Current Predictions:

1. Helen Mirren- The Queen; She's winning just about everything, and the buzz has been there for months. She's the lockiest thing at the moment.

2. Meryl Streep- The Devil Wears Prada; The movie was a surprise hit for which she got great reviews, and the film itself has made some surprise appearances on some end-of-the-year top ten lists.

3. Judi Dench- Notes on a Scandal; The film is gaining momentum, and Dench has a juicy, bitchy role. Add that to the love the Academy has for her, and a nomination is likely.

4. Penelope Cruz- Volver; The reviews for her performance are glowing. Despite the fact that her performance comes in a foreign language film, she should score the nomination, but not the win.

5. Kate Winslet- Little Children; I can't tell whether this is a real prediction or just wishful thinking since I really want her to win an Oscar already. The movie has been regaining some of the strength that disappeared a couple months ago, which will only help Winslet's cause.

Outside, Looking In:

6. Maggie Gyllenhaal- Sherrybaby; An excellent performance, but the movie is as small as they come. Will enough voters have seen it before the ballot deadline?

7. Annette Bening- Running with Scissors; A showy role, and she might have struck some sympathy for two losses to Hilary Swank. However, the reviews for the film were scathing, which really hurts her chances.

8. Beyonce Knowles- Dreamgirls; The film is looking to be a box office hit, which could boost its overall Oscar prospects, and if it catches fire, she could be a surprise nominee.

9. Naomi Watts- The Painted Veil; The movie is catching on, but it's very late in the season. Is there enough time for her to gain traction?

10. Cate Blanchett- The Good German; The movie struck out with critics and audiences, and her chances are dwindling, though she could score a surprise nod. However, it should be noted that she's certainly a longshot.

I'd replace Blanchett with Dunst, but yeah

SO... I finally saw a fucking tv spot for Little Children here in Los Angeles... at 5:57 in the morning!!!

It highlights all the awards so far (critic's awards, Jackie Earle Haley...) and the Globe nods.

"NOW PLAYING"

...yeah, in some theatre deep in the woods.

New Line really screwed up with Little Children. The film looked fantastic, and I'd love to see it, but I live in a small town, so there's not a chance it will open here. But at least it should be readily available when it hits DVD.

Just saw The Queen yesterday, magnificent and very restrained. I don't normally see too many small indie flicks, but this is really a fantastic movie.

I can't see how anyone can ignore this, she should get the Oscar.

Locks:

1) Helen Mirren - The Queen
2) Judi Dench - Notes On A Scandal
3) Penelope Cruz - Volver
4) Meryl Strepp - The Devil Wears Prada

The final position is up for grabs, it could easily go to somone other than Kate Winslet. I'm rooting for Naomi Watts since i'm looking forward to seeing the movie, reviews are very positive and she was snubbed last year for her brilliant and subtle performance in King Kong.

No, no, NO! Mirren should not win the Oscar. I'm so sick of fucking impersonations getting the wins, but I guess that trend isn't going to reverse itself anytime soon.

Let's take a look at the last few years:

2005: Reese Witherspoon, based on of course a real person.
2004: Hillary Swank, fictional character
2003: Charlize Theron, real person
2002: Nicole Kidman, real person (sort of)
2001: Halle Berry, fictional character, hate to say it but I think this was a racially related win, so I'm going to discredit it
2000: Julia Roberts, real person
1999: Hillary Swank, real person
...now past this we start to get a more even handed mix, with a lot more fictional characters receiving wins. Why do I think this is so important? Because, to impersonate somebody is one thing. To create a character, a strong and deep on-screen character based solely on some words on a page is an entirely different matter. I know some of you have done acting (I've had small roles here and there) but it is incredibly difficult to actually create an entire personality when you are just handed a script. Sure, they have teams that help and in the hands of a good director you will see a better cast performance, but it still takes talent. When you can sit there and watch archive footage and merely mimick somebody it takes a lot less talent then to have the imagination to create somebody.

