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...

On Chesil Beach (2018)

Film: On Chesil Beach (2018)

Stars: Saoire Ronan, Billy Howle, Emily Watson, Anne-Marie Duff

Director: Dominic Cooke

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

One of my biggest pet peeves when people talk about movies is when they state "but it's not loyal to the book."  This always feels like an absurd claim, and is usually leveled, at, say, adaptations of particularly popular authors like JRR Tolkien or Dan Brown, because people have long loved what was on the page and want to see their version of events come to life.  This can't work, though, cinematically, as books and films are two different beasts, one allowed to look inward and the other required to have some outward vision.  This would certainly need to be true of On Chesil Beach, a breathtaking but short novella that is largely conversational between two people on the night of their wedding, awaiting the pressures of their honeymoon.  The thing is, though, that this was a major test of my maxim "the book and the movie don't have to be different" as On Chesil Beach is quite possibly my favorite book.  Ever.  I read it every single year, oftentimes finishing it on a beach in the morning as it's terrible romantic and therefore it's going to be difficult for me to unbiased in both directions for this movie.  However, I want to give it a shot as I caught the film last night and am still feeling it in my gut.

(Spoilers Ahead) Like the book, the film is thin on plot and requires a great deal of feeling.  It revolves around Edward (Howle), a young man who aspires to be a writer of history books, who is desperately in love with a young woman named Florence (Ronan) who is quite "prim" and full of great love for her string quartet, for which she has great aspirations.  The film follows as Florence is deeply-frightened to lose her virginity to Edward, who is eager to have sex with his new wife and consummate the marriage.  The film starts with two waiters sniggering at the young couple, knowing what is about to happen between the two, and continually flashes back to the initial lives and meetings of these two, which is where most of the fleshing out of the film happens from the book, as this is of less consequence in the novel, since so much of McEwan's book revolves around Edward's internal thoughts.

The movie's biggest problem is in these flashbacks, as they aren't particularly necessary.  It's impossible for me not to compare the film to the book I've read so many times, but one of the exquisite, jewel-like creations of the story is the way that Florence and Edward feel anonymous, characters that feel so interchangeable with our own circumstances.  Giving them specific back stories doesn't always work.  I tolerated Florence's scene with her sister being shocked by the sex manual (while probably unnecessary, it at least underlined points crucial to the plot), but the scene with Florence's father and Edward playing tennis felt a bit much, and doesn't have the subtlety that the novel allows (in the book, it's lightly implied that Florence may have been molested by her father, though it's so light that you might not catch it at first or it might just be reading into things...in the movie, it's much more heavily implied and therefore makes her sexual reluctance seem to come from a different place, one the director/screenwriter don't explore other than a silent scene flash).  The stories about Edward's complicated relationship with his frequently nude (and mentally damaged) mother (Duff) also make the story seem more specific, ignoring that it would be natural (regardless of hangups with their parents) for two young people just before the Sexual Revolution to struggle with intimacy.  This doesn't work in the movie, and makes the story feel rather trite and conventional.

The titular scene is still marvelous, as it is in the novel, and the best part of the movie.  On Chesil Beach, where both of their lives changed forever, they state things they are too immature to communicate, with Florence proposing an open marriage, assuming that her sexual desire will never grow, and Edward, unable to see that her proposal comes from fear and not a lack of love, rejects the offer.  Howle and Ronan are wonderful in this scene, she filled with hopeful reservation and he with boorish immaturity.  The film slides poorly into the final pages of the novel, where McEwan departs from the book quite a bit, giving Florence a much happier ending than Edward, which doesn't work at all on the screen, and changes the message of the movie.  In the book, Edward and Florence never fall in love again, their lives lived out quietly.  What makes McEwan's work so magical is that, though it's short, he devotes 80% of the novel to that one night, because it's the most important of either of their lives.  He shows that in a fit of youth, they both altered their best chance of happiness forever, and pride & misunderstanding caused them to live lives that were always a bit hollow, absent of their soulmate.  In the movie, however, Florence gets largely what she wants, and clearly eventually gives in to sexual desire (having multiple children), while Edward lives a life of loss.  This changes the message of the movie, putting the onus of fault entirely on Edward, and not on a society that made them both have repressed feelings of sexuality.  Were it not for the book, the film would probably be "fine" and not a "disappointment" because I know how effective the ending could be (I cry every time in those last few pages and am usually unable to speak for hours after McEwan's brisk prose capture me so, and in the theater I shed not a single tear even though it's clearly supposed to be sad).  I get why McEwan did it (having one last moment between Florence & Edward is conventional if expected cinema), but it changes the message of what we've just seen, and makes it less cerebral and interesting.  On Chesil Beach, the movie, their paths changed, one for the better and the other for the worse, but in the novel, their existence altered, permanently, and less for the better and for the worse, but more in giving up the unknown.  That's a more powerful message, and McEwan loses that in the translation to the big-screen.

