As miserable as being sick can get, it does have its advantages. For one, I've lost 4 pounds in the last 4 days.

For another, with little to do other than sit in front of the TV all day, I finally found the time to watch the movie "Crash." And I'm glad I did, because it was an excellent film. Matt Dillon, as expected, gave the best performance in the movie, but the real revelation here was Sandra Bullock. For once playing against type, she turned in a brilliant performance as the angry, paranoid wife of the Los Angeles District Attorney. Ryan Phillippe was also a pleasant surprise. Over the years I've disliked just about everything he's done, but this was only the second time I've genuinely enjoyed one of his performances (the first being his turn in Robert Altman's wonderful "Gosford Park").

The film has gotten a lot of crap from a lot of people since winning Best Picture at this month's Oscars. Was it the best movie of 2005? Doubtful. But then how often does the best picture of the year actually win Best Picture? Was "Titanic" the best we had in 1997? I certainly hope not. Was "American Beauty" 1999's best? No way. Given this track record, perhaps we should just be content with the fact that this year's winner was actually a good movie (even though "Brokeback Mountain" author Annie Proulx and her enormous case of sour grapes may disagree).

Like everyone who failed to predict the surprise ending of Sunday's Academy Awards ceremony, Reuters is playing Monday Wednesday morning quarterback. Writer Martin Grove lists several reasons why everyone should have known that "Crash" would win the Best Picture Oscar. Among the reasons:

[I]nsiders are also pointing to a little known piece of Oscar trivia: not since 1980's "Ordinary People" has a film won the best picture Oscar without also having had a nomination for best film editing. "Brokeback [Mountain]" wasn't a film editing nominee this year, while "Crash" film editor Hughes Winborne took home the Oscar. Insiders claim that film editors don't vote for best picture nominees that aren't also best film editing nominees. There are 239 members of the Academy's Film Editors branch. If their votes are added to the 1,238 that quite possibly weren't cast at all, that's a total of 1,477 votes -- nearly 24% of the total Academy membership -- that didn't go to "Brokeback."

I've been using that little tip (coupled with a Best Director nod requirement) to make my Oscar picks since the early 1990's, and it's paid off well several times. When nominations were announced in 1996, for example, I immediately predicted that "Braveheart" would win Best Picture despite the fact that "Apollo 13" was an early favorite for a lot of people. Why did I make that call? Because it and "Babe" were the only two Best Picture nominees also nominated for both Directing and Editing. Since there seemed little chance of a film about a talking pig, even one as good as "Babe," winning Best Picture, "Braveheart" was the only other option. "The Rule" prevailed, and "Braveheart" took home the grand prize.

This year, however, I blatantly ignored my most favored of omens. When nominations came out in January, I noticed quickly that "Brokeback" wasn't up for the editing award. For just a millisecond I seriously thought, "It can't win Best Picture," but I immediately dismissed that logic and made a snap judgment that this was the year "The Rule" would be broken. Wise choice, grasshopper.

Maybe now I should sit down and actually watch "Crash." I did, after all, receive the DVD for Christmas. From what I hear, the editing is fantastic.

[Yahoo! News] Should have seen signs of "Crash" coming