Once again, I have to echo what one of the posters said below – did any of the flame throwers actually READ this article before launching their oh so witty crusades? Andrew praised these films for the most part – in fact you can find a pretty good endorsement in only the first page of the article. I’ll even quote it at length here to save you the trouble of clicking back;

“At the same time, I'll admit that I'm not altogether unhappy about Hollywood's latest bout of compulsive seriousness (even if making fun of it is irresistible). In general, I prefer the mainstream movie world in its soul-searching mode than in its fun-loving and/or life-celebrating mode. Mostly that's a question of craft, not morality: All the nominated films this year are well made and packaged with earnest attentiveness, and generally adopt the notion that mainstream audiences might possess brains and be willing to deal with some level of moral ambiguity.”

In addition, Andrew said how much he admired Munich, Brokeback, Capote and GN&GL to varying degrees for the message they conveyed and the filmmakers’ (whether director, writer, actor or other) skill in conveying it. The only one he did criticise heavily for being simplistic and shrill was the fully-deserving Crash (there is an epically brilliant South Park episode to be made lambasting this bit of celluloid nonsense…)

This is an unusually politicised Best Picture group, and all the article was doing was examining how well it integrated its politics and message into the narrative of the film. For the most part, Andrew said that four of the pictures did a fair to excellent job of this. So the article had a flip tone - its often hard to speak in any other tone when discussing the Oscar race. So what’s with the vitriol?

I think its pretty obvious that Academy voters have a tendency to look at a body of work when nominating an actor, especially if they have done contrasting work in the same year. I would bet the farm that the reason Jim Boradbent won Best Supporting Actor for Iris, was that 7 months earlier he was tearing the screen up as Zidler in Moulin Rouge. Similarly, I think Catherine Keener was nominated for her shaded, subtle work in Capote in part because she was so blissfully warm and romantic in the 40 Year Old Virgin. Taking this into account, Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams should have been given some recognition for outstanding, break out years. Murphy was creepy as hell in different ways in Batman Begins and Red Eye, and then utterly charming and funny in Breakfast on Pluto. McAdams shows intelligence, warmth, steel eyed determination and a gift for comedy in Red Eye, The Wedding Crashers and The Family Stone (and fabulous taste by walking out of the naked photo shoot for that silly Vanity Fair Hollywood edition).

Other random actors that deserve recognition;

Ginnifer Goodwin (Walk the Line) - a role and performance that was sniffly dismissed by most critics as just 'the whining wife' but I found incredibly sympathetic thanks to Goodwin's portrayal.

Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener) - Rachel Weisz is indeed dazzling, but Fiennes best performance since Schindler's List deserves attention for the quiet pain and desperation he brings to it.

Michael Pena (Crash) - the only actor I would nominate from Crash, purely for his delivery of the 'magic cloak' speech to his daughter. Taking a silly speech and making it truly affecting and touching is the mark of a great talent.

Gromit & Kong (Wallace and Gromit/King Kong) - neither of these animated characters were ever going to be nominated, but each gives a sterling performance that mixes comedy and pathos to perfection. Is there room for an animated performance in these categories? Or even for Helena Bonham Carter’s hilariously dippy vocal work as Lady Tottington?

Johnny Depp (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) - I thought this version trumped the tired original in virtually every way, not least in Depp's portrayal of Wonka. Precise, meticulous character work that never feels stuffy and often had me doubled up with laughter.

Angelina Jolie (Mr and Mrs Smith) - I don't think much of the film, but is there another actress like Joli who could move through this rubbish with such animal grace and still make you believe in her cartoon character?

What was the snarky put down of Reese, probably one of the strongest and most inventive actresses out there? This is a woman (not a girl!) who can do comedy, music, romance and drama, all qualities which she showed in her superb performance as June Carter. And all Cintra can say about her is that she is a;

"a very, very nice girl. A nice Southern sorority debutante with a nice marriage and nice children and nice morals. Nice. Upstanding. Proper. Acts like a decent lady. This reeks of some kind of subterranean, 1950s social conditioning to me."

Since when were any of those attributes seen as negative? Social Conditioning? It sounds like grace and maturity to me - she is 29, has been an acclaimed actress for almost a decade, managed to get to the A-list of box office with the minimum of compromising (Legally Blonde 2 notwithstanding), as well as get married, and have a child without grossly exploiting either for attention. She is one of the rare examples of talent, and not obnoxious media management, succeeding in Hollywood.