Testament of Youth (2015)

Film: Testament of Youth (2015)
Stars: Alicia Vikander, Kit Harington, Colin Morgan, Taron Egerton, Dominic West, Emily Watson, Jonathan Bailey, Miranda Richardson
Director: James Kent
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

One of the worst parts of that warning "based on a true story" is you generally start the story knowing who will live and who will die.  If a woman is caught in the middle of a love triangle, you have a feeling that the situation will be settled by a bullet rather than by her own heart.  If a mother bids three sons off to war, not all of them are coming back (though you can bet solid money on the guy whose name is above the title to be amongst the living).  And yet, there are occasions where, even if the story is well-known (though admittedly I have shamefully never read Vera Brittain's storied memoirs of her time during World War I), you end up a bit surprised at who lives and who dies during a film.  This is just one of the unusual story beats that Testament of Youth, a strong, underrated look at the effects of war through the eyes not of a young soldier but instead of a young British woman, takes to create a moving story of love and personal enlightenment.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows a brilliant young woman named Vera (Vikander) who is from an upper class family who has dreams of attending Oxford like her brother, but her parents seem far more intent on finding her a husband to marry.  She is seen in her early scenes with three young men near her side: her brother Edward (Egerton), a closeted-gay man who clearly longs for his chum Victor (Morgan) who is smitten with Vera, and Edward's other new friend Roland (Harington), who is deliciously romantic and an intellectual match for Vera.  She begins to fancy him terribly, and through her brother she is given permission by her father to attend Oxford, despite his reservations about women attending university.  While at Oxford, World War I breaks out, and instead of pursuing her studies (which is what Miranda Richardson's Miss Lorimer insists Vera do), she instead drops her hopes of Oxford to become a nurse, in hopes of helping her love Roland, her friend Victor, and her brother Edward.

In most films we'd see how the rest of the film played out-we'd see, for example, Edward fall in love with a different soldier and perhaps assume a gentlemanly life (he does find a gay man in the trenches, Geoffrey, who does have that asexual vibe you'd usually attribute to this sort of film).  We'd see Vera either end up in Roland's arms or have Roland lost to war, with her living a less thrilling life with Victor.  What you would not expect, however, is constant death.  Complete and total, sprawling death to overcome the film, but this is what happens.  Throughout the second third of the film, the movie one-by-one kills off all four men, giving us little respite from the pain that Vera continually suffered.  17% of all officers in Britain died during World War I (and most officers were the sons of well-off families like Vera's), so it makes sense that some families were completely hit, but rarely do movies do such a thing.  Unlike most films that find a respite for our heroine, this one offers none, which works well of course with Brittain's eventual mission, which was as a pacifist writer who loathed war.  Few films have offered a nobler and quieter way to espouse a hatred for war and conflict than this film, which shows the war through the eyes of Vera, a nurse, who watches as everything she loves turns to ash.

