The Best Supporting Actress Oscars from the 90s are dominated by actresses who portrayed tough, fast-talking women, often with New York accents. Don’t believe me? Marisa Tomei, Mira Sorvino, Dianne Wiest, Mercedes Ruehl. And, let’s not forget tough, fast-talking women without New York accents: Angelina Jolie and Whoopi Goldberg. The rest? Tough women, though deliberate talkers rather than fast ones, and without the New York accents.

The results of our critic poll ranking the winners in this category are the most peculiar of the series thus far: an upset win, several ties, and a bizarre order in general. However, for your reading pleasure, I will make sense of it all for you. So, without further ado…

___________________________________________________________________________________

#10 Mira Sorvino – Mighty Aphrodite (1995) – 7.10

I’ll just say it. Mira Sorvino is considered one of the worst and most undeserving Oscar winners of all time. Nevertheless, 1995 was a good year for her. She was dating one of the hottest (in terms of success heat, not physical heat, due to his unfortunately-shaped forehead) indie directors at the time, Quentin Tarantino, and she had just landed a role in a Woody Allen film, playing a funny, tough, fast-talking, New-York-accented hooker and mother to the protagonist’s (wait for it) genius son. And, on top of that, she won an Oscar.

In my opinion, somewhat marred by the fact that I put her performance at number-9, is that I genuinely like Sorvino and think she’s a solid actress. Though the decade had many stronger and more iconic performances, hers was often hilarious and carried the film, which was not Woody’s strongest. Sorvino’s role gave it its emotional core. Though she starred in a few by-the-numbers action films afterwards, her ability did shine through in riskier films such as Spike Lee’s Summer of Sam, in which she was excellent. That year, the only worthier candidate for the Oscar, was the fantastic Joan Allen, whose portrayal of Pat Nixon, in Oliver Stone’s Nixon should have gotten her the award.

___________________________________________________________________________________

#9 Whoopi Goldberg – Ghost (1990) – 6.90

Oda Mae Brown holding a check for a million dollars, arguing seemingly with herself about whether to hand it over to a nun, and then regretting it as she’s doing it and long afterwards. Yes, it was a chick flick, but that scene is forever burned into my memory. Whoopi Goldberg deserved the Oscar that year for a hilarious performance as an unwittingly genuine clairvoyant who bridges the otherwise cheesy love affair between Patrick Swayze’s ghost and the hot, semi-naked, clay-covered Demi Moore. (Not to mention a bizarre, but brilliant turn as Patrick Swayze in a kissing scene with Demi).

Number-4 on my list, and an inexplicable number-9 on this one, Goldberg’s performance was great. She had some solid competition that year, for example Annette Benning in The Grifters, Diane Ladd’s fantastic role as the twisted mother of Laura Dern in David Lynch’s Wild at Heart, and Lorraine Bracco in Goodfellas, but none was as effervescent, lively and charming as her Oda Mae Brown. Yes, some will argue that the role perpetuates the stereotype of the black actor playing the comic-relief role in an otherwise white film. But, for one, these were the early 90s and it was a major step forward for an African-American actress to win the Oscar, and, secondly, spewing politically correct attacks on this win understates the quality of Goldberg’s work. And, after all, the woman is a comedian.

___________________________________________________________________________________

#8 Mercedes Ruehl – The Fisher King (1991) – 6.40

Mercedes Ruehl beat out Jessica Tandy in Fried Green Tomatoes by playing Jeff Bridges’ crazy, tough, fast-talking, New-York-accented, stand-by-your-man-until-you-no-longer-can girlfriend. And, she landed here, at number-8. In some way, I’m not particularly surprised. Her performance, of the uneducated girlfriend who doesn’t understand her boyfriend’s complex world, while also having hidden layers to her own persona, is virtually exactly the same character Tomei played a year later in My Cousin Vinny, and three years later, Sorvino, in Mighty Aphrodite. The bigger surprise that year was that Robin Williams didn’t win for best supporting actor in the same movie, losing instead to Jack Palance (and winning for a much lesser performance in a much lesser film: Good Will Hunting).

That being said, I put Ruehl at number-2. This is just a matter of personal preference. I like Ruehl, I liked her performance, and I loved the film. The role may not have been the most original, but she carried herself with grace and good humor, and was a perfect contrast to Jeff Bridges’ searching loner.
Now, this is where things get a little complicated.

___________________________________________________________________________________

#6 – Angelina Jolie – Girl, Interrupted (1999) – 5.30

Marisa Tomei – My Cousin Vinny (1992) – 5.30

We have a tie. Let’s break it down. Two critics put Jolie’s performance at number-1. Only one critic put Tomei at number 1. Both of them were voted number 10 by exactly one person. But Tomei got more 2’s and 3’s, while Jolie got more 7’s. And they tied.

I put Jolie at 5. Her performance was solid as the cynical psych-hospital-savvy inmate who pulled Winona Ryder into her orbit with her inside-knowledge, charisma, and, let’s be honest, craziness. Not to mention sexuality, which Jolie exudes even when she tries to sublimate it – all you have to do is watch the scene in which she orders an ice-cream sundae from the increasingly aroused soda jerk. This film made Jolie famous; more so than her stunning performance in Gia, a year earlier. But this is not Jolie’s best. She was better in A Mighty Heart (2007), and Clint Eastwood’s Changeling (2008). I also think both Catherine Keener in Being John Malkovich and Samantha Morton in Sweet and Lowdown gave more nuanced and challenging performances that year, and were more deserving.

