No Globe? No SAG? No Problem!....or Perhaps There IS a Problem?

For over ten years, one of the most consistent traditions we have had on this blog has been looking at a weird trend in Oscar predictions.  While the Oscars have in the past 15 years become almost annoyingly predictable in who their nominees are (I don't like it-I want mystery, and especially with the winners it's become ridiculous how you basically just need to watch one awards show to get a read on who will win), since 2006 we had had at least one of the twenty acting nominees who was nominated at neither the Golden Globes or the SAG Awards.  Here they are for the past ten years:

2024: No contenders

2023: America Ferrera

2022: Brian Tyree Henry, Andrea Riseborough, Judd Hirsch, & Paul Mescal

2021: Penelope Cruz, Jesse Plemons, JK Simmons, Judi Dench, & Jessie Buckley

2020: Paul Raci & LaKeith Stanfield

2019: Florence Pugh

2018: Marina de Tavira & Yalitza Aparicio

2017: Lesley Manville

2016: Michael Shannon

2015: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Hardy, & Mark Ruffalo

That trend, though, unfortunately ended in 2024.  While there were contenders (Stanley Tucci in Conclave and Marianne Jean-Baptiste in Hard Truths were my top guesses), no one ended up getting in without a previous citation.  Unlike 2006 (where it largely happened because of bizarrely uniform female categories and a BONKERS Best Supporting Actor season where spread-the-wealth got too many names in), this was led be a trend that we'll see in 2025, and why I'm a little scared there IS a problem for actors (hence the cheeky spin on the title) who can't compete earlier in the year: the Globes moving to six-wide nominations for all of their categories took out a lot of the "also-ran" names that sometimes pop with Oscar; someone like Brian Tyree Henry or Florence Pugh now would have earlier hardware to support them.  It's also part of an increasing trend of each awards house losing its own flavor.  The Globes used to be crazy (nominating movies solely due to movie stars they liked, quality be damned) while SAG would embrace milquetoast stuff like Helen Mirren in Woman in Gold, and then Oscar would come in late with a classy alternative like Lesley Manville or Charlotte Rampling.  This year, with the Globes still six-wide, and the bizarre shutout of Sentimental Value at SAG (which won't happen with Oscar but now means a lot more names don't qualify for this list), we have a LOT of names.

Hope springs eternal, though, and I will continue to pray we see some new names as it's far more fun to be wrong with Oscar predictions than to be right.  Below, ranked from least to most likely, we have a list of the ten contenders I think are most plausible to get into the race even without a nomination.  A quick reminder with this list before we dissect.  First, the nominees that fit this article's descriptor tend to fall into one of two camps.  They are either movie stars who worked their asses off all season and are getting in based on name recognition alone (Penelope Cruz being the best example of this from the above nominees), or they are someone who is getting a coattails nomination.  The thing about awards bodies is that if they like a film, they REALLY like it (look at Sinners clearing the deck this morning), and so most of the nominees that hit this criteria in recent years have been for films that voters are already choosing for Best Picture or a different acting prize, and they also include these names because they can't stop doting on their favorite movie.  There is technically a third group (people like Paul Mescal and Andrea Riseborough) who sort of just make it all season on vibes and then get in at the exact right moment...but they're harder to guess and I honestly don't really have one of those listed below (though I have a few listed in Honorable Mention)...would be cool though!  Always rooting for another Andrea Riseborough style nomination, mostly because it'll never happen again and it is one of my all-time favorite Oscar morning moments solely based on how unusual it was.

With that said, here is my list!

Honorable Mention: This list is honestly already a bit sparce, and the contenders I think that are real are ranked.  I haven't seen Marty Supreme, so I'm guessing the reason Fran Drescher has no traction is because she's barely in the movie, but she does fit the bill (longtime trouper who knows everybody) that sometimes sneaks in.  If there's a Mescal/Riseborough nominee, you'd probably look to Rebecca Ferguson (A House of Dynamite), Daniel Day-Lewis (Anemone) or Lucy Liu (Rosemead), all of whom got the kinds of reviews that would get you a nomination (well two did and one of them is Daniel Day-Lewis), even if they haven't shown up at enough of the precursors to be considered.  There's also recent nominee Jeremy Strong (Springsteen) or former nominee Hailee Steinfeld (Sinners) if the Oscars really like their films, but that feels like a stretch given the former's film has lost all heat and the latter has better options in the movie.  Also, I would be foolish not to mention Jacobi Jupe (Hamnet), though Oscar has stopped loving child performances the way he used to, and even when he did, it was usually in the female categories where child actors showed up.

10. Jennifer Lopez (Kiss of the Spider Woman)

For Her: Steinfeld definitely makes more sense here & probably should be number ten, but if we're going to get crazy, let's get loud (pun intended), and boy has Jennifer Lopez in recent years been loud about her lack of a nomination in her career.  Don't pretend you haven't seen the clip of her listening to the Oscars and tearfully realizing she wasn't getting in for Hustlers.  I'm not usually one to say someone is "due" but given her career...she should have a nod by now, and I suspect the Academy knows it.

Against Her: The film doesn't look like a contender in any other category, and it flopped pretty spectacularly earlier this year.  Lopez also has a reputation for being challenging to work with (Luis Guzman can't be the only Academy member who doesn't like her, even if he's one of the few on record), and people like to vote for people they enjoy working with...this nomination made a lot of sense a few months ago, but now not as much.

9. Hugh Jackman (Song Sung Blue)

For Him: Jackman, unlike Lopez, has an Oscar nomination to rely upon, but he's been in contention a few times since then and could feel like a comeback nomination is worthy of him (also, unlike Lopez, he has a more affable professional reputation).  Also unlike Lopez, he has a costar (Kate Hudson) who seems destined to get a nomination this year, and so Academy voters are likelier to be playing their screener for him.  There's not a lot of feel-good in this year's race, and this would be a good spot for it.

Against Him: Hudson outacts him, and the Academy has really moved away from this middle-of-the-ground crowd-pleaser (15 years ago he'd be a much better shot) in favor of more serious critical fare.  Truth be told, I would've assumed he was more of a "wild SAG nominee" than an Oscar nominee at this point.  Both of the lead acting races are crazy tough this year, as a lot of the nominees feel "locked" because they come with a probable Best Picture nominee (bizarrely, Jackman is the only lead contender I have on this list).