Now, don't get me wrong, some of those that I listed above were really strong performances. Nicole Kidman was amazing in The Hours. Charlize Theron was unrecognizable in Monster, so yes, those were all strong performances, but that doesn't mean they were the best. I'd have picked Keisha Castle-Hughes over Charlize Theron myself. Felicity Huffman and Judi Dench arguably gave much better performances then Reese Witherspoon. They didn't win however.

So, right now, I'd say Mirren is probably going to win. But, I really, really, really wish she wouldn't. I'd like to see this trend reverse. I would like to see people getting an Oscar because they really are the best, not just because they did a good impersonation.

For me at least, I am happy to get out of the "uglyfying aka make up transformations" that seemed to be getting best actress Oscars for the past decade or so...it was becoming far too formulaic:

1999 Hilary Swank - Boys Don't Cry as Brandon Teena
2000 Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich as Erin Brockovich
2001 Halle Berry - Monster's Ball as "Leticia Musgrove"
2002 Nicole Kidman - The Hours as Virginia Woolf
2003 Charlize Theron - Monster as Aileen Wuornos
2004 Hilary Swank - Million Dollar Baby as "Maggie Fitzgerald"
2005 Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line as June Carter

It wasn't until 2005 that we got a different type of role winning the Oscar, and not one where an actress wins becuase of uglyfying performances. I'm not saying that some of these people didnt' deserve to win, but just saying that Oscar followed the same formula on what they recognized as best actress for 6 straight years. Nicole with the fake nose, uglyfied Theron, Swan in both roles boy and tomboy, etc...

Wait, since when was Reese Witherspoon uglified to play June Carter? I thought she looked more beautiful in Walk the Line than any other movie.

I think you misread, he said it wasn't until 2005 where an actress non-uglified, Reese Witherspoon, won.

Oh

My bad

Didn't Helen Mirren sort-of uglify herself? Kinda, sorta maybe?

But none of those performances, Mirren included, were praised for their uncanny impersonations; they received acclaim because they did create entire personalities. No one is saying that Helen Mirren is excellent in The Queen because she's JUST LIKE the queen; they're saying that her nuanced acting creates a layered, complex representation of that character.

I understand that it seems like real-life characters are just easier to portray since they're actually... real. But with a character as veiled as Queen Elizabeth II, doesn't that make it, in a sense, just as difficult -- and put more pressures on the actor or actress in regards to accuracy -- to read into those real-life characters as it is to form new ones?

I'll give you that DK, I'll agree that of all of the above characters, Helen Mirren certainly was cast the short lot and her performance certainly was multi-layered and impressive.

Let me digress for a moment here. Some of my comments are probably a little biased. Unlike a lot of people, I was simply not blown away by The Queen. Yes, I thought it was a good movie, but I didn't feel it was the best movie of the year. I did not, and still do not, think that Mirren deserves such near-universal critical acclaim. She was good, but...I guess to me impersonation just doesn't cut it.

Back to what you said, her character wasn't perhaps easy to develop and she certainly did have her work cut out for her, as anybody who does an impersonation does as well. I guess I'm just biased against that, I just don't think it is good enough. I mean, these events occured not even 10 years ago. Apart from the fact that I think it is far too soon for the film, and I could understand if HRM took offense at the production of the film (it is far from favorable), and also the fact that if it came down to choosing sides I would side with HRM and their actions, I just don't feel it was that great. Am I making sense? I don't think I am.

LOL, Now now don't be insulting the Queen, who at her age looks pretty good.

I have to agree about how the Oscars are starting to go to impersonation acting than fictional acting. The same thing is happening in the Best Actor side as well. It's getting kinda boring when you can almost predict that the person who played the impersonation will win.

I wasn't insulting HRM. Really. But Mirren did have to undergo some rather dramatic cosmetic changes, so, it could sort-of be seen as uglification, just not, ugly and all.