Now Tomei is a tough one. I believe she has grown to become a fantastic actress; and I really mean fantastic. Have you seen In the Bedroom? The Wrestler? Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead? All age did to Marisa Tomei is make her more beautiful and surer of herself. Though she’s recently been picking more dramatic roles, what gained her fame was her performance as the tough, fast-talking, New-York-accented girlfriend of a (literally) criminal lawyer played by Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny.

She was number-3 for me. She made the film (well, she and Joe Pesci’s speech about what the hell “yoots” are). Yes, she represents what Hollywood thought of women in the 1990s – strong women who are entitled to their own opinions, but still play a secondary role to the obsessions of their men – but given the constraints of the role, she became Mona Lisa Vito, with a biological clock that doesn’t just kick – it stomps.

There were some other solid performances that year, including Miranda Richardson’s in Damage (who I think should have won), and Judy Davis’ in Husbands and Wives, but I’m not upset Tomei won. Her role more fun than Jolie’s, she gets the higher rating in my book.

___________________________________________________________________________________

#4 Kim Basinger – L.A. Confidential (1997) – 4.90

Dianne Wiest – Bullets Over Broadway (1994) – 4.90

A second tie, these two women represent the polar opposites on my scale. Basinger is on the losing end, at number-10. Don’t get me wrong. I loved the film, even the second and third time when I could see through its plot. It made several careers, especially Russell Crowe’s, but also Guy Pearce’s. It also propelled Curtis Hanson’s, who directed the incredible Wonder Boys afterwards. Most importantly, it spawned a ton of James Ellroy adaptations, none of which matched L.A. Confidential in mood, verve and balls. Finally, it made Hollywood take Kim Basinger seriously. She was no longer just a pretty face: she was an Actress with a capital “A.”

Personally, I thought Basinger was great as the femme fatale, but I don’t think her performance was Oscar-caliber (whether that means anything anymore is another story). In retrospect, in context of the decade’s winners she’s the least appealing winner. Nevertheless, no other critic judged Basinger as harshly as I did. While I stand by my ranking, I will admit that Basinger’s competition left a lot to be desired. The wretched Minnie Driver was nominated for Good Will Hunting, the all-too-adorable Joan Cusack was nominated for her slight role in the equally slight In & Out, and Gloria Stuart received a nomination for something like ten minutes total screen time in the epic Titanic. The only serious challenger, and one I feel that should have gotten the statuette, was the incredible Julianne Moore in Boogie Nights.

Wiest I love. Wiest is one of my favorite actresses; an artistic crush probably developed as a result of her role as the mom in Lost Boys. This partly explains why she landed in the number-1 spot on my list. The other part is her simply great performance. Bullets Over Broadway is not my favorite Woody Allen, but no one says “don’t speak” like Dianne as Helen Sinclair.

Helen Sinclair is tough, she is fast-talking, and her New York accent is not the street stuff of Ruehl, Sorvino or Tomei. She’s a bona fide aristocrat. Wiest’s performance is funny, graceful, regal, and, as Woody would say, terrific. Only one other critic put her at number 1, much like only one put her at number-10. I was happy this great actress won a second Academy Award (the first one was for another incredible performance in Allen’s Hannah and her Sisters).

___________________________________________________________________________________

#2 Juliette Binoche – The English Patient (1996) – 4.80

Judi Dench – Shakespeare in Love (1998) – 4.80

Another tie! These were close for me as well. Binoche ended up taking the number-7 spot and I remember that when she won I was dumbfounded, thinking the Oscar was either going to go Barbara Hershey for The Portrait of a Lady or Marianne Jean-Baptiste for Secrets & Lies. Part of it has to do with the fact that I never understood the obsession with The English Patient, having nearly slept through it, but I also think that both of the aforementioned performances were stronger.

Instead, The Binoche packed home the gold. But one cannot be upset because a Juliette Binoche win, is a win for everybody. Show me a person who does not like her and I will show you a demented individual, who occasionally enjoys hunting kittens for sport. Case in point, not one critic put her at number 10. Why? She’s French, she’s incredibly well-known in the West, she’s pretty, she’s talented, she stars in respectable films and has worked with fantastic directors like Louis Malle, Krzysztof Kieslowski, and Michael Haneke, amongst others. What’s to be upset about?

Judi Dench is in a similar boat. She’s British, she’s a fantastic actress, she’s a Dame, and she told James Bond what’s what. Several times. Consequently, it’s not surprising not a single critic dared to put her performance at number-10 (I put her higher than Binoche, at 6!), even though her performance is the second-shortest to win an Oscar, hardly original (a British Dame playing the Queen of England – wow) or substantial (seven minutes on-screen).

Because it was so short, I think the win was in pretty bad taste. More deserving actresses were nominated that year, including the great Kathy Bates in Primary Colors and Rachel Griffiths in Hilary and Jackie. I’m sure Dame Dench would have loved to have won for any other of her five Oscar-nominated roles, but since she didn’t, we’ll accept this and move on.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Ladies and gentlemen, our winner is:

#1 – Anna Paquin – The Piano (1993) – 4.60

If you’ve observed the scores next to each winner’s name, you’ll notice that they range from about 7 to about 4 (well, closer to 5), making the Best Supporting Actress of the 1990s category the most contentious among our critics. Collectively, the group felt pretty strongly about Sorvino losing (putting her in the 7 range), but less certain about everybody else. Paquin is no exception. She makes the top of the list by .2 of a point.

