The Mauritanian (2021)

Film: The Mauritanian (2021)

Stars: Jodie Foster, Tahar Rahim, Shailene Woodley, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zachary Levi

Director: Kevin Macdonald

Oscar History: Despite Jodie Foster winning a Golden Globe, the film received no Oscar nominations. This is the first time the Globe winner in this category didn't get in with AMPAS since 1976.

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

We are one week away from the Oscar nominations FINALLY being announced.  This is a blog that devotes an inordinate amount of time not just to the Oscars, but to the individual films that are nominated at the Oscars (we're less concerned about following the minutia of the actual race as other sites with access to publicists cover that well, hence no Globes article this week, but I will be publishing my final predictions at some point in the next seven days).  Inevitably there will be OVP contenders I haven't seen-I know for a fact that I haven't seen enough International Feature Film nominees to come out of this completely done, and I'm currently predicting some films I haven't seen in at least the Original Song & Makeup categories, but I'm goaling myself to watch at least a couple more films that I think are in contention before Monday, and we'll be profiling them throughout this week as I watch my final 2021 screenings before playing "catchup mode."  One of the last films of the race we have to profile is The Mauritanian, a movie that gained much more prominence after the recent Golden Globes with Jodie Foster's surprise victory.

(Spoilers Ahead) The Mauritanian is based on the true story of Mohamedou Ould Salahi (Rahim), a man captured by the US government & held for 14 years in Guantanamo Bay under initially hazy grounds, with us eventually realizing that he is wrongfully imprisoned.  Despite the fact that "things like that don't happen in America" Salahi is kept in jail without due process for over a decade, and the only people who attempt to help him are Nancy Hollander (Foster) and her assistant Teri (Woodley), not because they believe him at first but because they believe in the rule of law.  As the film unfolds, though, they understand that he is not only innocent, but what is happening in Guantanamo Bay defies every convention of the rule-of-law, and bringing that to light becomes the most important aspect of the case.

The film is a fascinating story, but it's proof that a compelling story doesn't always make for a strong movie.  The movie highlights the national shame that is Guantanamo Bay, which I think will someday rank amongst the truly worst atrocities of not just the Bush, but also the Obama & Trump administrations for letting it stay open (Joe Biden-please close this national stain down)...but it rarely gives us a story with a lot of newness you didn't already know.  The reveals don't read as shock so soon after this happened.

Tahar Rahim is kind of acting in another movie, he's so much better than his costars; he finds a rage & personality in his character that you don't usually see from a movie like this (where we expect him to simply play the frustrated victim); anyone who saw him in A Prophet knew he could do this, but this hopefully will open doors up to American audiences with this.  Foster could play this in her sleep but it's not going to rank amongst her best work (and it'd be weird if she got a third Oscar for this), and Woodley is incredibly dull.  Worst of the bunch is Cumberbatch, sporting a terrible Southern accent, who brings none of the depth to his work that Rahim is doing in every corner of the movie.  Cumberbatch, not my favorite but someone whose natural cadence is musical onscreen, should avoid playing Americans in the future as this is clearly not his strong suit.

Stop Turning Everything Into a Franchise!

I am about at my wit's end when it comes to franchise culture in Hollywood.  I keep seeing sequel after sequel after sequel, followed by reboots and prequels and offshoots.  It feels like certain franchises refuse to die until they have exhausted all outcomes...and it feels terrible.  Even series that I genuinely like (say, Harry Potter) feel exhaustive and not as special as they once were because they cannot let those series die and exist on a shelf.  Part of me wonders if this is just the way it will be-series after series never ending but we're forced to endure until everything we loved about it is gone, and we can't even get a nostalgia high from the product.  I am reminded of this with investigations into two different series that, while seemingly disparate, both have fans calling for them to reinvest their time and energy into one last go-around: Community and Big Little Lies.  However, in my mind, only one of these two series should be allowed to continue.

Big Little Lies is the show that's been far more in the news, so I'll start there (spoiler alerts are coming if you're not caught up yet).  The show captured the Twitter zeitgeist, particularly toward the end, with brilliant pieces of work from Nicole Kidman and Reese Witherspoon, and a whodunit that stayed pretty well under-wraps despite being adapted from a popular mystery novel.  The final episode, in a rare circumstance, ended up being the finest of the series in my opinion, and a number of people were hoping that, considering its excellence, it should come back for a second season.

I think this is a moronic idea, and it's indicative of the foolishness of sequel/prequel culture.  The reality is that while a sequel can never really damage the original, a second season of a series can decidedly put a tarnish on the initial one.  Look at the jump in quality between the first and second season of Desperate Housewives.  I love that show, and will defend later seasons (particularly 4 and 7, which were both excellent), but one could make the argument that it was never better than its initial mystery.  The same could be said for Big Little Lies, a show that doesn't have a comedic crutchh (and the disadvantage of not being bound to a book) to lean upon.  Keep in mind that DH ended on a cliffhanger, but Big Little Lies tied up every major mystery on the show.  Yes, there are questions left ("what does Celeste do as a single mom?" "does Ed ever find out about the affair?" "how is it that everyone in Monterey can sing so well?"), but by-and-large the major mysteries had a satisfying resolution, something almost unheard of in modern television, which stretches and stretches in order to hang onto a hit show as long as possible.

We should treasure that, rather than hoping for lightning to continue to strike.  Look at series like The Big Bang Theory or Modern Family or Grey's Anatomy-once deeply relevant, now just hollow shells hoping to cash in with quantity rather than quality on syndication deals.  Have we gotten so bad that we've forgotten that a series can genuinely be good from beginning to end?  That having a vision for the end result of the series is the point of watching art?  Television is episodic in nature, but stories like Big Little Lies are meant to have a finish, just like a movie is meant to have a finish.  That we got a strong one, with solid resolution, is a testament to good writing and should be cherished and left alone-the show wasn't meant to be a series, and we shouldn't force it to be just because we love it.

The same cannot be said for Community, which despite six seasons never really got the ending that it needed.  Putting aside #andamovie for a second (and what that would mean), the show after Season 3 never quite gained its mojo back.  A quirky, smart, funny comedy that nevertheless had peaks and valleys, the show became about the unlikely families we form with strangers in college, and the unhealthy attachments we sometimes form in order to stop maturing or moving on.  The series revisited that briefly in the final moments of Season 6, when Abed and Annie depart for California, leaving Jeff, the Dean, Chang, and Britta all behind at Greendale, passing onto the next chapter.  It would be a fine ending, except that there are major, major plotholes still left unresolved, and the ending felt cheap compared to what you normally get from a series finale.

