Sure, everyone and their brother is going to have opinions about this morning's Oscar nominations, but you clicked on this link, so you presumably care about my thoughts...
First off, the new Best Picture Category, with ten nominees, did exactly what it was supposed to do. The ten nominees represent a wide selection of genre, audience taste, and popular appeal vs. critical niche. While some may complain about popular entertainments like The Blind Side or District 9, both films were better received by critics than The Reader or Babel. I had been rooting for The Blind Side and predicting its inclusion since Thanksgiving weekend. First of all, it's a damn good movie and second of all, it's just the kind of old-school big-studio drama that we don't get nearly enough of. It's popular and critical success can only be a good thing for those who want an occasional break from big-budget franchise pictures. District 9 is also a pleasant quasi-surprise, as it's just the kind of scrappy, low-budget genre picture that should be championed (I'm betting that Halo: The Movie would not have received much Oscar love). Its inclusion likely bumped Star Trek out of the running, which is ironic since Star Trek was the film most cited as the kind of film for which the ten-nominee expansion was created for. I'm not the biggest fan of Star Trek, so I'm not too torn up (I would have been okay with its inclusion regardless, as it holds up better on repeat viewings). I'm also pleased at the number of disappointing Oscar bait movies that were left off of the list. From the merely 'eh' (Invictus) to the truly terrible (Nine), this year was a nice slap in the face to the notion that you'll automatically get a Best Picture nomination just because you're prestigious and open around December.
Obviously I'm thrilled that Up got the nomination that it deserves (it's my favorite film of the year), it's just a shame that the Academy had to expand their net in order to finally give a worthy animated film a slot at the top. It's happened once before, in 1991, with Beauty and the Beast. It sure as hell should have happened any number of years between, be it for The Lion King, Toy Story or Toy Story 2, Shrek, The Incredibles, or Ratatouille, among whatever your favorites happen to be. The other wonderful effect is that only about half of the nominees are what you could consider 'Oscar Bait'. Heck, five of the films have grossed over $100 million. Five of the ten slots went to films that came out before September, implying that the Academy was actually paying attention to movies released before the official start of the awards season. Equally pleasing is that there was a solid mix of critically-acclaimed, big-studio crowd-pleasers (Avatar, The Blind Side, Inglourious Basterds) and low-budget prestige pictures that had passionate followings (A Serious Man, Precious, An Education, Up in the Air). I might quibble with an individual choice here (I thought An Education was less honest than the somewhat similar Whip It) or there (The Hangover should have gotten in), but this is a surprisingly solid list of the year in film. Ironically, the best batch of contenders is the Best Animated Film category. While I have not seen The Secret of Kells, I can say that the other four nominees (Up, The Princess and the Frog, Coraline, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox) are all terrific films and among the year's best films period. The Secret of Kells notwithstanding, I do wish they had included the delightful Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, but I digress...
The directing and screenwriting categories were pretty much as expected. While I imagine Kathryn Bigelow will probably get about 90% of the votes for her direction of
The Hurt Locker
(including James Cameron's vote), I still contend that
Avatar
will still win the Best Picture award.
The Hurt Locker
's inclusion in the relevant major categories is a refreshing change of pace, as it's a case of a beloved but mainly unseen film pressing on through the awards season purely based on the strength of its quality. Summit certainly botched the theatrical release, a fact that will cost it a shot at the title (the lowest-grossing Best Picture winner in the last forty years,
The Last Emperor
, still nearly quadrupled
The Hurt Locker
's $12 million domestic haul). Overall, it's a refreshing change of pace to see so many 'Oscar bait' films fall to the wayside in favor of films that critics and/or audiences actually saw and enjoyed.
In the acting categories, no nomination made me happier than Maggie Gyllenhaal's Best Supporting Actress nomination for Crazy Heart. I'm not particularly fond of the movie (it's good, but awfully generic), but I'm always thrilled when the Academy nominates not just the showy star performance (a worthy Jeff Bridges), but also the harder, less showy work done by the main supporting actor. Like nominating Ethan Hawke for Training Day, Toni Collette for The Sixth Sense, and Chloe Sevigny for Boys Don't Cry, the nomination for Gyllenhaal shows that the Academy actually watched the movies in contention and didn't just ride the wave of media buzz. On that note, I wish that Quinton Aaron had snuck into the Best Actor category instead of the fine but un-noteworthy Morgan Freeman, as his low-key work is every bit as important to The Blind Side's success as Bullock's star turn. I'm disheartened that Matt Damon was nominated for his unremarkable supporting turn in Invictus and not his career-high work in The Informant. Although it was never going to happen, it would have been great to see Zoe Saldana break into the Best Actress circle with her truly wonderful star turn in Avatar. Woody Harrelson capped off a fantastic year with his second Oscar nomination for The Messenger. In a more just world, he also would have been noticed for his fantastic star turn in Zombieland.
I'm thrilled that Stanley Tucci is now an Oscar nominee, as I've been a fan of his since
Murder One
. He really was the best thing about Peter Jackson's very flawed
. The front runners in the acting categories remain what they were yesterday (Jeff Bridges, Sandra Bullock, Christoph Waltz, and Mo'Nique). Having seen
Precious
a second time recently, I'm thrilled at its showings in the relevant categories, as it
on a second viewing. As much as I love Bullock's work, I think I'll be rooting for Gabourey Sidibe (I'll be happy if either of them win). The Documentary category is a mix of 'crowd pleasers' and somewhat unseen critical favorites.
Food Inc
was easily the best documentary of the year, although it and the popular favorite
The Cove
actually make a worthwhile double feature (watching them both back to back may just make you a vegetarian). Oddly enough, in a year with some pretty impressive special effects work, the category was again limited to three nominees. It may be one of the
, but
absolutely deserved an Oscar nomination for its
.
That's about all I have to say on the subject. Which of your favorites got left off? Which nomination or omission surprised you the most? Which nomination made you jump for joy or throw your mouse across the room? Do share below.
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.