If everybody voted like I did, she would be at number-8 because, for the love of god, you gotta put the woman somewhere. I didn’t dislike her performance. I loved the film, but after it was over I didn’t remember Paquin. I remembered Holly Hunter, who deservedly won an Oscar for one of the best performances of her stunning career, and I sort of remembered Harvey Keitel.

Upon a second-viewing I appreciated Paquin’s role more. It is clear that the performance paved the path for her into the X-Men films, Spike Lee’s great 25^th Hour, and, of course, “True Blood.” She became the second-youngest winner that Oscar night, making the Academy seem young and fresh to some, reckless to others. Was she as good as Emma Thompson in In the Name of the Father? No. Arguably, Rosie Perez in Fearless also gave a better performance.

Overall, I am resigned to the fact that my voting pattern in the 1990s Supporting Actress category favored comedic roles over dramatic ones. Paradoxically, I generally liked the films with the actresses I ranked lowest more than those with the actresses I ranked higher. Still, you know what they say – in many ways they’re all winners.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Oscar Decades Series

Completed:

2000s Best Picture
2000s Best Actor
2000s Best Actress
1990s Best Picture
1990s Best Actor
1990s Best Actress
1980s Best Picture
2000s Best Supporting Actor
2000s Best Supporting Actress
1990s Best Supporting Actor
1990s Best Supporting Actress

Up Next:

2000s Best Original Song

At times brutally honest and poignant, at times forcefully contrived and maudlin, Rodrigo Garcia’s Mother and Child follows the lives of three women, connected to each other in some way through adoption, each one seeking escape from an emptiness that defines them. Solid performances carry the film through a script that wavers too often into melodrama and wraps up far too neatly for characters that are refreshingly chaotic.

Annette Bening portrays Karen, 37 years after she gave up her baby for adoption. Now saddled by a dying mother, a mediocre career and a lonely existence, her life is utterly consumed by thoughts of the daughter she gave up. Outwardly, she is frigid and often harsh, lashing out at those who dare try to penetrate her prickly veneer, including potential love interest Jimmy Smits. At a time when many actresses struggle to know how to handle playing their age, Bening is improving exponentially. In a lesser actress’ hands Karen might be relegated to a series of nervous ticks and neurotic outbursts that seem to define her. But Bening gives Karen an understated nuance, a glow behind her harsh eyes that betrays a deep longing within her. It is this vulnerability that makes the scenes between her and Smits so earnest, and carries the film through its weaker moments.

As Elizabeth, the daughter given up by Karen, Naomi Watts has never been better. At times simultaneously devilish, seductive, and genuinely fragile, Elizabeth is a study in blunt contradiction. A successful lawyer who refuses to settle, an aimless drifter with a pattern of returning to her hometown, a passionate lover with an icy affection, Elizabeth harbors a seething anger at the mother she never knew. Her seduction of her boss, played pitch-perfectly by Samuel L. Jackson is as sad as it is graphic. Like Karen, a new relationship has an unexpected affect on Elizabeth, bringing her closer her to her mother in a way that is subtle and surprising.

The film could rest entirely on the strength of these two characters and their mesmerizing connection. Instead, the filmmaker detours into all too familiar territory, by giving the audience yet another heavy handed story determined to force the audience to see connections that simply aren’t that interesting. The film tries to be an exploration of adoption and it’s affects, but overall doesn’t make any more or less profound statements than last year’s Orphan. Kerry Washington is miscast as the all too eager adoptive mother, who plays the role with a youthful vigor that makes her desperation for a baby feel implausible. S. Epatha Merkerson gives a solid performance as her all-knowing mother, and as the teen mother on the verge of giving up her unborn baby, Shareeka Epps proves she is a newcomer worthy of holding her own with these actresses.

Fresh off the heels of his success with Things You Can Tell Just By Looking at Her, Nine Lives and the HBO series “In Treatment”, director Garcia shines as a filmmaker adept at bringing audiences inside the most intimate moments of his characters’ lives. While he succeeds at bringing great performances out of his talented cast, he fails to execute his overall vision by relying too much on dramatic tricks best saved for soap operas. Bening has crafted a character that resonates with frightening realism, yet when forced into all-too convenient tear-jerker scenarios, the realness of her portrayal crumbles. (Karen’s relationship with the daughter of her mother’s caretaker is a corny plot device better suited for “Melrose Place”.) Forced into situations that frankly just don’t seem real, her transformation ultimately falls flat. The screenplay tries too hard make all the elements connect together, but the effect is more like pounding jigsaw pieces into a puzzle they just don’t belong in. The finale scene is so manipulative in it’s attempts to tug heartstrings you can quite literally hear birds singing.

Luckily, the acting is strong enough to make moments like that less eye-roll inducing. Watts and Bening are strong Oscar contenders, with Watts probably an early favorite in the Supporting Actress race. But the real contender here could be Jackson. It’s hard to remember a time when he’s looked so real, or seemed so vulnerable on screen, and his muted performance as a lovelorn, aging widower is haunting and powerful. All in all, the film is worth spending time with, if only for the chance to see great actors at their best.

By Phil Wallace

With a rare serious role in the movie Greenberg, Ben Stiller has generated Oscar buzz for the first time in his career. But is his performance enough to earn him a nomination?