For starters, it's not appropriate in my mind to end the series without having a significant callback to Troy, Shirley, and Pierce.  I know Pierce "died" and such, and them leaving abruptly shows the harshness of life when people who are essential to your daily existence one day just leave without any connection to you again, but it felt inauthentic that, especially in the day-and-age of social media, these people didn't stay a part of each other's lives in a more meaningful way.  Closure, acknowledging that they would always remain friends even if they weren't always constantly connected, felt like a heartier ending.

Plus, the script is right there to discover-Troy, Abed, Annie, and Shirley return after enjoying success in their own lives, perhaps for a class reunion of sorts, and in the process, they start to notice phantom things happening around the campus, perhaps clues to Pierce, who died so strangely (dehydration?) being still alive.  The show could end with them discovering Pierce, still alive and crazy, and then having them realize that it's okay that they grew apart, but still will always have each other.  A few cameos from fan favorites, and you'd have a polished ending that felt truer to the actual series and its characters (it's hard to imagine Troy or Shirley letting Annie and Abed leave without coming back to say goodbye).  And it would be an ending, not an extension or sucking the faucet dry.

Because that's what we need, and what we need to acknowledge should happen in movies/TV.  Not every show is meant to be The Days of Our Lives, continuing until the end of time in an endless loop-no one wants their favorite shows to become hollow shells, almost insufferable.  We need to start inviting back the art to TV and movies, and only extending products that feel like they can naturally continue without risking alienating the original product.  And that doesn't include Big Little Lies, a wonderful miniseries that will stand up to rewatches if you're missing Renata or Madeline...but shouldn't need a second season for you to continue to adore it.

John's Top 10 Movies of 2014

Oscar has done it.  The Globes have done it.  Basically every critic on the planet has done it.  And now it's my turn!  Here are my Top 10 (listed alphabetically) films of 2014!

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (dir. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu)

A meta experiment that examines the way we spit out celebrity, Michael Keaton's game look at a former star that eerily mirrors him in real life is the performance of a lifetime.  Special points go to Emmanuel Lubezki for a terrific camera trick of making the film seem like one long take, and to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu for taking that trick and making the film effervesce.

Boyhood (dir. Richard Linklater)

An experiment in the way we look at the movies, and the way we look at our own lives.  Few films have ever dared to embark on such a long journey (twelve years in the making), and no director can make us examine the fragility of time and the grand scope of life like Richard Linklater.  It's one of those films that has to be seen to be believed.

The Fault in Our Stars (dir. Josh Boone)

Yes, my friends, occasionally teen romances can be truly great movies, but you'd be forgiven from thinking so after the dreck we've had to endure for years.  Yet here we have a romantic drama with a compelling female lead (Shailene Woodley, and thank god for her at the movies this year) and an irresistible Ansel Elgort in a role that likely made him a star.  If you aren't in tears by its end, you have no heart.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (dir. Peter Jackson)

The final chapter in Peter Jackson's six-part look at the Kingdom of Middle Earth rarely lets up, giving epic battle after epic battle, but its power rests in the quieter moments of the movie: Thorin's battle with himself, Bilbo's final moments as he realizes his part of the adventure is over, and the quickening heartbeat of Sauron's evil growing ever stronger.  A David Lean-style finale for the most important filmic series of the past three decades.

The Lego Movie (dir. Phil Lord and Christopher Miller)

The most fun I had at the movies all year.  Yes, it's technically a giant commercial designed to sell billions of dollars worth of the title toys, but it's also complete joy, mixing nostalgia from the audience's youth with a virtual feast of imagery and sight gags.  Plus, it's that rare comedy that actually finds a way to use the skills of all of its cast members, from bit parts by Jonah Hill and Will Forte to Star of 2014 Chris Pratt as our lead everyman.

Nightcrawler (dir. Dan Gilroy)

A terrifying look into the heart of a mad man.  The film relies upon us trusting a person because he looks like a movie star, and then we realize a bit too late that he's not down-on-his-luck, but instead a true sociopath, careening through Los Angeles hell bent on the best story, regardless of what happens to those around him.  This is arguably the best serial killer film we've seen since, well, Zodiac, so clearly Gyllenhaal has found his niche.  And you'll never look at the news in the same way again.

Pride (dir. Matthew Warchus)

Perfect.  That's pretty much the only way to sum up Pride, perhaps the best ensemble piece I've seen on screens since...I can't even remember.  A cast of British veterans and newcomers make you feel for causes you may never have given a second thought, and show perhaps the most damning indictment of the government's indifference to the poor and the sick you've seen.  And somehow it's still a light and spry comedy-gay or straight, if you haven't seen it yet, you're an idiot for not rectifying that situation.

Stranger by the Lake (dir. Alain Guiraudie)

If Alfred Hitchcock and Rainer Werner Fassbinder had a baby, it would probably have come up with Stranger by the Lake, a spooky look into a French cruising beach completely out of time and space.  The movie itself poses many riddles amidst the graphic love scenes, principally "what do we want out of life" and "where is our youth best spent?"  And of course the film has arguably the best ending of any movie this year, petrifying in a way few films dare to be.

Under the Skin (dir. Jonathan Glazer)

In a year where ambiguity reigned supreme over the art house, no film better captured that lack of understanding more than Under the Skin, Jonathan Glazer's long-awaited follow-up to Birth.  The film could be a horror film masquerading as a thriller, or it could be a coming-of-age movie about a woman haunted by some recent tragedy.  Whatever it is, it's a provocative look at what's below the surface in all of us, and how art can continue to change the way we approach the world.  And Scarlett Johansson hasn't been this effective since we first learned of her eleven years ago.

Wild (dir. Jean-Marc Vallee)

Movie stars, despite what the media says, are not dead.  They just don't get the strong roles they used to, and so thank goodness Jean-Marc Vallee can find a way to meld a truly compelling narrative with one of our greatest stars, Reese Witherspoon.  Like Cheryl, Reese has been lost in the cinematic wilderness for years, but you couldn't tell that with the verve and life force she brings to this woman, whose story of trying to find redemption in the wilderness breaks every survival cliche you can imagine, and ends up being a journey through time that we all must endure.

And there you have it-the Top 10 films of 2014!  Any make your personal list?  Any that you haven't seen (in which case-why not?!?!)?  Sound off in the comments!