The film is filled with quiet, beautiful moments, aided by a truly excellent performance from Alicia Vikander.  The movie's love story may feel a little convenient (Kit Harington is the early-century Manic Pixie Dream Guy), but it works since the two actors are so pleasing and because Vikander is the sort of actor who can achieve chemistry with everyone.  She is constantly finding new facets of this character, making her fervent devotion to education actually meld into her character and not just be a proxy for audience "you should get to do it too!" sort of enthusiasm.  She frequently finds a way to compromise her deep introversion with a myriad of emotions ranging from love to pain to sorrow, and it never feels like she's cashing in on any big moments.  While she's giving the best performance in the film, it should be noted that her cast members are no slouches in the acting department, and I loved the way the script actually fleshes out even small characters like Miss Lorimer (there's a devastating scene where she discovers the center of her world, her brother, has died and Vera comforts her despite their thorny relationship) or Edward (I loved that the film went as far as they could with the gay thing without actually going further than history would allow).  The script and the lighting are so careful to ensure that no one is left without a purpose, and every scene feels very freeform and yet essential.  The movie occasionally borders into cliche and there are scenes where you almost feel like it will hit a "well now we head downhill" sort of situation, but it never does.  I admit that I have a slight soft spot for British period dramas and romantic epics, but I absolutely loved this movie, and in particular Vikander's central performance.  Between this and Ex Machina, she is an actor whom I am pretty much willing to see in absolutely everything going forward, and I cannot wait for the Oscar nomination that will come her way for one of the nine films she does this year.

I debated quite a bit between the four and the five star here, but I'm going with the latter.  I feel like my trepidation is more about showering three films this early in the year with a five-star review (Clouds of Sils Maria and Spy both achieved them, proving that this is indeed one of those great years for women as all three are dominated by female-energy), and less about my love for the movie, which I absolutely did.  I also love that in 2015 my five-star films (which generally are an eclectic bunch when I create my year-end lists) have started out so varied-an intellectual acting exercise, a straight-up comedy, and now a traditional wartime romance.  It's turning into a really fun year at the movies, and if you agree, share in the comments!  What's been your favorite film so far this year?  What did you think of Testament of Youth?  And how excited are you for the next Alicia Vikander movie?

Belle (2014)

Film: Belle (2014)
Stars: Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Tom Wilkinson, Miranda Richardson, Penelope Wilton, Sam Reid, Emily Watson, Sarah Gadon, Tom Felton
Director: Amma Asante
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I know that I date myself with such comments, but I do really miss the Merchant/Ivory period craze of the 1990's sometimes.  If you were a fan of period costumes and great literature coming alive onscreen, every Spring and Summer the art houses were flooded with films of this nature.  Nowadays you're hard-pressed to find such things, and when you do it's utter tripe, so imagine my surprise when I stumbled across the delightful Belle, the new film from Amma Asante starring 2014's breakout star Gugu Mbatha-Raw, which manages to be a wonderful throwback to these style of films from the 1990's.

(Spoilers Ahead...though this is an historical story, so if you need a spoiler alert you should probably find some time to read a bit more English History) The film is about Dido Elizabeth Belle (Mbatha-Raw), the biracial woman who was born out-of-wedlock to a British Royal Navy officer.  After the death of her mother, she is entrusted to her uncle William Murray (Wilkinson), the Lord Chief Justice, and is brought up as a free gentlewoman and as a companion to her cousin Lady Elizabeth Murray (Gadon).  The film follows them as they grow up, with Dido inheriting money from her father after his death, while Elizabeth must marry in order to secure her place in society, as she is penniless.

The film tackles a host of different discriminatory practices from the era, which I was a bit surprised by based on the trailers.  The film obviously featured the racial aspect of the film, with frequent conversations about Dido's unusual status in society (she can't dine with her family, but she also is above the servants-she's of a weird social station that hadn't really been created at that point in time), but it almost puts that in the background of the film as it continues on, particularly in regard to the unfairness thrown at women of the era.  The film frequently points out the double-edged sword of Dido's cousin Elizabeth, who is seemingly given every opportunity of society, but we soon realize the enormous pressure under her to marry "well," as she has no money, and how her fate is entirely tied to what sort of man will want to marry her.  This has been shown in films before (Jane Austen has become a legend based on these styles of conversations), but it's been a while since I've seen it cinematically and I thought it was interesting how a film that didn't "need to" make this a part of the film (there's more than enough plot to focus on just one aspect of discrimination) still chose to highlight it anyway.

