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.

With the Oscars fast approaching, I figured I’d better start writing about my Oscar picks and predictions. I’ll start with one of the easier categories, the Best Visual Effects category. For the 2008 Academy Awards, three movies are nominated:

• Transformers
  If this one doesn’t win, I’ll shoot someone. Or I’ll punch a pillow. Or I’ll just shake my head in dismay. The special effects in Transformers are just outstanding, and blew everyone away with how well Michael Bay’s crew seamlessly brought together humans, Los Angeles and gigantic robots that so easily could have ended up being cheesy. This is certainly my pick and prediction. It also helps that the movie was well received with critics and audiences alike.
• Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
  On the flip side, this third Pirates movie sucked. Of course, not everyone agrees, but neither critics nor audiences were overwhelmingly blown away by the “end” to this franchise (does anyone really believe it’s over?). That being said, the visuals are quite good in it… but are they as good as Transformer’s? No way. If this one wins, I will be highly disappointed.
• The Golden Compass
  How did this one get on the list? The box office thud had pretty good visual effects, but not great visual effects. They were a little rough around the edges at times, and at the very least didn’t work seamlessly with the rest of the movie. As I will discuss below, there are several movies more deserving of a nomination.

So, what do I think of the nominations? Two of the films don’t surprise me, but The Golden Compass did. Before the nominees were announced, I was actually torn between Transformers and 300 for the top spot. I’ve quite shocked that 300 didn’t get any recognition, given its thunderous box office domination, audience praise and stunning visuals. Were the visuals as good as they are in Transformers? No, maybe not, but the visuals absolutely made 300 the spectacle that it was, and that has to count for something. I mean, the visuals are just amazing in that movie… how the hell did it not get nominated?

Another film that I felt should have been considered is Ratatouille. I’m not sure if there are rules against animated films getting nominated in this category, but Pixar made an amazing little film with some amazing visual effects. Pixar once again set the bar for animated films with this movie.

So, needless to say, I was a bit surprised and not overly happy about the Oscar nominations for Best Visual Effects, but it does make my choice for the Academy Award winner that much easier… Transformers!

I haven’t seen many blogs discussing this, so I thought I’d raise the question: Could Heath Ledger win an Oscar for his portrayal of The Joker in the upcoming Batman movie The Dark Knight? At the very least, could he receive an Oscar nomination?

The thought is unlikely – after all, action movies – especially action movies based on comic books featuring a man dressed up in a rubber bat suit – are hardly critical fodder for nominations of any sort outside of a few technical awards such as editing and visual effects. Jack Nicholson didn’t receive any major awards, or nominations, for his portrayal of Batman’s arch nemesis – and yet he was praised for his performance and is, at least for a few more months, still considered to have the best comic book villain performance ever.

But… is Academy Award recognition, whether it be through a win or a nomination, that unreasonably for the late Heath Ledger, who died earlier this week from an apparent drug overdose? Let’s look at the possibilities:

• Heath Ledger already has an Oscar nomination for his excellent performance in Brokeback Mountain. Repeat nominees often have a better chance.
• Heath Ledger was a good looking guy, and in his upcoming role, he plays a disfigured psychopath. Oscar voters love good-looking people who make themselves ugly (though this tend to applies more to women than men).
• The Dark Knight is a comic book movie, yes, but of all of the comic book movies that could have had a chance at award nominations, Oscar or otherwise, Batman Begins is the most serious, dramatically significant, character-driven film of them all. Expectations are that The Dark Knight is going to have the same brooding, dark approach to it that the previous film had.
• The Dark Knight is directed for Christopher Nolan, who so far has yet to direct a bad movie. Popular, critically favored directors can help elevate a film and its actors.
• The buzz around Heath Ledger’s performance, even before his death, was and is huge. Snippets of his performance that have been seen in trailers and clips have been downright terrifying.
• It looks like Heath Ledger has transformed himself into the villain of villains, and will do what no other actor has done: to overshadow Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of The Joker.
• Some people are blaming Heath Ledger’s death on his devotion and submersion into his role as The Joker; the actor was apparently only sleeping a couple hours a night because The Joker was so disturbing and evil. It is possible that Ledger overdosed on sleeping pills. Essentially, it is possible that Heath Ledger “died” as a result of playing The Joker.
• Heath Ledger is dead. Let’s face it – the emotional vote is in his favor.

To push on my last point a little more, madbeast.com says there are six actors to be nominated for acting Oscars posthumously:

• Jeanne Eagels received a Best Actress nomination months after dying of a Heroin overdose.
• James Dean received two nominations after his fatal car crash.
• Spencer Tracy received his ninth Best Actor nomination after dying.
• Peter Finch died of a heart attack some say was a result of an exhaustive effort to win the Oscar for Network. After WINNING THE AWARD, his costar and fellow nominee William Holden said, “If the son of a bitch
  hadn’t died, I could have won my second Oscar.” Hmm…
• Ralph Richardson died five months before his Tarzan movie was released; he was subsequently nominated.
• Massimo Troisi died a day after completing Il Postino; he received nominations for Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay.

So, again, we realize that a Batman film is an unlikely place to find an Oscar-winning performance in any way or form, but actors have been nominated posthumously before. The Dark Knight comes out in the summer, not a very good time to showcase an actor’s capabilities for Oscar voters, but the film will be hitting DVD sometime before Christmas, and it will hit big. Every voter will see the movie, and every voter will be reminded of Heath Ledger’s death.

Until that day, who knows, but it’s certainly an interesting prospect. What do you think?

The Oscars are almost upon us! Sure, the writer’s strike may destroy things, but I’m pretty sure everything will be resolved before February 24th, 2008. Anyway, the Academy Award nominations for 2007 movies were released yesterday, and today I re-launched my Oscar database with all nominees and winners for years 2004 through 2006, and the nominees for 2007.

I’m sure you’ve already checked them out, but here are the 2007 Oscar nominations on FilmJabber.

Over the next several weeks, I will analyze each category with my picks, predictions and thoughts. Who do I think was snubbed? Who got lucky? Which categories are most competitive, and which are a near absolute?

Let me just say that I am pretty impressed with the Oscar nominations this year. I knew that The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford wouldn’t get nominated for Best Picture, even though it was brilliant, but the movie did get recognized in a few categories, most notably Casey Affleck for Best Supporting Actor (even though he was the leading actor in the film). This is a film and actor that could have easily been overlooked, but the Academy voters were smart enough to recognize some great stuff when they saw it.

There are a couple categories where I haven’t chosen a pick yet, since I’ve only seen one film out of the five (in the Best Actress category, I’ve only seen Juno). Best Supporting Actor is an amazingly tough choice. Interestingly enough, while I choice Atonement as the best movie of the year in my Top 10 Movies of 2007, I’m rooting for There Will Be Blood to win. It’s just a bolder film, and I will be a bit surprised if it wins (since it will split votes with No Country for Old Men).

View my picks for the 2007 Academy Awards (or are they the 2008 Academy Awards?). Please note that these are MY PICKS, and not necessarily MY PREDICTIONS. Those will come later.