Time to Bitch....
I haven't seen many nominees yet so for some I can't give any real personal insight on what I think:
Best Picture: Have seen only half of the nominees and out of them the only nomination that shouldn't be there is True Grit (which I just saw recently), and I'll explain in a little bit. Toy Story 3, The Social Network, and Black Swan are deserving, solid nominees, but for the time being The Fighter is my pick. A rare piece of triumphant cinema that's nearly perfect in every way. But I'll do a write up on it soon.
Best Actor: It's cool too see host James Franco scored a nomination, and many were apprehensive about whether it would happen. I haven't seen Colin Firth, but I'm hearing mixed views about his film (which got tons of noms) and his performance -- either it's brilliance or mannered actorly pretension; I'll have to see. Eisenberg is very good but I need a look back, but then there's Jeff Bridges. Maybe he scored the nom based off his film's success or his recent victory last year, because this performance is nothing short of terrible, really. His interpretation of Cogburn is banal and boring, and his vocal choices are so off pitched and annoying that he's consistently inaudible. Even more sad to see that the Academy will did a grave injustice by pushing Mark Wahlberg's severely underrated performance outta the ring in favor for Bridges' stupid shenanigans. But seriously -- why is their no love or endorsement for Wahlberg's work? And how can the Academy toss noms to the film everywhere else but neglect the central player? He is the rock solid anchor of The Fighter, and the film (as well as the other great performances) wouldn't have worked without him in center ring ready to score a k.o.
Best Actress: I hear tell that the category is unusually strong this year with Portman-Bening at each others necks. Have only seen Portman and she is stunning, but not all that fufilling or resonant in the super baity role -- then again I need to go back and see if she holds up. At this point I really need to see Bening, and she will have no competition from Moore (who's snub isn't so shocking).
Best Supporting Actress: Okay, this is it. So first we have the three highly expected nominees (Adams, Leo, and Carter) and Jacki Weaver snuck in and surprised many, and then there was Mil- oh wait, she wasn't on the list...really?! Yes, the Academy gave a big-time snub to Ms. Mila Kunis that was out of nowhere. And it's not as if she didn't have any buzz; the woman has received nominations from GG, SAG, and other critics groups, and yet Oscar shoves her out? How many times has this happened, exactly? Maybe the Academy latched onto the hate wave that has washed over many of the online film community (which is ridiculous), or maybe it was the misplacement of another nominee; young Hailee Steinfeld. First let me say that I loved Steinfeld's performance -- it was a sharp blast of clarity in a movie that was ever so muddy -- but it's simply a lead performance/role. She suffers from Tatum O'Neal-itis; being too young for the big girls, despite being in nearly every scene/frame. I get why she was campaigned for and placed here, but at the cost of a legit supporting performance like Kunis' is just unfair and pure fraud. Still, she is a deserving nominee (acting wise) and is a welcome, deserving entry (for the lead category). But here's to Mila for providing one of the most exciting, nuanced, and freshest performances of 2010....Sage and I are together on this!
Best Supporting Actor: The most shocking thing here is the absence of Andrew Garfield (heavily endorsed by Sage), who seemed like a lock for a nomination. The film is bound to be the Best Picture, so Garfield's snub seems odd. But then comes Ruffalo (a great, reliable actor) with a nom many weren't too sure about. While I didn't "love" Bale's work, it's very memorable and he does interesting things with the character even when his character isn't the most interesting.
I'll continue in other categories soon, and with my own Fantasy Ballots.
But do you agree/disagree with me?