No Globe? No SAG? No Problem!

This morning we saw the SAG nominations, and with the Globes held this weekend, that means we get to write one of my favorite recurring annual articles on the blog-our annual look at the few performers whose dreams of Oscar glory have seemingly been dashed by not getting in with either of these high-profile precursors...who still could be in for a wonderful night in a few weeks at the Dolby Theater.  Every year since 2006, at least one actor has gotten a nomination for an Oscar without being cited by either the Globes or the SAG Awards, with a much larger number in the past two years:

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

2014: Bradley Cooper, Marion Cotillard, & Laura Dern

2013: Jonah Hill

As a general rule, the best way to get another nomination is to get in as a result of your film having heat for either Best Picture or another acting race.  Last year, we saw this with someone like Judd Hirsch, who was starring in a film that was on-track for Best Picture & Actress, and then carried him along with the show.  Last year saw a disproportionately large number of people (Andrea Riseborough, Paul Mescal, & Brian Tyree Henry) who were their films only Oscar nod, which does happen, but this is generally hard to pull off, especially in the ten-wide Best Picture era.  Generally, the new name is someone from a Best Picture nominee that Oscar liked a little bit more than the rest of the season.

I say each year that I'm worried this trend won't continue, but this year I'm especially nervous because of the expansion of the Golden Globes.  This is the first year that the Globes had six nominees for each of the acting races, rather than five.  You can best see how this will hurt this stat by looking at Best Actor in a Drama.   This featured three Oscar frontrunners (Cillian Murphy, Bradley Cooper, & Leonardo DiCaprio) along with three "on the bubble" nominees (Colman Domingo, Andrew Scott, & Barry Keoghan).  In a normal year, one of those "on the bubble" nominees wouldn't have gotten mentioned, and if it had been Scott/Keoghan, would've been in my Top 5 here given the heat off of those films peaking at the right time (Domingo got a Globe nod).  This year, none of them are in the Top 10, and so I had to scrounge a little bit to get a plausible Top 10.  Still, a 14-year streak is going to be tough to beat-one of these names (#1 being the most likely) probably gets on Oscar's radar in two weeks.

Honorable Mention: I'm just going to list a few names that need to be mentioned.  I am still catching up on a few contenders (hence why own personal Top 10 lists haven't been revealed yet), so a couple of performances that I haven't seen include Erika Alexander (American Fiction), Christian Friedel (The Zone of Interest), Aunjanue Ellis (Origin), Jamie Bell (All of Us Strangers), & Juliette Binoche (The Taste of Things).  These all have their champions (and Binoche & Ellis are former nominees, which helps), but without seeing them I don't know if they make sense or even how substantial their roles are...so I'm just naming them for posterity.  Florence Pugh (Oppenheimer), Jesse Plemons (Killers of the Flower Moon), John Magaro (Past Lives), & Taraji P. Henson (The Color Purple) have large supporting parts in Best Picture contenders, but they've been ignored all season, and save for Magaro, they're all former nominees so if they were going to get in...why not get mentioned by SAG or the Globes?  Lastly, I do wonder if AMPAS will like Ferrari more than most, and Penelope Cruz's surprise SAG inclusion means that Adam Driver (a two-time nominee) deserves a mention in this list even if this is probably a miss for him.

10. Rachel McAdams (Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.)

For Her: McAdams has received some of the best reviews of her career for this Judy Blume adaptation, and there's a lot of passion surrounding her performance, despite it coming out in April.  She even won a surprise inclusion from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.  Sometimes underestimated when it comes to what screeners get the "Play" button pressed is whether you can watch a movie with your kids-Margaret is far more "let's all sit in front of the couch" friendly than May December or Saltburn.  She's also a former Oscar nominee-AMPAS has liked her before.

Against Her: The film has no shot in any other categories and it's a coming-of-age movie about a girl getting her period that was released almost a year ago.  No matter how good McAdams may be, that was always going to be hard to get past, especially without some help from something like SAG which is more the audience for this style of film.

9. Paul Mescal (All of Us Strangers)

For Him: I mean, he did it last year.  Mescal was able to take a small, family drama last year and ride it to the Oscars, what's to stop him this year?  All of Us Strangers is not necessarily in the Best Picture running, but it does have the kind of heat & interest that would make it a surprise inclusion in the 9th or 10th spot if heat for something that feels more like a "required" nominee (like Maestro) that no one really loves doesn't get in.  Additionally, everyone who sees the movie loves Andrew Scott, which makes him a stealth contender for the competitive fifth Best Actor slot.

Against Him: I haven't seen the movie, but literally any internal competition from Jamie Bell is going to cost him this, as it's already a small film...will Bell split his support?  Additionally, this is a film that Oscar voters aren't required to see-will they get to it, or is it just a move they're still saying "I've heard that's good" about come nominations time.

8. Sandra Huller (The Zone of Interest)

For Her: She's having a helluva a year.  Huller didn't get in with SAG, but she managed a Globe nomination for her work in Anatomy of a Fall, which I think will score her her first Oscar nomination in Best Actress.  Weirdly, she's also an option in supporting for Zone of Interest, which like All of Us Strangers is in the hunt for 9th or 10th in the Best Picture field.  Huller's supposedly good, and a significant part here.  Could she get double the love?

Against Her: Unlike a lot of past double nominees (like Scarlett Johansson or Al Pacino) she's not super famous headed into the night, and usually you come armed with all of the precursors if you're going to be cited twice.  It's possible, but I'm assuming on her first go-around AMPAS will think Best Actress is enough.

7. Zac Efron (The Iron Claw)

For Him: Efron checks two of the Academy's favorite boxes.  One, he's a matinee idol transforming himself physically for a role, and two, he's in the middle of something of a comeback, giving his most lauded performance to date after years as a teen idol.  A family drama and a biopic, this is in Oscar's wheelhouse (Mickey Rourke got nominated for a similar film a few years back), and it has a lot of fans.

Against Him: Efron is the sort of contender that the Globes normally would've gone for (not sure if that's because we're in a post-HFPA world or not, but a celebrity like him normally would've been able to sneak in over Andrew Scott).  Will enough people see it...and will enough respond given Efron's otherwise shallow acting resumé (unlike Rourke, Efron didn't spend a decade giving critically-acclaimed, edgy performances before Oscar noticed).