If Greenberg had come out in November instead of March, then he would certainly be in the conversation. This is because Stiller is a big name from Hollywood royalty who would garner some attention from industry types for doing something different. But March movies seldom get noticed by Academy voters, and Stiller seems to lack energy for the part. On the other hand, Greta Gerwig has a breakout performance as the female lead, and she should be discussed for Best Supporting Actress… even if the timing of Greenberg makes that less likely.

Stiller stars as Roger Greenberg, a 40-year old man recently released from a mental hospital after suffering a nervous breakdown. He flies from New York to Los Angeles in order to housesit for his much more successful younger brother, who has taken his family on an overseas vacation for six weeks.

Greenberg works to adapt to life in LA without a car, while developing an awkward –  and at times sexual – relationship with his brother’s assistant Florence (played by Gerwig). Greenberg is generally a failure at life, and his inability to live in the present coupled with his hope futile hopes at reliving the past are common themes throughout the film. Greenberg can no longer fulfill his lifelong dreams, and much of the movie is about him and his friends having come to grips with that reality.

Stiller is fairly convincing as the arrogant and short-tempered Greenberg, but his portrayal of Roger seems to be missing the extra punch needed to turn in a great performance. Too often, Stiller has the same slightly smug look on his face, and he only seems break out of it when he snaps into mini-rage. Like Adam Sandler’s more serious roles, Stiller makes the transition from comedy to drama by toning himself down while seeming unable to infuse new energy back into his part. Stiller’s performance is still considerably better than Sandler’s, in say, Spanglish, but the dramatic role still doesn’t quite work for him.

In the meantime, Gerwig is an absolute winner as the young and quirky assistant. Gerwig plays a character that a 20-something could easily find today, yet one seldom sees the traits she’s portrays exhibited on the big screen. The director, Noah Baumbach, clearly understands the post-college demographic in his decision to cast Gerwig.

Florence has dreams of her own, but she lacks ambition and tries her best just to get by. In reality she’s dedicated to her employer, extremely diligent with her assignments, but generally confused about how to handle life. Florence generally accepts everything offered to her in the world, with both an open-mind an apparent fear of ever saying “no,” even though she looks at the offerings with a healthy dose of skepticism. She’s cute, she’s quirky, but she struggles to find the opportunity to just be herself.

If Greenberg had come out later in the year, then Gerwig’s performance is the type of role that would certainly make her a candidate for a Best Supporting Actress nomination (or Best Actress, depending on how the film’s producers would want to designate her). But barring a surprise marketing campaign from Focus Features and Universal Pictures, it’s likely most voters won’t even think to put the DVD into their players… if it even gets mailed to them.

It’s a shame, because Greenberg captures the essence of what it’s like to live in Los Angeles (especially Hollywood) as well as any movie that’s come out in recent years. The city is almost like the film’s third character, and one that the vast majority of Academy members could identify with. The repeated driving dilemmas are all too familiar to Angelinos, as are the Runyon Canyon hikes, and one truly gets the sense that each character is isolated in their own little pod when they’re at home.

Still, Gerwig’s performance is about the only thing that’s Oscar-worthy about Greenberg. Without giving too much away, the film loses focus in its final 30 minutes, seems to go in several different bizarre directions, only to leave viewers with an unfulfilling and oddly muted ending.

The nominees for Oscar 2010 are: Penelope Cruz, Nine; Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air; Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart; Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air; and Mo’Nique, Precious.

I would bet my money on Mo’Nonique. Why, you ask? Because Oscar loves drama, a powerhouse performance and the film Mo’Nique has performed in, Precious, is already agog with Oscar love. In addition to Best Supporting Actress, the film is nominated for Best Actress (Gabourey Sidibe), Best Picture, Best Director (Lee Daniels), Best Editing (Joe Klotz) and Best Writing for an Adapted Screenplay (Geoffrey Fletcher). Six awards! Yes, Precious is a guaranteed Oscar heavyweight for 2010.

As Roger Ebert puts it,, Mo’Nique, known to some as a TV personality and comic, basically came out of nowhere to create a character that made audiences cringe with her point blank portrayal of a cruel, unloving mother.

Another indicator of Mo’Nique walking away with the Oscar is the Golden Globes. Only 21 movies in the 81 years of the Oscars have gone on to win the Best Picture category without first winning a Golden Globe. These films, such as Annie Hall (1977), The Sting (1974) and Midnight Cowboy (1969), were each unexpected gems in their own right.

Precious was nominated for 3 Golden Globes, including Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture (Gabourey Sidibe), Best Motion Picture Drama and Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role (Mo’Nique), only the latter won. And why do I think that the Oscar will follow the lead of the Golden Globe in the case of Best Supporting Actress? Because, in the first place, as I mentioned before, Oscar loves a powerhouse drama, and second, the other major contenders for this award, Penelope Cruz and Maggie Gyllenhaal, while each clearly strong performances, do not measure up to the grit and Oscar-worthiness of Mo’Nique’s performance nor to Precious.

Both Nine and Crazy Heart have been nominated for several Oscars. Nine is nominated for Best Art Direction, Costume Design, Best Actress in a Supporting Role and Best Original Song. In similar fashion, Crazy Heart is nominated for Best Actor, Best Original Song and Best Supporting Actress, and Best Actor. Both these films contain strong performances and music, but neither is worthy of a Best Picture nomination.