8. Emily Watson (Hamnet)

For Her: At one point in the 1990's, Watson felt like she might fall into default nominee status, but fell out of fashion for some reason and never really rebounded.  But Oscar loves a comeback, and they also love British character actresses.  Watson doesn't have a huge role, but it is a powerful one, and if they like Hamnet, it's possible she's the surprise this year.

Against Her: Here's the deal, and why category fraud truly SUCKS.  Paul Mescal is also campaigning for supporting for the same film, and if you told me he was in at least an hour more of this movie than Watson, I'd believe you.  Having Mescal (very good in this movie but completely a lead) campaigning here makes it feel like Watson isn't doing enough to warrant her citation...even though she is an ACTUAL supporting part.  It's likely costing her nominations, in addition to there just being a lot of contenders for Supporting Actress.

7. Regina Hall (One Battle After Another)

For Her: Hall is exactly the sort of person who sneaks into a last-minute nomination.  She's a well-loved character actor, one who has never been nominated despite Oscar connections (she's a former host), and she's appearing in a key, scene-stealing role in the likely Best Picture winner.  She's also been in the conversation before (Support the Girls), and has elevated movies (like Scary Movie) that pretty much everyone knows would not have had the cultural staying power were it not for her (not to mention the box office receipts).

Against Her: There are too many actors trying for nominations in One Battle After Another.  That's honestly the biggest issue-the film is already trying to get five acting nominations (which it got for SAG, so this is real), but adding a sixth nomination, as we discussed here, has never happened before, and she's likely going to end up just shy.

6. Tania Maria (The Secret Agent)

For Her: Her role as the scene-stealing landlady is the kind of role that frequently gets you an Oscar nomination, and despite SAG dropping the ball, Oscar is much friendlier to subtitled movies than any of the precursor awards.  She has several key moments in the film with likely nominee Wagner Moura, and if you've seen the movie, she'll stand out.

Against Her: Here's the thing-I'm confident Oscar voters are going to see the movie, and I'm confident that they're going to like her, but will they bother to learn her name?  Honestly, this is a legitimate question as, say, the cast of Parasite found out.  But I can't help but think about Roma a few years ago and how they ended up with a few nominations that came out of nowhere, especially in upended categories (which Supporting Actress is).

5. Glenn Close (Wake Up Dead Man)

For Her: She's Glenn freaking Close.  And not just is she an eight-time Oscar-nominated legend that pretty much everyone agrees is the greatest living actor without an Oscar, she's kind of having a moment right now between this and the wildly successful (but critically-maligned) All's Fair.  She's the standout in the film, and honestly in a year as unusual as this for Supporting Actress, if she got nominated I'd bet she'd win, which is why Netflix really should get behind her...

Against Her: ...but they aren't.  Rian Johnson's move to Netflix resulted in two very strong Knives Out sequels (in my opinion, both better than the original), but the last film had two totally worthy performances to cite for Janelle Monae & Kate Hudson (I personally nominated both of them), and yet neither got in, and I think Netflix took the lesson away from that that these films aren't worth giving attention.  Which is a pity, because I mean it-I think this might be Close's Oscar win if she could've gotten in, and there's room for her.

4. William H. Macy (Train Dreams)

For Him: On the flip side, we have a movie that Netflix IS getting behind, and a character actor who is likely due for another nomination (similar to Paul Giamatti a couple of years back getting a follow-up citation for The Holdovers).  I have not seen this film, but from what I can tell Macy has a plum part, and with both the film and Joel Edgerton in the conversation, I wouldn't be surprised if he snuck in (it certainly feels like the type of role that would).

Against Him: I can't quite tell where we're falling on the Train Dreams momentum train (pun not intended...also not sure if it's a pun).  Did its pair of Golden Globe nominations signal that we should be watching for it coming in the future, or was that the best it's going to do and other, flashier films get in its way for an Oscar nomination?  Edgerton is fighting for his life in the most crowded of the races, and I don't see Macy making it without him.

3. Andrew Scott (Blue Moon)

For Him: In 2023, Andrew Scott gave what (in my opinion) was the best cinematic performance of the decade to date, and got absolutely nothing from Oscar.  I suspect, though, that people are aware of this fact (i.e. more people saw All of Us Strangers in the interim), and Scott is on the precipice of movie stardom, regularly getting key roles in major films like Blue Moon.  This is a very subtle turn, and one that (if people are watching the movie) he should stand out for as it's critically important in making what Hawke does work.

Against Him: The top four are really where I think (if we have one) we're going to get our surprise nomination.  But the question hanging over all of them is "why didn't they get nominated at the Globes or SAG...and why would Oscar be different?"  With Scott this is particularly important because he's the only one not in a Best Picture contender, so the acting is really the only thing that he has going for him, and so there's more eyebrows as to where he has been all season (the other three, if Oscar loves the films more than the Globe or SAG, is how they sneak in).  Is this role just not clicking with voters?

2. Delroy Lindo (Sinners)

For Him: Lindo has been on the verge of an Oscar nomination for years.  He should've gotten in a few years back for Da 5 Bloods (again, I nominated him), but he's been in movies regularly for decades, everything from some of Spike Lee's best pictures (like Crooklyn) to box office sludge (like Gone in 60 Seconds & Ransom) to films Oscar DID go for but he wasn't nominated (specifically The Cider House Rules).  In another major Best Picture contender like Cider House...Lindo gives off the vibes of an actor Oscar wants to put his name on, so at 73, this is the time.

Against Him: Everyone else in this cast is getting nominated instead.  Seriously-we saw three cast members (Michael B. Jordan, Miles Caton, & Wunmi Mosaku) all get nominated this morning, so why wasn't his name there?  It's hard not to think that, like Emily Watson, Caton (who is in 25 more minutes of the film and definitely the co-lead of the picture) is hurting him by dwarfing a true supporting performance.

1. Gwyneth Paltrow (Marty Supreme)

For Her: In order to be #1 on this list, you gotta bring it.  Key part of a major Best Picture contender?  Check.  Coattail nominee when there's other actors in your film locked in already?  Check.  Former Winner/Nominee who is making a comeback of sorts with Oscar?  Double check.  And with Gwyneth, it's hard not to also notice that she's actively trying for this-she's hit every press junket she can think of, even interviews she wouldn't normally do (like Amy Poehler's Good Hang podcast), and clearly is hoping to finally get her second Oscar nomination.  That same sort of "please, I want this" plea from a major movie star worked for Annette Bening in Nyad a few years ago.