6. Ben Affleck (Air)

For Him: Affleck is a strange beast in Hollywood-someone well-loved by the Academy behind-the scenes (he has Oscars for writing and producing, and directed a Best Picture winner), but who has never been nominated for an Oscar for acting despite matinee idol good looks and appearing in many of his movies.  His latest directorial effort, Air, is a film I think is going to get into Best Picture (I haven't written my final nominations yet, but it'll be on there as my surprise guess unless something bizarre happens with the PGA/DGA/BAFTA citations), and since no film has only gotten a Best Picture nomination since 1943, if it gets in one place, it'll probably get in another.

Against Him: I think that most agree that Affleck, unlike his buddy Matt Damon, is better behind-the-scenes than in front of the camera, and while this is a showy part, there's a more traditional role for the Academy to cite in Air if they feel so inclined.  Also, Best Supporting Actor is already bursting at the seams without adding someone like Affleck into the conversation.

5. Claire Foy (All of Us Strangers)

For Her: Foy is one of the most recognized actresses on television, she's British (the Academy loves British actresses), and she works in a lot of prestige films that have gotten on Oscar's radar (First Man, Women Talking).  Her work in All of Us Strangers as the main character's mother isn't work I've seen yet, but from what I've heard it's strong, scene-stealing stuff, and if the film is peaking at the right time (which it is), like Paul Mescal, I could see her being in the running.

Against Her: At this point, Foy has been turned down by the Academy twice.  Similar to Emily Blunt (who after two decades is finally going to get an Oscar nomination in two weeks for Oppenheimer after basically begging the Academy every year for it), it's possible she's just not their cup of tea?  If she can't get in for a Best Picture nominee, why this?

4. Viola Davis (Air)

For Her: As I mentioned above, there's a more traditional option in Air if AMPAS wants to nominate it for an acting trophy than Ben Affleck, and that's Oscar-winning actress Viola Davis.  Davis gets a showy supporting part as Michael Jordan's mother, plays well off of Matt Damon (whom, it is worth noting, did get a Golden Globe nomination for this film), and we know Oscar loves her.  They also might feel they owe her after she missed last year for an expected nomination for The Woman King.

Against Her: She still has a trophy, so it's not like ignoring her for The Woman King was a major crime.  More importantly, it's possible I'm overestimating Air's strength.  It came out last spring, and hasn't shown up on a lot of year-end lists.  Maybe it's just one of those movies people liked, but doesn't score with Oscar, in which case Davis is a non-entity.

3. Matt Damon (Oppenheimer)

For Him: Our top three contenders I'm going all in on movies that all of the Academy's acting branch will have seen by the time the nominations start, but feature three performers with prominent roles in those films that haven't gotten mention yet.  Damon's lack of a nomination has perplexed me all season.  In a sea of options, he and Downey are the only two supporting actors who are clearly prominent enough in terms of screen-time to stand out from the crowd.  Given his personal popularity (as well as love for Oppenheimer), why isn't he showing up?

Against Him: Damon's problem is twofold.  One, his internal competition, particularly from Robert Downey, Jr. who is going to win this category with Oscar, means that spreading-the-wealth feels like the correct choice (Oppenheimer isn't hurting for love).  Second, the supporting actor race is stacked this year, the strongest contenders and the most quality options of any of the four acting races.  This would feel like a "weak field" filler nomination, not needed for 2023.

2. Dominic Sessa (The Holdovers)

For Him: The Holdovers is an acting trio, one that features two people who are surefire nominees (and potential winners): Da'Vine Joy Randolph & Paul Giamatti.  Their counterpart Dominic Sessa, though, has gotten plenty of good notices for his screen debut in The Holdovers.  It's a lead performance that is being passed off as supporting (that always helps), and if you're a fan of the movie, you might just want to put down one actor for each category.

Against Him: He's so young.  This is his first film, and in a category where they tend to nominate longtime veterans (like Willem Dafoe or Mark Ruffalo, both also on the edge for this category), they might want to make him pay his dues.  Plus, given The Holdovers didn't get into Best SAG Cast (usually a prerequisite for a Best Picture nomination), this might be a movie that voters more like than love.

1. America Ferrera (Barbie)

For Her: Everyone loves Barbie.  Even if you aren't a fan of the movie itself, in an industry town that had a lower-than-expected box office last yeaer, everyone knows that Barbie is a movie they should be grateful for.  Ferrera is a longtime character actress who weirdly (despite the large female cast) will be the only Supporting Actress option from the film.  People love her monologue scene in the picture, and she's been pushing the movie hard.  These are all things that usually add up to a surprise inclusion.

Against Her: Unless Jodie Foster or Danielle Brooks fall (both are on shaky, but likely, ground), this is really a fifth slot play against Viola Davis (Air), Julianne Moore (May December), Penelope Cruz (Ferrari), and Rosamund Pike (Saltburn).  None of those are Best Picture nominee locks like Barbie is, but unlike Ferrera, they're all former Oscar nominees/winners who come armed with precursors (save Davis).  Still...I think I'll probably guess Ferrera because her math feels really good in this scenario.

The Last Duel (2021)

Film: The Last Duel (2021)

Stars: Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Jodie Comer, Ben Affleck, Harriet Walter

Director: Ridley Scott

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

24 years ago (prepare to feel old), Ben Affleck & Matt Damon won their first Oscars for Good Will Hunting.  This was not the first film that the two men had made together (they'd worked together on 1992's homoerotic School Ties, or at least it was homoerotic for me when I saw it on TBS as a closeted 11-year-old), but it was the breakout role for both.  The years that followed have been, let's say "unexpected" in the direction each men has taken.  Damon was celebrated as the better actor initially, which is correct though while he had movie star success in the past couple of decades, you could make an argument that his filmography is somewhat underwhelming.  There are cult classics, popcorn hits, and he's managed a couple of Oscar nominations, but when you think Matt Damon, don't you still kind of think "Good Will Hunting?"  This isn't the case for Ben Affleck, who became a tabloid sensation due to his romances with Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Lopez & Jennifer Garner, then took a surprising left field turn into prestige director, won his second Oscar, had an ill-regarded turn as Batman, and is now back to tabloid sensation for dating Jennifer Lopez.  All of this is to say that when it comes to The Last Duel, I don't really know what to expect from these two as a pair anymore, and under the relatively successful guiding hand of Ridley Scott, this movie attempts to navigate that ambiguity.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is based on a true story about a longstanding rivalry between Sir Jean de Carrouges (Damon) and Jacques Le Gris (Driver) in late 14th Century France.  Carrouges in the film is a rather abrupt, callous man, depending on your viewpoint (more on that in a second) either a solemn man of honor or a dour figure getting into his own way.  Le Gris, on the other hand, is a handsome, charming sort who is also sycophantically kissing up to Count Pierre d'Alencon (Affleck), and in the process taking away much of Carrouges power & wealth for his own, including part of Carrouges' wife Marguerite's (Comer) dowry & the captaincy that Carrouges' father & grandfather had held, and which he assumed he would get.  The film reaches a turning point when Marguerite accuses Le Gris of rape, and as no one will back down, Carrouges & Le Gris wage what would become the last judicial duel, allowing God to decide who was just & who was lying to the king.

