Aghdashloo, who had the critics on her side & was a newcomer in a year that was pretty much all movie stars in contention (which rarely happens).  Her work is okay in House of Sand and Fog, but never all that interesting.  I think part of what got her this nomination at the time was that Aghdashloo has wonderful screen presence, something I'm more aware of now than the Academy would've been in 2003, and I'm used to it so I can see she's given a badly underwritten part and doesn't do enough beyond the page with it (knowing she's had better in the years since).  Within the confines of the OVP, where we only consider performances and not someone's larger career in considering a nomination (them's the rules), this isn't much more than serviceable.

Marcia Gay Harden is the actress who I think best finds what's not on the page & fills in what could've been another "wallpaper role" in this category.  Harden's performance is such a great contrast to everything else in the film-we get an idea of what kind of woman might've fallen for broken Dave, who might not have (despite growing up in a tough universe) realized how cruel the world can be until it's too late.  Harden is excellent as someone slowly understanding how difficult life can be, and how the "hardest parts" of her life (or so she thought) that took place before this movie were in fact the high point.  It's a bitter performance, but Harden, hardly a subtle actor by nature, finds ways to keep her character's realizations inward as she projects a shaky confidence.

Holly Hunter, similar to Harden, has been a reliable screen presence for decades now (for both, this is their most recent Oscar nomination which feels like such a strange place to end their AMPAS careers if that's what happens).  She plays her Melanie as a woman who has not given up on the youth aspect of her life-she's still young in her mind, and frequently treats her daughter & her friends as peers rather than children.  But I don't think she can find the balance as the film progresses of wanting to be the "cool mom" while also clearly developing a concern for the behavior of her young daughter.  She's still Holly Hunter, and she's better than the movie, but it's not what you'd think of as a truly great performance, certainly not one of Hunter's best.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Zellweger as their winner, with Clarkson, Hunter, Hope Davis (American Splendor), & Maria Bello (The Cooler) her competition, while SAG picked Zellweger as well, here over Bello, Clarkson, Hunter, & Keisha Castle-Hughes (Whale Rider, whom Oscar would promote to Best Actress in his lineup).  BAFTA gave its trophy to Zellweger (the stampede was inevitable), over Hunter, Laura Linney (Mystic River), Judy Parfitt (Girl with a Pearl Earring), & Emma Thompson (Love Actually).  In terms of sixth place, I assume it was Bello, an actress the Oscars really never gravitated toward despite several opportunities in the early-Aughts to invite to the ceremony.  I think she's "ehh" in The Cooler but you may recall that I would've totally been onboard with a nomination for her in 2005 and considering her career has now gone the way of CBS serials (she's a regular on NCIS for those under-60), it's a pity they didn't take the opportunity when they had the chance.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I would almost completely rehaul this category, and it's the lineup I'm most proud of (and also, the lineup where I have six names & honestly can't settle on who should be the one out), so I'm going to resist sharing until I know for sure who I'm cutting (because I'm truly honest in the fact that all six are vulnerable-it's that close where the line between winning-and-being-cut is razor thin).

Oscar’s Choice: One wonders if Oscar knew he was going to eventually get to Zellweger with an out-of-nowhere win in 2019 if he might've been more adventurous here, honoring Aghdashloo or Hunter...but in 2003, there was no stopping Renee.

My Choice: For me, it's Harden.  She brings the most from beyond the page, and gives one of her best onscreen performances.  Behind her is Hunter, Zellweger, Aghdashloo, & Clarkson.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you joining me over with Marcia or are you with the collective 2003 awards bodies in thinking this is Renee's for the taking?  When do you think that Patricia Clarkson should've gotten her "career nomination" if she only gets one?  And why do you think Oscar couldn't get behind Maria Bello during her heyday?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2003: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2003

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019

Grandma (2015)

Film: Grandma (2015)

Stars: Lily Tomlin, Julia Garner, Marcia Gay Harden, Judy Greer, Laverne Cox, Sam Elliott

Director: Paul Weitz

Oscar History: Tomlin scored at the Globes, but couldn't translate that over to a second nomination.