The Fault in Our Stars (2014)

Film: The Fault in Our Stars (2014)

Stars: Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort, Laura Dern, Nat Wolff, Sam Trammell, Willem Dafoe

Director: John Boone

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars (I know, I’m as shocked as you are…let’s discuss)

On occasion, you run into movies that you, if you’re proper and rational, shouldn’t remotely love.  You look at the films and realize they’re cloying and manipulative and filled with emotional buzzwords like cancer and first love and whatever we used to call the term for YOLO before that insidious acronym enjoined our collective social medias.  You see that the main actress is playing a character far too world-weary even for someone dying of a disease or that her love interest is far too perfect, the sort of boyfriend you dream of when you’re trying to comfort yourself after yet another emotionally-stunted set-up, even if you’re fully-aware that he couldn’t possible exist in real life.  You recognize the silliness of hiring an Oscar-nominated actor to play a Snidely Whiplash-style author that you’re certain will have an epiphany before the film ends.

You do all of these things, and yet, in spite of yourself, you end up falling in love with the movie.  Call it An Affair to Remember.  Call it Notting Hill.  Call it The Notebook.  Or, in this case with one of my favorite cinematic experiences of the year, call it The Fault in Our Stars.

(Spoiler Alert) I cannot even tell you how much I hate myself for loving this movie.  I was texting my brother through part of the film about how Ansel Elgort’s character is the sort of person that decent women (and a few men) end up single or settling because they believe he can exist in real life, like an adult version of Santa Claus.  The scene where he protests that he’s still a virgin because he lost his leg to cancer felt like almost annoying pandering to the audience to make his relationship with Hannah Grace (Woodley) more chaste; a guy that gorgeous, charming, and sweet is going to have women all over him, regardless of his limb count.

But it’s impossible not to love his Gus.  While he occasionally becomes the manic pixie dream boy, he is so charming and affective that you don’t particularly care.  The scenes where he’s flirting with Hannah Grace are effortless charm.  This is clearly an actor who is going to have his pick of parts for years to come.  It helps that Woodley is grounded in a wonderfully-felt performance, never quite feeling too precocious, though not quite falling into the sap like you feel would be so easy to do, but Elgort feels like the real deal as well.  I’m already starting a countdown to the Half Nelson and Blue Valentine period of his career.

The film itself is wildly effective as a love story.  Perhaps because cinematically I’ve been a bit love-starved for straight-forward romances I couldn’t get enough of their fun and the care that John Boone puts into us getting to know these characters, particularly our heroine Hannah Grace.  We see the facades that they both built up for themselves and Boone does something marvelous with that: he doesn’t bust them over.  The people at the end of the film are the same as the ones at the beginning, deeply affected by their first taste of romance, but still grounded into being the same people.

The supporting players, like most romantic dramas, are a mixed bag.  I though the entire plot with Willem Dafoe felt indulgent (was this John Green’s proxy in the novel, cause if so he has some esteem issues to work through), and perhaps the only part of the film where the cloying actually sunk in-this was too much of a cartoon to actually make us care enough for him to be the messenger toward the end of the film.  Balancing him well was Laura Dern as a mother so desperate to keep her daughter alive-I LOVED the scene where she admits that she’s starting to take classes, that the shame of acknowledging her daughter will die soon and she’ll have to live on was so subtle, but perfectly felt.  I’m so glad she’s enjoying such a wonderful string of elevated supporting roles-I just wish she’d luck out a bit more and find a lead role.

All-in-all, even with the ending that you can see coming a mile away (the film cares too much about Hannah Grace to be, to quote The Hours, “the character who makes others appreciate life more”), I was still a ball of tears, crying on my couch while Hannah’s first love (perhaps, as is indicated, her only?) leaves her with the full experience of romance-not just the highs but the unspeakable lows.  I had not read the book, but I suddenly understand the woman who was dabbing her eyes on the bus a few months ago while finishing this novel.

We’re going to leave things there, but the damage is already done for me-loved it.  Loved every minute of it.  Even the parts I hated.  Anyone else loving this, which has become 2014’s Guilty Pleasure for yours truly?  Where do you see Ansel Elgort’s career going next?  How long before Shailene Woodley gets her first Oscar nod?  And which John Green book should I inevitably read first?  Share in the comments!

No Globe, No SAG...No Problem!

Jonah made it last year without HFPA or SAG...
who will do it this year?

Each year the alarms are sounded by Oscar pundits that "so-and-so" is out of the Oscar race due to them missing at either the SAG Awards or the Globes, and these warnings are not without merit.  The reality is that in this heavily publicized Oscar season more-and-more surprises are shut out each year as the Oscars voters rely heavily on what the press is saying to fill out their ballots.

And yet, each year there is always at least one candidate that manages to sail on through and grab a nomination without a public blessing from SAG or the HFPA.  In the past ten years, only one year (2006) didn't end up choosing an entirely new name to add to the festivities.  Below are a list of the candidates that were new to the night in their years:

2013: Jonah Hill
2012: Quvenzhane Wallis, Emannuelle Riva, Jacki Weaver
2011: Gary Oldman and Max von Sydow
2010: Javier Bardem
2009: Maggie Gyllenhaal
2008: Michael Shannon
2007: Laura Linney and Tommy Lee Jones
2006: Zero (let's pay attention people-we've already been over this)
2005: William Hurt
2004: Alan Alda and Clint Eastwood

As you can see, it helps a LOT to be in a film that people are already watching.  Over half of these people were in Best Picture nominees, and Tommy Lee Jones is the only contender that was his film's sole nomination (and lest we forget, he was headlining the Best Picture winner that year), so keep that in mind if you're, say, cheering for someone like Hilary Swank to still make the cut.

As this is an Oscar-oriented site, I figured it would be worthwhile to investigate which performances this year are most likely to make this list.  Below you will find the Top 10 performances ignored by HFPA and SAG that may still wind up with an Oscar nomination:

10. Shailene Woodley (The Fault in Our Stars)

For Her: Woodley has had a major blockbuster moment this year, and that's impossible to deny.  On the heels of kicking off a new franchise with Divergent, she somehow made an even MORE successful hit with The Fault in Our Stars.  The Best Actress field is starting to close, but not so much that the door is shut, and Hollywood has clearly noticed that they got a new movie star this year.  They may want to reward that on their ballots.  Plus, a character with cancer is always a strong hook with Oscar.
Against Her: Woodley should have been able to score at the Globes.  Her newfound fame and red carpet looks are surely something that HFPA would latch onto before AMPAS, and this film already has some major debits (summer film, going for a sole nomination, teen drama).  She needed her name to be a bit more prominent in the game before the year began (in a similar way that Aniston needed to have some precursor love to stay in the conversation).