The film is notable specifically for its formatting.  We get to see the story, at least heading into the title sequence, from the (skewed) vantage points of Carrouges, Le Gris, & Marguerite, in that order.  This has an unusual effect on the film, in that we see certain scenes with all involved in better light within their own story.  One example of this happens at a party, where in the first story Carrouges offers an olive branch, in the second one Le Gris, and in Marguerite's story, the host of the party offers it with neither man willing to do so.  This has a fascinating effect on the film, as the audience becomes the judge-and-jury, trying to decipher what is truth & what isn't.  I kind of wish that Scott hadn't made an overt attempt to point out that he feels (and, to be fair, historians feel as well) that Marguerite's story was the accurate one (the word "the truth" hovers briefly after the rest of the text in "Marguerite's version of the truth" has left a title card announcing her version of the story, enough so the audience gets the picture that we're about to see what really happened); part of the complexity of the story, and the way that truth can have "versions" depending on your viewpoint (as well as a lie can also have versions)  is the best part of the film.

Well, one of the best parts-the other is Jodie Comer.  Comer, best-known to audiences for her work on the British spy drama Killing Eve (which won her an Emmy), is excellent in the lead role.  This is a tricky part to play, as she needs to play a subtler game in the other versions of the story than the men do, but she nails it.  There's a lot of great moments late-in-the-film where you don't know her motives anymore, and while you never doubt the veracity of her claims, other things about her remain a mystery (specifically her attitude toward her husband & their marriage, and what this duel will do to it).  That's a striking combination for a film to give a character, where she plays an honest, enigmatic central player, but Comer does well with the task.

So why only three stars?  Honestly, it's because The Last Duel is kind of silly.  The film doesn't feel its 140-minute runtime, and weirdly the screenplay handles the three viewpoints well without feeling repetitive.  But the accent work in the film is dreadful (forget the French accents the whole cast should have but doesn't...it feels like Affleck, Damon, & Driver stop in long sequences of the movie doing even the vague British accent they're doing in other scenes).  It's the sort of movie it's hard to take seriously because Damon & Affleck are such a bad fit for the roles.  Both are just such thoroughly American personas that them playing 14th Century French aristocrats...the audience in my theater literally started laughing at the ridiculousness of it in certain sequences.  But Scott delivers in the action, pacing, & Comer brings it well enough that I'm bummed this was a flop...even if I kind of get how that happened.

OVP: Suicide Squad (2016)

Film: Suicide Squad (2016)
Stars: Will Smith, Jared Leto, Margot Robbie, Joel Kinnaman, Viola Davis, Jai Courtney, Jay Hernandez, Adewale Akinnouye-Agbaje, Cara Delevigne, Ben Affleck
Director: David Ayer
Oscar History: 1 nomination/1 win (Best Makeup & Hairstyling*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

The Oscar Viewing Project is a labor of love, but occasionally it's just a labor.  I frequently say that I never regret seeing any movie at least once, because I learn something new from every film, but man does Suicide Squad test that theory.  Reviled by critics two years ago when it came out, it still made an absolute mint at the box office, enough to well-earn its sequel even if in the process it nearly destroyed the DC franchise in conjunction with Batman vs. Superman (since then Wonder Woman and Aquaman have done damage control, though with both Ben Affleck & Henry Cavill supposedly leaving the series, I wonder what that means for the future of a Justice League).  Suicide Squad managed to become the first movie in the series to win an actual Oscar, meaning that DCEU hit that distinction two years before the MCU did.  With that Oscar nomination, I was forced to watch it, and since I don't want you to have to endure the same fate, here's my review of this travesty of a picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) It's hard to count the ways that Suicide Squad fails on nearly every level, but it starts with the plot.  Unlike The Avengers, which had largely introduced all of the characters before the film, or X-Men, where they have the good sense to pick characters like Wolverine, Magneto, and Professor X who are well-established in pop culture before expanding into Beast or Mystique, no one in this movie (save Harley Quinn & the Joker) is a protagonist well-known to the general public.  Thus the film takes a nearly ten minute detour where Amanda Waller (Davis, a smart casting decision that doesn't pan out due to the script, as Waller is one of the coolest villains in the DC universe) just describes the different bad guys that will eventually make up the Suicide Squad, with us seeing why they're "so incredible" but then watching them become two-dimensional characterizations in the ensuing 90 minutes of movie.  Essentially Waller wants to assemble these guys to be able to fight the likes of a future Superman who isn't so magnanimous, and essentially by blackmailing them into slavery (an aspect of the film that no one seems to have a problem with even though we're off a moral cliff with forming this organization), she hopes to fight a future alien invasion.

Plot is not really essential to the movie that ultimately came about here (though it would have perhaps helped with some of the structural issues of the picture), but essentially that alien is among the Suicide Squad, as the Enchantress (Delevigne) takes over the body of June Moone and tries to destroy the Suicide Squad and enslave the human race.  This gives us a baddie, but weirdly the movie totally ignores the iconic villain at its center, the Joker (Leto), surely saving him for a future film that never panned out properly as Leto is now being replaced by Joaquin Phoenix.

The plotting in the film might have been able to help the picture should it have been well-acted; after all, effects movies can get around bad plotting all the time if there's a charismatic enough lead.  This, however, is not the case.  Will Smith is dreadful as Deadshot, lifelessly going through a film where he has to share the "hero" label with a half dozen other less famous people, and has no chemistry with anyone, including Davis or Robbie, with whom he shares a lot of scenes.  Smith hasn't actually been good in a movie in nearly two decades, so it shouldn't be a shock to see him miss here, but it's still disheartening, because the Will Smith of the 1990's might have breathed some life into this film.  Combined with Davis getting nothing to do, Leto creating a scenery-chewing ham in the Joker, and all of the rest of the cast save one just being two-dimensional (what the hell-Akinnouye-Agbaje can act and lifts Croc-Killer in zero ways), we are given a superhero movie that's not just messy, it's also dull.