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Slice-of-life films are probably my favorite movie genre of the moment, particularly modern slice-of-life movies.  The reason for this I can't quite explain, but I think it largely has to do with the fact that so much of your life is not spent on gigantic decisions or what you'd consider the "headlines," but instead on the run-of-the-mill, day-to-day things.  We love movies about falling in love and fulfilling a dream and gigantic moments like war or discovery, but the reality is that most days are spent doing on constant auto pilot and routine.  Slice-of-life movies have a weird purpose then, because a film like Grandma shows how even the most ordinary of days can occasionally have a great deal of meaning if you let them, and while I don't want to sound like a "chase your dream" sort of person, living a more purposeful existence is something that we should all learn to do, particularly if it's from a film as easily watchable as Grandma.

(Spoilers Ahead) We find this out in Grandma because Elle (Tomlin) is at a bit of a crossroads in her life.  We don't find her the day after her longtime partner has died or when she has decided to start loving again, but well after that when she has dumped Olivia (Greer), her girlfriend of a few months and her granddaughter Sage (Garner) has stopped by because she needs an abortion and doesn't have the $600 she requires to get the procedure done before her appointment later that day.  Elle takes Olivia on a road trip to find the money, and in the process revisits some old friends and old wounds.

The best part about Grandma is the way that Elle realizes about halfway through the film not only how much of her life has been left in pockets of productivity, but how few people come to mind as ones who truly matter.  She starts out with friends she know will actually care about her like Deathy (Cox), a tattoo artist who has a high opinion of Elle, and then slowly back-pedals to less and less likely candidates to give her the money, including eventually her ex-husband Karl (Elliott) and her estranged daughter Judy (Harden).  It's a weird conundrum for a woman who spent so much of her life identified in her happiness by the same person and who has coasted in some effects on her early career success, something an artist can do quite easily, but let's be fair here-we all kind of do.  The Peter Principle should be renamed a bit to also realize that those people who stay contented in the same position eventually come to the realization that perhaps they should have done more, something you can see Elle grappling with in the film when she is frequently questioned about both her success and failure as a writer.

The friend thing was more interesting to me, though, because it shows a weird side of loneliness, my favorite subject for the cinema.  Elle's only real friend in the world, we find out as the film progresses, was her partner Vi.  Her daughter doesn't really have time for her, her granddaughter is only stopping by because she's out of options, and all of the people she encounters as the movie progresses are from the past, not vibrant parts of her present.  As you get older you have to make more and more time sacrifices in order to balance work, family, and increasingly your own need for self-reflection.  As a result, you sacrifice friendships and relationships to strengthen others, and while that's usually a safe bet, eventually death or divorce cause you to realize you made the wrong choice, or a choice with consequences.  The great thing about this movie is we see it not just in Elle, but in those around her as well.  Look at the powerful scene with her ex-husband Karl, a man of many children and wives who has never gotten over the fact that his first wife left him for a woman and that she had an abortion, but later on still got pregnant in order to have a child.  While Tomlin is perpetually funny in the film, this is the scene that really shows what a strong performer she has been all of these years, and why both she and Elliott are such pros.  The way that she tiptoes around a man she knows she wronged, but also the hurt that comes from him, a man consumed by bitterness that happens when you love someone and they still break your heart-it's a gargantuan scene that could have been its own movie, but Grandma remains slice-of-life, and so we only get it for an instant which is that much more powerful.  Will Elle and Karl, who clearly have had unresolved business for decades, ever resolve those wounds?  Almost certainly not, and that's the greatness of this movie as it mirrors reality so well.  Life is rarely made of beginnings and ends-almost always it's just a series of middles, which is why we find ourselves so desperate for the movies where everything concludes the way we wished life would.  Grandma understands that, and that's where its power lies.

Those were my thoughts on Grandma, Lily Tomlin's first starring role in 27 years.  What were yours?  Have you seen the film yet (and if not, what are you waiting for)?  Are you enjoying this great year that Sam Elliott (also awesome in the wonderful I'll See You in My Dreams) is having?  And do you think Tomlin can get a second Oscar nomination forty years after her first?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

