Best Picture

• The Artist
• Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
• The Descendants
• The Help
• Hugo
• Midnight in Paris
• Moneyball
• The Tree of Life
• War Horse

Best Director

• Woody Allen, “Midnight in Paris”
• Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”
• Terence Malick, “The Tree of Life”
• Alexander Payne, “The Descendants”
• Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”

Best Actor

• Demian Bichir, “A Better Life”
• George Clooney, “The Descendants”
• Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
• Gary Oldman, “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”
• Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”

Best Actress

• Glenn Close, “Albert Nobbs”
• Viola Davis, “The Help”
• Rooney Mara, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
• Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”
• Michelle Williams, “My Week with Marilyn”

Best Supporting Actor

• Kenneth Branagh, “My Week with Marilyn”
• Jonah Hill, “Moneyball”
• Nick Nolte, “Warrior”
• Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”
• Max Von Sydow, “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close”

Best Original Screenplay

• The Artist
• Bridesmaids
• Margin Call
• Midnight in Paris
• A Separation

Best Adapted Screenplay

• The Descendants
• Hugo
• The Ides of March
• Moneyball
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Best Foreign Language Film

• Bullhead
• Footnote
• In Darkness
• Monsieur Lazhar
• A Separation

Best Animated Film

• A Cat in Paris
• Chico & Rita
• Kung Fu Panda 2
• Puss in Boots
• Rango

Best Documentary

• Hell and Back Again
• If a Tree Falls
• Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
• Pina
• Undefeated

Best Art Direction

• The Artist
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part 2
• Hugo
• Midnight in Paris
• War Horse

Best Costume Design

• Anonymous
• The Artist
• Hugo
• Jane Eyre
• W.E.

Best Cinematography

• The Artist
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• The Tree of Life
• War Horse

Best Editing

• The Artist
• The Descendants
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Moneyball

Best Sound Mixing

• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Moneyball
• Transformers: Dark of the Moon
• War Horse

Best Sound Editing

• Drive
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Transformers: Dark of the Moon
• War Horse

Best Visual Effects

• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
• Hugo
• Real Steel
• Rise of the Planet of the Apes
• Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Best Makeup

• Albert Nobbs
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
• The Iron Lady

Best Original Score

• The Adventures of Tintin
• The Artist
• Hugo
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• War Horse

Best Original Song

• Man or Muppet, “The Muppets”
• Real in Rio, “Rio”

Big winners

“Hugo.”  While everyone thought that “The Artist” would lead the day in nominations, Scorsese’s film bested it by one nomination.  It scored in every technical category save for makeup.  Needless to say, the Academy LOVED this movie.

“Moneyball.”  The movie saw plenty of skeptics doubting its Best Picture chances, but it scored a nomination and plenty more, popping up in Best Sound Mixing (?) and landing a coveted editing nomination.

George Clooney.  We all knew he would be nominated for Best Actor, but a double nominee thanks to his work on the screenplay for “The Ides of March.”  Interesting.  I think this just solidifies his lead.

John Williams.  So basically, when Spielberg decides to make another movie, Williams gets out his tux and prepares for the Oscars.  Two scores nominated this year, no biggie.

Looking precarious

“The Artist.”  Its presumed frontrunner status took a hit today as it finished one nomination shy of “Hugo.”  Sure, it was nominated everywhere it could be reasonably expected to, but it needs to keep winning precursors to keep the momentum going.

“The Descendants.”  It was nominated for Best Editing, which was a necessary nomination if it wanted to seriously contend for Best Picture.  So that was good.  But with the Shailene Woodley snub, its nomination count was only five – and it’s sure to lose Best Editing and Best Director.  That doesn’t exactly scream Best Picture to me.

Big losers

“Drive.”  Albert Brooks’ omission from Best Supporting Actor meant that the critically acclaimed film only popped up in Best Sound Editing.  Ouch.

“The Help.”  I think the movie just lost its chance to win Best Picture.  Sure, it scored three acting nominations, but it didn’t receive a single technical notice (and its a period piece).  Tate Taylor missed out on both Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay nominations, which really stings.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.”  It missed nominations for Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay while still scoring the same nomination count as “The Descendants.”   I think the Rooney Mara nomination was the equivalent of a Best Picture nomination for this movie.

Motion capture.  It’s 2012 and the Academy still hates motion capture.  Despite winning the Golden Globe and PGA award for Best Animated Feature, “The Adventures of Tintin” was not nominated in the category at the Oscars.  And it was directed by Steven Spielberg nonetheless!  The debate rages on about whether motion capture is the death of movies and whether it is even animation to begin with.

“Project Nim.”  The favorite to win Best Documentary going into the nominations doesn’t even get a nomination – now what?

Big surprises

Nine Best Picture nominees.  I personally didn’t think the Academy would see 2011 as all that great of a year in film, but I guess I was wrong.

Best Actor.  When the nominations were read, the first name read was Demian Bichir – who really shouldn’t have been that shocking given that he was a SAG nominee.  But I thought that was all the shock we would get … and then they snubbed Michael Fassbender and threw a nomination to Gary Oldman for “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy!”  What an emotional rollercoaster (for 30 seconds).

“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.”  It was nice that the Academy caught on and stopped announcing the nominees in alphabetical order because it really kept the suspense taut during the reading.  The graphic made it look like there would be eight nominees, and then … flying out of nowhere, it’s … “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close?!”  The movie everyone wrote off all awards season?  What a comeback!

“War Horse” comes back to life.  Some people thought it might miss out on a Best Picture nominee, but it had a strong showing today.  It netted six nominations including Best Art Direction and Best Cinematography, aspects not rewarded with nominations by their respective guilds.  Maybe there’s enough life for a craft win.