The saving grace in the film is Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn, the only thing to recommend here.  Robbie got some random Oscar buzz for the film, which was absurd as this is hardly great acting, but she creates an identity for Harley, lands most of the jokes, and seems to genuinely be having fun.  It's a grand theft movie, to the point where you almost want to fast forward when she's not onscreen, but hats off to her for remembering this is a motion picture rather than just a marketing campaign checklist.

As for the Makeup effects, I have to say they're pretty good.  The hair styles are occasionally too similar, but the makeup work is extensive and realistic, blending well with the special effects.  We'll get to the OVP for this right away in our 2016 rundown, so I'm not going to give away the farm, but this isn't a bad nomination.  It's just a bad movie.

Playing the Odds on the Bennifer Split

Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner have broken up, and this is sad.  The end of a marriage always is.  And I feel like karma would probably like me to just sit on my hands and not make any jokes right now, but I've been in my house all day, am starving (I am on a weird eating schedule during my vacation), and am feeling a little bit naughty from stir craziness so considering Affleck's penchant for Vegas, I figured we might as well put together a few betting odds about what the next few months will result in for us, since we've all seen headliner celebrity divorces before.  Here we go:

Odds That...

-They will describe the split as amicable (Even)

-That CNN will have used the phrase "breaking news" and interrupted a story about ISIS or the Greek economic meltdown to share this story (11-8)

-That a body language expert will be referenced in an In Touch magazine article to discuss their last public outing (5-4)

-That Garner will appear on the cover of Star magazine in a photo of her yelling, with a headline saying "Get Out!: Jen Kicks Ben to the Curb!" (4-3)

-That Affleck will be linked with a cocktail waitress, bartender, stripper, or some other "other woman" cliche (3-2)

-That Garner will be put on the same OK! Magazine cover as Katie Holmes looking sad and like a bag lady despite wearing enough couture to make your next ten mortgage payments (2-1)

-That Affleck will be romantically linked to his next leading woman (3-1)

-That Garner will move to NYC and make her Broadway debut to try and get around the paps in LA (5-1)

-That Garner will start dating a personal trainer/life coach/bodyguard/yoga instructor/costar in that play within six months (7-1)

-That Affleck will be linked to one of George Clooney's exes (8-1)

-That Matt Damon will be labeled the other man by the National Enquirer (10-1)

-That Matt Damon will be labeled the other woman by the National Enquirer (25-1)

-That Ben Affleck will start dating Jennifer Lawrence to create Bennifer, Part 3 (50-1)

-That Jennifer Lopez was somehow involved (100-1)

-That a Kardashian was somehow involved (250-1)

-That Angelina Jolie was somehow involved (500-1)

-That Scientology was somehow involved (1000-1)

-That this will finally give Affleck the time to make Gigli: Back in the Habit (2000-1)

-That Garner said "argo fuck yourself" when she told Affleck to hit the curb (5000-1)

-That they will put aside their differences to make Daredevil 2: This Time It's Personal (10,000-1)

-That Donald Trump will somehow blame this on Mexico (EVEN)

OVP: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Film: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Stars: Casey Affleck, Michelle Monaghan, Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris, John Ashton, Amy Ryan

Director: Ben Affleck

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Supporting Actress-Amy Ryan)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I never really thought about Ben Affleck until he became a director.  I always thought he was a bit of a bore.  His acting was a bit of a dud, never really rising above semi-serious.  He was cute, but Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio were far cuter.  And his role as a celebrity was always a bit baffling, as he was never particularly compelling (we all went hog-wild for Bennifer, Part 1 because we were obsessed with Jennifer Lopez, who might not be a great actor but is an AMAZING celebrity).  So when he took the director's chair, I wasn't really expecting much, certainly not a chillingly-wonderful movie like Argo or the avalanche of Oscar nominations that his film would elicit, putting him in the company of people like Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood who were arguably more intriguing behind the camera than in front of it.  However, I went backward on the whole Affleck-directed film thing, so that his first directing effort was actually the most recent one that I've seen, and unlike most other chapters in his career, I was genuinely curious to see what would come out of this first effort-would it be a rudimentary take on a story or would it be Citizen Kane?

(Spoilers Ahead) What I found out was that it was a lot more similar to The Town than Argo in terms of my enjoyment.  The movie finds a voice, for certain, and has occasionally strong performances, but it never quite elevates to the point of greatness that I think we would expect from Affleck after the popcorn thriller take of Argo (Argo is, to use the slight edges of simile differentiation, a great movie but not necessarily a great film).  The movie, set in South Boston, follows a Private Detective named Patrick Kenzie (Affleck) and his girlfriend named Angie (Monahan), though you'd be forgiven for not knowing her name as Affleck is not great at getting scripts with compelling female love interests.  They are trying to find the missing daughter of Helene McCready (Ryan), a drugged-out woman far more caught up in her own personal drama than in her daughter's welfare.

The film tries really hard to make a lot of strong points, and it's not a particularly bad movie even if it misses most of them entirely.  Casey Affleck is really well-cast.  He's a fine actor (better than Ben, it's true), and he has the look down pat-he's the sort of guy that's pretty enough that both men and women find him attractive (which factors into a weirdly homo-erotically charged scene in a bar), and his cough-cold voice and giant eyes make his occasional bad-assery all the more shocking, and as a result, convincing.  The rest of the male roles, though, find themselves in pretty blase territory.  Ed Harris' character is too convoluted and the script does him no favors (you never really get to know his motives), but Harris himself doesn't help matters by remaining too much of a mystery, even when he's supposed to be revealing.  Morgan Freeman isn't playing exactly the sort of role that we've come to expect from him, but his stature as a movie star sort of gives away the "twist" ending (there's no way an Oscar-winner of his prestige would sign up for such an inconsequential role unless something was coming later), and Freeman trades more on his voice and intense eyes than he does on making this a rounded human being.

As I indicated above, the film has serious script issues.  Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane (which I haven't read, so I don't know if that's where the root of these problems lies or not), the movie rushes certain scenes too much and the mid-movie fakeout (it sure feels like an ending) is arduous considering the fact that we know there's still an hour to go and this can't be the end of this chapter of the story.  The finale also glosses over certain things (Ed Harris' motivations being critical), and feels weirdly paced for a film that generally seems pretty deliberate (or again, that might just be Affleck's delivery distracting us).