Against Her: Paltrow's public celebrity is (like Lopez's) polarizing, and she also has internal competition from Odessa A'zion (a fellow NepoBaby).  I haven't seen the movie, so I also do wonder if part of this is me judging a performance that's just not in Oscar's wheelhouse...but critics don't seem to indicate this is a throwaway part.  I've said it a few times this article, but I cannot stress enough-Oscar LOVES a comeback...

OVP: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Film: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Stars: Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Don Cheadle, Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elisabeth Olsen, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, Tom Hiddleston, Idris Elba, Peter Dinklage, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Gwyneth Paltrow, Benicio del Toro, Josh Brolin, Chris Pratt (okay, seriously-what was the actor budget like on this film-this cast easily could have cost $200 million by itself)
Director: Anthony and Joe Russo
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars (read the review though, as it's really more a 2-4 star range based on the sequel)

Movies and television have started to collide in being the same mediums, something that I have never been okay with but apparently everyone else is so I've learned to deal.  The reality is that in a world where we simply rely upon "awesome franchises" for so much of our entertainment, and everything old is, well, not necessarily new but more a shattered shell of its former self (but comfortable so "who cares!"), it makes sense that a multi-billion dollar asset like the Avengers series would become essentially a multi-film TV series.  This picture, the 19th in the franchise (I believe I've seen all but two of these movies, though I'd have to double-check) is about as certain of a blockbuster hit as one can get, and because we live in an era where we need to suck up even if we aren't impressed (see also the White House Correspondents' Dinner), it's surely going to be a critical smash.  But I have been hit-or-miss with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and so I was genuinely curious if I was going to leave The Avengers duly-impressed or finding the film lacking.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place in the aftermath of our last few installments of Captain America, Thor, and Black Panther, and most-importantly finally puts Thanos (Brolin) front-and-center as our villain, as he's been whom we've been building toward for nearly a decade now as our ultimate baddie who will take over the world.  Played in dull purple by Brolin, Thanos is an all-powerful villain that never quite feels as interesting as he should; one of the cardinal sins of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that they never approach the intrigue or a Joker or Lex Luthor when it comes to their bad guys.  Thanos could be more interesting if we let him breath a bit more on his personal philosophy, as in many ways he resembles Bane in his battle for a better humanity through brutal results (he essentially wants to wipe out half of the population of the universe in order to reduce hunger and resource-deprivation).  It's entirely possible they're saving that for the sequel, but that points to perhaps the greatest problem with this movie: it needs a sequel to function, and it needs to be television to work.

Film functioning as television has always had one major flaw: TV shows end, and film franchises frequently do not, at least not while there's serious money on the table.  The best television series allow you to love characters, but also occasionally give you consequences or events that can never be undone.  Look at, say, Lost or Game of Thrones or Mad Men, and how these shows would occasionally kill off characters or end romances or have betrayals that shape the course of the series, never to be entirely glossed over.  As a result, there was genuine risk in what the series was bringing to the viewers, knowing that season finales could shape your viewpoint entirely of what might come next in the franchise.

Here, though, we watch as Spider-Man, Black Panther, Star-Lord, roughly a dozen major characters in the franchise vanish with a literal snap of the fingers in the film's final moments, as Thanos vision for a universe where half of the citizens die suddenly becomes reality.  It's a staggering sequence, with fine work from Danai Gurira (watching her invincible king evaporate in her hands), and especially a squeaky-voiced Tom Holland pleading with Iron Man to save him, the scared teenager behind the superhero emerging as he realizes the consequences of fighting for good.  In a television series, particularly one where I assumed there is only one film left, I would have thought this was a jaw-dropping moment.  Holland's fine protestations would have brought me to tears, realizing that he would leave us too quickly, and I would have been shocked that it hadn't been the actors whose contracts were about to expire (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor) who left us but the theoretical future of the series.  But I'm smart enough to realize that these characters already have films lined up (Spider-Man, in particular, is going to have to start airing trailers before Avengers is seen next year, so I'm not sure how that will even work).  Theoretically, of course, we could see the roles in these films recast, but that seems preposterous-Holland, Boseman, Pratt, these are major stars now that the public wants to see play these roles.  They aren't going to quickly disappear from the franchises, and Disney has too much money on the line to let them go.

As a result, we get a cheap ending to the film.  It's probable that we'll see them brought back next time, and then watch as the expected characters go into the sunset, with a new series of Avengers ready to take the stage, perhaps with Downey, Hemsworth, or Evans a possibility to return in 5-7 years if their careers are suffering.  But it doesn't make this film particularly interesting, and it proves that perpetual stories are too lazy.  There's a lot to like in The Avengers, even if I feel it fails on the most important element (plotting).  The victor of the movies has always truly been the casting directors, finding relative unknowns who ooze movie star charisma to play larger-than-life characters.  There is so much plot, but it's relatively brisk all-things-considered, and were it not for the inevitable deletion of the ending, it would surely stand apart as a great action film.  The movie's performances are uniformly good, with Holland, Cumberbatch, & Saldana being the standouts, and they take the time to give us fun pairings (Rocket & Thor being an obvious highlight, though I also particularly liked Spidey & Doctor Strange).

Were it not for the film's ending inevitably being deleted for something more conventional and keeping the story going perpetually (until we eventually tire of comic book heroes, which may be never), I'd give this a higher ranking, perhaps even a four-star.  But it doesn't work like that.  I know how this game plays out, and I'm not stupid enough to think that the shocking, arguably quite smart, ending to this picture won't be erased for something less intriguing.  As a result, I'm going to go with three stars, though in my head it's more like 2.5  If they keep most of the characters dead in the next film, I'll vote for a 4 star change at that time, but until then they've removed any element of surprise or sacrifice by giving us this ending, and as a result I can't applaud this picture, even if I see its value.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Film: Spider-Man Homecoming (2017)
Stars: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Jon Favreau, Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, Marisa Tomei, Robert Downey, Jr.
Director: Jon Watts
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

There are few movies I really wanted less than another Spider-Man picture.  I'm well-aware that Disney/Marvel/whatever else they own by now (I'm writing this in mid-October for NaNoWriMo, so if we've renamed the country after them, I wouldn't be that surprised), needed a way to fold Peter Parker into the Avengers saga, but my thoughts going into this were that the movie seemed so unnecessary.  After a very fine first two films with Tobey Maguire, a third movie with him that was wholly unnecessary, and then a pair of completely misguided pictures with Andrew Garfield (who is too cerebral of an actor to ever be a proper matinee idol), I just didn't need to see them attempt it again.  Unlike Fantastic Four, they got it right the first time, and I just didn't require them to try for a third helping after doing it well to start with.  I even vowed to skip the next movie on principle, but then the previews looked good and the reviews were solid and Tom Holland is so cute...and, well, I'm weak, so I slipped into a theater and caught yet another attempt at trying to revive the Spider-Man franchise.