Mo’Nique has the full weight of Precious as a Best Picture contender and six nominations behind her, and second, her performance in the indie drama races full speed ahead of Gyllenhaal and Cruz. Not to say that these actresses do not have the talent to win, it’s the material and performance involved. For me, Crazy Heart was a clichéd film rife with predictability and plagued by a boring, simplistic plot that was only somewhat saved by Gyllenhaal’s gentleness and Bridges’ vulnerability. Cruz, on the other hand, is one of my favorites NINE is a film, like many she has done in the U.S. including Blow and Vanilla Sky that does not pay her justice. Cruz actually won this award last year for Vicky Cristina Barcelona.

I wager my bets on Mo’Nique garnering the prize. The film and the actress have all the components of Oscar victory: intense drama, unconventionality and breakout greatness. This 82nd Oscars is the first time since the ’40s that 10 films are nominated for Best Picture, a decision made to include the diverse range of options in the film industry such as indie film Precious.

Finally, the content matter of the film — the story of a pregnant, illiterate and neglected teen — is also part of the groundbreaking aspect that is so attractive to the Academy. Oscar loves to be cutting-edge and choose films and performances that mark rites of passage in American culture. Midnight Cowboy was nominated for 7 Oscars and took away 3, including Best Director, Best Picture and Best Writing for a Screenplay Based on Another Medium. I predict that Precious will walk away with at least 3 Oscars, including Best Supporting Actress.

Road to the Oscars series:

Podcasts – Kit Bowen, Nate Freiberg, Adam Spunberg, and Phil Wallace

February 4: Live Action Short – Kit Bowen

February 5: Animated Short – Kit Bowen

February 8: Documentary Short Subject – Christa Youngpeter

February 9: Documentary Feature – Nate Freiberg

February 10: Foreign Language Film – Paul Popiel

February 12: Animated Film – Nate Freiberg

February 15: Sound Mixing – Jeremy Martin

February 16: Sound Editing – Jeremy Martin

February 17: Original Song – Adam Spunberg and Savanna New

February 18: Visual Effects – Mallory Pickard

February 19: Original Score – Adam Spunberg

February 22: Makeup – Christa Youngpeter

February 23: Costume – Steve Neumann

February 24: Art Direction – Christa Youngpeter

February 25: Film Editing – Steve Neumann

February 26: Cinematography – Paul Popiel

February 27: Original Screenplay – Jeremy Martin

February 28: Adapted Screenplay – Jeremy Martin

March 1: Supporting Actress – Marla Seidell

March 2: Supporting Actor – Phil Wallace

March 3: Actress – Marla Seidell

March 4: Actor – Kit Bowen

March 5: Director – Adam Spunberg

March 5: Picture – Kit Bowen

March 7: The 82nd Annual Academy Awards!

Several of our writers have come out with their nomination predictions, and I already offered my take on the Best Picture category. If there is one thing we can truly prognosticate, it’s that the question of tomorrow will be: “Who got snubbed?” And many, who were grossly off in their original picks, will take furiously to the keyboard like those valet guys in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off; ultimately, there are some who will never be satisfied with any outcome, so long as they have a sounding board for expressing their displeasure.

Snubs can be broken down into two categories: movies that were on a lot of people in-the-know’s lists, and movies that never stood a chance to begin with. If a movie gets a, “Wow, I can’t believe that got snubbed,” reaction, it’s in Group 1. Group 2 is more likely to elicit a, “The Academy is way too stuck up to consider a movie like that” response, or in some extreme cases, “That’s why I don’t watch the ***** Oscars!” (be rest assured…those people usually still do watch).
There will be plenty of time to discuss the travesties of Group 1, so I will cater here to a few candidates not on the Academy’s radar:

Best Actor:
1. Viggo Mortensen, The Road: Nobody seems to be mentioning him at all, which leads me to believe – as Phil Wallace astutely pointed out – that few people have actually seen The Road. Our favorite Aragorn-portrayer should have at least gotten some consideration for muddying around in the filth for a whole shoot. An understated film that genuinely illustrates the listlessness of Cormac McCarthy’s apocalyptic world, Viggo shines as the morally-conflicted father without answers. Mortensen deserves a shoeshine and a footprint on the red carpet.

2. Jesse Eisenberg, Adventureland: Eisenberg really seems to like movies with “land” in them (Adventureland and Zombieland in 2009), but that affinity won’t land him any Oscar love. I may be in the minority, but I thoroughly appreciated Adventureland for its good-natured spirit, compelling story, and perhaps most of all, the likeability of its main character. Eisenberg played his role perfectly, and for that he deserves to be on higher turf.

Best Actress:
1. Zooey Deschanel, (500) Days of Summer: While I was thrilled to see my former classmate (we even lived in the same dorm), Joseph Gordon-Levitt, get some attention at the Golden Globes, where was Zooey Deschanel? After all, the movie WAS about Summer, first and foremost, and Deschanel played the spellbindingly-unreachable temptress with almost as much nuance as Vivaldi in his Four Seasons.

2. Abbie Cornish, Bright Star: Cornish was entrancing in her portrayal of Miss Fanny Brawne, the open-to-the-world fashionista who fell hard for poet John Keats in the underappreciated Bright Star (see my earlier thoughts). I really can’t find fault with any aspect of her performance. This is one of those cases where her obscurity as an actress hurt her severely, whereas everyone knows Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep. Let’s hope Carey Mulligan wins it on behalf of the unknown Brits.