The same could be said for the weird pariah status of single women in this time period.  Penelope Wilton plays Lady Mary, a spinster who lives with her brother, and is often pitied by the young women who see her as silly and a "failure" since she never wed.  Later on, when both women start to realize that they too could succumb to her fate, she becomes something entirely different from them, and we realize the added pressure of youth upon women of this time period; "scoop him up" soon or you'll quickly be tossed aside.  It reminded me in many ways of Mary from Pride and Prejudice, a woman of less rudimentary interests who is played for comic effect in the film, never minding that her life, should she not find a man who likes her penchant for loud singing and books, will likely be spent as a shadow figure at Pemberley or Netherfield Park, too high-born to work but too poor to live off of an inheritance.  The fact that the film points out the unfairness of her position, particularly when seen in conjunction with the many single men of the film, is a testament to someone who was bound-and-determined to make an interesting film.

The performances are really quite good all around.  Gugu Mbatha-Raw clearly knew this was a star-making role and sunk her teeth in, not only acting well but clearly making an impression on the audience.  The film itself may not be particularly heavy (even though its messaging is more interesting than you'd anticipate), but she makes sure that she gets all of the charm, wit, and passion out of this role that you would expect out of a graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art.  I leave this film not necessarily thinking she was robbed of an Oscar nomination (she wasn't), but hoping that I see more of her, and guessing that she'll land that Oscar nomination sometime in the future.  The supporting cast, including the ever-dependable Tom Wilkinson and terrific young character actress Sarah Gadon, all work well, making strong indents in our memories even if they aren't the center of focus.  About the only "bad" performances come from the camp emanating from the scenery-chewing Miranda Richardson and Tom Felton, playing their villains a little too theatrically than this subdued film would require.

I really don't have much more to say, but I have to implore you to seek this out-it's rare where a film genuinely exceeds my expectations, and while this is no one's idea of a masterpiece (least of all mine), it's an intensely watchable movie with fine performances and sharp observations about prejudice.  Add it to your Netflix queue and you'll be glad you did.

OVP: The Theory of Everything (2014)

Film: The Theory of Everything (2014)
Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Charlie Cox, Maxine Peake, David Thewlis, Emily Watson
Director: James Marsh
Oscar History: 5 nominations/1 win (Best Picture, Actor-Eddie Redmayne*, Actress-Felicity Jones, Score, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Modern cinema is not lacking in biopics.  In fact, nearly every year we are introduced to another dozen or so.  Over the last couple of months of this year, we'll have looks into the lives of Alan Turing, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cheryl Strayed, Louie Zamperini, Margaret Keane, and of course with this film, Professor Stephen Hawking.  These insights into the lives of extraordinary individuals frequently serve one of their intended purposes: they make the subjects look extraordinary.  There is always a sense of amazement when we see individuals face impossible odds or sudden celebrity or achieve great artistic or scientific achievement; this really happened, a seemingly normal person rose above it to accomplish something of great importance.  And yet the films rarely are able to achieve that other aspect of what a film should do, what the primary goal of a film in fact is: to be a great work of art.  Most biopics are so devoted to their subjects and to the truth that they don't have the bandwidth to also make the film compelling, fascinating and full of depth that can relate to the audience, and not just to the person that they are looking upon in awe.

(Real Life Doesn't Need a Spoiler Alert) The remarkable thing about The Theory of Everything in its first thirty minutes is that it manages to do just that: be a great movie, while still being about two fascinating individuals.  It's been eons since we've had a great romantic film between two heterosexual humans (usually you have something like Her or Weekend being a twist on the traditional Hollywood romance), and I for one was well in the mood for just that.  The first thirty minutes make love feel very alive and new onscreen.  It helps that the lead actors enjoy an enormous amount of chemistry with one another, with Redmayne's unique beauty (he's like the male Cate Blanchett) glowing beneath his thick glasses, and Felicity Jones, who has the most beautiful green eyes you can find on a big screen in modern cinema, bouncing off each other.  They're both smart, funny, and there's an ease here.  We know what is about to befall Stephen and Jane Hawking, but the film actually stretches a bit during this portion, giving us a brief but wonderful love story between the two.  This pays off during the first half, as you're left in tears when Jane demands that Stephen go play croquet with her after his diagnosis with motor neuron disease.  The first thirty minutes of this film are arguably the best "classical" Hollywood romance I've seen on a big-screen since Atonement.