(Spoilers Ahead) The good news is that the movie itself is actually worth the ticket price.  Gone are the over-indulgences of the Andrew Garfield years (the villains-blech), and for the most part we don't have to relive the origin story for Spider-Man this time, which is so great.  I don't need to see poor Uncle Ben die yet again, with Aunt May mourning and Peter vowing revenge.  I don't need to live through the Green Goblin story once more.  It's nice to see a new villain (in this case, Michael Keaton as the Vulture) enter the picture and for them to skip over this aspect of the story because we know it by heart (note-Batman, you can do this too going forward).  By freeing itself from previous iterations and the shackles that come with them, you actually get a fresher movie, one that seems more attuned to actual teenage life, and not just telling the stories of a decades-old comic book.

The film lives and dies on whether or not Tom Holland's Peter Parker is likable, and honestly-he's my favorite Spider-Man, actually by quite a long-shot.  While Spider-Man 2 is arguably the best of the series so far, Holland is a better superhero than Tobey Maguire.  He's far more age appropriate for the role (Maguire was 27 when he first became Peter, Garfield was nearly 30), and actually seems attuned to Peter as a person and not just a means-to-an-end into becoming Spider-Man.  He's also got a movie star charisma that I hadn't seen before from him as an actor, and connects well with the material.  Holland is the sort of actor who should have followed Maguire, someone who could bring a different, lighter energy to one of the comic book characters who is generally the "most fun."  Holland stands as the main reason to see this film, and why a sequel is likely in my viewing future.

That being said, the rest of the film is somewhat middling.  The plot is easy to catch, even the shock of Michael Keaton's daughter being Peter's prom date (Keaton continues his strong streak of downtrodden, menacing men as the Vulture, the other main reason to see this picture), and the jokes are pretty predictable.  Robert Downey, Jr., is actually the best he's been as Iron Man in a long time, but the in-jokes of the Avengers start to lose their spark a bit as they continue, and even the "wow" of celebrity cameos (particularly Gwyneth Paltrow returning to her role as Pepper Potts), can't quite sustain the film on their own merits as it progresses.  I didn't care for the entire "WINK" (all caps on purpose there) that Zendaya was doing to being Peter's future love interest as MJ (also, why couldn't MJ have been a guy this time around-when are we going to get a gay superhero?!?), and I would be fine if they dropped Jon Favreau's character entirely from the remainder of the Avengers films as his gruff, charmless routine went out-of-style years ago.  But with Holland & Keaton at the center, it's difficult not to like this film, and honestly it's probably my favorite installment in the Marvel Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy, if not Captain America: Winter Soldier.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Don't pretend you haven't seen the movie, so get your opinion on in the comments.  Who is your favorite Spider-Man?  Where do you hope this franchise goes with the sequel?  And what should Tom Holland's next non-superhero career move be?  Share below!

Flying Solo in Best Actress

Let's spread the wealth, shall we ladies?

My brother and I were talking the other day about the Best Actress field for 2015, as we are wont to do, and how strange the slate of women that will potentially be competing for the top prize is.  Amongst the leading contenders for the prize this year include Meryl Streep (Ricki and the Flash), Jennifer Lawrence (Joy), Cate Blanchett (Carol), and Julianne Moore (Freeheld).  You might recognize these names in particular because they also happen to be the last four women to win the Best Actress Oscar (Natalie Portman is hanging her chances on a Malick film and the ill-fated Jane Get Your Gun, so I doubt that they can go with a 5/5 situation).  My brother made a comment about how Best Actress may soon be as insular as Best Costume or Score, or at least that it will be again, which felt to me like an Oscar-trivia article.

The reality, is in fact, that Best Actress has long been one of the most insular categories at the Oscars, even in comparison with the very chummy Best Actor category.  If you only count people who would receive their sole Oscar nomination in that category, it's roughly 1 in 5 for both fields as an average in almost every decade.  The Best Actress race, however, has gone through weird spurts of repetitiveness, particularly in the 1940's, 80's and the current decade.  I figured it would be worth looking at every decade since the 1930's where a woman received only one nomination for Best Actress and was never heard from again.

Miriam Hopkins

1930's
Number of Solo Nominees: 12 (Nancy Carroll, Ann Harding, Lynn Fontanne, May Robson, Diana Wynward, Grace Moore, Elisabeth Bergner, Miriam Hopkins, Merle Oberon, Gladys George, Carole Lombard, and Margaret Sullavan)
Any Winners?: Not a one of them.  Luise Rainer, Marie Dressler, Viven Leigh, and Helen Hayes came the closest, each only receiving two Oscar nominations in their careers.
I'd Like An Explanation: One of the larger lists of actresses, this may be because only a couple of actresses really dominated the decade in terms of public consciousness, and one of those oddly didn't receive a nomination (Joan Crawford).  The early years of the cinema seemed to be kinder to emerging talents and in particular, crossover stars from the theater and opera like Fontanne and Moore.
Who Came Closest to Another Round?: A few of them probably came close.  Hopkins received a Golden Globe nomination for her work in The Heiress, so I suspect she was in the running, Lombard was a major player who definitely wanted an Oscar (and may well have gotten one if she hadn't died tragically so early in her career), and Oberon certainly came close with her lead role in Best Picture nominee Wuthering Heights, though she had the misfortune of contending in 1939 against Oscar titans like Bette Davis and Greer Garson.
Most Likely to Get a Second: Elisabeth Bergner was the last living member of the dozen solo nominees listed above, dying in 1986, so no one will be getting a second citation.