Film: Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
Stars: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan, Eloise Mumford, Jennifer Ehle, Marcia Gay Harden
Director: Sam Taylor-Johnson
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"Earned It")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Oh yes, I saw it, so you don't have to, though I'm going to be honest here-you probably should.  It's rare that a film, particularly in February, manages to capture the zeitgeist in such a ferocious way (and it seems odder that American Sniper has been doing something similar for the last month), and despite its extremely questionable quality, the film is not without its charms and occasionally brings up some fascinating questions about sexuality and our attitudes toward it, even if that comes out more in a film critique sort of way rather than in the actual content of the movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson, with a moniker straight out of a soap opera), a young college graduate who reads Thomas Hardy by day and by night, well, Anastasia is a bit of a blank slate in terms of what she does by night as we learn very little about her personal life throughout the film.  This is the first of several pretty underwritten aspects of the movie, but if I feel a little bit forgiving of them, it's partially because every aspect of the film, but particularly Anastasia, is a complete upgrade from the book.  For those who haven't read the book (or those who are pretending they haven't read the book), you'll know that the source material is absolutely terribly written.  It's been said by virtually everyone out there, to the point where it seems to be more a slam on the content than the actual novel, but the book is SO awfully edited that someone at Random House owes EL James a sincere apology note for letting her grammar appear so terrible.  An editor isn't responsible, however, for the way that Anastasia is insanely annoying as our insight into the novel and characters, and one of several improvements that Sam Taylor-Johnson makes on the film is to have no first-person narrator throughout the movie, giving us less of Anastasia's Christian drool.

The film follows Anastasia as she enters the world of ridiculously sexy and enigmatic Christian Grey, a young billionaire playboy whose wealth comes from, I want to say telecommunications, but honestly does it remotely matter?  It seems like all he does is randomly show up in helicopters and wear the entire J Crew catalog.  Christian, it should be said, doesn't improve much from the book, except in that we have a real-life model to drool over rather than whatever handsome guy from the gym we pictured while pawing through James' novel.  The film continues with Christian of course introducing Anastasia, a virgin, to the world of BDSM, or at least Christian's interpretation of it, and we get lots of long stares, constant denials of Christian's romantic intentions for Anastasia (even though he clearly has romantic feelings for her), and eventually a showdown that involves some spanking with a flail of some sort.  Anastasia realizes that Christian isn't for her, and she leaves in a pensive Empire Strikes Back-style ending (in that you know a sequel is coming).

There's so much to tackle here, so I'm going to start with the controversies first.  Obviously the film has some troublesome depictions of relationships, but I'm going to stop you there.  First off, this is a solo film, and what happens in later films is not really pertinent quite yet, and quite frankly, aside from Anastasia clearly having self-esteem issues, I didn't get too much of a date rape vibe that some have complained about and which I felt the book toed the line toward far more frequently.  Despite Christian being the "dominant" Anastasia is clearly the one calling all of the shots in the film.  She's the one who is being pursued, she's the one who won't sign the contract and dictates all of the arrangement.  Literally she's the one who is in control the entire movie except for the climactic flail scene, after which she quickly dumps Christian.  I'm not saying that she's a good role model or that this is a great depiction of feminism or anything, but at least in the film I just saw, she's only a wallflower in the sense that she's constantly fretting about a boy-she's largely the one in control here, and Christian is the one who is at her beck-and-call.  What is in store with the inevitable sequels I'll get to when those films come out.

I also think that the fact that the film isn't politically correct in terms of the way it features the BDSM community is unfortunate but not really the film's responsibility.  Every time a film comes out, particularly one that's geared toward female audiences, critics lampoon it if it they can't seem to relate or think that it doesn't reflect their viewpoint, which isn't really the point of a film-as long as the narrative makes sense within the confines of the celluloid (which it most definitely does-the plot is repetitive but logical) then making it completely representative of everyone's point of view isn't really a necessity.

I will say that one of the decisions of the film that I found really poor that probably contributed to it being a massive blockbuster was the concessions it made to get an R-rating.  For a film that is literally all about sex, it becomes comical, and not in a good way, that we never see either character nude from the front.  For a film that is literally about trying to let go of your sexual inhibitions, the camerawork by Seamus McGarvey (and my god there are a lot of Oscar nominees attached to this movie, with Anna Behlmer, Marcia Gay Harden, Danny Elfman, and Anne V. Coates, the editor of Lawrence of Arabia!!!, all amongst the credits) is handsome but ridiculous in the way that it avoids in particular showing Jamie Dornan's penis.  For a film that is apparently shaking the rafters of American sexuality, it seems a bit silly that we still can't see fully naked people in an R-rated movie.