9. Josh Brolin (Inherent Vice)

For Him: I'm not counting if you received a BFCA nomination for two reasons for the purposes of this article.  One, because they have six-wide fields and that's just cheating, and two, the BFCA's irk me something fierce (they always talk about how much they "predict" the Oscars rather than honoring a specific film or actor for their work-we have hundreds of Oscar pundits, if you have your own televised awards show, you should have your own opinions and not give a damn about the Oscars).  This is all to say that I'm aware Brolin made a big jump in the conversation with a BFCA (or Critics Choice, if you would) nomination, and that's part of why I'm featuring him here.  The other part is that despite the lack of buzz this film has attracted, Brolin has been on everyone's favorite list from the cast, and as a former Oscar nominee, he's not that much of a stretch to make it without too much press.
Against Him: This race looks very set, and when that happens, cracks in the wall usually happen by way of a Best Picture frontrunner, which Inherent Vice decidedly is not.  Brolin also has missed just as often as he was nominated with Oscar-his only nomination was the one that they "had" to give him for Milk and not something optional like No Country for Old Men.

8. Rene Russo (Nightcrawler)

For Her: It's hard to imagine anyone seeing Nightcrawler for Gyllenhaal and not coming out equally as impressed with Russo.  There's some precedent here-Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock, for example, or Toni Collette in The Sixth Sense.  You come for one performance and decide to put two on your ballot.  The big name of the game with these sorts of citations is that you have to be seen, and Russo will be.  Plus, Oscar loves a comeback and after years of random wallpaper roles like Thor's mom, Russo is clearly having a moment.
Against Her: If Jake is scoring everywhere, why isn't she?  How is it that Tilda Swinton, for example, managed the sixth BFCA slot for a very autre-film when the prediction-loving body may have gone with something a bit more likely such as Russo?  Keep in mind every year we have random supporting performances in major films that inexplicably get no traction, despite being superb (see Sarah Paulson last year).

7. Tim Roth (Selma)

For Him: Speaking of comebacks, Roth, a veteran character actor, managed to nab a nomination 19 years ago for Rob Roy, but hasn't been back since.  This year he plays a villain (great for supporting actor) and a real-life person (Gov. George Wallace), both of which could make him a stealth nominee if Selma continues to grab heat.
Against Him: I mean, all of these people have trouble because they don't have enough precursor love, but with Roth it means something more because there's less room to up-jump his costar Tom Wilkinson, who has a bigger part and a more recent history with Oscar.

6. Bradley Cooper (American Sniper)

For Him: It helps that AMPAS clearly adores him (back-to-back nominations), and though the Best Actor field is likely a six-man race, it's a pretty even six-man race, which means that there could be a candidate that's just barely missing like Cooper.  If he gets an uptick in Clint support from the Academy (they do love them some Mr. Eastwood), I wouldn't be stunned if he's that candidate.
Against Him: American Sniper hasn't registered at all this awards season (the NBR doesn't count), and critics haven't been rallying around it (have critics even seen the movie?!?).  Could this be another J Edgar (and even that film managed precursors)?

5. Timothy Spall (Mr. Turner)

For Him: The other stealth Best Actor nominee, Spall has done well this season.  He scored a major prize at Cannes and followed it with a significant prize at the NYFCC Awards, which are historically very strong at predicting Oscar nominees.  Once-upon-a-time Mike Leigh had the magic touch with getting Oscar nominations for his performers.  If this film is gaining (my predictions indicate that it might be), this isn't out of the question.
Against Him: Leigh has never been good at getting nominations for his male actors (he's never actually done it-not even with Jim Broadbent in Topsy-Turvy) and the NYFCC is hardly a strong benchmark when you realize that last year's winner was Robert Redford.

4. Laura Dern (Wild)

For Her: She's clearly beloved (did you see that Hollywood Reporter interview-it was just a giant Laura Dern love-in), and this is the sort of role that Hollywood notices (woman dying of cancer, inspiring her daughter-I mean, come on).  She's been working the circuit hard, and it'd be a nice recognition for both her incredible post-Rambling Rose career and her dad's recent resurgence.
Against Her: Why didn't she get in with the Globes, and in general-what is up with the reaction to Wild?  Is it frustration that no one can actually watch the movie?  Is it the odd prejudice that awards bodies have to female-driven stories?  Or is it just that after Into the Wild and 127 Hours that voters are tired of seeing beautiful people traipse through the wilderness?  Whatever the reason, Dern clearly isn't striking the chord she thought she would.

3. Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night)

For Her: The BFCA is getting name-checked more in this article than it has been in years on this blog, but let's not forget that when the field went six-wide, she was the one that benefited.  Cotillard has been on a roll all year, with two major films in tow and this is a critically-acclaimed film.  The pundits seem to be rallying for her, and there's a lot of support there.  And let's face it here-she's due for a second nomination after all of the strong work she's done since La Vie en Rose (arguably stronger than that initial role!).
Against Her: It's hard to make it for foreign films (she knows this more than anyone) and for some reason (the Cate Blanchett curse?) she hasn't been able to score since her win.  Plus, this year she has The Immigrant potentially taking away crucial votes from herself, which may matter in a tight race.

2. Carmen Ejogo (Selma)

For Her: Ejogo isn't a household name, but she's playing one.  Coretta Scott King, as a long-suffering wife of a hero, is the exact sort of role that the Oscars usually gravitate toward in Supporting Actress.  You could hardly describe Jessica Chastain as particularly safe, and if the Academy responds well to Selma (this appears to be the most important question of Oscar season right now, doesn't it-what does AMPAS think of Selma?) she could make it via Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook.
Against Her: She's not a household name-will people remember her without a stronger push?  Plus, from what I've heard this isn't a particularly meaty part (though that hasn't stopped them before...see also Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook).

1. Tom Wilkinson (Selma)

For Him: Playing a real-life person?  Check.  Meaty role in a Best Picture frontrunner?  Check.  Former nominee that hasn't won yet, but is clearly recognizable for AMPAS voters?  Check (twice-2001 and 2007).  Category that is perceived as weak due to the winner being a foregone conclusion so someone could sneak in at the last minute?  Check.  Clearly there's a reason I put Wilkinson at Number One.
Against Him: About the only thing going against Wilkinson is that he's missed with SAG and the Globes (particularly with the Globes, since they saw Selma) and that he's battling some very popular former nominees in Mark Ruffalo and Robert Duvall.  Otherwise, I'd say this is easily the most likely of these ten to make it, and could well be considered a favorite depending on how Duvall's chances in particular play out.

