On January 25, 2008, shortly after Heath Ledger’s death, I conjectured on whether the actor would win an Oscar posthumously for his portrayal of the Joker in the upcoming movie The Dark Knight. The Heath Ledger Oscar post is here, and examines the chances of actors winning awards after their deaths. It’s a rare feat indeed.

Now, six months later, on the eve of the release of The Dark Knight, critics are echoing what fans have only guessed based on 20 seconds worth of footage, that Heath Ledger should and will receive an Oscar nomination for his role as the Joker. In this article, AP writer David Germain drills into the what-if’s, James Dean and the cautious marketing approach Warner Brothers is taking to tout Ledger’s performance and get him a nomination.

The Dark Knight movie reviews I’ve seen so far for have been just short of heavenly, and Ledger is getting immense praise. At this point, it’s almost certain that Ledger will receive an Oscar nomination. The bigger question is whether he can defy the odds and actually win an Oscar more than a year after his death?

The Oscars are over, and it was a pretty good show. No Country for Old Men was the clear victor, taking Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Motion Picture. I would have liked to see things spread around a bit more as the competition was fierce (and, thanks to the lack of an ending for the Coen Brothers’ film, better, more deserving films), but am not surprised.

Javier Bardem deserved his Oscar, as did Marion Cotillard for her amazing performance in La Vie En Rose. Not only was she most deserving of her award, but she was also a bit of a surprise victory, and the most emotional winner. Surprisingly, the winners that the audience connected with the most were Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, the lead actors and singers of the Oscar-winning song “Falling Slowly”, from Once. There actually would have been a riot had this movie not won for Best Original Song, and the Oscar crew recognized this to the point where they actually let Irglova back onto the stage after a commercial break to allow her to finish her acceptance speech. Classy.

Daniel Day-Lewis, of course, won for Best Actor. Has anyone else noticed that on screen, he always look so tough and powerful, yet off screen, he always looks like he’s on the verge of death? Anyway, I was happy to see him win, and seriously would have murdered my neighbors if someone stole Oscar gold from him.

Thank God Atonement won for Best Original Score. Any film that can incorporate a typewriter into its score deserves an award… Why wasn’t There Will Be Blood nominated in this category, though?

There were only two awards that really shocked me:

• Tilda Swinton, for Best Supporting Actress. She was great, but I was almost certain Cate Blanchett would win for I’m Not There. That was a career-best performance for the actress, and I have to wonder whether her dual nominations split her own votes. Still, I was disappointed to see her not fully recognized for such a groundbreaking performance.
• The Golden Compass, for Best Visual Effects. Are you kidding me? This was the weakest film of the three, and Transformers should have won handily. I was disappointed that 300 wasn’t nominated in the category; I’m even more disappointed that The Golden Compass somehow won. I didn’t even know enough people even saw that film.

So, overall, it was a great, streamlined presentation. Jon Stewart didn’t have a great opening, but he threw in enough quality jokes to get by. The joke about Jack getting more women pregnant before the end of the night was a good one. The montages were also quite good and not time killers, and the production only ran 20 minutes overboard. The binoculars montage was probably the highlight of the evening.

Here are all my Oscar predictions for the 2008 Academy Awards (some categories are left blank because I don’t feel I can make an intelligent guess, i.e. for Best Sound Mixing, etc.): FilmJabber’s Oscar predictions.

And here are some Academy Award nominations from other websites that I read quite often:

• Box Office Prophets
• Crave Online

While there are several highly competitive categories at this year’s Academy Awards, Joel and Ethan Coen will win the Oscar for Best Director. If you look at the competitive, there is just no question.

Paul Thomas Anderson would be my pick if I were to select the winner, as There Will Be Blood was the boldest, most unique film of the group. Unfortunately, this is not his award to win, and I won’t be disappointed. The Coen Brothers did a spectacular job with No Country for Old Men, despite forgetting to add an ending to the film.

And that’s my Oscar analysis for Best Director, as I’m sick of writing these things…

The day is almost here: the 2008 Academy Awards. For a while, there was fear that this show wouldn’t even exist, but, as one could have predicted, the writer’s strike ended far enough in advance for that not to happen.