Only two nominations in Best Original Song.  So now whoever loses is ACTUALLY the loser.

Jessica Chastain.  Not for the reason you would expect – the Academy graphic when they announced her nomination was not a picture of her in “The Help,” her nominated performance, but rather in “The Tree of Life.”  Oops.

Best Picture

1. The Artist
2. The Descendants
3. The Help
4. Hugo
5. Midnight in Paris
6. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
7. War Horse
8. The Tree of Life
9. Moneyball
10. Bridesmaids

I’m feeling only six Best Picture nominees this year.  (For those who don’t know about the new rules and regulations of the category, the Best Picture field is now an elastic number of nominees between five and ten.  In order to be nominated for Best Picture, a movie needs to receive at least five percent of the number one votes.)  The top five are very obvious.

I would say “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” takes the sixth spot because it’s the only other plausible nominee with enough guild support (sorry “Bridesmaids”).  If we learned anything from 2010, it was that the guilds still win out in the end.  ”War Horse” has been far too silent on the guild front and hasn’t made nearly enough money to be a smashing success.  Plus, there’s an opportunity – and a likelihood – that they can give him another Oscar win in the Best Animated Feature category for “The Adventures of Tintin.” “The Tree of Life” has the critical support, but I don’t think that’s enough to break it into this race.  Oscar voters aren’t critics.

Best Director

1. Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”
2. Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”
3. Alexander Payne, “The Descendants”
4. Woody Allen, “Midnight in Paris”
5. David Fincher, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

The top three are rock solid locks.  Woody Allen seems very inevitable given the widespread love for his movie and that the directors have nominated him six times before.  The last slot could go any number of ways – Fincher like the DGA picked, Malick like every critic proclaimed from the rooftop, Spielberg if “War Horse” actually makes a strong showing, or maybe even Tate Taylor if they really love “The Help.”

Looking at history, the lone director slot comes when there’s a particularly unknown director for a well-liked movie: Joe Wright missing for “Atonement,” Jonathan Dayton/Valerie Faris missing for “Little Miss Sunshine,” Marc Forster missing for “Finding Neverland,” and Gary Ross for “Seabiscuit.”  So I think it’s safe to say that the vulnerable director of a leading movie is Tate Taylor.  But who gets the slot?

I would say look to the DGA, but looking over their nominees, they do a better job of picking the Best Picture five than they do picking Best Director.  So thus I glean from their slate that “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has the strength to crack the Best Picture field, but Fincher might not necessarily show up here again.  My brain says go with Malick since lone director nominees usually represent far-out, well-directed artsy films.  But my gut says Fincher gets it, if for no other reason that Hollywood seems to have found its new anointed golden director and just wants to shower him with awards for everything.

Best Actor

1. George Clooney, “The Descendants”
2. Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”
3. Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
4. Michael Fassbender, “Shame”
5. Leonardo DiCaprio, “J. Edgar”

Best Actor is, on the whole, a very conservative category.  Save the occasional Tommy Lee Jones for “In the Valley of Elah” or Javier Bardem for “Biutiful,” it almost always unfolds according to plan – no matter how boring that plan may be.  So yes, I still pick Michael Fassbender for “Shame” even though there has been some skepticism raised recently.  And yes, I will even defend Leonardo DiCaprio who stars in what will surely be one of the most maligned movies of 2011 to receive an Oscar nomination.  This year, he accumulated the three most important precursor nominations.  And he managed to get nominated in 2006 even when he had two performances in play.  They like him, and I think that (unfortunately) they’ll probably reward him with another nomination.

Best Actress

1. Viola Davis, “The Help”
2. Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”
3. Michelle Williams, “My Week with Marilyn”
4. Tilda Swinton, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
5. Rooney Mara, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

Yes, even though she missed with the BFCA and SAG, I have confidence that the late surge of support for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” can net a nomination for Rooney Mara over Glenn Close.  I don’t think “Albert Nobbs” has much buzz about it anymore, and even though they like Glenn Close, there are a lot of quotients that Mara would fill.  She’s under 30 and hasn’t been nominated before; you have to go back to 1994 to find a year where the Best Actress category was all prior nominees.  Thus, I rest my case and cross my fingers.

Best Supporting Actor

1. Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”
2. Albert Brooks, “Drive”
3. Kenneth Branagh, “My Week with Marilyn”
4. Jonah Hill, “Moneyball”
5. Armie Hammer, “J. Edgar”

I only feel sure of the top pick Plummer; the next three are fairly vulnerable; the fifth spot could go any number of ways.  I still can’t predict Nolte for “Warrior,” and maybe it’s because I can’t separate my dislike of the movie from the nomination process.  I just don’t think the performance was good, and I’m hopeful that the Academy will validate my opinion.  It could be Brad Pitt as a double nominee for “The Tree of Life;” it could be Ben Kingsley sneaking in for “Hugo;” it could be SAG nominee Armie Hammer for “J. Edgar.”  When in doubt, go with SAG, I guess.

Best Supporting Actress

1. Octavia Spencer, “The Help”
2. Berenice Bejo, “The Artist”
3. Jessica Chastain, “The Help”
4. Janet McTeer, “Albert Nobbs”
5. Shailene Woodley, “The Descendants”

Someone else suggested the Woodley comparison to Andrew Garfield’s snub for “The Social Network,” and I’m dreading that it might be the case.  But I really have a hard time picking Melissa McCarthy for a nomination, even if she was a SAG nominee.  I just don’t see it happening.  I don’t think the performance is enough of a stand-out to break the funny woman barrier at the Oscars.  The nomination could be a symbolic vote, but I think traditional performances win the day.