Best Supporting Actor:
1. Jim Broadbent, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: This is a clear case of discrimination by genre. Broadbent absolutely steals the show in the latest installment of the Potter series, playing the flawed-but-jolly Professor Slughorn with a hilarious air. Throughout the film, Broadbent speaks the mind of his character with comic contortions of his face, and when he speaks, it always seems humorous. J. K. Rowling and her rabid constituents were all thrilled with his performance.

2. Paul Giamatti, Duplicity: Duplicity may have been a mediocre film, forgettable as another not-so-serious man-woman spy movie (although I still enjoyed it). Lost within the averageness was a gem of a performance by Giamatti, as the over-the-top CEO desperate to use any kind of espionage imaginable to show up his nemesis. In one scene, Giamatti is especially brilliant as he holds a stockholder’s meeting where he believes he has his triumph. In a more notable movie, Giamatti would get more recognition.

Best Supporting Actress:
1. Melanie Laurent, Inglourious Basterds: I don’t know how Diane Kruger can be considered for a nomination and not the mesmerizing Laurent. Laurent’s extraordinary performance as the victim-turned-femme-fatale, ever more intoxicating through each new eye-movement and cryptic smile, should not only garner a nomination, but an Oscar win (see Mallory Pickard’s piece on Inglourious Basterds). If all predictions turn out true, the Academy is really missing the boat here.

2. Olivia Williams, An Education: An Education featured a number of prominent actors in minor roles, such as Emma Thompson as the school headmistress and Rosamund Pike as the friend of Jenny’s (Carey Mulligan) suitor. None compared to that of Williams, whose stony countenance conveyed such disappointment and earnest hope in the slightest gestures. Williams will not be recognized at the Oscars, but those who value solid acting will not soon forget her fine contribution.

Best Director:
1. David Yates, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: In a franchise that has zipped through several directors and been subject to inescapable hype, it’s truly remarkable that Yates will be retained from No. 5 through the two installments of No. 7. What makes Yates’ directing so exceptional is how he delicately approaches each scene. At times, I thought the Half-Blood Prince was as much an art film as a fantasy adventure, with such attention to detail and Yates’ determination to reveal the beauty of Rowling’s magical world.

2. Sam Raimi, Drag Me to Hell: An unconventional choice, certainly, but one that deserves some serious mention. Considering the difficulty of the genre, especially among critics, how to explain the 92% Rotten Tomatoes that Raimi has staggeringly achieved? As someone who normally shuns horror films, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Raimi’s devilishly-good directing. More than just a scary movie, Raimi poked fun of the traditional components of the horror movie, all while providing a ghastly tale of his own. I laughed and gasped and laughed and gasped, and I imagine Hollywood would too if they looked at it under an unprejudiced lense.

I will be extremely surprised if even one of these 10 films snags an unexpected nomination, but I encourage you – the viewers – to rise where the Academy could not, and contemplate the valor of these efforts while others receive the call.

In light of America’s afflicted age of evaporating business and surging layoffs, “bad timing” was admittedly my first reaction to the synopsis of “Up in the Air,” a film whose protagonist voyages around the country as the Grim Reaper of corporate downsizing. Not only is Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) a one-man professional firing squad– he genuinely enjoys his work and the compact lifestyle that comes with it.

Leave it to Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking, Juno) to completely defuse said negative assumptions and demonstrate in top form that now is the perfect time to explore the current status of America, and more importantly, the American dream. Reitman stays true to his style of weaving acerbic observations on American ethos into lovable, tangible characters, but it is his directorial dive into themes of self-discovery and the archetypal corporate machine that elevates “Up in the Air” into Oscar territory.

Take for example the scene in which Bingham (Clooney) prepares his overly ambitious protege, Natalie (Anna Kendrick), for her first firing in another no-name office building in a no-name town. Enter a brilliant cameo by JK Simmons. Kendrick rolls out her well-memorized, hollow pitch about new opportunities and slides the severance packet across the table like a checkmate. He doesn’t take the bait, and Clooney calmly interjects with a pitch so perfect that the lines between inspiration and beautifully packaged nothingness become blurred: “How much did they pay you to first give up on your dreams?”

It is these moments that allow Clooney to flawlessly portray a man who packages unemployment in the promise of the American Dream so well that “firing” becomes a sort of self-discovery facilitation. In reality, Bingham fires complete strangers for faceless companies too cowardly to handle it on their own, and without any sort of follow-up– both professionally and personally, he is a man who embraces artificial intimacy as a crucial part of his weightless lifestyle.

The challenges to his anonymity come in the form of two women. Natalie (Kendrick) is a Type A college graduate who joins Bingham’s firm with ambitions of turning the layoff business into a social media platform. The idea threatens to ground Bingham indefinitely, and when the two begin sparring about decency and the layoff process, the boss (Jason Bateman) assigns her to the road. Clooney and Kendrick create a humorously dysfunctional corporate-father-daughter rapport which namely involves Kendrick scrutinizing (perhaps ironically) Clooney’s detached way of life.

Challenge #2 comes in the form of Alex (Vera Farmiga), a gorgeous fellow frequent flyer who is openly attracted to Bingham’s plastic collection of elite memberships and credit cards. The sultry chemistry between Farmiga and Clooney has all the trappings of old Hollywood romance, and her presence on the road completes Clooney’s stand-in family. This is most apparent in a scene where Natalie outlines her American Dream (the Ivy League version involving a one-syllable name i-banking husband), and Alex advises her on what to truly seek including someone from a good family and a man who wants kids. In rare form, Bingham refrains from commenting and listens instead with an amused and somewhat distant look on his face.