Now we'll get to the actual quality of the film, but one quick note before we get there-when I was reading this book, I didn't pick up on the Twilight allusions nearly as heavily, but watching the film in front of me, it was hard not to catch every Twilight comparison.  The film may even end up out-earning some of the mammoth vampire movies, but between the piano, the enigmatically handsome leading man, the lip-biting heroine, the absent mother, hell even the Washington-location, there's really no denying the film owes a HUGE debt to Stephanie Meyer (and I'm hoping she's smart enough to be getting a cut).  With that said, I really liked the Twilight movies, especially some of the earlier ones, and I cannot defend it other than occasionally we have our guilty pleasures and I apparently was a sucker for a cheesy romance on occasion.

The moments that are the cheesiest in the film clearly work the best.  Hate-watching is not what I'd consider doing on a regular basis, but it's hard not to laugh at some of the intentional humor in the movie (like how she is drowning in rain after her first meeting with Christian Grey) and unintentional humor (the way that Christian constantly seems to be contradicting himself with heavy, "I don't want to talk about it but I can't stop talking about it" style monologues).  The best scene in the film by a country mile is the one where Anastasia and Christian are debating the terms of the contract, and we get the immortal giggle-line "what's a butt plug?" amongst multiple bon mots.  It's one of the few times that Jamie Dornan actually seems to be in on the joke.  His stoic Christian is not as much fun as it could have been, and while he looks the part, I would have liked to have seen Charlie Hunnam, an actor who can, you know, actually act, in the role as I think he would have gotten the joke a bit more.  Dakota Johnson is considerably better, though I hated the "she's a plain Jane" trope at the beginning of the film as she clearly isn't going to be with her parents, and her mother's demeanor in particular is echoed in the coyer and more playful scenes of the film (her parents are Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith for those of you who are living under a rock that doesn't have TMZ).

All-in-all, it's a cheesy schlockfest that's based on a terrible book and has no business being seen when you haven't caught Boyhood or Birdman or Selma yet.  But if you have, this might not be the worst $9 investment you ever made.  I don't know-I give it three stars.  Take that for what it is.

OVP: A Cat in Paris (2011)

Film: A Cat in Paris (2011)
Stars: Steve Blum, Marcia Gay Harden, J.B. Blanc, Anjelica Huston
Directors: Jean-Loup Felicioli and Alain Gagnol
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Occasionally, the Animated Feature race likes to go for the foreign films, and in the past year, they went for not one but two (the other being Chico & Rita, which will hopefully come to the blog in August), giving Arthur Christmas coal on nomination morning, and for the first time ever, ignoring Pixar (though when the movie is Cars 2, can you really blame them?).

The movie opens on a cat attacking a lizard, and a girl storing that lizard in a sardine can, which is never really explained except perhaps to prove that this film is clearly not domestically made (if it were American, the lizard would come back to life and be voiced by Albert Brooks).  The girl has stopped speaking after the recent murder of her father by a notorious crime lord (Blanc), and has bonded with her new nanny (Huston) and has become distanced from her mother (Harden), a detective trying to find the man who killed her husband.

The cat, meanwhile, has a double life as a thief's (Blum) assistant, swiping jewels and priceless art all across Paris, making them quite literally...(wait for it)...cat burglars.  Groan.  Despite this horrible entendre, their capers are actually good solid fun, and involve an hilarious bit with a sleepwalker.

The film, of course, takes many twists and turns, and keeps you bouncing off the edge of your seat as the girl, thief, detective, and crime lord jump on and off the rooftops of Paris, only to find themselves on the top of one of the City of Lights must celebrated landmarks.  The pacing is excellent, primarily because it's just over an hour long (making it possibly the shortest film ever nominated in the Animated Feature race).  This brevity helps keep things moving (the film is fairly predictable, and though the animation is shiny and plum, the little girl and the Hanna-Barbara gang of buffoon henchmen make "wearing out the welcome" a great risk), however it leaves a large amount of plot holes, particularly what happens to the thief's many exploits and plunder.

The film competed against a rather middling lineup (without a Pixar gem to spruce things up, the Animated Feature race gets a little disheveled), but it cannot compete with Rango, which still remains my favorite of the five nominees.  Chico & Rita, which is usually the choice of the critics who don't go with Verbinski's film, may change that, however.

With this, by the way, I have officially seen all but four of 2011's OVP films, and three are at the top of my Netflix list, so stay tuned!

And per usual, here's some food for thought questions-do you prefer international to domestic animated films?  Did you find A Cat in Paris superior to the wild west reptiles (or were you more on board with the swashbuckling cat, karate-chopping panda, or the 1940's singer/songwriter?)?  And what year would you most like to have completely finished from your Oscar-viewing?