Best Original Screenplay

1. Midnight in Paris
2. The Artist
3. Bridesmaids
4. Win Win
5. Beginners

This category always has some surprises up its sleeve for nomination morning, so I don’t know how confident I feel picking so close to the WGA nominations.  I think “Bridesmaids” will see the prize for its remarkable awards run here, and I think “Win Win” has built up enough steam to get in too.  ”50/50″ has the WGA nom but not much else going for it.  Some say “A Separation” takes its enormous buzz and makes a showing here, but I think the drama of choice will be “Beginners.”  Just another gut feeling.

Best Adapted Screenplay

1. The Descendants
2. Moneyball
3. The Help
4. Hugo
5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Four Best Picture nominees will be adapted, so I feel like those will make it in over some arguably “better written” or “more loved” work.  And “Moneyball” has too much acclaim and steam to ignore; it could win even if it doesn’t get a Best Picture nomination.

So that’s what I think!  What about you?  Anything you are hoping for?  Rooting against?

NOTE: Since I’ll be sitting over my computer all night, feel free to ask any questions in the comments section and I’ll give you a prompt answer!  Want to know how I feel about something?  Anything bugging you?  Something that you are DYING to know?  Sound off!

4:12 P.M.  Might as well start my predictions!  Let’s begin with the music categories.

Best Score

• Will win: Ludovic Bource, “The Artist”
• Could win: John Williams, “War Horse”

Because Bource essentially told the story of “The Artist” … but you can never have certainty with John Williams in the mix.

Best Song

• Will win: The Living Proof, “The Help”
• Could win: Masterpiece, “W.E.”

Because “The Help” is a Best Picture nominee … but you never know if they want to bring Madonna on stage.

4:40 P.M.  And the first celebrity to grace the red carpet is … Sharon Osbourne!  This calls for more predictions.

Best Foreign Film

• Will win: “A Separation”
• Could win: “In the Land of Blood and Honey”

Because “A Separation” is unanimously acclaimed as one of the best movies of the year … but you never know if they want Angelina Jolie to take the stage.

Best Animated Film

• Will win: “Rango”
• Could win: “The Adventures of Tintin”

Because “Rango” has the momentum in the first year where Pixar hasn’t had a major contender in history … but you never know if they want Steven Spielberg to take the stage.

5:00 P.M.  Time for the REAL red carpet to begin … which means time for REAL predictions!

Best Supporting Actress

• Will win: Berenice Bejo, “The Artist”
• Could win: Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

This could be where Spencer pulls away from the pack and uses the momentum from her BFCA win to coast to the podium at the Oscars. But I don’t think it will be resolved that simply – watch out for Bejo to slip in on vote splitting.

Best Supporting Actor

• Will win: Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”
• Could win: Albert Brooks, “Drive”

It’s Plummer all the way. And well deserved, too. No one is going to stop him.

5:13 P.M.  Ryan Seacrest asks, “Why are the Golden Globes fun?”  George Clooney replies, “Because people get drunk and make funny speeches.”

5:18 P.M.  Dan says he’s looking forward to the night’s festivities because of who Ricky Gervais is going to offend.  Aren’t we all?

5:20 P.M.  I see a TV spot for “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” which makes me excited for Friday.  Do I care that it is up for zero Golden Globes?  Answer: no.

5:25 P.M.  I see Melissa McCarthy and her husband, the air marshal!  Time for the comedy acting categories … but not before a great clip from “Bridesmaids!”

Best Actress – Musical/Comedy

• Will win: Michelle Williams, “My Week with Marilyn”
• Could win: Kristin Wiig, “Bridesmaids”

Michelle Williams, in what is definitely a dramatic performance, has the clear leg up on the competition here. A Wiig surprise could conceivably happen if only because of all the “Bridesmaids” love, but if the HFPA couldn’t be bothered to nominated Melissa McCarthy, I don’t think they’ll give the movie’s unsung hero a trophy.

Best Actor – Musical/Comedy

• Will win: Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
• Could win: Owen Wilson, “Midnight in Paris”

I don’t see how this could go any other way – perhaps the HFPA will love “Midnight in Paris” more than “The Artist,” but it’s hard to argue that Owen Wilson gave a better performance than Dujardin. I’d also love to see a Gordon-Levitt surprise, but that’s not very likely.

5:36 P.M.  Rooney Mara has arrived, looking 100% Erica Albright and 0% Lisbeth Salander!

5:45 P.M.  Octavia Spencer is so great; I’ll be so happy if she wins.  Let’s continue with my predictions for Best Director and Best Screenplay.

Best Screenplay

• Will win: “The Descendants”
• Could win: “Midnight in Paris”

The adapted screenplay always seems to have the leg up in this category (all but two originals have won since 2000) at the Globes, which clumps all scripts together while the Academy divides. The HFPA loves Woody Allen, sure, but they usually take the brains here. I’m picking Payne and company for “The Descendants” because it seems to be the most mutually and unilaterally praised writing of the year.

Best Director

• Will win: Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”
• Could win: Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”

Conventional wisdom says never predict a split, but let’s not forget that the Golden Globes are celebrity butt-kissers who will do anything short of bribery – no, wait, they fell for that – to get them to the ceremony and maybe to the stage. They love Scorsese, awarding him Best Director in 2002 when his movie didn’t win Best Picture and again in 2006 when his movie did. The Globes aren’t afraid to split picture-director either; they’ve done it four times since 2000. So who knows? They have a chance to really shape the Oscar narrative here, so I’m definitely the most intrigued by the outcome of this race tonight.

5:51 P.M.  Kristen Wiig … brunette?  I see it all the time on “Saturday Night Live,” but that doesn’t make it any less strange on the red carpet.