The film received one Oscar nomination, for Best Supporting Actress, and in a nice twist it's a genuine supporting performance (2007's Supporting Actress lineup stands out in this way, as none of the women nominated are co-leads pretending to be supporting).  Amy Ryan won her only Oscar nomination (to date) for Helene, a plum assignment for an actress as she gets to be loud, bawdy, troubled, and strung out.  The performance is never bad, and occasionally strong (Ryan knocks the ambivalence toward her daughter in the final scene out of the park, and clearly got the nomination at that moment), but I would have loved to have seen a little more layering.  What were her actual thoughts about her daughter leaving-she gives a peak of herself, the way that she wants to be noticed, through in that final scene that intrigued me more than anything else in the film (it's a good finale), but otherwise she's going through the motions of a BAIT-y part.  Ryan's a strong actor-I would have liked to see her play a little bit more with this character considering its prominence in her filmography.

Those were my thoughts on this 2007 Oscar nominee (expect to see a lot more from this year in the next few weeks).  In the meantime, what were yours?  Where does Amy Ryan sit in your Best Supporting Actress lineup (I still have one more nominee to go!)?  And where does Gone Baby Gone rank in your personal Ben Affleck favorites list?  Share in the comments!

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

It may be Saturday night y'all, and quite frankly I've been on vacation for three days from work now (and am starting to get the end-of-vacation-blues), but that doesn't mean we can't get a link roundup out the door!  Let's take a look at some of the biggest stories from the past week (that we haven't already discussed):

On Entertainment...

Julianne Moore

-Listen, I've been trying to avoid the Batman vs. Superman trailer as much as anyone has, but I finally relented today in hopes of getting this post published, and I have to say, "...why?"  This movie looks terrible, right?  Like honest-to-goodness terrible.  I love several of the people involved (gotta love the Holly Hunter and Jeremy Irons voiceovers), and I actually enjoyed Man of Steel far more than I thought (I always thought of Superman as a bit of a disappointment as a superhero but thought this was a very handsome film even if I would have changed one major part), but Ben Affleck genuinely seems wrong for this part in the worst way.  Ben Affleck is not a bad actor (though, admittedly, he's not a really good one either), but he specializes in everyday men, like that found in Gone Girl, not in playing something truly serious.  Combine him with Henry Cavill who is exceedingly bland, and the fact that you have the Christopher Nolan films towering over these movies (they may not all be masterpieces, but they're still fascinating and iconic) and I feel like this is the tipping point for comic book films (also, can we please just leave Spider-Man on the side of the road for a bit?).  Even if this film is setting up the inevitable Justice League movie, I just, I can't.  I'll see it if it's nominated, but otherwise I'll probably just Netflix it for the curiosity.  I'm kind of over superheroes at this point.

-Recent Oscar-winner Julianne Moore took sides in the VOD vs. Theater debate, siding with the theater owners at CinemaCon, saying that "we work very hards as creators to create a theatrical experience."  I definitely side with Moore in theory here-a movie is always better in theaters-full stop, end of sentence, no qualms.  That being said, theaters have continually found new ways to diminish part of the experience, particularly by limiting the assortment of films that are available and by not investing more in lighting (I recently was in a theater and throughout the trailers the screen was barely visible due to garish overhead lighting and even during the movie it seemed a bit bright, stealing away from the actual screen) and trying to only show a select number of pictures.  This past spring has been a death of watchable movies (so few films were remotely any good, and even the ones that were were too hard to find or played in theaters too long), and the movies have to stop treating the Spring season like summer vacation, because that's not how viewing works anymore.  Television doesn't take a hiatus in the summer-the best channels just put out riskier, interesting fare instead (The Leftovers, Halt and Catch Fire).

-Alex Garland sat down with Wired to talk about idea movies in the wake of his critically-adored Ex Machina (I'll be weighing in on Monday with my thoughts on this film).  I do agree with him completely in terms of Sci-Fi giving us leverage for ideas, and I'm so excited about the prospect of a major filmmaker espousing idea films (it seems like only Christopher Nolan has that thought lately), and I love the way that he name-checks films like The Thin Red Line and A Clockwork Orange (rather than your traditional lineup of movies that get highlighted in these sorts of pieces).  As I mentioned above, theater owners and Hollywood need to start taking more chances and do less retreads if they don't want to bore the audience to death, so I am thankful for Garland on that front.

On Politics...

Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (D-MD)

-In Maryland, a new name popped up this week in the race to replace Sen. Barbara Mikulski: former Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.  For those who are wondering, yes, she is of those Kennedy's (she is Bobby's eldest daughter).  It'll be interesting to see if Kennedy Townsend enters the race for a variety of reasons, but two principally: one, with Rep. Donna Edwards severely under-performing in fundraising there may be an opening for a strong female candidate to take over the longest-serving female member of Congress (and in a bench that is decidedly male, KKT may have an opening), and two, Kennedy Townsend famously botched her 2002 gubernatorial race (one of the worst run races I've seen in recent memory), losing the contest to Bob Ehrlich (who was the first Republican at the time to win the Maryland governor's race since Spiro Agnew in 1966, though since then Anthony Brown has lost the race to Larry Hogan, another Republican).

-While Bruce Jenner's interview with Diane Sawyer has been one of the biggest entertainment stories of the week, you may have missed that he also had a bit of politics going on in the interview, where Jenner stated that he was a Republican as well.  Considering the place GLBT (but particularly transgender) individuals are treated by many members of the GOP right, this may come as a shock, but I do feel that while I might swing Democratic, you're not going to affect change unless you can shift the thought process of both parties, so I hope Jenner does in fact use his celebrity to push for change in the GOP.

-Jeb Bush continues to run an adult campaign for president (as opposed to, say, Mike Huckabee) with admitting what everyone sort of assumes about him: that he might be the next Mitt Romney, and assured supporters that he won't be.  This is an interesting attack, as it's one that can be levied, quite frankly, at both Jeb and Hillary-they both are parts of longtime political dynasties, both are accused of being out-of-touch, and both come from families that have a famously fractured attitude toward the media.  I quite frankly think both candidates would benefit from putting themselves in some tougher interviews to show a "new side" to their candidacy, though I have to admit that on this front, Bush is trumping Clinton.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

The truth about the doctor's office.

YouTube Video of the Week...

-A pretty quiet week on YouTube this week, quite frankly, but I do love it whenever Charlie McDonnell, the quintessential adorkable nerd with a heart of gold and the ability to be smart AND not seem like its pandering or condescending (which seems, quite frankly, where Jacksgap has been for months now), puts out a video, and he even has a lovely cause this week (if you don't like any aspect of the process of giving blood, watch this one with only one eye open, though still consider donating):

Just One More...

