The Legacy of Oscar Snubs for Animals

Another year of Oscar nominations, another victory for humans everywhere. Did you know such great movie stars as Flipper the dolphin, Salty the Sea Lion, and The Gorilla Mist gang have never once been even considered even viable contenders for Oscars?

Well in 2010, the game is even trickier for animal actors, what with all the meaty roles being handled by computers and voice-over acting (Legend of the Guardian: Owls of Owltown) or played by humans portraying humans in movies that don't need animals (Animal Kingdom).

Still we got some fine performances that the academy has looked over... looked over is putting it too gently... that the academy doesn't care to acknowledge:

-The dog in Greenberg, whose doghouse needs served as a subtle yet powerful antagonist against Ben Stiller.

-The black swan in Black Swan- you were there for Natalie's Portmania to turn into you, but you weren't really there. I get it? I get you! Way to out shine Barbera Hershey and Jackie from the 70s.

-Little Blackie in True Grit - death scenes usually get the Academy's attention. As do scenes of great physicality, like running and running in water. You literally carried the actors in True Grit. Also the snake deserves some honorable mention.

-Rabbit Meat and squirrels- Winter's Bone- that family wouldn't have looked so poor and desperate without you.

-There was probably a lion or something in Clash of the Titans- good on you, probably.

-Sonny the dog- Due Date- the only believable character in this movie? No? Ok.

-The Vampire Bat in Twilight Eclipse-- didn't see, but if a vampire movie doesn't have a vampire bat, then what is the fucking point (other than for hormones)

Also, Piranhas from Piranha 3D-- that movie needed more Christopher Llyod. Samething with Furry Vengeance, Cats and Dogs The Revenge of Pussy Galore, Secretariet, and Wall Street 2- could've used more Christopher Lloyd. I also wish they would've had a real life bear play Yogi, that would've at least gotten a Golden Globe nom.

Review: Facebook: Movies: Greenberg

I saw Greenberg and liked it. I am one of thousands. Thousands around the clock. But- do I like it enough to put it in my facebook profile under the place designated for favorite movies? Yes probably. But that's a fat probably with two belts tied together acting as one. Greenberg is still too new to be in a Facebook profile. It still is clouded in its marketing. Putting it in there now says: I appreciate Ben Stiller on an esoteric level, I love every Noah Baumbach movie, and boy was I right about Greta Gerwig... which, to be fair, I say all those things. But I am obsessed with the delicate balance of how others view me in my favorite movies section on Facebook. Greenberg is a character study of a man not admitting his failures--- do I want to say that about myself? I liked the movie so much, because I can relate to it. That's where liking movies comes from! And goodness knows that if I put Greenberg on my profile, I could possibly encourage someone to see it- which is a whole new side of pressure to place upon myself. I could've avoided this by seeing Greenberg 3 weeks ago when it was still entirely too new to make any assumptions about, but 3 weeks is 3 weeks is a near month. Bandwagons have formed. The Raptors are out of the playoffs (probably). When does liking something become actually liking something? When you don't put thought into it, I bet. That- or when you put thought into it, the thoughts die, like the process in which you think is like the process in which we make hamburger meat. Read Jonathan Safran Foer "Eating Animals". The World. and all that.