The remainder of the picture is strong, but it never quite reaches those first thirty minutes.  This is perhaps the reason that I rather loathe real life stories onscreen-you occasionally have to sacrifice your strongest elements or most interesting aspects in order to cater to what "actually happened," and when the film shifts to the strains of Stephen Hawking's illness and eventual successes as an internationally known physicist, it loses a lot of that initial sparkle.  It doesn't help that you are depriving Eddie Redmayne, utterly charming onscreen always and with the piercing gazes of a Bronte male love interest, of some of his greatest gifts as an actor, and that you're allowing Felicity Jones (whom I generally find to be rather lifeless onscreen but here, with Redmayne, she seems to finally be fulfilling a bit of that promise that we've felt was there (or at least a load of casting directors clearly did)) to go back into her increasingly lifeless but desperate martyr act that was so on-display in her unsuccessful The Invisible Woman.

One of the strangest aspects of this film in theory has always been that they chose to focus on the love story between the Hawkings, since in real life they ended up divorcing in 1995.  The life of Stephen Hawking, who improbably overcame a disease that was a near certain death sentence and went on to become one of the most unlikely celebrities of the 1980's, was always meant for the screen, but the romantic angle for a relationship that ended with them splitting apart seems a bit odd for the big screen. Can you remember another romantic biopic where the couple didn't end up together in the end of the picture?  It's interesting, don't get me wrong, and the screenplay manages to somehow remain deeply sympathetic to both characters while letting neither completely off the hook (a rarity for a film about two living individuals), but it just feels strange.

The performances are strongest at the beginning of the film.  Neither Redmayne nor Jones ever quite captures that initial magic of falling in love and the early struggles with Stephen's disease.  Later in the film Redmayne's performance is quite strong, particularly in the way that he finds the limited ways that Stephen's personality can shine through, but you don't quite feel any of the optimism/pessimism balance that Dr. Hawking surely felt at that time, and the script pulls away and leaves too much to the imagination when both Hawkings start to feel romantic feelings for their future second spouses.

That said, I will admit this was a better film than I initially expected (I was rather dreading this and The Imitation Game, but at least this work isn't without a number of merits).  I'll say that the first thirty minutes is 5-star material through-and-through, absolutely wonderful and exhilarating moviemaking in a year where there was so little to celebrate, in my opinion, while the remainder is pretty standard 3-star sort of work, so I'm going to give this three stars, but with a heartier than usual recommendation to seek out the movie than I usually give to a 3-star picture.

Those are my thoughts on The Theory of Everything-what are yours?  Did you enjoy the picture?  Did you like the angles it took with approaching Dr. Hawking's life?  Were you surprised by how Felicity Jones had more screen-time than Eddie Redmayne?  And where will it land with Oscar?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: The Book Thief (2013)

Film: The Book Thief (2013)

Stars: Sophie Nelisse, Geoffrey Rush, Emily Watson, Ben Schnetzer, Nico Liersch

Director: Brian Percival

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Score)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I’ve never read the book.  There, I’ve said it, now just look away while I hide my shame.  Don’t you feel this way sometimes when there’s a movie made of a book that you clearly should have read by now (The Help is another recent example, as is Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close).  It’s not like not reading Twilight or even The Hunger Games-those are for a certain cliques of teenage girls, and the rest of the world just happened to enjoy them too.  The Book Thief was a critical and commercial smash, and is something we all should have read by now, considering how long it’s been on the shelves of our local Target.  But I haven’t, and while I own it and part of me wanted to quickly read it before I wrote this review, I probably won’t get to it until my annual Christmas book extravaganza (I celebrate Christmas in a land with no internet or Blu-Ray players, so catching up on reading is the best thing I can do at that time).