-If you read no other links from this video, this is the one I implore you to read.  Frightening, yes, but reality usually is, and a look at climate change and the famed "2-degree" question is worth the time investment.  History is littered with people who don't believe facts because they are too scary, but the fact that the media still treats climate change as a debate instead of a problem is the single biggest frustration I have with politics, media, or really any aspect of public policy.

OVP: Gone Girl (2014)

Film: Gone Girl
Stars: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry, Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens, Casey Wilson, Missi Pyle
Director: David Fincher
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Actress-Rosamund Pike)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

And now it officially begins-Oscar season.  That time of year when I seem to always have something to see at the movies and as a result my bank account depletes and I start to wonder if popcorn is a food group.  It's also the time of year I write reviews that I know that I'll be revisiting, and try not to make a fool out of myself, and the snappishness of some of those rankings become all the more apparent when time gives me a new perspective on films and performances.

(Spoilers Ahead) Because Gone Girl is not the sort of movie that you just sit back and say "that was great" or "that was terrible."  It is the sort of movie where, after discussing it a bit, the fabric tends to unravel even if you still maintain the admiration.  The movie, about a hapless man named Nick Dunne (Affleck) who is drawn into a world well over his head when his wife Amy (Pike) is found missing, starts out as a straight drama.  There's very little suspense in the beginning of the movie.  Nick, left with Rosamund Pike in just flashbacks and Affleck in the present recalling his wife, first perfect, then slightly less so, is both A) clearly innocent and B) clearly headed for the gallows.  This is a man who has been set up either by fate or by someone else and every single finger points in his direction.  The movie is a bit slow during this time, save for when it points out the faultiness of the American criminal system, showing clips of The Ellen Abbott Show (hosted by Kim Dickens doing a ruthless Nancy Grace impression) where Nick is pronounced guilty from the beginning, a media desperate to find a villain to go with the seemingly dead beautiful blonde.

The film gets a different energy, of course, when we find that his wife Amy isn't in fact dead, but planned the entire affair (this is about halfway through the movie, and at this point you've clearly realized that she's probably still alive, as otherwise there'd be no reason for the Oscar buzz for Rosamund Pike, who seems more like a plastic Barbie doll in her memories than anything of interest, and this movie wouldn't have needed to be made, since clearly it's the Scott Peterson Story and they already did that on Lifetime, though obviously not at this creative level).  The movie then follows how she planned the entire faked death to try and punish her husband for his affair and for not being the perfect man she hoped he would be.

At this point, the film gets some electricity and not just occasional moments of brilliance.  You find in Pike a compelling character, someone you both hate and secretly want to get away with it for bringing so much life into the film (without her, the film may trend into that horrible place of "bland but handsome"...which, admittedly is usually how I describe Ben Affleck's cinematic career).  The plot takes quite a few detours during this part, and some convenient changes-of-heart (I don't believe for a second that Pike would have actually killed herself based on five minutes with the character, or that she would have carried around her money in such a discreet way, trusting the two backwoods-style characters who eventually steal her entire cash reserve).  Eventually she has to improvise and involve her controlling ex-boyfriend Desi (Harris) in order to find some way to finance her endeavors and eventually murders him to find a new "kidnapper" for her that isn't her husband, since otherwise she'll become a different' man's "prisoner."

The film, like most, has its good and bad.  The film's not-so-secret jewel is Pike, a 35-year-old British actress who has been at the sides of films like Die Another Day and An Education, but has never had a showcase role the equivalent of this, certain to make her a household name by the end of awards season.  Pike finds vile places to take her character, frequently trading on her beauty and intelligence to seduce and manipulate everyone around her.  It'd be sort of unbelievable if she didn't come across as so methodical and planned; she's a Stepford Wife crossed with a bloodhound.  The rest of the cast is solid. Ben Affleck isn't great in his work, but he is physically and personality-wise perfect for the role (having that muscular beefiness that defines sexually-attractive in the Midwest, he is both smart and hot enough to have attracted Amy in the first place and continue her obsession, but dumb enough to continue falling for her games).  The supporting parts are a bit of a mixed bag.  For every Carrie Coon (terrificly understated as the twin sister who gets dragged along with her brother through the mud) and Casey Wilson (the only towns-person who legitimately has enough crazy and confidence to have been a true threat to be the kidnapper in the first half's narrative), there's a Tyler Perry (who is fine, admittedly, but too big of a star to not be a distraction in a straight supporting part) and Neil Patrick Harris (who is certainly the film's weakest acting link-never finding a place for his character to be either a similarly-minded sociopath or just a rube constantly foiled by his lust for Amy).

The film's direction is of course wonderfully sedated, as is Fincher's raison d'etre.  He moves the camera through the world as if we're watching a stylish documentary, and the lighting is always dead-on (though a bit predictable, especially with the constant grey) from Jeff Cronenweth.  Probably my biggest problem with the film would be the writing.  I've never read Gillian Flynn's best-selling novel, and perhaps some of these plot holes would have been solved if I had, but that's not really how a movie is supposed to function (it's a separate entity, and if there's plot holes in the book they should be patched up when you get to the movie).  The film never quite finds its identity.  The first half it feels like a cultural study of our justice system and an unfolding crime drama, the second half occasionally a treatise on how marriage may be a destructive institution to our individuality and a paced-thriller over whether Amy will get away with the crimes (you know about thirty minutes before the end that she clearly will, otherwise there'd be no fun in the dark comedy of the movie, so this in particular peters out).  There's also too many story missteps (the entire Desi plot seems wildly underwritten and an extremely convenient scapegoat without much work to be done by Amy to solve the problem, the first half gives us no reason to believe that Nick could be guilty, which would add to the film's intrigue) to really forgive the writers.

Still, though, this is a film worth seeing (which, admittedly, I hope you did before you read this review-it says spoiler alert for a reason), as the strong attributes (Pike, the direction, Coon, Affleck's perfect casting, in that order) outweigh the weak.  It's also a film clearly made for adults in an increasingly teenage-oriented world, and as someone who is continually hoping for more grown-up fare at the cinema, that's worth celebrating.

What were your thoughts on Gone Girl (considering the Box Office I'm sure most of you have seen it)?  Did you also find the plot to be weighted down with too many directions and not enough consistency?  Were you also in love with Rosamund Pike's star role?  And what sort of future does this film have at the Oscars?  Share in the comments!

OVP: Picture (2012)

OVP: Best Picture (2012)

The Nominees Were...