Jeanne Crain

1940's
Number of Solo Nominees: 7 (Martha Scott, Ginger Rogers, Jean Arthur, Gene Tierney, Celia Johnson, Dorothy McGuire, and Jeanne Crain)
Any Winners?: Ginger Rogers is one of the only women to win a Best Actress Oscar on her only nomination.
I'd Like An Explanation: The 1940's were dominated by a select 6-7 actresses (Rosalind Russell, Bette Davis, Kate Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman, Olivia de Havilland, Barbara Stanwyck, and Greer Garson) resulting in very few openings for ambitious screen stars.  With the exception of perhaps Rogers (who was more noted for musical comedies) none of these are particularly stunning solo nominees, frequently getting upstaged even in their era by the more nominated women at the Box Office.
Who Came Closest to Another Round?: My money is on Tierney, who was a major dramatic actress for 20th Century FOX (her nominated film, Leave Her to Heaven, was the most successful film for the studio during the 1940's), and starred in major motion pictures of the era like Laura, The Razor's Edge, and The Ghost and Mrs. Muir.  Behind her would be Jean Arthur, who starred in two major Oscar films (Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Shane), but was famously press-shy which probably didn't help, even in a pre-Twitter era.
Most Likely to Get a Second: Both Martha Scott and Jeanne Crain died in 2003, the last living women on that list.

Lana Turner

1950's
Number of Solo Nominees: 10 (Judy Holliday, Shirley Booth, Julie Harris, Ava Gardner, Maggie McNamara, Dorothy Dandridge, Carroll Baker, Nancy Kelly, Lana Turner, and Doris Day)
Any Winners?: Judy Holliday and Shirley Booth both won on their only shots at the fair.
I'd Like An Explanation: We see a slight uptick in the 1950's, possibly because of the decline of the studio system, and possibly because certain women that normally wouldn't do well with the Oscars (glamour girls and romantic comedy leads) both saw a major increase in popularity.  Still, women such as Deborah Kerr, Elizabeth Taylor, and the Hepburns continued to prove that it's easy to repeat.
Who Came Closest to Another Round?: Ava Gardner was probably tops amongst the many legends on this list, with her performance in Night of the Iguana grabbing nominations at the Globes and BAFTA's but not the Oscars (Tennessee Williams-penned roles were a major Oscar draw for women of the era, with women ranging from Kate Hepburn toVivien Leigh to Anna Magnani to Geraldine Page all landing nominations for his plays).
Most Likely to Get a Second: Doris Day and Carroll Baker are still living, though both have been retired from acting for over a decade.  I suspect that if she actually was willing to show up and win it that an Honorary Oscar would be Day's for the taking, but she's very press shy and I doubt would attend.

Anouk Aimee

1960's
Number of Solo Nominees: 9 (Melina Mercouri, Lee Remick, Rachel Roberts, Debbie Reynolds, Samantha Eggar, Elizabeth Hartman, Anouk Aimee, Ida Kaminska, and Genevieve Bujold)
Any Winners?: Not a one.  Sophia Loren, Patricia Neal, and Barbra Streisand all only received two acting nominations in their careers, so that's the closest.
I'd Like An Explanation: The 1960's are a bit odd in that no woman received more than three nominations (that would be the ever dependable Kate Hepburn, as well as Mrs. Robinson-herself Anne Bancroft), but the decade is dominated by women who either were getting the final nominations of their oft-recognized careers (Bette Davis, Greer Garson, Deborah Kerr) or were starting a long affair with Oscar that would continue into the coming decades (Jane Fonda, Vanessa Redgrave, Julie Christie).  That leaves a hodgepodge of foreign-born actresses (very much the rage in the 1960's) and random younger stars who never seemed to pop to get the sole nominations.
Who Came Closest to Another Round?: I would imagine it was Lee Remick, to be honest.  I know that Debbie Reynolds is the name everyone remembers from the above list, but Remick was nearly nominated in 1959 for Anatomy of a Murder where she played a rape victim and won a Globe nod.  It's worth noting that in a very odd year (1966) Elizabeth Hartman could have been cited for her bizarre turn in You're a Big Boy Now as pretty much anyone with a pulse was contending that year (she did get a Globe nod).
Most Likely to Get a Second: Four of these women are still living, and actually all of them have made films in the past five years: Debbie Reynolds, Anouk Aimee, Samantha Eggar, and Genevieve Bujold. Of the five, Reynolds would have the best luck both as the biggest movie star (in the US, at least) and as someone who picks the right material (she may well have been cited if Behind the Candelabra had played theatrically).  Either way, she should start campaigning for an Honorary Award as I think she'd be on the shortlist.

Diahann Carroll

1970's
Number of Solo Nominees: 11 (Ali MacGraw, Sarah Miles, Carrie Snodgress, Janet Suzman, Diana Ross, Cicely Tyson, Diahann Carroll, Valerie Perrine, Louise Fletcher, Carol Kane, and Marie Christine-Barrault)
Any Winners?: Louise Fletcher's nurse from Hell (which is pretty much a supporting turn, let's be honest) was the only victory for a sole nomination.
I'd Like An Explanation: This decade saw a number of women that could get nominated basically every time they opened a picture (Ellen Burstyn, Jane Fonda, Marsha Mason, Glenda Jackson), but like the years before we saw a combination of foreign actresses and movie star careers that didn't quite pan out.  It's also worth noting the unfortunate fate of black actresses in this category (only two of which have ever been nominated for a second trophy), which means that Ross, Tyson, and Carroll were all one-and-done nominees.
Who Came Closest to Another Round?: Sarah Miles headlined a Best Picture nominee in 1987 in Hope and Glory, which could well have been a contender in a less competitive year.  Diana Ross actually had buzz for Mahogany back in the day (1975 was a weird year), and there was some movement to make her the first black actress to win a Best Actress Oscar (that feat would happen 26 years later).  Otherwise none of these women came particularly close before or after.
Most Likely to Get to Second: Snodgress is the only woman on the above list to have passed away, but the only women who seem like they could someday score another nomination are Tyson and Kane, both of whom work extremely regularly, though more so on television than in the cinema.