6:00 P.M.  One hour until the show!  Here are my predictions for the dramatic acting categories:

Best Actress – Drama

• Will win: Viola Davis, “The Help”
• Could win: Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”

The brain says Streep, but the heart says Davis. Streep has won two Golden Globes in the last five years, but those were both in the comedy category where she ran virtually uncontested. I say that the Globes give something to “The Help” by copying the BFCA and rewarding Davis.

Best Actor – Drama

• Will win: George Clooney, “The Descendants”
• Could win: Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”

It’s another drama duel; I say advantage Clooney here because the HFPA fawned all over him this year, giving four nominations to his ailing “The Ides of March” when very few others did.  But they’ve thrown a curveball here before.

6:05 P.M.  Bérénice Bejo is so charming; it’s fun to watch her experiencing the awards circuit for the first time.

6:20 P.M.  Getting close to the show … here’s my take on Best Picture, Musical/Comedy.

Best Picture – Musical/Comedy

• Will win: “The Artist”
• Could win: “Midnight in Paris”

Maybe this is where “Midnight in Paris” begins to eat away at the lead of “The Artist.”  But I think that’s something that the guilds will have to do because the critics have drunk the Kool-Aid and are almost wholeheartedly behind this movie.

6:30 P.M.  30 minutes left, still in love with Mila Kunis … I guess I might as well do my final prediction!

Best Picture – Drama

• Will win: “The Descendants”
• Could win: “The Help”

What has a leading actor nomination, a directing nomination, and a screenplay nomination in this category? “The Ides of March” … and “The Descendants.” I take the latter, obviously. The Globes have really vacillated from year to year on what they reward in this category. Sometimes it’s the consensus critical favorite, like “The Social Network” or “Slumdog Millionaire.” Sometimes it’s bait, like “Atonement” or “The Aviator.” Sometimes it’s the movie that’s the biggest story, like “Avatar.” Each of these make the case for “The Help” or “Hugo” to break through here, but I still take Payne and “The Descendants.”

6:58 P.M.  Now it’s time to switch over to NBC!

7:01 P.M.  “So, where was I?” – Ricky Gervais.

7:02 P.M.  “Between Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy, they played all the parts in ‘The Help!’”

7:07 P.M.  “Are you ready, Johnny … have you seen ‘The Tourist‘ yet?”  Thank God he hasn’t let up.

7:10 P.M.  Hooray for Christopher Plummer!

7:14 P.M.  Gotta love how Tina Fey was totally photobombing while they were talking about Amy Poehler.

7:20 P.M.  Gotta love improv when the teleprompter breaks … “When was the last time you did a cold reading in front of Steven Spielberg?” – Rob Lowe

7:26 P.M.  Kate Winslet wins another Golden Globe, this time on the television side.  That’s three career trophies, for those keeping score at home.

7:28 P.M.  “Hugo” and “Midnight in Paris” are the first Best Picture nominees to be presented … winners?

7:33 P.M.  Jeremy Irons is seriously creepy with his hand rubbing the president of the HFPA’s shoulder.

7:35 P.M.  “You don’t need to thank your family who have done nothing for this; just thank two, your agent and God.” – Ricky Gervais

7:35 P.M.  “She defacated in a sink – which is probably much less demeaning than what most of you have done to get in show business.” – Ricky Gervais on Melissa McCarthy

7:45 P.M.  Jimmy Fallon has a whole lot of energy…

7:46 P.M.  That’s one for “The Artist!”  A well deserved win for Best Score!

7:50 P.M.  Called it, should have predicted it … they definitely just wanted Madonna up on stage.  Best Song winners at the Golden Globes have a pretty dismal track record at the Oscars though.  Since 2004, only ONE winner has even been nominated at the Academy Awards!

8:00 P.M.  “Hello, I’m Seth Rogen and I’m currently trying to conceal a massive erection [while standing next to Kate Beckinsale].”

8:02 P.M.  A well-deserved win for Michelle Williams, but I’m glad Seth Rogen called out the movie for being “a side-splitting comedy.”  Loved the shout-out to her daughter in the speech.

8:04 P.M.  Shout out to Steven Flores who aired his disgust with Madonna winning.  Here’s my question: where were the Muppets?

8:09 P.M.  Miles Finch!

8:11 P.M.  I googled Martin Henderson for you.

8:12 P.M.  Gotta love George Clooney being so playful with Brad Pitt.  ”I have to return the cane otherwise he can’t make it to the bar.”

8:14 P.M.  Hooray for “Tintin!”  Glad I was wrong!

8:15 P.M.  Who would have thought Spielberg would be giving a speech for “The Adventures of Tintin” as opposed to “War Horse” a few months ago?  Gotta love how conventional wisdom turns out so wrong sometimes.

8:23 P.M.  WOW!  YES!  WOODY ALLEN FOR “MIDNIGHT IN PARIS!!!!!!!!!”  ON WE GO TO THE OSCARS!

8:27 P.M.  ^ Could not be happier to be wrong!  I guess with this and the BFCA win, we can sew up this category for Woody!

8:33 P.M.  And Best Foreign Film goes to “A Separation.”  We have our Oscar front-runner, and it’s looking pretty unstoppable.

8:35 P.M.  I’d like to point out that Claire Danes has now also won three Golden Globes.  Yes, that’s as many as Kate Winslet.

8:47 P.M.  It’s Octavia Spencer!  Looks like she’s headed full steam ahead for an Oscar!!

8:49 P.M.  Classy speech, clutch quote of MLK.  Would have liked to have heard more substance and fewer names to help her make the case for an Oscar.

8:56 P.M.  A fitting standing ovation for a living legend, Sidney Poitier.

9:03 P.M.  Good heavens, Morgan Freeman has been in so many incredible movies.  And has been incredible in nearly all of them.  Just wow.