Margaret Menegoz, Stefan Arndt, Veit Heiduschka, and Michael Katz, Amour

Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck, and George Clooney, Argo

Dan Janvey, Josh Penn, and Michael Gottwald, Beasts of the Southern Wild

Stacey Sher, Reginald Hudlin, and Pilar Savone, Django Unchained

Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward, and Cameron Mackintosh, Les Miserables

Gil Netter, Ang Lee, and David Womark, Life of Pi

Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, Lincoln
Donna Gigliotti, Bruce Cohen, and Jonathan Gordon, Silver Linings Playbook

Mark Boal, Kathryn Bigelow, and Megan Ellison, Zero Dark Thirty

My Thoughts: And so now we have come to the end of the line, the top of the heap, the cream of the crop-the nine films that received nominations for Best Picture.  Each of these films we've spent the past summer dissecting, looking through, and now it's time to figure out which one I (and you, if you post in the comments) most supported for the top prize.

I'm going to start with Silver Linings Playbook, because I feel I need to find some peace with the film. The movie is oddly good and terribly bad, and I think that I should first try and explain what I do like about the film.  The movie tries to cover a topic that is oddly underutilized in film: mental illness affecting normal, regular families.  Jennifer Lawrence, when she was doing all of the awards press junkets, frequently talked about ending the stigma of mental illness, and if this film did that just a little bit, that would have been a noble cause, if not necessarily one that deserved an Oscar nomination.  I think that the cinema does have that power to change the national conversation about a particular topic (look at movies like Brokeback Mountain for example).

But Silver Linings Playbook doesn't do that, because in real life, without some sort of medication and persistent work, mental illness is not cured by the love of a good woman.  This is not the doldrums of being dumped-Bradley Cooper's Pat has a real medical condition, and while his life going better may momentarily change his state of being, it won't permanently do so, as the ending implies.  David O. Russell, and I've said this several times, wants to have his cake and eat it too.  He wants to have a story that's about something pressing in the national dialogue, but also something that's cute and fun and a great date movie.  Both of these topics can be the source of excellent filmmaking-anyone who poo-poos this film because it's a romantic comedy doesn't get the point at all, as we are in desperate need as a cinematic audience of strong romantic comedies.  The problem is that these two don't cohesively meld in the way that Russell hopes them to, and as a result, you get a fine, enjoyable, but unsuccessful film.

Les Miserables will go next (because the two films have so many things in common, obviously).  I just checked my list of my rankings of all of the 2012 films, and I have this one oddly low compared to some of the others (including the two films trying desperately to take the top prize).  I think the biggest fault with Les Miz is that it has so many ups-and-downs.  You are given such a great start with Anne Hathaway's character and performance, easily the best part of the film-Hathaway's Fantine is a tragic, heartbreaking creation, and she sells it to the rafters.  Part of what makes a movie musical so appealing is that the sky is really the limit-you've already forgone reality by having people randomly sing in the streets, which, much to my chagrin, no one does in real life.  As a result, you can have a dramatic moment with this woman and believe that such a good person can have such a rotten life.

But the film never recovers from her leaving.  This isn't necessarily the baser story's fault: Jean Valjean, Javert, Eponine, Marius-this is a musical with a lot of interesting characters, but the performances are so all-over-the-map that when you don't have the unstoppable force of Hathaway's performance to distract you, you are pulled in many different directions.  The only work in the movie that equals Hathaway's is Eddie Redmayne's.  Sometimes I even feel that Redmayne, with that lyrical quiver in his voice (I just took a ten-minute break to listen to "Red and Black" and sing Don Ju-An multiple times) might be a better fit for the film that Hathaway.  But he can't save it when you have two lead performances that are bad for the story, and everyone else having too-limiting of characters.  The film is great for the stage, where these sorts of small character developments are more easily forgiven, but in a film they're fatal flaws that obscure the movie too deeply, even though there are definitely things to recommend seeing the movie.

Django Unchained is in a similar situation, with a lot of great pieces that don't seem to fit together.  I think the problem with Tarantino films at this point, and it's a growing problem, is that he's starting to lose the ability to shock and even surprise the audience.  No longer are we stunned when he puts together a brilliant song-score, or when he willingly kills off most of the main characters, or when the entire screen is doused in blood (it'd be a nice change if he went back to the nastiness of his first couple of films instead of the Sergio Leone-obsessed nature of his later films, at least for a picture or two).  His movies are too good to ever be called bad, but when a director can no longer thrill the audience, he needs to develop some new tricks (even Woody Allen has learned this, though he occasionally forgets it for years at a time).

What we're left with is a film that has razor-sharp dialogue, a few solid performances, but drags ferociously in the final third (why the hell does Tarantino keep casting himself, when he's seemingly the only person he can't get an improved performance out of?), and frequently finds offensive things to say without enough substance behind it.

Life of Pi has became one of the movies that, along with Silver Linings Playbook, was a punching bag throughout this OVP series of write-ups.  I have a harder time with this, because A) I like Ang Lee better than I like David O. Russell and B) there are moments in Life of Pi that are sheer bliss.  The visual effects in the film are of a caliber you rarely if ever see, coming as close to that "change the industry" sort of quality that you saw in Star Wars, Jurassic Park, and Avatar as you can get without fully pulling the trigger (I was very happy to give it the OVP for Visual Effects).  The movie is beautiful, and the whales and islands and whimsy that comes from the film are all terrific.

But the film gets a sucker punch from the ending.  I know that the book ended largely in this way, with you forced to encounter reality in such a harsh avalanche, and normally I like a sprinkle of melancholy in my movies, but here it reads as a slap to the viewer.  It's not just that the police decided to believe his tiger story, it's that we all know he was lying, and they just went along with him to make everyone happy and to neglect the ugliness in the world.  That's probably the point of the story, but it seems so artificial and lazy to have so much magic dashed.  The ending of this movie has ruined my opinion of this film-when you have months and dozens of articles to write about a sole picture, its flaws and high points come further into focus, and that has forever marred my opinion of Life of Pi.

Amour is that rare film that has done neither for me.  My opinion of Amour has stayed stunningly neutral for a movie with some things to offer and that critics lapped up with a spoon.  It might be that I don't connect with the film in the way I'm supposed to, and I don't think that's because I'm sixty years younger than the characters (I have seen what it's like for one spouse to be affected by a stroke and the other to have all of their faculties).  It's just too clinical for me, it's too matter-of-fact.  The little touches are what I loved in the film-the Haneke touches.  I'm still stunned by the final scene, with Huppert walking through the apartment: the loneliness and foreboding in that scene is stunning.  Huppert doesn't give an Oscar-worthy performance, but her character is perhaps the most interesting in the movie.  She hasn't stored love for the future.  If there would have been more of that biting attitude, I probably would have sunk into the film more.  As it is, it is to be admired, but not necessarily to be interacted with, and doesn't quite hit me.

