I was thinking about this the other day and wanted to hear some other opinions. My opinion is probably more than slightly out there, but I think Jon Heder should have at least been nominated for Napoleon Dynamite and he probably should have won. I know that movie is polarizing. You either hated it or you loved it (I think if you hated it, you just didn't get it, but that's another topic.) I know you're probably saying right now, "this guy is nuts," but hear me out on Heder. If you have seen him in any other movie or in interviews, you probably didn't even recognize him at first. In fact, you probably said at one point, "this is the guy who played Napoleon Dynamite?" Isn't that what good acting is? Being able to pull off playing someone who is the complete opposite of your personality and making it believable? Sean Penn won the Oscar in 2004 for best actor in Mystic River for playing a character he plays in just about every movie he's in. Was that role a stretch for him? I doubt it, since he's played it so many times. Others nominated that year were Jude law in Cold Mountain, Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Ben Kingsley in House of Sand and Fog (a movie nobody watched) and Bill Murray in Lost In Translation. Johnny Depp was more deserving of the Oscar, IMO, because his role was a stretch for him. Heder at least deserved a nomination for playing a role that was equally as challenging. Blast away.