9:10 P.M.  Ricky Gervais has been much too tame, and absent.

9:13 P.M.  What’s with Best Director being presented before acting awards now?  I don’t like it.

9:14 P.M.  Called Scorsese.  I know have to wonder if “The Artist” is at risk now; Hazanavicius is for sure.  The DGA is going to make a huge difference now in the Best Picture race.  Maybe it’s a split year?  Who knows?!

9:16 P.M.  Looks like someone just pulled a Melissa Leo…

9:25 P.M.  Jean Dujardin, very nice.

9:27 P.M.  A very nice speech considering that he doesn’t speak English!  I loved the Douglas Fairbanks bit at the end!  And I could get used to hearing this theme all awards season.

9:34 P.M.  “What you don’t know about [Colin Firth] is that he’s extremely racist.” – Ricky Gervais

9:35 P.M.  Meryl Streep!  Wow, this is going to make for a very interesting year in Best Actress!

9:39 P.M.  “When Ricky Gervais’ deal fell through and they came to me to play Margaret Thatcher…” followed by a bleeped-out curse … followed by her listing off every single female performance of the year except Michelle Williams … followed by George Clooney passing up her glasses … followed by her referring to Harvey Weinstein as “God” and “The Punisher” … followed by music … followed by a shout out to Viola Davis.  If this wasn’t Meryl Streep, this would bode ill for her Oscar chances.

9:41 P.M.  Best Picture for “The Artist.”  Onto the Oscars, maybe … not if unenthused Piper Perabo has anything to say about it.

9:43 P.M.  OH MY GOD UGGIE!!!!!!!!!  Ok, I’m sold.  This can win Best Picture if the dog gets to come on stage.

9:48 P.M.  And I’m still in love with Natalie Portman…

9:48 P.M.  George Clooney!  If it couldn’t be Fassbender, then definitely him!

9:50 P.M.  A very nice but short speech, very poised.  With this and BFCA, I think we can seal this race for him.

9:56 P.M.  And the main challenger for “The Artist” is … “The Descendants!”

9:57 P.M.  Now THIS makes for an interesting race!  Especially if “The Help” takes the SAG ensemble like most expect it to, we could be looking at a 2006 scenario where three movies have a legitimate claim to be called the favorite.  WOOHOO OSCAR SEASON!

9:59 P.M.  Well, folks, that ends my coverage.  ”The Artist” ruled the night with three wins; “The Descendants” and “The Help” were close behind with two victories each.  ”Hugo” took Best Director and “Midnight in Paris” took screenplay, making a number of categories nail-biters up until the envelope is opened at the Kodak Theater!

While I’m always urging filmmakers to push the envelope, sometimes it can be nice to see a movie that takes no risks and is proud of it.  Provided that the movie is pleasant, easygoing, light and breezy like a Sunday stroll in the park, these movies can be a real treat to sit back, relax, and enjoy.  Very few movies get my “Sunday stroll” certification, and “My Week with Marilyn” earns it with ease.

It’s a little more serious than the usual stroll, it’s a great deal of fun to watch largely because of how easily Michelle Williams totally loses herself in the persona of Marilyn Monroe.  She effortlessly brings to life the charm, the sultriness, and the seduction of the actress, making us wonder if we’re falling in love with Monroe all over again – or Williams for the first time.  While she has shocked in “Blue Valentine” and riveted in “Brokeback Mountain,” Williams has shied away from endearing and glamorous characters.  Yet with Marilyn Monroe, it provides the perfect marriage of her stunning, red-carpet looks and grace with her remarkable ability to plumb the depths of tortured and confused women.

The script by Adrian Hodges gives Williams an ample base to build her interpretation of Monroe without constraining her artistic decisions.  She may spout some lines we would expect the famed actress to say, but he thankfully realizes that the majority of the performance would come from her physicality and the bubbling psychological torment she builds up so deftly.  It’s a perfect blend of understated and flashy that will make you want to spend a week with Marilyn.

Indeed, a week is all that young Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), the upstart and ambitious 23-year-old who lands a job working on Laurence Olivier’s lastest film, gets to spend in love and longing with Marilyn.  When marital tensions with her husband, playwright Arthur Miller, begin to threaten her work in “The Prince and the Showgirl,” she looks to young Colin for that puppy love to get her through.  Despite everyone telling not to be beguiled, including her staff, Olivier himself (Kenneth Branagh), and his conscience which tells him that he cares for costume designer Lucy (Emma Watson), he decides to let himself fall.

Playing out behind this love story are a number of interesting subplots, namely Laurence Olivier, played with accuracy and love by Kenneth Branagh, as he faces his own inadequacies as an actor when confronted with Marilyn’s talent.  His total lack of patience with the entire production reduces the fabled actor to his inner whiny child, which makes for quite an amusing watch.  Judi Dench as veteran actress Sybil Thorndike also makes for good fun in her few scenes.

The movie feels a little slight, sure, but it never has any pretensions of seeming so.  From the first slightly out-of-place musical number, it declares that the movie is not about Colin, the character whom the narrative revolves around, but about Marilyn Monroe.  ”My Week with Marilyn” mostly just exists as a frame for Michelle Williams’ performance.  But hey, it’s not all too bad looking of a frame.  B / 

Dujardin, often said to be the French equivalent of George Clooney, stars as Hubert Bonissieur de la Bath – code name OSS 117.  In 1955, he’s sent to investigate the death of fellow agent and close (perhaps too close) friend Jack in Cairo, where he stumbles into a web of international espionage involving Egyptians, British, Russians, and Nazis with a very personal score to settle.  He also has to deal with women fawning all over him, including his femme fatale escort Larmina El Akmar Betouche, played with charm by Bejo.  Together, and at times separately, they work to get to the bottom of Jack’s murder with intrigue and hilarity following them always.