Anyway, since I hadn’t read the book, I didn’t know going into this film what to expect, and while it was wildly predictable, I didn’t hate the movie (I haven’t read the reviews yet, but considering the Rotten Tomatoes score I’d imagine that they found it saccharine and schmaltzy).  My gut reaction with these sorts of stories is to roll my eyes-children who find adventure in the harshest of times is a really, really tired narrative that has been done a thousand times, but like all familiar stories, they can be revitalized when you have the write combination of actors and characters.

(Spoilers Ahead) In this way, the film succeeds, particularly when you look at the two parents of our young heroine Liesel (Nelisse).  Both her adopted mother Rosa (Watson) and father Hans (Rush) fit neatly into the archetypes of stereotypical adoptive parents (she’s stern, he’s indulgent), but these are not performers that one tosses away lightly, and while the film is far too cheerful and pristine for a War film (it looks like most of the movie was shot within a Christmas card), Rush, and particularly Watson find moments to anchor with gravitas and a little bit of hidden depth.  There’s a great scene with Watson and Nelisse in her school where she pulls her out of class to tell her that the Jewish man living with them (the gorgeous Ben Schnetzer) won’t die of pneumonia.  This moment gives Watson a great scene to hold back when other actresses would have gone further, fighting for more emotional pull when less is more.

The movie checkmarks all of the usual boxes when it comes to a World War II film-the rise of Hitler, the persecution of Jews in hiding, the enormous overreach of the Gestapo-but it never finds a new way to tell the story.  Though I hadn’t read the story to know what was originally in the book, I do know that it translates very well cinematically.  There’s no scenes where I felt “ this doesn’t make sense,” which is usually the hallmark of a bad translation.  I will say, though, that not all of the elements worked that were clear carry-overs from the novel, principally Death as the narrator.  I was speaking with my dad (who has read the book) and learned that it wasn’t always apparent in the novel that Death was the narrator, which is clever in its own way, but doesn’t work onscreen.  In particular, when Death, after the bombing of the city, starts listing the people who have died as a result of this destruction, I found everything about the scene very anticlimactic.  I could see how this would be brilliantly effective in the book (the way each sentence would pluck away a character that you thought would live), but in the film it seems too melodic, and doesn’t give you the same emotional impact.

I have maintained a pretty confident swagger regarding the film and Oscar, and though the reviews have made me rethink that, I do think it has a serious pair of chances with Academy favorites John Williams (the composer) and Anna B. Sheppard (the costume designer).  Williams has been discussed here many times before, but it is extraordinarily rare for him to miss out on a nomination, and this is his only film this year that could potentially make the cut.  The music has all of his trademark lush strings, and while some may argue that it’s a bit safe, that’s what the Academy enjoys here, and there’s no denying the artistry.  Plus, I think the Academy, if they see the film, will have the same reaction as my aunt, who whispered as the first credits started to roll, “this is beautiful music,” and then saw Williams’ name and said, “oh, well now that makes sense.”

Sheppard received both of her previous Oscar nominations for Holocaust films (Schindler’s List and The Pianist) and this year has a marked lack of major period films (at least the periods Oscar usually goes for).  Outside of The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street, and 12 Years a Slave, I don’t see a really strong fourth and fifth nominee, and the Costume branch is more than happy to go with a flop when they need to do so.

Either way, I think this is a pleasant enough film to see with a loved one, even if it adds little of substance.  What were your thoughts?  For those of you who loved the novel, what was your reaction?  And do you think Sheppard or Williams can sneak in and get this film into the OVP?  Share in the comments!

