And the nominees will be …
When it comes to announcing the Oscar nominees, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences continues to cling to is Old World ways. They race through the lists at 5:30 a.m. PST, in order to get live coverage on the morning talk shows.
That’s just stupid.
As I’ve suggested before, the Academy should turn the nomination announcements into a one-hour special, to air on E! or some other cable channel. Build up excitement by showing clips and interviewing possible nominees. Have some cameras on set or in the homes of some contenders, to catch their reactions. If they can do it with the Heisman Trophy every year, why not the Oscars?
In any case, I just took Doc Brown’s DeLorean out for a spin to next Tuesday, and I’m back with the nominees in the major categories. Ready?
BEST PICTURE:
Avatar
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Invictus
Precious
A Serious Man
Star Trek
Up
Up in the Air
Just missing: The Hangover, The Messenger, It’s Complicated, District 9
BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
Runner-up: Viggo Mortensen, The Road
BEST ACTRESS
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
Just missing: Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Close but no cigar: Alfred Molina, An Education; Stanley Tucci, Julie & Julia
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Mo’Nique, Precious
Julianne Moore, A Single Man
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Just missing: Samantha Morton, The Messenger; Diane Kruger, Inglourious Basterds
This seems like an incredibly predictable year, even if you don’t have a time-traveling DeLorean. Bridges, Bullock, Mo’Nique and Waltz are the odds-on favorites in the acting categories. The tightest race is for Best Picture, with Avatar and The Hurt Locker just ahead of Up in the Air.
As for the nominees: if I don’t get at least 27 or 28 out of 30 correct, I’ll be thrilled, because that means there are going to be some big surprises next Tuesday.
January 28th, 2010 at 10:48 am
You don’t see District 9 or The Hangover sneaking into the Best Picture category?
January 28th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Star Trek will 100% not be nominated for Best Picture. I think Crazy Heart has a shot, unfortunately.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:38 am
I’ve heard very little about Peter Sarsgaard’s performance in “An Education” but, in my humble opinion, he was brilliant. Is there a reason his performance has been largely ignored? Is his competition that stiff this year?
January 28th, 2010 at 11:40 am
You don’t see Tobey Maguire getting a nod for actor? I suppose the competition is tough, but let’s all be honest and say a charming, mostly positive man who is good with the ladies isn’t really a stretch for Clooney, who did a great job, but it wasn’t his acting that made the movie. Brothers doesn’t work without a performance like Tobey’s and that was a great movie.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Remember, these are my PREDICTIONS, not my preferences. Next week I’ll do my annual look at who WAS nominated and who SHOULD have been nominated.
Cheers,
RR
January 28th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Zoe Saldana for Best Actress instead of Helen Mirren for a movie that even knowledgable industry followers are scarcely aware of the existence of (although it’s a toss up between which lady I would rather see gracing the red carpet in magnanimous attire, and I say that with full seriousness because Mirren at her advanced age still looks stunning). Sandra Bullock is a mortal lock to prevail in this category anyway. Recognizing a performance that coexisted in perfect harmony with computerization would give the lead actress race an element of buzz, in addition to righting the wrong that many believe befell Andy Serkis for his Academy-snubbed contribution to LOTR.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Richard, the fact the Nicolas Cage wont be nominated for The Bad Lietenant, or isn’t really getting consideration is a complete joke. He gave the best performance of the decade. Anyone that says his acting in that was not worthy of a nomination, or winning, is an idiot.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
ALSO, 500 Days of Summer should be nominated for best picture of Invictus, Star Trek, Up, Inglorious Bastards, and A Serious Man. If this movie isn’t nominated for Best Picture I am no longer watching the Academy Awards. How can members of the Academy vote for the awards, when they don’t even see all the movies. Its complete bull shit. You should have to see every movie that was released in theaters if you are voting for awards.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
How anyone can put The Hangover and best picture in the same sentence is totally beyond my understanding.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Finally saw Crazy Heart and its a shame that Maggie Gyllenhaal has been overlooked – but I guess that comes with always turning in such fantastic performances. Its expected and she delivers. If it were anyone else, say, oh I don’t know, Marisa Tomei, then the press would go nuts.
(500) Days of Summer should get a Best Picture nod if they expand the count to 10. And Original Writing…It was the best film this year…
January 28th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
I agree with you on every nominee but one – I think that “District 9″ will make it in over “Star Trek.” A month ago, we thought that “Nine” might take that spot, but that hardly seems likely anymore. Looking forward to the nominations announcement!
January 28th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
[...] his blog, film reviewer Richard Roeper says the [...]
January 28th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
It seems that in each of the acting categories there is at least one nomination that appears to have less momentum than the others: Jeremy Renner, Helen Mirren, Stanley Tucci and Penelope Cruz. I guess the question will become – How vulnerable are they?
January 29th, 2010 at 7:52 am
Honestly, the idea of the hour long Oscar nominations ceremony is terrible. There is no need to drag out the nominations to an hour. The way it is now is fine. And the idea for cameras in the home of contending actors is tacky. What if they get snubbed? Please AMPAS. Do not change the way you do nominations. The Heisman Trophy ceremony makes sense because they crown the winner, unlike the AMPAS announcements. And adding music performances to the Grammy nominations makes sense without needing explanation. Just don’t change it AMPAS.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Let’s see Mélanie Laurent.
Bad idea showing the reactions of nominees. That could not be more non-candid, awkward and ultimately faked with a camera in their house. Who cares how they react? You obviously but who else? I nominate this for Most Shallow Idea of the Year.
January 30th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Michael:
You’re right, nobody cares about seeing these people reacting to winning and losing. That’s why nobody telecasts the Oscars, Grammys, Golden Globes, Emmys, MTV Awards, SAG Awards—oh wait, those ceremonies ARE televised. Why? Hmmm, maybe it’s because a lot of people actually are interested in seeing who wins and who loses–and how the celebs react, whether they’ve lost or they’re giving an acceptance speech. I nominate your response as the least logical reply I’ve received this year.
But thanks for coming to the site!
Best,
Richard
January 30th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
“Have some cameras on set or in the homes of some contenders, to catch their reactions.” ~Richard Roeper
“Bad idea showing the reactions of nominees. That could not be more non-candid, awkward and ultimately faked with a camera in their house. Who cares how they react? You obviously but who else? I nominate this for Most Shallow Idea of the Year.” ~Michael
“I nominate your response as the least logical reply I’ve received this year.” ~Richard Roeper
Least logical reply? Nope you are the shutout for that award.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:06 am
I’m siding with Michael, here. It’s just not necessary.
And we’re not talking about awards ceremonies here, we’re talking about the nominations. They’re fine the way they are. Classy and prompt.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:05 pm
“I’m siding with Michael, here. It’s just not necessary.
And we’re not talking about awards ceremonies here, we’re talking about the nominations. They’re fine the way they are. Classy and prompt.” -Hardy
Not necessary? The ratio of unnecessary-to-necessary aspects of the Academy Awards has to be something like 6,000-1*. What’s another piece of fluff thrown on the pile? I’ll readily admit that a nomination themed special on E or Bravo would just be another hour of TV that I would avoid like the plague, but I agree with Mr Roeper that the concept is money in the bank.
*numbers not based on scientific data
March 7th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Thanks, Keep up the Good work
March 8th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
If you took a quick glance at the Oscar winners list, you would have thought that only a few movies were made last year.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:24 am
great post thanks for the info