by Edward X. Young
To contact the film critic, email: exyoung@exyoung.com

Lest anyone doubt the psychic powers of this film critic/astrologer, let the record speak for itself! 

Of the 14 categories selected for the SentinelSource Hollywood Gold 2004 Oscar® Ballot, I correctly predicted 13 winners in my annual article, “A Critic’s Picks.” And that is a better percentage than that of any other professional film critic! 

Next year, anyone choosing to enter the Hollywood Gold Oscar® contest would be wise to heed my advice.  But in the meantime, astrology fans would be prudent to follow my guidance in my horoscope column.

In summing up this year’s Oscars®, this critic is pleased that as predicted, Hollywood has finally redeemed itself, bestowing 11 deserving Oscars® upon THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING (pictured right). (This total sets a three-way tie for the most Oscars® won by a single movie.  BEN HUR (1959) and TITANIC (1997) also each won 11 Academy Awards® for their respective years.)  However, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (AMPAS) will forever have to answer for its egregious oversight in failing to honor any performer from the J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy over the past three years.

Looking forward to next year, I prophesy that director Mel Gibson’s reverent and controversial epic, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (pictured left), will arise as a major contender for Oscar® glory, provided AMPAS can look beyond some reactionary critics’ unwarranted accusations of anti-Semitism.  Danish director Lars von Trier’s DOGVILLE  (the controversial hit of the 2003 New York Film Festival that has finally secured a U.S. release date for April 2) stands to fetch a number of Academy Award® nominations, provided Hollywood can disregard some reactionary critics’ unwarranted accusations of anti-Americanism.  The resplendent redhead, Nicole Kidman, may be poised to win her second Academy Award® for delivering the greatest performance of her career in DOGVILLE (pictured right), provided Hollywood can overcome its apparent prejudice against actresses who are double-blessed with talent and beauty.

According to an ANI news report, “Hollywood stunner Nicole Kidman's glamorous appearance in American Civil War film COLD MOUNTAIN has cost it Oscar® success.”

Reportedly, a source on the film revealed that "intense debate" occurred in the editing suite over Kidman's flawless appearance as Ada Monroe. According to the source, director Anthony Minghella and executive producer Harvey Weinstein argued over a studio decision to digitally smudge Nicole's appearance to make her look grimy and less attractive.  But after time and cost ruled it out, Nicole's beauty was left untouched – a move the source speculated was ultimately responsible for the movie's disappointing Oscar® showing.

Apparently, Hollywood powerbrokers currently maintain a jealous schizophrenic love/hate relationship with beautiful stars, who bring in the beloved big box office bucks, as they usually seem to only reward attractive actresses with trophies if those same stars do something to deliberately ruin their own good looks.

Isn't it ironic that Nicole Kidman finally won an Oscar® last year for THE HOURS under heavy makeup that aged her appearance – including an ugly fake honker, in the role of Virginia Wolfe, which was really just a supporting (and not a leading) role -- as well as it being a performance that was nowhere near as great as many of Nicole's other efforts in earlier films (MOULIN ROUGE, TO DIE FOR, DEAD CALM, THE OTHERS, BIRTHDAY GIRL -- and especially EYES WIDE SHUT, in which Nicole gives her greatest screen soliloquy: "If you men only knew...")? Then, following her Oscar® win, Nicole turned out superior performances in rapid succession in THE HUMAN STAIN, and COLD MOUNTAIN (pictured left), in which, in each case, Nicole's beauty as well as talents were in full bloom.  But yet she was utterly and completely ignored by AMPAS for an Oscar® nomination for either of these truly excellent film performances this past year.

Isn’t it also ironic that this year's Best Actress Oscar winner, Charlize Theron, who is also a genuinely breathtaking beauty, gets her Oscar® for playing a serial killer in MONSTER (pictured right), for which she packed on 30 pounds of fat and shaved her eyebrows to make herself look almost as repulsive as Gollum from THE LORD OF THE RINGS?   And what about the Best Supporting Actress Award for Renée Zellweger?  The dirt under Renée’s fingernails and added extra weight only seemed to help this usually stunning actress finally bring home the gold for COLD MOUNTAIN -- after she lost out to Nicole Kidman last year, despite the fact that she delivered a more riveting performance in CHICAGO, in which Zellweger, as Roxy Hart, showed she could act, sing, dance -- and look spectacular at the same time.

Why would anyone want to punish pulchritude that maintains such public appeal?

Somebody tell the Academy, “Don’t hate them because they're beautiful!

Even with the contest at an end - we will still publish any comments on the Oscars or any film from 2003.

Comment on these films or others

To read more film reviews by Edward X. Young, visit the Entertainment Article Index