For people who make it a point to watch all the Oscar-nominated films, have you found that the movies whose only nomination is for an actor aren't as good as the movies that get nominations for other things?

Well, I have a bias against "actor movies." Which are small in scale and character driven and tend to be realistic dramas.

I'd much rather watch Jeff Bridges in Lebowski (a real "director's movie") than Crazy Heart.

Robert Duvall is amazing in Tender Mercies but there are about nine other Duvall movies I'd rather watch first.

Oscar-bait movies are a particular flavor of spinach derived entertainment, and tend to be (in my opinion) less cinematic.

That said I did really like Laura Linney in You Can Count On me (actor movie).

I went on a kick watching Famous Movies, Groundbreaking Movies, Award Winning Movies, and lasted about five movies (I think it was a Kurosawa film that broke me. Or maybe it was 2001: A Space Odyssey). I am now unimpressed with anything that wins awards or is touted. There's what makes a great film and ticks all the boxes, and what I enjoy. (This also extends to gardening, where I am stuck at my job with gardens chock full of award and medal winning plants, but a garden they do not make. This dissonance hurts my eyes). I'll take the silver-medal who lost the race by a millisecond.

If the award-winners and my tastes happen to overlap, so be it.

And I think the fame of certain movies kept me from enjoying them for themselves. Bored to tears by Casablanca.

Who was the other cameo in XM: FC?

See, I LOVED Animal Kingdom. Although Weaver was wonderful and deserved her nomination, I thought almost all the performances were just as good and I loved the detailed, low-key storytelling, which still managed to be surprising. Some powerful HSQ in the film.

I didn't think much of Weaver—given that she was touted to be so totally amazeballs it was criminal anyone else was winning awards—and was disappointed in how little she was in the movie, given the hype. As for the low-key storytelling, it seemed almost aggressively low-key. It seemed like a movie I could like, if it were, well, a different movie.

I haven't yet seen Animal Kingdom. I really should rectify that.

Does one amazing performance make it worth watching a movie that isn't that great? For people who make it a point to watch all the Oscar-nominated films, have you found that the movies whose only nomination is for an actor aren't as good as the movies that get nominations for other things?

What "other things"? Special effects? Generally, no. Cinematography? Generally, yes.

But then it's not like the Oscars necessarily represent the best movies either. Shakespeare in Love comes to mind as a movie that got some big awards but really wasn't all that. Or, you know, Forrest Gump. (YCrappyOscarMovieMV).

Admittedly, I try to watch most of the nominated actors, but I'll skip it if it looks too depressing (Biutiful, Rabbit Hole) or scenery chewing (Crazy Heart). So I may be eliminating some of the worst offenders.

That said, I thought that Junebug and Animal Kingdom were far better overall films than Rachel getting Married, but I thought Anne Hathaway's performance was by far the best of the bunch.

Oh, that cameo. I just remembered.

I know I'm probably not supposed to say things like "the next Lost Boys" but it's kind of the vibe I got from the new Fright Night trailer, except with less time on the vamps' side.

Hey, I didn't realize Marti Noxon wrote the new Fright Night! Looks like it could be good. Has quite the cast.

What does she know about sexy European vampires and the Brits that teach kids to kill them?