And those are the ten-what do you think?  Who has the best chances of the ten?  Do you agree with the lineup or should someone like Tilda Swinton or Hilary Swank still be in the conversation?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Golden Globe Predictions

This Thursday one of the precursor awards that you’ve actually heard of, the Golden Globes, will be announcing their nominations amidst one of the most competitive races I’ve seen in years for the Oscars.  Granted, that competitiveness could quickly disappear if some categories rally behind a frontrunner (already JK Simmons seems set to win every award known to man, and Richard Linklater may soon follow).  However, in the meantime, it’s always fun to take a stab at the wild and crazy HFPA and, if nothing else, what they consider a comedy this year (such as the hilarious My Week with Marilyn a few years back).  You know the drill, here’s my guesses:

Best Film Drama (most likely to least likely in the ranking)

1. Boyhood

2. The Imitation Game

3. Unbroken

4. The Theory of Everything

5. Gone Girl

The Globes usually cut at least one major future contender when they’re assembling the drama list, and are less prone to give it to very American-centered films (such as Crash getting skipped a few years back), and with the late release date my gut is telling me that Selma, one of the Best Picture frontrunners, may suffer from not having enough momentum when ballots actually went out.  Unbroken may be slipping, but a giant multi-continent epic seems very much up the Globes’ ally, and though Foxcatcher (sturdy, serious drama) or American Sniper (Clint is always an attraction here) could also factor, I’m thinking that the populist aspect of Gone Girl (plus the likelihood that Ben Affleck will show up) will help it get the final nomination.

Best Film Comedy/Musical

1. Birdman

2. Into the Woods

3. The Grand Budapest Hotel

4. Inherent Vice

5. Begin Again

Part of me wants to put the wonderful Pride in here, and honestly the Globes occasionally go very British, so I wouldn’t put it past them, but the music of Begin Again (they are a lot more likely to nominate a musical all things being equal) and the potential prestige of Inherent Vice should probably keep both just above Pride (a lot of pundits are predicting St. Vincent or Big Eyes, but I’m just not seeing it at this point in the game).

Best Actor (Drama)

1. Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)

2. Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)

3. Steve Carell (Foxcatcher)

4. Bradley Cooper (American Sniper)

5. David Oyelowo (Selma)

I’m honestly having a lot of trouble deciding just how far in they’ll go for Selma and Unbroken.  It’s very possible that Jack O’Connell could substitute in for Oyelowo (Selma will gain a bit more steam with the guild awards, in my opinion), but Oyelowo may well win the Oscar, so I can’t quite go against him here.  Bradley Cooper is just a hunch-they love a celebrity in this category, and if Clint’s film is going to catch on anywhere it’ll be the Globes.  There’s always Ben Affleck as well, though they didn’t go for him for Argo so probably not.

Best Actress (Drama)

1. Julianne Moore (Still Alice)

2. Reese Witherspoon (Wild)

3. Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)

4. Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)

5. Shailene Woodley (The Fault in Our Stars)

The Globes aren’t particularly shy about nominating teenage-level roles, and have gone with Woodley in the past; plus, they’ll want in on one of the year’s biggest stars.  However, this could be a HUGE leg-up for Hilary Swank, Jennifer Aniston, or Marion Cotillard if they can actually make the cut, as the Musical/Comedy list doesn’t have a lot of winners on it, and Woodley is unlikely to go the distance to the Dolby.

Best Actor (Comedy/Musical)

1. Michael Keaton (Birdman)

2. Ralph Fiennes (The Grand Budapest Hotel)

3. Bill Murray (St. Vincent)

4. Joaquin Phoenix (Inherent Vice)

5. Mark Ruffalo (Begin Again)

If the buzz for Chris Rock in Top 5 were a couple of weeks earlier I’d probably buy into the hype around his film, but that seemed to happen when the ballots were already due so I’m going to go with Begin Again’s Ruffalo (it could have been James Corden, but he doesn’t feel quite famous enough) who has the benefit of being a male lead in a musical, as well as a respected actor who will look good on-paper for the Globes (he could well score three nods with The Normal Heart and Foxcatcher on the table).  No matter which of them gets in, everyone’s just competing to lose to Michael Keaton at this point.

Best Actress (Comedy/Musical)

1. Emily Blunt (Into the Woods)

2. Amy Adams (Big Eyes)

3. Angelina Jolie (Maleficent)

4. Keira Knightley (Begin Again)

5. Helen Mirren (The Hundred-Foot Journey)

There are names like Julianne Moore, Kristen Wiig, and Jenny Slate that may make slightly more sense considering critical consensus, but when a category is weak the Globes like their favorites, and that’s what Helen Mirren is.  This race is probably one of the most important in terms of who actually wins-if Blunt can take this, can she make a play for the very open fifth slot in Best Actress (this is particularly important if it’s Woodley and not the more competitive Aniston/Swank/Cotillard trifecta in the fifth drama slot), and if it’s Adams, can she do the same (though it feels like Adams, who won this award last year, probably needs it less)?

Best Supporting Actor

1. JK Simmons (Whiplash)

2. Edward Norton (Birdman)

3. Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)

4. Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)

5. Johnny Depp (Into the Woods)

You’ve occasionally got to take the crazy pill when it comes to the Globes, and though Tom Wilkinson, Robert Duvall, and Josh Brolin certainly have better chances at the Oscars, I’m going to assume that the celebrity-loving Globes will want to throw a bone to one of their absolute favorites (he’s been nominated an astounding ten times in his career by HFPA) and Johnny Depp gets the very competitive fifth slot here (I’m sort of hoping for this in fact, as it will keep this category from being dully lockstep, which I think it would be if Wilkinson in particular were to get the fifth nomination).

Best Supporting Actress

1. Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)

2. Meryl Streep (Into the Woods)

3. Emma Stone (Birdman)

4. Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game)

5. Laura Dern (Wild)

By most counts there are six women competing for five slots here (and considering it’s the Globes, I wouldn’t put it past them to figure out a way to get all six nominated).  I am currently feeling Chastain, whose film I’m really missing in terms of nominations, will be the odd-lady out, though I suspect that she may return later in the season (perhaps she’s this year’s no-precursors, but I made it to the Oscars nominee).  It’s also worth noting that if Kristen Stewart is going to randomly insert herself in the Oscar conversation with Still Alice, this would be the PERFECT time.

