Golden Globe film noms: Meryl twice? Tom Cruise once?

How could film’s that just came out be on this list? Wtf. The dark knight is not in there as best film? I think it made more money then any film listed. People need to view these film’s not out of date paid critics. That are given money to dump on films, just, so dry and boring films can get all the love. The dark knight is a movie about a comic book so there going to be holes in the plot.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture: one person should win Heath Ledger, "The Dark Knight
Hollywood is dry out of ideas so get to work!

I just think it funny how these actors make to much money and then get awards for making a movies. What about the hard working americans that are suffering through hard times and not sure how they are going to put Christmas presents under the tree, but lets give out awards to famous people because they are so great!

Ty sez: It's called bread and circuses. Keeps the populace diverted.

I think The Dark Knight got just as many nominations as it should have. Yes, it was well-directed. But, better than Slumdog Millionaire? Heath Ledger made the movie--and I'm saying that as a Christian Bale fan. That said, I didn't enjoy the movie at all--part of it, was the unease I felt watching Heath Ledger (so tragic, so sad, and seeing this role that made him allegedly unable to sleep!). Part of it was just how depressing and violent the movie was. Last year, we were stuck with No Country for Old Men--a well-acted, yet overrated horror movie. This year, luckily, there is Slumdog Millionaire--it has horror, but it also has hope.

Though, why Milk got dissed, I have no idea.

Ty sez: Yes, thanks for pointing out yet another big omission: The pretty thorough hosing of "Milk" except for Sean Penn's nomination. Is the movie an American saga that doesn't play as well with foreign critics? Or are we talking plain old homophobia? Because there's no way "Milk" is a worse movie than "Benjamin Button," "The Reader," "Frost/Nixon," or "Revolutionary Road."

The Dark Knight, regardless of the fact that it is an 'action' movie (which could very well be debated), SHOULD BE UP FOR MORE AWARDS! The movie was probably one of the GREATEST examples of Good vs. Evil, and the performances in it not only by Ledger, but by Bale, Eckhart and Caine, were all supurb. The Dark Knight grossed more money than all of the other films this year, and deserves much more attention than it has received. I am appalled...

Frost/Nixon for Best Drama...yeah, good one. I'd like to meet that moron who put it on the list.

My vote is for Anne Hathaway anyday. If she doesn't get it this time she surely will next!

I've never heard of half of these movies.

And, if Tom Cruise wins a GG for that performance in Tropic Thunder than the Scientologists have definitely won.

I can live with Dark Knight, a movie based on a comic book, not getting a Best Picture nomination (I actually thought Wall-E not getting a nod was a bigger testament to voters being unwilling to move beyond conventional categories and thinking), because the film as a whole had some flaws. However, Chris Nolan being ignored shocked me. He coaxed that performace out of Ledger, crafted a film that broke the mold of what comic book movies are made of, pioneered the use of Imax in traditional films, and played with meaty, timely themes of terrorism and what it costs to be free. To see that effort ignored in favor of a guy like Ron Howard, who basically filmed a play, and Stephen Daldry, who made a decent yet boring film in "The Reader" makes one wonder what criteria are even used to select these nominees. If voters like the movie does the director nod come as part of a package? There will always been snubs and omissions in these awards shows; Id just like to see a little more thought put into the selections is all.

Dark Knight sucked! The story got so lost towards the end. It's was a "blockbuster" because it was overhyped and because Heath Ledger died. Heath Ledger's inspiration was Jack Nicholson's take on the Joker. He tried to make him a more cerebral evil, but, hey, the movie is so stupid it's hard to pull that off. Maybe that's why he's nominated. Heath Ledger tried to make chicken soup out of a chicken poop of a movie role and the Globe had to give him credit.

"MILK"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What happened???????

That's insane.

james-just because a movie made the most amount of money doesn't mean it's the best. You haven't heard of half of these movies because you just follow what 'everyone else' does...like most other people

Ty sez: In James' defense, a lot of these films -- "The reader," "Revolutionary Road," "Benjamin Button" -- haven't been released in the Boston area or at all yet. The awards nominations in a sense are now part of their PR campaigns.

I'll try my best to be brief with my criticisms and omissions:

Each of the major categories seem to have been selected with 4 completely expected nominations, and one "dark horse" candidate to assuage the anger of those tired of predictability. In terms of Best Actress, who didn't expect to see Hathaway, Winslet, Streep and Jolie? And for Best Actor, who didn't have Penn, DiCaprio, Pitt and Langella?

The nominations of Thomas and Rourke in these categories is nice, but almost seems like they're filling a quota, an affirmative action policy for underdogs, if you will.

Also, I have to echo the sentiments of earlier posters: Where is "Milk" for best picture?

And finally, how did "In Bruges" get three nominations? It was a fun movie, but it hardly seems worth of such praise. Maybe if they had nominated the conspiracy theorist midget...

Ty sex: Actually, Kevin, Rourke's been a heavy favorite for a best actor award ever since the movie started getting seen in September; it's not really a surprise at all, certainly not like Kristen Scott Thomas. But I'm with you on the omission of "Milk" and the perplexing love for "In Bruges." Must've been the Belgian vote.

What a shock: the hollywood foreign press doens't recognize the intricate ways Wall-E was one of the best animated movies ever--by not finding a place for it in the "real" nominations. And they'd rather nominate mediocre bores than something like "Batman" which dared to be...popular. Yikes. The Golden Globes, like the recent Oscars, are once again saying that "95 percent of the movie-goers out there--those that see about a dozen films a year--once again haven't seen a single nominated best picture nominee and we're okay with that." Art and specialized films and box-office duds are now ESSENTIAL to being nominated. Sade.

Wasn't "The Visitor" a 2008 release? It came out in April. It is far better than almost any of the films listed here (although I haven't seen "Milk". Am I mistaken---did it perhaps get considered for awards in 2007? It deserves best actor, best film, best just about everything.

Golden Globe requires 4-5 nominations for each topic. I am surprised that the nommentators were able to meet their count this year!

I thought that this would be a year in which a foreign film like Crouching Tiger/Hidden Tiger would be the big winner this year in view of the low quality films that were released by Holleywood for 2008.
I am a movie fan and am the film critic for several friends but 'Mama Mia', was one of the few movies I recommend that they see. Not worthy of any award but at least it was fun!

Has anybody seen Let the Right One In. Why was this film not nominated for best foreign movie. It shouldve been best movie of the year. Do I have a friend out their.

Ty sez: Great movie, CO -- definitely one of the year's best -- but exactly the kind of foreign film they *don't* give awards to (bloody, clever, unsettling, bound by genre).

The Golden Globes are insanely bad. No "Milk"? This is without a doubt one of the three best movies of the year if not the best. Thank you Ty for putting Mama Mia in its place. How Colin Farrel, a non acting entity always at his worse could have won over such other performers is a mystery, but then again so is his entire career.