Lincoln is the film of the bunch that I wish I liked better.  It's grown on me slightly-the way that they combine all of these great Spielbergian staples; the man has one of the best tech crews in the business.  But like Amour, I just cannot connect with the source material in the way I'm supposed to, and here I know why.  I just don't buy characters that are saints, and not just because saints don't exist in real life, it's also because saints aren't very interesting.  Day-Lewis is far too strong of an actor to not give a quality performance, but I see in his work a legend that also happened to be a person, but he doesn't disrupt a saint that also happens to be a flawed person (Lincoln was only human, of course).  I also hate whitewashing history (couldn't David Derickson have at least shown up at some point), but I more so hate when history has been retold dozens of times while other just as interesting stories lay on the back-burner.  From a director as important as Spielberg I suppose this film will remain the definitive Lincoln, but couldn't we have picked a subject that has been less covered already in cinema?

Beasts of the Southern Wild, of course, is the bravest and probably most unique film of the bunch, and that is always something to celebrate.  One of the interesting things about the nine or ten wide Best Picture races is that you get a film like Beasts (or Tree of Life or District Nine or Up!) to compete when they otherwise wouldn't be able to (I maintain that 2012 would have been that rare year like 1995 or 2001 where we would have gone 3/5 for the directors, and Les Miz and Argo would have completed our nominated set).

The film works so well because Benh Zeitlin allows us to get lost in the world of Hushpuppy, a world that is both real (we all can tell that this is Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana) and of her imagination, and true to the wonder of cinema, Zeitlin never lets us know which is fact and which is fake.  Zeitlin's newness behind the camera is evident when he spends too much time on rebuilding the father-daughter relationship (and relying too heavily on first-time actors, a tactic which does give you a great freshness, but also gives you too many staged emotions, particularly from Dwight Henry).  The movie is a promising start to a hopefully interesting and long career, and I'm glad Oscar made the investment.

Finally, we come to Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, the two films that I've championed the hardest throughout this process.  Except, have I?  I don't feel like I've given enough credit to the excellent Argo.  Perhaps this is because Argo is the sum of its parts-it's similar to the gymnast who can't win a gold in any of the individual competitions but grabs it in the all-around.  The film just works-the humor, the acting, the suspense-Affleck may take some historical liberties, but he at least tells us a story we didn't already know (are you listening, Mr. Spielberg?), and pushes a political narrative without ever sacrificing entertainment.  That is a difficult task to undertake, and the film is littered with terrific scenes-that great finger-biting scene in the airport, for example.  It takes a lot to get a jaded and movie-educated audience to succumb to the idea that this group won't be successful.  I feel like Argo is going to be maligned a bit in Oscar history because it won the trophy for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a super movie that deserved to be amongst the best of the year.

I recently reread my review of Zero Dark Thirty to understand why I gave the film four stars rather than five stars, because some of its best parts (Chastain's performance, the exhilarating final third of the movie) have improved my opinion of it so dramatically.  I do feel correct in stating that the side characters in the film, Jennifer Ehle and Jason Clarke in particular, don't give us enough background.  Maya is supposed to be a universally, abnormally, almost psychotically driven force-of-nature, and she doesn't need a background, but Ehle's Jessica and Clarke's Dan don't have that tunnel vision.  We should learn more about what keeps them going back for more; this would, if nothing else, give us a contrast to Maya's determination.

But that being said, Bigelow has created the darker flip side of Argo here.  They are oddly similar stories, with both focused on a single person going up against political bureaucracy to succeed in a seemingly impossible task (and both had reluctant Democratic presidents who took a major risk that paid off).  Bigelow's version is more of a Dante-like descent for her character, while Affleck's is an uplifting tale of the human spirit.  It depends on which direction your specific cinematic passions swing that makes you cast your vote for one or the other, but I maintain these are the two best nominees of the bunch.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes, having split their categories into Drama and Comedy, didn't find room for Amour or Beasts of the Southern Wild, though they did fit in Moonrise Kingdom, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, and in one of the oddest moments of the 2012 awards season, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (Les Miz and Argo won).  The BAFTA Awards, which still maintain just five nominations, put their winner Argo over Les Miz, Life of Pi, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirty.  And finally, the PGA Awards skipped only Amour (which did win the Palme d'Or, so don't feel too badly for it), giving their final two nominations to Moonrise Kingdom and Skyfall (handing the trophy over to Argo).  It's a hard tell over what was in tenth place.  I know historically people will scoff that a James Bond film could get this close to the top trophy, but I think if we had had the mandatory ten-wide field, we would have seen Skyfall stunningly top Moonrise Kingdom, The Master, and Flight.
Films I Would Have Nominated: I've discussed at length my desperate need for The Master and Magic Mike, both films that continue to grow every time I view them, to be included in this field.  However, neither was my favorite film of 2012.  Nor was Argo or Zero Dark Thirty.  My favorite movie of 2012 was the little hidden sapphire that was The Perks of Being a Wallflower.  I cannot tell you how I, who favors the epic scope when picking my favorite film of the year, went with a movie about teenagers, but Stephen Chbosky's tale about such realistic youths, trying to find their way through a period of their lives when they think they know more than they do, and somehow also know more than they think, is a challenging and wonderful opus, with three superb performances from Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, and our hero of heroes, Logan Lerman.  It's a wonderland of a movie, and my 2012 favorite.

Oscar’s Choice: Oscar loves a bandwagon, and it was very easy to jump on the Argo train, considering they had a movie star's face to put on the snub.  Lincoln was likely in second (though Life of Pi could also have been there), and it's still worth mentioning the massive success of this lineup of films: six of these movies made $100 million domestically, and we didn't have to include a superhero film to do it.  Thanks for showing adult dramas and comedies can make money still, America.

My Choice: Obviously a race between Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, and I'm going to succumb to my gut and give this to Bigelow's tale of war and obsession.  In third place is Beasts, followed by Django, Lincoln, SLP, Life of Pi, Amour, and Les Miz.

And that, my friends, was 2012.  It was a long, great journey, so I'm going to leave it to you-what was the best film of 2012?  What OVP wins did you most (or least) agree with?  What AMPAS wins did you most (or least) agree with?  And with six films remaining to be viewed by moi for 2009, whose ready to encounter that race later this month?

Also in 2012: Director, Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Animated Short, Live Action Short, Previously in 2012

Past Best Picture Contests: 2010, 2011