Notes form a disenchanted Oscar watcher

So, I'm back and I'm about to push the play button on my 2009 Oscar predictions (starting this week with BEST PICTURE).

But I have to admit that in doing so, I'm a little hesitant -- hence, my brief (okay, long) disappearance.

The reason I'm hesitant is because I feel like we've seen two completely -- almost bi-polar -- sides of the Academy over the last two years.

In 2007, they made bold and daring choices with 'There Will Be Blood,' 'Juno,' 'No Country for Old Men' -- even 'Atonement' felt like a cool choice in some weird, classic kind of way.

Then we had the baffling year that was 2008. Instead of going for bold choices again (hello, 'Dark Knight' snub!) they reverted back to their old tactics by nominating 'The Reader,' 'Frost/Nixon' and what have you.

Part of me wants to say that 2008 was just a fluke year, and that I'm OK to make bold predictions for 2009. But is it possible that 2007 was really the fluke, a perfect storm where all of the year's best movies were the ones getting all of the right awards buzz?

I really don't know.

I'm gonna think on this for a couple more days and then have my predictions up by NO LATER THAN FRIDAY. I'm sick of being MIA from you guys -- it's not fair to you or to the blog.

In the meantime, how much fun was 'Star Trek'?