OVP: Anna Karenina (2012)

Film: Anna Karenina (2012)

Stars: Keira Knightley, Aaron Johnson, Jude Law, Kelly MacDonald, Matthew McFadyen, Domhnall Gleeson, Olivia Williams, Emily Watson

Director: Joe Wright

Oscar History: 4 nominations/1 win (Best Costume*, Art Direction, Score, Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

There are a few tales that the cinema insists on telling over and over and over again-Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Hamlet, and of course, the tale of the doomed Russian socialite, Anna Karenina. For those who have read the book (which I have, albeit a decade ago), you know the draw here-there are few more passionate love stories, more engrossing tales, than Leo Tolstoy's tale of betrayal, lust, societal ruin, and suicide.  And yet, since we've seen the story so often, it was a little difficult for me to get excited for the film, but leave it to Joe Wright, one of the most visually arresting directors to come to the forefront in the past few years, to keep me enchanted with a story I know so well.

The story, for those of you who have been living under an academic rock or did not take Russian Lit in college, is the tale of a Russian aristocrat (Knightley), who falls in love with a younger Count (Johnson), despite being married to an older man who is working his way up the occupational ranks and is a very proper, but devoted man (Law).  The film, which cannot possibly cover all of the characters and plots, focuses primarily on the novel's two major love stories-that of Knightley/Law/Johnson and the one between Levin and Kitty.

The film takes a sort of Baz Luhrmann-style approach to its subject.  We open with a curtain being raised, and throughout the film, the art direction and the set seems to be unfolding, and it's hard to tell how much of a fourth wall is being busted open.  Wright never addresses whether they are actors playing a parts in a production of Anna Karenina, or if they are characters in a world that is slowly unfolding.  That metaphor works quite a bit better, as the rapidly expanding set and world of Anna and her compatriots focuses less and less on the set as a stage as the film progresses.  Still, it's a rather daunting and beautiful way to further highlight the rich set and art direction on display from Katie Spencer and Sarah Greenwood (both gunning for their fourth Oscar nomination here, their third from a Joe Wright film, and I think they'll get it).  It also keeps you guessing, even if the set is never addressed, and you are left with an oddly open question of identity.

It seems silly to discuss the overall plot of such a famous book, so I'll just highlight a few bits that stand out to me.  Primarily, there is the performance from Knightley.  Knightley as an actress has come a long way from being simply the beautiful, feisty actress from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.  Unlike a couple of her peers, she hasn't tarnished her actorly reputation with idiotic comedies or endless supporting roles in mediocre dramas just to earn a gargantuan pay day.  She, instead, has struck a very distinct path-working with directors like Joe Wright and David Cronenberg in provocative, occasionally under-seen period and sci-fi films.  It's paid off tenfold, in my opinion-there's no doubt these days that Knightley, ten years after her first big mark on the cinema, is an actor of considerable talent and will be working for years and years to come, and films like Never Let Me Go, A Dangerous Method, and Atonement are just going to improve with age.

Here, her Anna is a sporadic, almost bipolar creature that is constantly swinging in different directions.  You at first assume that she's just a rich woman, bored by her husband, and wanting a new thing to amuse her, but slowly you see the years of monotony and being neglected have left her with little self-esteem.  The magical thing about Knightley's performance is that she spells that out with her eyes, her voice, her constant swings of emotion and impetuousness.  It doesn't have to be said verbatim, it's just seen as we watch her unravel.  It's the sort of stirring performance that deserves critical love, but awards bodies are going to prefer something gentler, more straight-forward and less jutting.  A woman consumed by lust and rage is not a character the Academy will respond to very well, particularly with more traditional choices like Jennifer Lawrence or Jessica Chastain are there for the plucking.

The rest of the cast pales in comparison, and while I enjoyed the bit parts played by MacDonald and McFadyen, I wasn't drawn to either Law or Johnson, both characters so distinctly lacking in depth that their "big moments" come across as hollow, particularly compard to the lightning that Knightley is projecting on-screen.  The film suffers as a result, and Johnson, in particular, I am starting to question as an actor of serious means-his films seem to rely on his exotic beauty far too much, and on his actorly skills far too little.  Law, who hasn't been given much opportunity since his ridiculously wonderful run in the early Aughts, will have to go on searching for a role worth of his 1999-2004 self.

Overall, though, this was a welcome break from the "Academy-friendly" films that usually fill up December and January-it's not too heavy, but deep and rich, and is yet another vehicle for Knightley to continue her thespian ascent.