It’s an incredibly competitive bunch this year, and all films are deserving in some way or another. Here is my Oscar predictions for Best Picture:

• No Country for Old Men will win, even though I think it’s only the third best movie of the group. One of the earliest films to be released wide, the movie faced the challenging of losing steam over the months, and at times, it appeared to be doing so. But the Coen Brothers’ movie has been resilient and proven to be a powerhouse at many major award shows, and it will be a shocker if No Country for Old Men doesn’t win. If the Coens had bothered to stamp a real ending on the film, I would be voting for this film look no other - after all, it is one of the best thrillers ever made - but the ending sucked. To me, an Oscar winner should be a complete film… and endings are an essential part for any film.
• Atonement was my favorite film of the year. It is my most mainstream choice in years, though I have several friends who have told me the movie sucks. I honestly don’t know what they watched; Atonement is an engaging, emotional, interesting and unique war drama, with great direction (how did Joe Wright not get nominated?) and a great score. I would be happy if this movie wins, if not just to prove to my friends that other people feel the same way I do, but this movie doesn’t have much of a chance. Despite winning many major awards, including Best Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, analysts have counted this one out of the running. I don’t know why, exactly, but I’d be very surprised if this movie won.
• Despite my decimal-point favoring to Atonement, There Will Be Blood is my pick (not my prediction) to win Best Picture. The movie is phenomenal and unique, and I want it to win because it is so bold and different from the other films nominated. Unfortunately, the movie will have to be satisfied by a win for Daniel Day-Lewis as Best Actor.
• The final two films are lesser entries, and I will be highly disappointed if they win. Michael Clayton was great, but not that great - especially compared to the other contenders - and Juno… well, it’s a great movie, but it’s a simpler film that doesn’t deserve the title of Best Movie of the Year. Juno will win for Best Original Screenplay, and it will deserve it: after all, the screenplay is what makes the film. I’m not a big fan of comedies winning major awards, and will be upset if Juno steals the award from other, greater films.

More than likely, No Country for Old Men will win. An upset isn’t out of the question, however. No Country and Blood could split votes, leaving an opening for Atonement or, more likely, Juno. I hope that doesn’t happen, but it could. Either way, expect Michael Clayton at the bottom of the pile.

View the Oscar nominations and my picks, or visit my Oscar analysis section of the blog.

Who will win the Oscar for Best Actor at 2008’s Academy Awards? Normally, I would go into an analysis of each actor’s chances and strengths, such as my articles on Best Supporting Actress and Best Supporting Actor, but that really isn’t necessary.

I haven’t seen In the Valley of Elah, but I’m sure Tommy Lee Jones is good - but has anyone seen that movie? It’s not in theaters and it’s not out on DVD.

Viggo Mortensen was good in Eastern Promises, but was it an Award-winning performance? No.

Johnny Depp for Sweeney Todd? Puh-lease. The only reason he was nominated was because people love Johnny Depp. There were better performances out there in 2007.

George Clooney was spectacular in Michael Clayton, but…

Daniel Day Lewis is just phenomenal. The man wins praise for nearly every performance he does, but his performance in There Will Be Blood is the best of his career. Even people who didn’t like the movie recognize just how amazing he is in the film. If he doesn’t win, I will be shocked and utterly disappointed.

Who will win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor at this year’s Academy Awards? All I can say is… Holy shit, what a battle!

Here are some excerpts from my movie reviews in 2007:

“While there are several actors who turn in Oscar worthy performances in the film, it is Javier Bardem who blows everyone else away.” - No Country for Old Men review

“Come Oscar time, though, it is unlikely we’ll be hearing Clooney’s name, but I pray to God that the talk of the town will be about Tom Wilkinson. Wilkinson has found the dream role here, and I will be shocked if a supporting actor nod doesn’t come his way.” - Michael Clayton review

“The show stealer, however, is Hoffman. Hoffman, who plays CIA agent Gust Avrakotos, is absolutely incredible, and one of my picks for Best Supporting Actor.” - Charlie Wilson’s War review

“Sadly, due to the box office performance of the movie, I would be a bit surprised to see either of these men [Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck] nominated, but both truly deliver Oscar-worthy performances.” - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford review

The only actor I didn’t give props to in my reviews was Hal Holbrook, but even he did a stellar job in a rather small and understated role. Compared to the other actors, however, the only thing going for him is his age. Simply put:

• Javier Bardem will win, and he’s my choice to win. Why? Bardem plays an absolute bad ass, seriously one of the most disturbing and psychotic characters in cinema history. Beyond that, he is the one actor who’s coming out of a successful movie: both audiences and critics alike have given the film praise, and it has the box office dollars to back that praise up. It also doesn’t help that No Country for Old Men is one of the front runners to win it all. I’m not as confident about this victory as I am with other categories as the competition is so fierce, but I’m betting low odds that Bardem will win Best Supporting Actor at 2008’s Academy Awards.
• Tom Wilkinson is phenomenal in Michael Clayton, but there is one big problem: the movie tanked at the box office because no one saw it. His performance is truly Oscar worthy, but I just haven’t heard his name discussed. The acting has taken a back seat to the overall delivery of the film, and Wilkinson is an unfortunate victim of a variety of circumstances.
• Philip Seymour Hoffman is the best part about Charlie Wilson’s War, but unfortunately the movie received only so-so kudos from critics and audiences largely ignored the comedy-drama. I just never pictured Charlie Wilson’s War to be a major contender, and it also hurts Hoffman that he recently won an Oscar for Best Actor just a little while back. His character is also supplied more for comic relief, and that won’t go over as well with voters.
• Casey Affleck probably delivered the best performance in 2007 that no one saw. I mean, most people haven’t even heard of Assassination… Ford (I get sick of writing the title out), let alone seen it. Both Affleck and Pitt are great in the movie, though their performances are rather subtle. I think this movie showed that Affleck is truly capable of great performances when given the right material, but voters will look at his age and assume he’ll have more chances on down the line. Oh, and Affleck is the main character in the movie… but I won’t go on about how he shouldn’t be allowed in the Best Supporting Actor category.
• The only way that this award will disappoint me is if Hal Holbrook wins. He is very good in his role, but his role is neither as big or as grand as his competitors. What he does have going for him - and this worries me - is that he is old, so voters may suspect he may die before he turns in another great performance, and that voters may try to make up for the fact that Into the Wild was largely ignored at the Oscars by giving him a medal.

The Best Supporting Actor Oscar category is an extremely competitive category and every actor involved deserves recognition, but No Country for Old Men will rightfully carry Javier Bardem to the podium.

The Academy Awards are only a week away, which means I better get cranking on my Oscar predictions. Having just watched La Vie en Rose, I have now seen four of the five movies with Oscar-nominated actresses. I have yet to see Laura Linney in The Savages, but I’d be quite surprised if she is considered a real contender; I haven’t heard much buzz about her and the movie, and may have been nominated simply because Oscar voters like her work and they needed someone for that fifth spot.

In 2007, there was a real lack of stiff competition among the women, and this tends to be a trend from year to year. What does that mean? It simply goes to prove that men generally get more and meatier roles than the women. If you ever want to make the argument that men and women get an equal chance when it comes to movie stardom, think again: almost every year, there are several lead actors who don’t get nominated simply because there can be only five; with the women, there are usually two or three strong performances and a couple more who were included because five nominations are needed.

Anyway, on with the Oscar analysis for Best Actress in a Leading Role:

• Away From Her - Julie Christie
  This movie sat on my shelf for months literally collecting dust before I realized that it featured a performance that had been nominated for an Oscar. Julie Christie is oustanding as a woman who is descending into the grips of Alzheimer’s, though I would argue that her role is more of a supporting one than a lead. Christie has turned in what is probably a performance of a life time, and has a good chance at winning Oscar Gold; after all, she already won a Golden Globe for the performance. That being said, the movie itself, while it has been out on DVD for months, is not very well known at all, and not particularly memorable in spite of Christie’s involvement. I would also argue that Gordon Pinsent upstages her as her troubled husband.
  All that being said, Julie Christie will likely win the Oscar for Best Actress.
• Elizabeth: The Golden Age - Cate Blanchett
  It seems like every time Cate Blanchett takes on a new movie, she gets nominated for her performance. While that probably won’t hold true for the upcoming Indiana Jones movie, she is the very definition of a golden child: an Oscar winner with multiple nominations and the talent to back it up. There is no denying that she is very skilled and can take on any role (including playing a man in I’m Not There), but this performance has several things going against her:
  • She already was nominated for an Oscar for the same role several years back, in a movie that received much higher praise than this sequel.
  • This sequel didn’t get very good reviews, was essentially a box office thud and really wasn’t all that spectacular.
  • She is nominated for and likely to win for Best Supporting Actress for her role in I’m Not There, which is a thousand times more amazing and memorable.
  • She’s already won, so why give her another award?
• Juno - Ellen Page
  In my opinion the best runner-up of the group, Ellen Page already showed that she could headline a film in Hard Candy, but few people saw or remember that movie. Juno, however, is one of the biggest box office successes; it has made over $100 million on a budget of only $7.5 million, and has been in the Top 10 for nine straight weeks. Page is incredible in the movie, playing off Diablo Cody’s Oscar-nominated screenplay with ease. The only things she has going against her: she’s young, and Oscar voters may view that she is far from peaking, and there is at least one even stronger performer in the bunch, in a more serious movie.
• La Vie en Rose - Marion Cotillard
  I just watched this movie, and Marion Cotillard blew me away. When I looked her name up after the end of the film, I realized that she had played the beautiful love interest in A Good Year; I didn’t even recognize her in La Vie en Rose. Her performance and transformation into a hunchbacked, hobbling, high pitched singer is simply stunning, and on merit alone, she definitely deserves the Oscar. The fact that La Vie en Rose is a foreign film is a strike against her simply because fewer voters will have seen the movie, but she is my pick and black horse prediction to win.
• Savages, The - Laura Linney
  I haven’t seen Linney in The Savages, but I’m sure she’s very good. That being said, I’ve never found Linney to be dominating in her performances, and while I respect that is a very talented actress, I don’t quite get why everyone likes her so much. This is her third Oscar nomination, but I haven’t heard any discussions about her chances to win, which pretty much means that she has no chance to win.