Best Film Director

1. Angelina Jolie (Unbroken)

2. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Birdman)

3. Richard Linklater (Boyhood)

4. David Fincher (Gone Girl)

5. Clint Eastwood (American Sniper)

The Globes love their stars, and that’s true even in Best Director, which is why if Angelina is going to win a prize this season, it’s almost certain to come here.  Nominations for Morton Tyldum or Ava DuVernay would indicate really strong across the board support for their films, but that doesn't meld with my other predictions so I'm leaving them off, and Bennett Miller/Christopher Nolan have too many deficits to make it.  Therefore I’m going with the risky prediction of Clint in American Sniper, a film that I’m either under or over-estimating here (it could well be the final Best Drama slot, or it could go home empty-handed), but feels right for fifth place.

Best Animated Feature

1. The Lego Movie

2. Big Hero 6

3. How to Train Your Dragon 2

4. The Book of Life

5. The Boxtrolls

The Tale of Princess Kaguya will certainly displace at least one of these (likely The Book of Life) with AMPAS, but the Globes, for all their international flavor, don’t go foreign language in this category with any regularity, and so I’m doing an entirely English-language rundown of the nominations.  The Lego Movie continues to show strength, and a win here may cement it for a victory come the Oscars.

Best Screenplay

1. Boyhood

2. Birdman

3. Gone Girl

4. Unbroken

5. The Grand Budapest Hotel

The Imitation Game, American Sniper, and Foxcatcher all have some momentum so that they could have a bit of a coattail effect and grab a citation here, but I’m going with the biggest films I have predicted for now.  This well could be the category where they reward Boyhood with an award if they pick Jolie in Director, since it would honor Linklater as well.

Foreign Language Film

1. Ida

2. Two Days, One Night

3. Mommy

4. Winter Sleep

5. Clouds of Sils Maria

The Globes don't quite go under the same rules as the Oscars (they can nominate multiple films from a certain country, and even can go with American productions, and frequently include at least one film that wasn't an Oscar-submitted picture), so I'm going with Clouds of Sils Maria, which stars three big name actresses (Juliette Binoche, Kristen Stewart, and Chloe Moretz) even though Switzerland didn't select it as their AMPAS entry.  This is because the Globes are generally more populist than the Oscars when it comes to this category, and because they love to get the stars to show up.

Score

1. Unbroken

2. Interstellar

3. The Imitation Game

4. Gone Girl

5. Birdman

This category is SO frequently a crapshoot with the Globes.  Sometimes they like the big name composers, other times they just want a brand new slate of nominees.  For now I'm going with the former, with Alexandre Desplat and Hans Zimmer taking up the first three spots.  

Song

1. "Lost Stars," Begin Again

2. "Glory," Selma

3. "Miracles," Unbroken

4. "Grateful," Beyond the Lights

5. "Ordinary Love," The Giver

The Globes love their rock stars, so it makes sense to keep John Legend, Coldplay, and OneRepublic in the same mix as perennial nominee Diane Warren and likely Oscar frontrunner "Lost Stars."

And there you have it-my Golden Globe predictions!  What do you think-am I right, or am I horribly wrong?  And who are you hoping to hear announced on Thursday?  Sound off in the comments!

October Oscar Predictions: Best Actress

Wait, John, it's not October anymore!  Well, you're right, but between work, the election, and more work, I never had a chance to finish up our October Oscar predictions, so I'm going to quickly wrap up Best Actor, Actress, and Picture this week (we already did Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress), count them as October, and we'll do November predictions (in all categories!) at the end of the month.

The Best Actress race this year is, let's call it, looking pretty weak.  In a year where almost every male actor in Hollywood seems to be gunning for a nomination, the women appear to have taken a year off after the "Year of Five Movie Stars" in last year's contest.  This means that the race feels more settled than it probably actually is.  Still, though, it's hard not to believe that at least three names have been cemented into place this year.

Julianne Moore is at the top of that list.  While I'm not sold on Moore winning quite yet (no actress in her fifties has won Best Actress since Shirley Booth in 1952...and no other actress has done it, period), her chances at a nomination continue to improve daily.  She's got other performances this year that will buoy her chances with Still Alice but ultimately not compete with them (Maps to the Stars is a supporting turn with little actual chance at turning into something and Mockingjay is just a blockbuster everyone will see).  Considering she's still in the hunt for her first Oscar and pretty much everyone agrees she deserves an Oscar at some point, this is a sure thing.

Best Actress is constantly rewarding newcomers and ingenues, and while Rosamund Pike might be a little old to be an ingenue and has been working steadily for years, expect her to still be a "newcomer" for the Academy with Gone Girl (she's basically one to the American public).  Gone Girl has been one of the major hits of the year (it's still in the Top 3 for the weekend box office!) and Pike's performance as Amazing Amy is its centerpiece.  Considering she may well carry the film to a Best Picture nomination, it's absolutely certain that she'll be able to score a nomination for herself.

The final "surefire" nominee would be Reese Witherspoon in Wild.  This is the sort of performance the Academy goes gaga over-a major movie star goes prestige, works their star charisma opposite harsh terrain and anchors a movie almost entirely on their own-Oscar gold.  Witherspoon has seemingly been through the Hollywood wilderness in recent years, watching her America's Sweetheart sensibility tarnished pretty severely by her drunken disorderly arrest and string of flops.  Still, she's clearly back in the game and very aware of what that has cost her career.  Films like Mud prove she's more interested at the moment in pleasing the critics and the press, and Wild should cement that-she may well win a second Oscar for the role.

The rest of the field has some debits, but if I were a betting man I'd say that won't stop Felicity Jones in The Theory of Everything.  Focus Features is smartly campaigning Jones along with her surefire nominated costar Eddie Redmayne, as if they are a pair that cannot be separated, and that will definitely help.  Jones may well be in for a win if the film truly takes off, particularly if the Academy decides that Redmayne simply could not do it alone.  I hesitate to call her a lock quite yet because it's so early and four locks seems a bit outlandish (and Jones is definitely second billing in her particular film), but there really aren't a lot of options on the horizon to throw Jones, who like Pike has been on the verge for years of finding a breakout role that could propel her into the conversation, out of contention.