It is not until the final scene that Bingham realizes the vacancy of the life he has chosen. Clooney perfectly captures the moment in which his dream of mobility and freedom from the machine finally meets reality as he stares blankly at another airline departure screen. The montage of talking heads from the opening scene then returns (note Reitman chose real people, not actors, who had recently been laid off for the film’s bookends), but the discussion has shifted from losing a job to the sustaining power of love and family in spite of loss.

Up in the Air unflinchingly portrays a culture of material identity, omnipresent marketing, and increasingly robotic interactions that all serve as various degrees of escapism from the bleak economic climate and more or less from reality. It does not preach, and it does not pass judgment; it simply is. One thing is clear though– no matter how loyal you are to a company or an airline or a brand name, no matter how much you embrace material culture as your own, it is having a family or someone to love that will sustain us when it all falls down– even the American Dream.

The host of awards the film has already won (including the Golden Globe and Critic’s Choice Award for Best Screenplay along with NBR awards for Best Actor, Best Film, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actress for Anna Kendrick) confirm that Reitman may have in fact chosen the perfect time to make Up in the Air. The film led the Golden Globes with six nominations, and most Oscar predictions are calling it a toss-up between Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and Up in the Air for Best Picture. I feel it undoubtedly deserves Best Screenplay, and given the impeccable cast, clean cinematography, and heightened relevancy, an Oscar for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director, and Best Picture would all be well-deserved.

As movie musicals go, “Nine” doesn’t necessarily have that wow factor, but it certainly has enough terrific performances to make it entertaining.

Starting with Daniel Day-Lewis, as Italian film director Guido Contini. He sings, he dances (sort of; he jumps around on things a lot), and mostly embodies a director who has lost his creative spark, as his life spirals out of control. The Broadway musical is based on Italian film director Federico Fellini’s 1963 classic, semi-autobiographical film “8 ½,” which explores the director’s creative free fall – and the seven women who move in and out of his life in a dreamlike state.

In the case of “Nine,” these women are: Carla (Penelope Cruz), Contini’s sensual but unstable mistress; Luisa (Marion Cottilard), his patient and devoted wife; Claudia (Nicole Kidman), his frequent leading lady and muse; Lilli (Judi Dench), his longtime costume designer and confidante; Stephanie (Kate Hudson), a flirty Vogue journalist; Saraghina (Stacey Ferguson), a prostitute from Contini’s childhood; and finally, his mother (Sophia Loren). Day-Lewis is once again a marvel. There truly isn’t anything this Oscar-winning actor can’t accomplish, authenticating everything he tries his hand at.

All the women do a nice job in their roles as well – and more importantly, in their musical numbers – save for Kidman, who just seems sorely out of place. Granted, as songs go in “Nine,” she has the worst one to sing, in my opinion, so it may be harder for Kidman to shine than the rest. But still, she doesn’t hit the mark as a sexy Italian siren (based on the real ‘60s Italian film star Claudia Cardinale) at all. Cruz has the most to chew on as the fetching but insecure Carla, distraught she can’t be in Contini’s life more, and she totally sells her libidinous song “A Call from the Vatican,” swinging from ropes in lingerie. Cotillard gets to use her pipes again, after winning the Oscar for playing Edith Piaf, but as Luisa, she doesn’t have as much range to play with. It’s basically one emotion for Luisa – beaten down – and Cotillard seems wasted since we know she can give so much more than that. Dench is always good as Lilli, the voice of reason, while Loren stands around looking regal. The singer Fergie naturally nails her musical number “Be Italian” like the pro she is, but doesn’t really have to do much acting beyond that. For me, the real stand out is Hudson. Not only does she have the best song, “Cinema Italiano,” she is also so damn cute performing it.

Director Rob Marshall, who spearheaded the Best Picture winner “Chicago,” understands how to translate a musical for the big screen, and with “Nine” he delivers again, even if he borrows a little from another source, namely “All That Jazz.” Similar themes, similar influential women, similar dreamlike state – and similar stark sets with back-lighting and picturesque tableaus, as many of the numbers are shot on the fictional Stage 5 at Cincetta Studios in Rome. Of course, “Nine” has its own individual merits, too. Marshall really captures that Italian 1960 spirit and brings all the elements together as a cinematic experience. Since the Academy voters love musicals, I’m sure it’ll have a shot at Best Picture, but for me, Broadway musicals-turned-films can be hit or miss. I’m one of the few people in the world who didn’t really love “Chicago.” Maybe it’s the music, maybe it’s wanting to see the choreography on stage, up close and personal, but “Nine” doesn’t knock my socks off overall.

First-time director Tom Ford paints his own portrait of A Single Man almost as if it were a piece of art – beautiful to look at, solitary and still, but with many layers of emotions hidden underneath. It’s a pure gem and showcases some stellar work by Colin Firth.

Based on the novel by Christopher Isherwood, the film, set in the early ‘60s, focuses on a day in the life of George (Firth), a gay college English lit professor who only just became “single.” His longtime partner and love of his life, Jim (Matthew Goode), has died tragically in a car crash, and George is understandably having a rough time of it.

So, on this one fine day, he decides he’ll join Jim in the next world. But being the fastidious person that he is, George first has to make sure all his affairs are in order, including saying goodbye to his old friend Charley (Julianne Moore). What George doesn’t expect to find on this day, however, is some solace with one of his students, Kenny (Nicholas Hoult). Through Kenny’s adoration and the possibilities he sees in his mentor, George discovers a sense of purpose he didn’t know still existed and eventually George realizes the importance of living in the present.