Hazanavicius is an incredibly astute observer of style, and much like “The Artist” felt like a movie straight out of the 1920s, “OSS 117″ feels like pure 1960s campy fun.  The difference is in the approach – while the early Bond movies were cool but unconsciously a little corny, this movie is unabashedly and fully intentional in their ridiculousness.  OSS 117 is an outrageous character, as clumsy and bumbling as he is suave.  He spends more time insulting Larmina’s culture and customs than he does wooing her, yet she’s totally seduced nonetheless.  Hazanavicius toys with our preconceived notions of the genre in such clever and crafty ways, subverting them so effectively and often that I doubt I’ll ever watch a Bond movie in the same way.

While I’m definitely open to people finding innovative new ways to approach the tired and typical de rigueur biopic, screenwriter Abi Morgan’s solution doesn’t give us an overview of Thatcher so much as it gives us her opinion of Thatcher.  By anchoring the movie in her declining years as she suffers from Alzheimer’s and the resultant hallucinations of her deceased husband Dennis (Jim Broadbent), “The Iron Lady” starts with the proposition that Margaret Thatcher is crazy.  Director Phyllida Lloyd then complements this by giving these scenes the ambience of paranoid thriller as she slips in and out of reality, all the while wondering if her caretakers will take her away from home.

Then, once her spacey unreliability has been established, they begin the voyage into her storied past from her days as Margaret Roberts, the grocer’s daughter, to her rise in the Conservative Party all the way to the top position as Margaret Thatcher.  The structure barely works as it stands because it shifts so abruptly, giving the movie the same uneven and rough feel that Lloyd bequeathed to her film adaptation of “Mamma Mia.”  But the worst part is that, whether it came from Morgan’s script or Lloyd’s direction, the voices don’t go away and Thatcher is made out to be crazy even when she was totally in her right mind.

Apparently, just being conservative classifies you as a looney in this movie’s universe.  Thatcher’s accomplishments as a woman and a leader are substantial, but you would never know she was the British counterpart to Ronald Reagan because the movie is so busy framing her as crazy and a failed wife and mother.  Her successes are really only highlighted in a montage, yet her failures and shortcomings are explored in much more detail.  Granted it probably happens all the time in politics nowadays, but what does it say about Thatcher’s success if to become Prime Minister, she needs to totally change her image?  How is it a victory for women if Thatcher wins by making herself more appealing and less true?

The only victory of the movie, it would appear, is Meryl Streep in yet another incredible performance.  It’s unfair to judge her by her own standards – which are to the sky – but it certainly falls short of the power of Sister Aloysius in “Doubt” or the effortless inhabitation of Julia Child in “Julie & Julia.”  Nevertheless, it is still unbelievable how she slides into Thatcher’s persona, both as her resolved younger self and her fragile older self (with the help of some very skilled make-up artists).  She nails Thatcher’s strength and accent, making her hobbling frailty all the more frightening.

Yet undermining her constantly are the direction, which feels halfheartedly committed to its own calculations, and the script, at odds with Streep’s fair and careful portrayal.  For instance, Morgan seems to insinuate that since Thatcher was honest and frank with her colleagues, she deserves to be classified as the dreaded B-word.  But Streep doesn’t think so; she just sees Thatcher as someone deeply convicted in the need for efficacy and candor.  However, Streep has to read Morgan’s words, resulting in a muddled mess of a character.  The Iron Lady herself deserves better, and hopefully someone will revisit her story and give her a chance.  C- / 

One of the best compliments I can give “War Horse” is that it feels like Robert Zemeckis’ “Forrest Gump,” just following a smart horse instead of a dumb man.  Both films are among the best cinematic examples of cinematic historical fiction, showing the way things were through unique perspectives that make us rethink how we ourselves see them.  They extoll the power of one good, pure-hearted soul to intertwine us all into a common destiny – and then throw in beautiful landscapes, gorgeous sunsets, and a poignant score by maestro John Williams.

By now, you’ve probably heard all the main talking points on this movie.  Detractors decry it for being all schmaltz and sentimentality, as if they were so far below Spielberg.  Fans love it for its warmth and touching narrative, as if Spielberg had lost his mojo since “Schindler’s List.”  Basically, they just found different ways to react to same thing: this is a movie designed to tug on your heartstrings in thinly-veiled manipulation using old-time technique and sensibility.

You can choose to either judge this movie on principle or on execution; I choose the latter as the movie is unapologetically and unabashedly what it is, and that’s totally fine with me.  Where it becomes an issue, though, is when it falls just short of the lofty expectations it sets for itself.  Granted, it’s a little unfair to judge Steven Spielberg against his own work, which contains many of the modern masterpieces of our time, but it lacks both the visceral and the emotional intensity of his previous films that “War Horse” can’t help but harken back to.

Don’t let the title fool you; this is a two-and-a-half hour movie about a horse with war merely a backdrop.  (Less than ten minutes of the film actually feature combat, so don’t come in expecting “Saving Private Ryan.”)  Yet while it has little to do with war itself, it has everything do with the humanity at stake in tense situations such as war.  The movie affirms perhaps the quintessential Spielbergian value: no matter when two sides spar, we are all tied together by a common thread of dignity and caring.  In these moments, what we need to do is communicate.  Often times, we don’t realize that this is what we need to solve our problems – something else has to remind us.  In “War Horse,” that something is Joey, the horse who must embark on a journey that would make Odysseus cower.