The final nomination is where all the marbles seem to be at.  Personally I think that this race has become a three-horse race between a trio of actresses, but before we get there I want to list a few other names that keep getting mentioned.  I am still not 100% sold that Jessica Chastain won't be promoted back into lead for A Most Violent Year (she seems to be a threat regardless of the category).  Critics continue to trumpet names like Jenny Slate (Obvious Child), Gubu Mbatha-Raw (Belle), and Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night) though in the case of the first two I think this is just a "we know you exist" style year (like Brie Larson and Greta Gerwig last season) and with Cotillard she's continually a bridesmaid since her Best Actress victory.  Then there's the strange case of Emily Blunt, who is in a similar camp to Felicity Jones and Rosamund Pike with AMPAS (she's been edging toward a nomination for years), but is in fact quite well-known with the populace and would probably be an easier sell.  That being said, Into the Woods doesn't quite feel like a film that's going to score in the major AMPAS categories outside of Meryl, and I'm sticking by that unless it's a mammoth hit (Blunt will land the Globe nod necessary to remain in the conversation, though, so don't entirely forget about her).

No, in my mind there are three women fighting it out for the final nomination: Shailene Woodley (The Fault in Our Stars), Amy Adams (Big Eyes), and Hilary Swank (The Homesman).  With Woodley, it's easy to see why this has so much traction with Oscar obsessives and enthusiasts: it's a throwback to the days when Oscar used to nominate popular movies when an actor had a breakout year (think Julia Roberts in Pretty Women or Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean).  Woodley is clearly the year's big new star (even though she was already a pretty substantial star to begin with), and if they aren't feeling super compelled by other pieces of work, why not stamp "Oscar-nominated" on an actor they clearly want to welcome to the club?

Amy Adams, on the other hand, is an actor who has been in the club for years, and almost never misses with AMPAS (her only major slight with Oscar was Enchanted, and that was a Disney princess movie when you get down to it).  Big Eyes definitely has lost some momentum-Adams is no longer in contention to actually win the trophy, but Adams may push hard for the nomination anyway-at this point her race to an Oscar statue is a numbers game, and the more nominations she gets, regardless of whether she was in fifth place in that particular year, is going to only help her when it comes to actually winning the trophy (I've been saying for a long time that I think that Adams is about to do that semi-retirement thing that many actresses in their forties end up doing when they have started to move out of movie star mode, but she clearly wants an Oscar before she gets there).

Finally, there's Hilary Swank, one of the most fascinating actresses of the past two decades in terms of her career path.  You could look at someone like Sally Field for an example of an actor who turned their backs on conventional stardom and awards prospects after her two Oscar wins, but this actually forgets history: Field was a major motion picture star during the 1980's and had Oscar shots with films like Absence of Malice and Steel Magnolias.  Swank, on the other hand, has never been able to make herself a bankable movie actress despite critical accolades, and with the clear exception of her two Oscar-winning films (and her surprise SAG nomination in 2010 for Conviction), hasn't really charmed the critics as well.  Still, she feels like the sort of actor that could randomly show up once a decade, and she obviously wants back into the conversation with this year's The Homesman based on interviews.

My September Predictions: Adams, Pike, Witherspoon, Maggie Smith, and Woodley
My October Predictions: It's quite obvious that Pike, Witherspoon, Jones, and Moore are all in this race, and so I'll mark all four of them down.  For the final nomination, I am not quite sure.  On paper Adams makes the most sense, but this is a Tim Burton film and compared to Woodley's breakthrough and Swank's serious film, may not have the weight to anchor this nomination.  Swank is a pro when it comes to the campaign trail, and has been my dark horse contender all year (Landmark Theaters willing, I will have seen this performance by the time we check in next).  However, I'm going to go for now with Woodley.  This has been a rough year for the Box Office in Hollywood, and AMPAS is surely aware of this fact.  Woodley has starred in two big hits this year (combined, Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars made $600 million), and is clearly our newest bankable actress.  I think that Oscar will want to recognize that, and in a weak year can get away with giving her a nomination that in most years she wouldn't be able to muster.

2014 Oscar Predictions: Best Actress

Who dares to follow me?

I write a lot about the Oscars on this blog.  Frequently we discuss past Oscar races, my opinions on Oscar winners, and every single review I write references the Oscars right at the top.  And yet, you rarely find me discussing Oscar predictions, and there's a couple of reasons for that.  For starters, there are hundreds of Oscar prediction sites, many of them far more comprehensive and able to update on a dime (because they have more than that for their budget) than my little one-man operation here.  Secondly, Oscar predictions, even in September, are a fool's errand: we don't know quite yet what films will be eligible, what performances are any good, and even what movies have lead vs. supporting campaigns planned.  Finally, the articles don't age very well.  I write something today and then learn that someone gives the performance of a lifetime tomorrow, and suddenly I have to rethink the entire race (think of how Boyhood managed to change the conversation, and that was in Summer, when Oscar has barely even started).  So instead think of these articles (I'll write ones for all of the acting races, as well as Best Picture in the next ten days or so) as much as a list of what movies seem like they'll matter this fall as well as a series of predictions for us to either look on me in awe at or marvel at my abject silliness as we head through the autumn.  Because it's the race that currently has me most perplexed, we'll start with Best Actress.

It's always a risky thing to say this before most of the movies have been released, but let's be honest: the Best Actress race this year looks pretty...lacking.  Particularly after last year when names like Dench, Streep, Blanchett, Thompson, and Bullock, five former winners, were at the top of almost everyone's list (it's worth noting, not necessarily on the top of AMPAS's-thank you Amy Adams)-this year we have a lot more newcomers in the field, and don't have the clear passion for the performers and performances in the same way cinephiles seemed to last year.

That being said, there's always five nominees, and always worthy work to discuss, and probably toward the top of the intrigue list is Reese Witherspoon in Wild.  Based on the best-selling memoir by Cheryl Strayed, Reese is clearly in the need of a bit of career guidance.  Despite occasionally interesting work like in Mud her career has been on the skids both creatively and commercially for years now (and that 2013 arrest has not helped matters...it says something that up until now that's the only time I've used the Reese Witherspoon tag on this blog despite her once being a Box Office powerhouse and is a former Oscar winner).  This means that she is clearly going to want Wild to succeed, and considering the biopic angle, the fact that she's in need of a comeback (and Hollywood adores her), and that this is a weaker than average year, I suspect she's going to get it.  It'll help, of course, if she's able to carry a film that will be almost exclusively on her in a way that 127 Hours was on James Franco (which worked out well for him with AMPAS).

