I have no problems with films that "just entertain," but do you honestly believe that category deserves Oscar recognition? I think awards are given out too easily--between the Golden Globes and the SAGs and the People's Choice and God knows what else, any piece of junk film can say it's award-winning. Need proof, go to ImDB. Everything has at least been nominated for something.

I think award-nominated and award-winning films should make us think, surprise us, take us out of the ordinary. And this year's batch of films, I think, does that. No Country and There Will Be Blood are two extremely disturbing and poignant portraits of the desolation of the west and the desperation and greed of man. Juno is an extremely clever script performed by an outstanding cast at the direction of an adept filmmaker--I think that film, which can be considered "artsy," could justifiably win in every category. The only film I disapprove of is Michael Clayton, for the very reason that I think it was, as you put it, "just entertaining." Sure I enjoyed it, but I didn't find it all that particularly compelling or special. Just your run-of-the-mill Josh Grishamesque thriller. Meh.

Movies are, at the end of the day, meant to be entertaining. And I enjoy a shoot-em-up monster movie as much as I do a thoughtful screenplay. But I hate giving the former recognition and legitimacy with awards, that are, in themelves contrived in the first place.

That's my two cents, anyways.