He begins befriending teenaged Albert (Jeremy Irvine), a bond that proves to be durable in that way only possible in the real of cinema.  While Joey may save the family farm, he still gets sold to the British military at the outset of the Great War for additional income.  Joey sees it all, from the Allies to the Central Powers, hope for a quick resolution to disillusionment at its entrenched stalemate, passing from human to human and inspiring soul-searching and sparking discussion.  He changes the lives of everyone he meets, though not always for the better, all the while maintaing a firm resolve to return home to Albert.

Spielberg crafts a film where the horse doesn’t merely provide the spark for a human journey but is actually a character in his own right.  He has complex emotions, not just expressions of primal needs like eating, and it’s remarkable how the direction can make us feel them without ever making Joey feel like a ridiculous cartoon or implausibly magical.  Whether it’s E.T. or Joey, Spielberg sure does know how to bring out our most human qualities by showing them in something else.

And how interesting that Joey also speaks to a very 2011/2012 theme, both in cinemas and in America: out with the old, in with the new is a rather demoralizing philosophy.  In World War I, the old cavalry charge was being replaced with the tanks and gas weapons, which looked like a way to ensure a swifter, more efficient victory.  However, as history tells us and Spielberg shows us, this was not the case; it merely made it possible to kill more people while making even more minimal gains.  The lush greens and gorgeous countrysides of the first act in 1914 make the gray, muddy no-mans-land in 1918 all the more depressing and affecting at the end of the film.

Perhaps the most frightening scene in the film is when Joey is trapped between a wall of barbed wire and an encroaching iron tank.  In Hollywood, it’s 3D, motion capture, shooting digital, and video game culture pushing filmmakers and auteurs back towards obsolescence.  In American culture as a whole, it’s Facebook, email, and the overall digitalization of life pinning us against a fate of unbearable obliviousness.  Yet when Joey leaps over the tank and begins a mad dash towards safety, it’s an empowering moment as we all hope that the old can survive against the pernicious onslaught of the new.

Yet “War Horse,” for some reason, never packs the emotional punch equivalent to its wide lens and sweeping storyline.  It comes sappy and sweet, sure, but it feels disproportionate in power to the rest of the film.  Much can be attributed to the script, which falls into some hackneyed traps for obvious emotional goading.  When Spielberg cues up his music, shows the fecundity of the English fields, and sends Joey galloping across the screen, you can sense him asking or begging you to feel – an offer you can refuse.  But even if you choose to stonewall his requests, or simply fail to be moved on the scope he intends, the incredible Spielberg bravura will still stun and awe on a very high level.  B+ / 

Enjoy the latest movies on the latest hi-def TVs; browse the range available at Tesco Direct.

It’s slightly disingenuous to make a film all about the magic of the movies and then have little to offer itself in the way of enchantment, but that’s what Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” is – take it or leave it.  His ode to the pioneering days of cinema, when trailblazers like the Lumière Brothers began making movies and Georges Méliès invented special effects, is definitely heartfelt and powerful enough to awaken plenty of latent nostalgia.  However, his movie serves as a better tribute to their genius than it does as an equally majestic film deserving to stand alongside them in the annals of history.

What I left the theater being nostalgic for was “Goodfellas” and “The Departed” and “Gangs of New York.”  While I certainly admire Scorsese for taking on a radically different project, and good for Paramount to give him $150 million to realize this passion of his, I missed the bullet-riddled, F-bomb filled director that I’ve come to love.  It’s a very finely crafted movie, clearly the work of an expert like Scorsese.  All of the below-the-line elements are as good as ever with his usual suspects – editor Thelma Schoonmaker, costume designer Sandy Powell, production designer Dante Ferretti, and cinematographer Robert Richardson – returning to whisk us away to a train station in 1930s Paris with astounding precision.

While all that craftsmanship will likely win over Academy voters, it wins little more than my admiration and respect.  While there are plenty of things to praise about “Hugo,” its ability to evoke the childlike sense of wonder of watching a movie is not one of them, and this is where the crew could have swept in and delivered.  Not even the much heralded 3D – which I found to be rather ordinary – made me stop and surrender totally to the movie.

I think the uneven, choppy script by John Logan is the root of the movie’s issues.  While it works in bits and pieces, the story seems to ramble off in strange directions when it should be focused on the main narrative of young, orphaned Hugo Cabret and his quest to find his purpose in the mechanism of life.  The events of the train station are amusing, sure, but they feel like cutting-room floor material or DVD extras expanding on bit parts we don’t have time to see much.  Then, he quickly changes gears to focus less on the characters and more on crafting the most expensive and preachy PSA ever made … and it’s for film preservation.  I will be the first person to argue for the importance of film in capturing our history and our culture, but this seems like hardly the time or place to bring up the issue.

Indeed, the children’s movie format allows Scorsese to be incredibly didactic and less artistic about bringing up the need to preserve film, something that irked me as it felt like I was immersed only to be inculcated.  He practically crafts himself a surrogate in Michael Stuhlbarg’s film historian, René Tabard.  Given the incredible canon of films he has directed, surely such a lowball emotional ploy could have been more cleverly presented.  But perhaps “Hugo” signals a new Scorsese – older and more willing to scream his values from the rooftoop.

Nonetheless, this gentler Scorsese does know how to make one heck of a kids movie, mixing the entertaining with the thought-provoking and moral quite daftly.  Hugo (Asa Butterfield), the movie-loving clock-fixer, befriending Isabelle (Chloe Moretz) is one of the – dare I say – sweeter companionships I’ve seen in movies geared toward younger audiences.  He teaches her to marvel at the movies too, and soon, their passion and ingenuity will resurrect the disillusioned filmmaker Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) from his self-imposed moratorium on cinema after World War I.  He grapples with very adult themes in a way that doesn’t insult them by dumbing them down but makes them relatable and understandable in more sentimental terms, so calling “Hugo” a kids movie almost seems to miss the point.