There's almost always a couple of names from last year in the mix again this year (Oscar tends to like their actors in streaks, though occasionally for quite a bit longer), and both Amy Adams and Meryl Streep are in the conversation again this year.  Adams has the showier role as artist Margaret Keane, and there's a lot of buzz surrounding her perofrmance in Tim Burton's first film without Johnny Depp in eons (oddly and sadly for Johnny, it seems to be his best-looking live action film in eons, so maybe he should reconsider how he picks his scripts).  It's worth noting that Adams is about to hit Glenn Close territory if she gets nominated again and doesn't win (Close, Thelma Ritter, and Deborah Kerr are all tied for most nominations without a win at six, which Big Eyes would be for Adams), a list which the Academy may want to avoid adding to, so this could be a serious contender for the win if she gets nominated.

Meryl is always a part of the conversation, though is the Academy ever going to get fatigued with her like they do every other performer (even Jack missed for The Departed)?  August Osage seemed like the kind of role everyone gets nominated for, but playing the Witch in Into the Woods (which won Vanessa Williams her Tony nomination in the revival of the show) may be a similar sort of role.  Meryl almost always gets in in a year where AMPAS is searching for nominations (1994 is the lone exception here, and I'm positive she was in sixth place then), so if this year doesn't pick up expect to see her name.

Last year was an anomaly in terms of no newcomers being nominated in this category, so expect at least a few new names in the hunt, chief amongst them being Rosamund Pike.  Pike has been on the edges of superstardom for a few years now, appearing in critically-acclaimed films or box office smashes like Die Another Day, Pride and Prejudice, and An Education (my favorite of her work) but never quite reaching "everybody knows your name."  Considering the buzz surrounding the adaptation of the Gillian Flynn bestseller, my gut says we'll all know her name by the end of Oscar season.  At 35, for an actress with Oscar this is pretty-much now or never time to get a first nomination (it seems like women who hit superstardom usually do it between the 33-38 years range, and with Oscar it's usually 27-38 that you hit your peak), but I am certain she'll be in the conversation.

An actress considerably younger than those age ranges who has hit superstardom this year would be Shailene Woodley, who is in the hunt for her first Oscar nomination (it always seems like she was nominated for The Descendants, but she was the odd-woman out that year).  In a year where she led the Box Office hit Divergent and then followed it with the Box Office hit The Fault in Our Stars, she's certainly going to be asked to present at the Oscars in hopes of attracting younger viewers.  My gut says that she could well be in the conversation as a "welcome to the club" sort of invitation for Fault, though youth-oriented films are a hard sell with AMPAS and she's going to need the year to remain pretty skimpy in terms of potential nominees (lining up another prestige drama in the next few months would help her out, I think, in terms of a "we can't be the last to recognize her" sort of thought process).

The other thing to consider when it comes to weak years (again, I hope I'm wrong about this) is that they tend to rely on former winners and nominees in such circumstances to keep the prestige alive, even if the former winners are in less exciting or less tradtional performances.  Maggie Smith in the My Old Lady trailers seems to be able to do this her sleep, but she's an AMPAS favorite who just missed a couple of years ago for Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, so who knows?  Hilary Swank could also be in the conversation again for The Homesman, which got underwhelming reviews at Cannes but could still stage a comeback.  Julianne Moore's weird campaign for Maps to the Stars (where they're hoping that campaigning for SAG and the Globes and skipping an AMPAS campaign doesn't cost them-a risky move) may pay off for her because of her fame and level of love with AMPAS, but this is a question mark of lead versus supporting (Felicity Jones, for example, I currently have in supporting but may see a better shot in lead and go for it there).  Even someone like Helen Mirren (The Hundred-Foot Journey) or Marion Cotillard (The Two Faces of January) may become part of the conversation if some of the above women don't pay-off.  And then there's Michelle Williams, whose Suite Francaise could put her back in the conversation for Best Actress (and a fourth nomination), but the Weinsteins haven't given her a release date and they may be reluctant to have too many competitors again after last year's debacle with The Butler (they've also got The Imitation Game and Big Eyes on their plates, and both seem more promising).

Finally there is Jessica Chastain, who is proving pretty greedy this year with three contenders for a nomination.  Each of those roles, however, have a major question mark.  A Most Violent Year could end up going supporting with Oscar Isaac as the assured lead.  The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby may seem too out-there or independent to click with AMPAS voters.  And Miss Julie doesn't have a stateside release date and isn't the sort of film that will fare well in a one-week qualifier (it needs an October release date to breathe a bit-see also Coriolanus).  Any of these three could get Chastain, a major star at this point with Oscar, a citation, but at this point I'm not sure which one.

My Predictions: It would seem foolish to discount Adams, Pike, and Witherspoon at this juncture, as all three are on the top of everyone's list, and that matters in a weaker year.  Meryl Streep nearly always gets nominated, but there is a serious question on whether Rob Marshall (who has not been strong since Chicago with his Oscar game) can actually make another well-received musical.  I'm going to skip her for now and say that Maggie Smith gets the "we love her" nomination for now, in my riskiest of the five predictions (she hasn't been nominated in twelve years and has enjoyed oddly the most successful stage of her career financially in the past decade so this would be a great topper to that).  For the final nod, with Chastain headed every which way and Swank (my dark horse contender) still under the Cannes-cloud with her film, I'm going to guess Woodley.  It may seem silly or brilliant in hindsight, but occasionally they give out "welcome to the club" nominations for more mainstream actresses (think of someone like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman or Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids), and this could be an example of that.
Is there a winner?: When you don't know who the actual nominees are, predicting a winner is a fool's errand, but there are a couple of narratives that look promising.  AMPAS loves a comeback, which could help Reese who clearly wants a second trophy to jump start a new phase in her career.  Amy Adams has enjoyed an intense amount of success with AMPAS and seems about ready to hit that period of semi-retirement that many actresses (whether by choice or by sexism) hit in their forties (look at her IMDB page for evidence)-they may want to cap that streak off with a win ala Susan Sarandon or Susan Hayward.  And if the film is a major hit, Rosamund Pike could win on her first try (which is a lot less en vogue than it used to be, but is still a possibility in Best Actress).  Right now there doesn't seem to be another actress that could make a run for the trophy, though I do still feel that Hilary Swank may be being underestimated by pundits.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Which of these women will factor into the Oscar race?  Does anyone feel like a winner this far out?  What names are missing?  And most importantly, which performance looks the best from this distance?  Share in the comments!