As I said before, Firth deserves this moment in the sun. I love it when an actor, who has been around for a long while and has done some pretty silly movies, gets to show off his mad skills and portray someone with such depth of character. His George is a quiet study in the simplicity of the human soul– an ordinary man who is a kind and caring friend, who excels in his profession – and who has loved and lost deeply. His name will certainly be on the Best Actor’s list, and he has a very good shot at winning the gold.

Also in the clear running for Best Supporting Actress is Moore as George’s slightly off-kilter divorced friend Charley. She’s just as lonely as George but hasn’t had the advantage of experiencing the same great love as George. She obviously would have liked to, at one point, with George himself, but that ship has passed – in fact, had never really been docked at all. Moore’s brief time onscreen is a marvel; if she doesn’t finally win the career Oscar she justly deserves, I don’t know what.

And rounding out the cast, Hoult – who we might remember as the chubby “boy” in About a Boy – has grown up and filled out quite nicely, while Goode (Watchmen) does a fine job giving us a warm feeling about Jim and his relationship with George.

The other genuine talent in A Single Man is writer/director Tom Ford, whose own mad skills as a fashion designer has lent itself to an easy jump to filmmaking. A Single Man is all at once languid, sexy, poignant, sad and very stylistic – all runway staples (except maybe the poignant and sad).

Of course, Ford isn’t at all interested in making an average film. Oh no, he’s got to add flair. Scenes in which George goes about his seemingly ordinary day are shot in a stark, harsh light, but when George views something of beauty – be it a sunset or some variation of the male form – the shots are lush and gorgeous. And he loves Firth’s face, which he shoots in close up after close up.

It is an extremely smart move for Ford to make his directorial debut with something so tailored made for him. You shine best when you fully understand the material. As for a longstanding career in filmmaking, however, that remains to be seen. It might be hard for Ford to top A Single Man.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the better part of 2009, you’ve already heard the buzz surrounding Inglourious Basterds, an ultimate cinematic package filled with enigmatic performances, ultra-violent imagery, and a revisionist World War II narrative created over the course of a decade by director Quentin Tarantino. There is speculation among critics that the movie may receive as many as eight Academy Award nominations, and no one can stop talking about Christoph Waltz’s extraordinarily wicked portrayal of Nazi officer Hans Landa, better known as “The Jew Hunter”.

Waltz is a rightful shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination, but the buzz seems to have left one of the most crucial ingredients for the film’s success on the shelf. Both Diane Kruger and Melanie Laurent deliver incendiary performances as the lethal, iconic female characters that have become synonymous with Tarantino films, and it is precisely these roles that transform an otherwise conventional war story into an Oscar-worthy masterpiece.

Diane Kruger (Troy, National Treasure) perfectly embodies the role of Bridget Von Hammersmark, a Nazi-beloved German actress who is secretly working undercover for the British. The fact that Kruger herself is a German-born actress raised in France lends to the authenticity of her character in a role that demands fluency in both languages in addition to English throughout the film.

The challenge of playing Bridget cannot be understated– Kruger is, after all, an actress playing an actress who must constantly switch gears between playing a glamorous starlet (who must also flirt with Nazis) and an insider femme fatale loyally allied with the Basterds. The description in itself sounds convoluted, but Kruger pulls it off with heart– and because of her ability to make Bridget both relatable and regal, her character’s eventual strangling at the hands of Hans Landa is much more haunting.

French actress Melanie Laurent similarly fuels the monstrous image of “The Jew Hunter” as Shoshanna Dreyfus, a Jewish cinema owner who is passionate about exacting revenge on the Nazi officer who executed her entire family. Fate falls into Shoshanna’s lap when her cinema is chosen as the site of a Nazi propaganda premiere starring the Reich’s deadliest sharpshooter (Daniel Bruhl) with none other than Landa as head of security for the event.

Shoshanna’s story is quite simply the heart of Inglourious Basterds. Her quiet rage as she dines with Landa is tangible, and her romantic tête-è-tête with the Reich’s most lethal (and most charming) soldier simmers perfectly in suspenseful irony until the entire thing boils over. Laurent’s command of her character’s simultaneously fervid and subtle vengefulness carries the film both into hauntingly poetic territory and to its violent, epic finale.

In short, Tarantino has successfully created and cast two more female icons to add to the ranks of Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill), and Patricia Arquette (True Romance). From the nail-biting tavern scene in which Kruger tries to mediate a tense showdown between the Nazis and the Basterds to the unforgettable climax in which Laurent’s own version of happily ever after is revealed (the movie begins with “Once upon a time…”), the female characters are unquestionably necessary, powerful, and unforgettable.

In an August 2009 interview with writer Kim Morgan, Tarantino explains late Nazi propaganda with a quote channeling Joseph Goebbels, the (real life) minister of Propaganda for the Nazis: “We’re not gonna win anymore battles on the battlefields, but we’re gonna win one in the cinemas.” Perhaps it was this idea that led to the creation of Basterds as a revisionist narrative in which the Nazis meet the fate they deserve– and perhaps it is the image of Shoshanna winning her battle in the cinema that has kept the film’s pre-autumn release fresh in every critic’s mind as we approach the 2010 Academy Awards.