Kathleen Turner

1980's
Number of Solo Nominees: 6 (Mary Tyler Moore, Marlee Matlin, Kathleen Turner, Sally Kirkland, Melanie Griffith, and Pauline Collins)
Any Winners?: Marlee Matlin became the youngest winner ever of the Best Actress award when she picked it up for Children of a Lesser God at the age of 21.
I'd Like An Explanation: No other decade will probably ever have a run quite like this.  Jessica Lange, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, and Sissy Spacek dominated (there is no year of the decade where at least one isn't nominated) and routinely it was the bulk of them.  Most of the above women were either randomly-cited for tiny films (Matlin, Kirkland, Collins), matinee idols with quickly burnt-out movie stardoms (Turner, Griffith), or headlining a Best Picture winner (Moore).
Who Came Closest to Another Round?: Most assuredly Kathleen Turner, who was a major matinee idol in the 1980's and won back-to-back Golden Globes for Romancing the Stone and Prizzi's Honor, both mammoth hits that for some reason Oscar didn't really want to put his stamp on (the 1980's were very fond of drama, more so than usual, but even then Prizzi's Honor was a major Oscar-player with eight nominations and 1984 had a weird glut of similarly-themed farm-movies, so this one is had to explain).  Either way, there's a decent chance she was in second place twice before finally getting cited for Peggy Sue Got Married (when she probably came in second to Matlin, give-or-take Sissy Spacek).
Most Likely to Get to Second: All of these women are still alive and working, though none of them seem particularly prone to a second nomination.  Turner gets the most attention currently, but that's almost entirely on-stage and she rarely makes movies.  Perhaps it would be Pauline Collins?  She's British, of-a-certain-age, and does bit roles frequently in BAIT-y looking projects (Albert Nobbs, Quartet).  Perhaps she'll pull a Janet McTeer and randomly get in once more?

Catherine Deneuve

1990's
Number of Solo Nominees: 8 (Catherine Deneuve, Angela Bassett, Stockard Channing, Elisabeth Shue, Sharon Stone, Kristin Scott Thomas, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Fernanda Montenegro)
Any Winners?: In one of the weirdest moments in on-paper Oscar history, Gwyneth Paltrow's career totally stalled with Oscar after Shakespeare in Love.  Perhaps the Cate Blanchett curse?
I'd Like An Explanation: We continued to see a few actresses that totally dominated (Meryl Streep, Susan Sarandon, Emma Thompson), but by-and-large this list was actually considerably larger a few years ago.  Actresses like Janet McTeer, Helen Hunt, and Helena Bonham Carter have made good in supporting roles in recent years, winnowing down the list a bit, something I suspect will continue to happen.
Who Came Closest to Another Round?: I mean, Gwyneth seems like the obvious choice, but she wasn't actually that close with Sylvia or Emma, so I'm going to go with Sharon Stone, who was such a big star in the 1990's and was very much in the HFPA's favor (scandalously so).  Basic Instinct or The Mighty might have been close possibilities.
Most Likely to Get a Second: We're now going from the possible to the plausible for "most likely to get a second."  All of these women are still living, and in the cases of Scott Thomas, Bassett, and Paltrow, so regularly make major films that it's difficult not to see at least one of them scoring again, if not all three.  Plus, I think Sharon Stone is going to be discovered by Quentin Tarantino any minute now and that could be not only a nod but a trophy.

Carey Mulligan

2000's
Number of Solo Nominees: 10 (Halle Berry, Salma Hayek, Diane Lane, Keisha Castle-Hughes, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Imelda Staunton, Felicity Huffman, Ellen Page, Carey Mulligan, and Gabourey Sidibe)
Any Winners?: Halle Berry is the most recent woman to win an Oscar on her only nomination.
I'd Like An Explanation: Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Judi Dench, and Cate Blanchett may have been nominated in perpetuity, but the biggest explanation is that we're not far enough away for this list to be super small.  All of these women are still living and most of them are still very much in the hunt.
Who Came Closest to Another Round?: Carey Mulligan, probably, who somehow missed a lot of her buzz for Shame despite that seeming like a pretty plum part (then again, Fassbender missed there so the prudish Academy may just not have been feeling that sex addiction drama).
Most Likely to Get a Second: There are several women on this list that could not only make it again (anyone other than probably Castle-Hughes or Sandino Moreno have the star status still to pull this off), but could make it this year.  Carey Mulligan's Suffragette and Ellen Page's Freeheld both seem like prime contenders.  Imelda Staunton is entering her key "elderly British scene-stealer" years and both Diane Lane and Felicity Huffman are actors that consistently play supporting parts in big things-either one could luck into a Helen Hunt in The Sessions situation.

Emmanuelle Riva

2010's
Number of Solo Nominees (so far): 5 (Rooney Mara, Emmanuelle Riva, Quvenzhane Wallis, Felicity Jones, and Rosamund Pike)
Any Winners?: Not a one-Natalie Portman is the only winner with just two nominations.
I'd Like An Explanation: Too soon to tell, though the 2012 age record-breakers don't really seem as likely to make it again as the other three women.
Who Came Closest to Another Round?: Probably none of them.  Pike, Jones, and Mara have all had key roles in Oscar-nominated films in the past, but it's doubtful any of them made any sorts of waves prior to their nominations.
Most Likely to Get a Second: Hmm, it's obvious that this is a threeway race, but I'd argue that it's a two-way: Rosamund Pike doesn't give off the vibe of a repeat offender.  Jones and Mara, on the other hand, both seem like repeaters, particularly Mara who could be back again this year in Carol.

And there you have it-the few, the proud, the really-wishing-they'd-landed-one-more.  Who do you think is the most likely sole Best Actress nominee to repeat (I'm going with Ellen Page or Rooney Mara, but that's really playing the obvious)?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Best and Worst Dressed at the Oscars

The Academy Awards to some people is a wonderful night celebrating the history, majesty, and wonder of the movies, an occasionally infuriating but always magical evening devoted to cinephiles everywhere.  For other people, however, this is the Super Bowl of Fashion, a night where the world's most beautiful creatures (some so gorgeous it's sort of hard to call them human beings, as it's hard to imagine they are the same species as, say, Mama June from Honey Boo Boo) parade around in a sea of the latest in fashion.  I am not one of the latter group, but because I do celebrate Oscar Awareness in all of its glory, I indulge them with a post every year (and to be honest, it's really fun-I've gotten more and more into the fashion aspect of the evening as the years have gone on).

Since I pointedly skipped the Red Carpet this year as part of my protest against women getting asked stupid questions while the men get asked about artistry (and also because I want Ryan Seacrest to GO AWAY), I had a joyous moment of writing down my favorites from the ceremony and from the red carpet photos afterwards, so I'm going into this sight unseen in terms of what the collective internet is saying about these people, with my choices of the best and worst dressed completely of my own choosing (if one of these men or women are showing up in the opposite list, it just goes to show that group-think is a virus on the media).  Without further adieu, my choices for the five worst and ten best-dressed stars of the red carpet:

Best-Dressed

10. Sienna Miller

A gorgeous mix of black-and-navy, Miller rocked Oscar de la Renta for the Red Carpet.  The color combination is tricky and could have been a disaster, but the navy is so subtle it's a dress you just can't stop staring at.