You can see all of the Oscar nominees, my picks and predictions on my 2008 Oscar nominations page. You can also read other Oscar analysis in my Oscar blog.

Is there any question that Cate Blanchett is going to win an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress at the 2008 Academy Awards? The actress is by far and away the most powerful person in the category, and her performance the most memorable.

Hell, Cate Blanchett is the only reason people went to go see I’m Not There, the officially weird but surprising excellent metaphor to Bob Dylan’s life. After all, Blanchett plays one of six versions of Dylan in the film, and if it’s hard to play the opposite sex, Blanchett doesn’t sweat a drop. The movie noticeably picks up its pace when she arrives on camera, and turns in one of the most dazzling performances ever captured on film.

As for the others, there’s not much competition. Ruby Dee in American Gangster? Seriously? That film lost its Oscar steam a long way back, and the only thing going for her is that the Denzel Washington/Russell Crowe film is about to arrive on DVD (but when are votes due?). I don’t remember a single thing about Dee’s performance, and there doesn’t seem to be much of a reason for her nomination other than a lack of good supporting female leads this year.

I was not a huge fan of Saoirse Ronan in Atonement. I absolutely loved the movie, but Ronan seemed a bit out of her element. OK, she still does a pretty good job (I noticed more the second time I saw the movie), but an Oscar-winning job? I don’t think so. [Correction: I completely confused Ronan with Romala Garai - two odd names, you know. I wasn’t a huge fan of Garai, but in fact thought Ronan was terrific as the young Briony. Behind Cate Blanchett, Ronan would be my pick]

Gone Baby Gone was another very good film, and Amy Ryan did a very good job portraying a loser of a mother. That being said, when I was watching the movie, I was never blown away by her performance. I’m not too surprised she was nominated, but she sure as hell isn’t going to win.

The best competition for Cate Blanchett is Tilda Swinton, who plays a stone cold corporate executive in Michael Clayton, starring George Clooney. She has a relatively small role, but she is commanding in every scene; way back in October or whenever I saw this film, I thought at the time that she could be a front runner for an Oscar. Still, compared to Blanchett, Swinton isn’t nearly as memorable; and I haven’t heard any buzz about her, either.

Overall, these nominations don’t surprise me too much; there was a lack of good supporting actresses in 2007, and these are probably the best of the bunch. Allison Janney in Juno is the only other person I can think of off the top of my head who could have been up for the award.

Which movie will win the Oscar for Best Animated Picture at 2008’s Academy Award show? The nominations are three:

• Persepolis
• Ratatouille
• Surf’s Up

As people have surmised from my other posts, Ratatouille is my easy pick for Best Animated Picture. The movie (temporarily) showed up on my Top Ten Movies of 2007, was one of my recommendations for Best Visual Effects, and is just an all around great movie. The movie is smart and witty, to the point where it’s actually been nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. How many animated films get that respect?

I have yet to see Persepolis, but it looks quite good and could certainly be a dark horse winner. The problem with this “animated” West Bank film taking home the Academy Award is that adult-only cartoons rarely win Oscars and that few of the voters have probably seen the movie. Ratatouille has been out on DVD for months, guaranteeing that nearly every voter has probably popped it in for a viewing. I would be very surprised if Persepolis beat out Ratatouille, Pixar’s best movie since The Incredibles.

As for Surf’s Up, this is the obligatory third wheel nomination. In actually, the movie, about surfing penguins, is much better than the previews made it out to be, but its documentary-style approach and lack of spectacular visuals won’t resonate as Best Animated Film material.