A memorable, and award worthy performance, ideally, is supposed to be one that you cannot imagine any other actor doing. As good as Charlize's performance was, I can imagine many other actresses assuming the guise and doing the role as well or better than she.

But Diane was irreplaceble. It was far from a perfect script and you didn't exactly have Scorcese or Allen directing, but no one could have conveyed the dry humor, pathos, and heartbreak as seamlessly and uniquely as Keaton did. Her wailing scenes by the computer aside, her performance was far more subtle, human, and accomplished then Charlize's transformative yet gimmicky performance could ever be.

And what exactly has Charlize done to prove her chops since? (I could ask the same of Halle and Nicole). Frankly, I am so sick of real, accomplished, superior trained actresses (Keaton, Bening, Spacek, Christie, Joan Allen,Julianne Moore) losing to competent yet inferior actresses (Kidman, BErry, Swank, Theron) who rely on wearing a fake nose or gaining 30lbs as a way to garner attention. At this point, I am convinced that the Academy gives awards to women who are more Vogue/Vanity Fair cover worthy just so it makes their movies more marketable, and to better sell clothes.

In my opinion, next to Meryl Streep, Diane Keaton is our greatest living actress. For those who think she always plays the same part, please educate yourselves and rent Looking for Mr Goodbar, Reds, Shoot the Moon, and Marvin's Room, among others. Her career did not begin with Father of the Bride.

Moreover, even when she is in inferior films, her performances always rise above the material (ok, Because I Said So notwithstanding, but she was terrific in that schlockfest The Family Stone). Mad Money may have flopped, but I still prefer it to 27 Dresses anyday.