9. Dakota Johnson

Johnson has been sort of a master-class in celebrity roll-outs.  She hasn't made a fashion mistake since the premiere of her film (and smartly chose her glamorous movie star mother as her date rather than distracting from her emergence onto the national consciousness with a romantic partner), and she saved one of her best looks (a fire-engine red Saint Laurent gown) for the Oscars.  I particularly love the diamond-encrusted strap.

8. Nicole Kidman

I adored this Louis Vuitton number for its play with color (is it white...wait, no, it's not), the mix of what appears to almost be a yellow-green with red without clashing, and in particular for the box-style handbag.

7. America Ferrera

The How to Train Your Dragon 2 star (for those who were trying to place why Ferrera was at the Oscars this year), made the most of her moment-in-the-spotlight in a gorgeous seafoam-green Jenny Packham dress complete with chic belt and a gorgeous brick-red handbag.

6. Jennifer Aniston

Jen smartly didn't skip the Oscars this year (a mistake other snubbed stars have made in the past), even choosing to present and make a major smash in a steamy Versace with a wonderful flowing down hairstyle rather than going with the traditional up.  Simple, chic elegance.

5. Emma Stone

If you're getting your first nomination but you know you're not going to win, it's time to make a truly bold fashion statement.  This chartreuse Elie Saab gown is daring, but perfectly counters Stone's hair color and has a splash of the modern (the lacy material) with a throwback to the old (the cut is pure Dynasty).

4. Eddie Redmayne

If you're a stylish and handsome younger actor who is likely to be photographed with the most coveted man in Hollywood, it's time to make a splash.  Redmayne's Alexander McQueen tuxedo was a splash of blue in a sea of black-and-white duds, but wasn't so ostentatious that it seemed tacky.  Plus, unlike Ansel Elgort's adventure in navy, this seemed to be tailored to Redmayne's lanky frame.

3. Keira Knightley

Maternity couture is a hard road to travel, particularly if you're a style icon, which is why Knightley wore what was one of my favorite adventures in clothes Sunday night, and along with Stone and Kidman, was one of those dresses that could have easily gone to the bad but was stylistically bold in the right way.  I love the words, the neutral tones, and the down-and-flowing locks.

2. Marion Cotillard

Cotillard is perpetually on the best-dressed list, and her Dior was no exception.  I loved the shockingly baggy back to the dress and the gorgeously flirty front to the gown.  It feels like something you'd see launching on a Paris catwalk, not on the more traditional platform of the Oscars.

1. Reese Witherspoon

It has the perfect color scheme of a Chanel suit, but with the clean lines of Dior-I mean it has to be Tom Ford, doesn't it?  Reese made black-and-white feel fresh and the subtle diamonds just add to the elegance.

Worst-Dressed

5. Scarlett Johansson

The dress itself is sultry if a little bit dull Versace, but the bizarre neckpiece is clearly meant for another dress and is WAY too matchy-matchy for this color scheme.

4. Gwyneth Paltrow

Gwyneth, wearing the most expensive prom dress at Barney's.

3. Chrissy Teigen

The makeup is too extreme, the slit too high, and the cut too low-it looks like she's wearing a bathrobe designed by Frederick's of Hollywood (on the plus side it's a good color for her).

2. Felicity Jones

It's probably best not to wear what could easily double as a discount wedding dress to the Oscars, particularly on your first nomination.  The worst part is that Jones wore a gorgeous and fashionable look to the Vanity Fair party later in the evening that would have ROCKED IT on the red carpet, particularly since no one had a particularly memorable little black dress.

1. Jared Leto

It's probably best not to use Dumb & Dumber as your fashion inspiration.

And those are my thoughts on this year's fashions-what about you?  Share the best and worst on your dressed list in the comments!

OVP: Iron Man 3 (2013)

Film: Iron Man 3 (2013)
Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley
Director: Shane Black
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

It's been going on for several years, but I'm still trying to get my head around the Marvel universe that Disney has wrought, and in particular, what it means for the franchises as a whole.  While the Avengers are the biggest things on the planet right now, what's going to happen to these characters when the actors that play them decide they've had enough (it's hard to fathom RDJ ever wanting to give up the Fort Knox he's found in this franchise, but actors tend to move on, and they get older).  Are we in a Doctor Who/James Bond sort of situation where the characters stay but the actors alternate, or is this simply a brief moment where the Marvel universe runs the world, and then it passes into oblivion for another twenty years in a way similar to the Superman franchise?  We shall see...

In the meantime, my complicated feelings about the franchise don't just revolve around the eventual future of the series, but what the series means for the cinema.  There have been a lot of series in the past few years that have wanted to transform more into a television-style approach to their stories-multiple, sometimes endless tales that relate to each other, with the next chapter just around the corner, and occasionally spreading the films a little thin (Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Lord of the Rings, Pixar, and even oddly The Hangover films all seem to fall into this unnecessarily long series mode).  No one has quite done it in the same fashion as The Avengers, however.  Not only have we received the phenomenally successful Joss Whedon film, but we also have individual outings from Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America (you have to feel a little bit bad for Black Widow, Hawkeye, and Mark Ruffalo's Hulk that they don't have the same sort of solo series cache).  These films all work on their own merit, but they also rely heavily on each other, and to miss one means to be left out of the inside jokes on a future film.  I'll admit that I like this better than the stretches that Twilight, for example, took with their source material when it wasn't necessary to make a fifth film-it seems more in-tuned with the core comic book mentality, where superheroes regularly visit each other (they live in the same world, after all), and yet also have their own adventures.  This true-to-the-source approach is, however, having a serious impact on my pocketbook.

But I digress, and should be getting to the film at hand.  While we last left Iron Man in the successful mission in New York City, the last time we left Tony Stark by his lonesome, I have to say I left the film quite disappointed.  The heavy-handed attitude of Iron Man 2 was out-of-character both for RDJ as well as for the approach filmmakers have taken for the Marvel franchises (this sort of self-reflexive, brooding attitude is more at home in the DC Universe).  This film, thankfully, got a lot more fun out of its superhero, and as a result felt fuller and more at-home stylistically.

(Spoilers throughout) Tony Stark, of course, does still have issues from his time in New York, PTSD that has developed as a result of his fighting off Loki and his band of evildoers, but that's more of a plot device than a plot driver, and we get to see him gamely flirting with anything that moves, and of course challenging bad guys and floating through the air cockily (or arrogantly, depending on your Downey tolerance level), and having a damn good time doing it.  Stark slowly starts to rebuild his post-Avengers lifestyle, and while PTSD is what he attributes it to, part of me sort of wonders if he is jonesing for the high of working with the Avengers again, wanting to return to that universe once more.  I felt as the film ended, at least, that this was what the writers were hinting toward (depending on how many Greek islands it's going to cost to keep Downey in the picture).

The film also has two villains, and one disappointment on that front.  Guy Pearce plays Aldrich Killian, who is a nerdy scientist who develops, along with his assistant, Maya (Hall) a virus that makes the user regenerate their own body parts and become practically invincible.  For a part of the film, you're sort of wondering why the movie isn't focusing on the clear villain, the iconic Mandarin from the comic books (played by Ben Kingsley), but slowly you realize that the Mandarin himself is nothing but a front, and the true mastermind of the evil plots is Pearce.  The Mandarin is just an actor playing the part of a terrorist, which makes for some hilarious scenes with Kingsley, though I'm a bit disappointed that they took the teeth out of such an important Marvel villain.

The film's battle sequences are epic, and though nothing quite hits the heights reached by The Avengers, this movie comes close with the great sequence destroying Tony Stark's house.  The movie never really takes a breather, but it feels well-paced.  I could have done without the heavy-handed lusting of Killian after Pepper Potts in one of the early scenes (couldn't just once we not have the villain and the hero falling for the same girl?), but the women in the film are actually relatively interesting, as opposed to some of the other Marvel movies.  A lot can be said about how well-cast Downey is as Tony Stark, but Paltrow is pitch-perfect as his gutsy, level-headed girlfriend/assistant/CEO.  Paltrow's gift has always been more in comedy than in drama (where she tends to get a bit melodramatic), and she effervesces in the film without ever lulling into a Mary Jane Watson teen-girl fantasizing.  Hall was also strong in her role as Maya, though even those who weren't familiar with her character from the comic books could smell that she was the "good-girl-masquerading-as-bad" a mile away.

The film's final scenes got too long (how many times can Stark or Killian come back from the dead?), and occasionally Stark's lack of humility wears thin (the trite scenes with the boy in the small Tennessee town were a bit saccharine for me), but overall this was Summer blockbuster fun without veering into too effects-driven or plot-deprived.  However, I'd love to know what you thought?  Do you like the direction Marvel is taking this franchise?  Do you also wish that they'd throw in a female-lead action adventure, rather than just giving the solos to the boys?  And should Iron Man remain a trilogy or should a fourth film be greenlit as soon as possible?

OVP: Country Strong (2010)

Film: Country Strong (2010)
Stars: Gwyneth Paltrow, Tim McGraw, Garrett Hedlund, Leighton Meester
Director: Shana Feste
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Original Song-"Coming Home")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I remember the exact moment that I found out that Gwyneth Paltrow could sing.  It was in a grocery store, and her version of "Cruisin" appeared on the Muzak, and I was hooked.  I mean, not hooked enough to actually go out and see Duets (the trailer did not look good-if it's something I should investigate, let me know), but enough to be excited about when Gwyneth would next tackle another musical.  Unfortunately for all of us, it took a decade for that opportunity to come up, and even more unfortunate, it was in the form of the mediocre, cliched Country Strong.

Spoilers to follow I will explain the plot of Country Strong, but you already know it, so it seems like an exercise in futility.  The story is about a recently recovering alcoholic/musical superstar (Paltrow), who is trying to stage a comeback that her husband (McGraw) keeps pushing, despite her clearly not being ready for the limelight again. It's also about her affair with a younger stud (Hedlund) who is also on the outskirts of stardom, and also wrestling between the charms of the alluring Paltrow and the younger, on-the-rise Chiles Stanton (Meester, sporting a moniker that basically forces you to be a country singer).

We all know where this is going-after some hemming, hawing, and cheating: Paltrow returns to her husband and puts on that one great concert, sealing her fate before she slips quietly into the night, and Hedlund and Meester find happiness just being with each other, not caring too much for the shiny lights of stardom, and settling for love.  It's an ending that people enjoy (I'm not entirely knocking happy endings), but the troubled music superstar story line is one of the oldest ones out there, and it's so formulaic that it's hard to get excited about the actual film.  It's not like there aren't strong attributes-Paltrow, despite all of the naysayers (what is lost in the whole 1998 Best Actress battle is that both women put on strong performances, even if you preferred Blanchett's dramatics to Paltrow's comedic), has a star quality about her that is hard to deny.  It's a pity that we see her Kelly fall so quickly and rise so late, because clearly this is a woman who could pull off "top of her game."  One of the reasons that I've been drawn to ABC's new show Nashville is that we get to see two women who are performing at the top of their games, so it isn't completely obvious who will win in the end (don't just assume because she's the villain that Hayden is the loser).  It'd have been interesting to see a little more Eve Harrington/Margo Channing in the film moments between Paltrow and Meester and a little less, drunk cat and wimpy mouse.

Garrett Hedlund, doing his best sexy country boy, and has some pipes on him, enough so that I may stop confusing him with the Hemsworth brothers with time.  The less said about Meester's performance the better, as her character arch makes no sense-how is it that she becomes less confident the more successful she gets, and with no one commenting on it?  Ditto McGraw's domineering husband-is he mourning the loss of his unborn child, or is he just a jerk who is using Kelly for her money?  It's hard to say, mostly because McGraw just sulks and considers an affair with Meester the entire movie (a story that goes nowhere, by the way).  And also, how is it that you cast Tim McGraw in a country music movie and you never have him sing?!?

The best thing about this film is the soundtrack, and that's where the OVP aspect of this review comes into play.  The film received an Oscar nomination for Best Original Song for "Coming Home," a charming country ballad, though why they didn't go with the far catchier and more memorable title song, I have no idea (case in point-I had to go listen to "Coming Home" on iTunes to remember what the song sounded like, but "Country Strong" I know the chorus by heart).  Hedlund also has a number of wonderful, gravelly country songs in his repertoire, and if you really want to enjoy this film, buying the CD and skipping the DVD would probably be your best way to go.  Though I will say that I'd love to see both Paltrow and Hedlund tackle a different musical in the future, albeit one with a better screenplay.

And with that, let's turn it over for you-what did you think of Country Strong, and "Coming Home" in particular?  Do you think it deserved Best Song in the odd 2010 lineup?  What would be the best musical vehicle for Gwyneth in the future?  And finally, do you also think Garrett Hedlund looks like a Hemsworth brother?