Oh, and they also run away from a dim-witted train inspector played with headache-inducing inaneness by Sacha Baron Cohen (yes, Brüno and Borat).  If Scorsese wants to keep making movies like this, I just ask that he find the magic and dump Cohen in a straight-to-DVD “Home Alone” sequel where his cartoonish antics belong.  B / 

If the sheer bliss of being transported back to a simpler era like Owen Wilson in “Midnight in Paris” (minus the reality check at the end) doesn’t get you, then the sheer charm of the movie is bound to make you weak at the knees.  Between the wonderfully emotional story, the jaunty score by Ludovic Bource, and the magnetic and charismatic performances of the lead actors, Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo, the undeniable heart of the movie will register with you on some deep, emotional level at least in fleeting moments.  For me, the “Waltz for Peppy” sequence is one of the most beautiful, touching scenes committed to film in recent memory, ranking in the pantheon with the postcards scene from “Benjamin Button” and the wedding sequence from “Up in the Air.”

You can’t refute the passionate love behind crafting “The Artist;” however, you may be able to resist falling passionately in love with it.  The movie’s simplicity and breeziness, while a main component in making sure the film’s silent strategy works, also leaves a bit of longing for something more.  While there are moments where Hazanavicius exhibits a Charlie Kaufman-esque flair for the meta, overall, the movie lacks a great spark of originality in its plot.  At times, it settles for clever homages to movies like “Singing in the Rain” and loving winks to classics like “Vertigo” where it could have forged its own trail.

But the idea to make a silent film in the age of big, booming blockbusters is original enough to work and please me!  Had the tale been as interesting as the technology, “The Artist” would be an A+, best of all time movie.  But I’m perfectly fine just saying that for a little over 90 minutes, I embarked on a nifty, fun journey that was pure-hearted cinematic joy.  To dwell in a time where a man and a woman couldn’t kiss on screen (see the Hays Code), so innocuous and innocent, was blissfully transporting.

It wouldn’t be nearly such a bon voyage - a good journey, as translated literally in the native French of “The Artist” – without the wildly funny and endearing characters created by Dujardin and Bejo.  As star-crossed movie stars, Dujardin’s George Valentin is on his way down in the talkie era, refusing to embrace the technology because of pride and stubbornness, while Bejo’s Peppy Miller is on her way up thanks to a can-do spirit and her willingness to adapt.  She’s a ball of spunk and charisma who will have your heart just as soon as you look at her, while he’s a well-meaning showboat whose prickly ego often gets in the way of his good intentions.  Both are totally convincing silent-era figures, just as Dujardin and Bejo feel like naturals in the pre-1927 acting style.  They find the balance between naturalism and sensationalism, giving us enough entertainment to stay riveted but never going so over the top that the ridiculousness makes us doubt the film’s veracity.

There’s also the matter of George’s scene-stealing canine companion, played by Uggie, who gives the single greatest animal performance on screen ever.  I know I said that about Cosmo in “Beginners” six months ago, but little did I know that “The Artist” was going to come around and make a dog the most lovable character of the year, registering more awwws than I thought were possible.  How Hazanavicius coached such a great performance out of Uggie, I have no idea, just like I have no idea how he made a full-throttle silent movie work so seamlessly.  No matter how he managed it, I’m so glad he did.  A- / 

“The funny thing about winning an Academy Award is that this will always be synonymous with my name from here on in.  It will be Oscar-winner George Clooney, Sexiest Man Alive 1997, Batman died in a freak accident…”

- George Clooney accepting the Academy Award for “Syriana,” 2006

“I grew up in a place called Alcobendas where this was not a very realistic dream.  And always on the night of the Academy Awards, I stayed up to watch the show.  And I always felt that this ceremony was a moment of unity for the world because art – in any form – is, has been, and will always be our universal language.”

- Penélope Cruz accepting the Academy Award for “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” 2009

“Did I really earn this, or did I just wear y’all down?”

- Sandra Bullock accepting the Academy Award for “The Blind Side,” 2010

Why the Oscars?  Why the attention?

I had planned a whole, in-depth analysis here … but then I got sick today.  I want to get something up, so let me lead off with this: the Oscars are about setting the tone for an industry.  It’s about making and rewarding careers.  It’s about celebrating the best of an industry.  It’s about capturing a moment in time, reminding future generations of what the year meant to those who lived through it.

Revised Predictions

Best Picture

1. The Artist
2. The Descendants
3. The Help
4. War Horse
5. Midnight in Paris
6. Hugo
7. Moneyball
8. The Tree of Life
9. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
10. Bridesmaids

As far as I’m concerned, the top six aren’t going to change.  ”Moneyball” may or may not make it in, given the passion for the movie that may or may not exist.  And “The Tree of Life” could sneak in as the top choice of many voters, but I don’t feel comfortable predicting that, nor do I think the late surge of “Dragon Tattoo” love will translate into a Best Picture nomination.

Now, onto the state of the race. It looks like 2008 all over again in the Oscar race.  The little movie that could then was “Slumdog Millionaire.”  It was a consensus critical favorite and won the BFCA (Critic’s Choice), then trumped the more conventional Globes play “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” in the drama category, and capped off its all-around sweep by taking the SAG ensemble prize without having any big stars to boast … and then pretty much every guild too just for fun.  You could say “Button” or “Milk” posed a serious threat – and “The Dark Knight” might have been a formidable foe had it not been snubbed – but everyone knew it was “Slumdog” all the way.

Similarly, in 2011, the oh-so-typical Oscar movie yet anything BUT typical “The Artist” looks about ready to lap the competition.  It’s been the critical darling of the year but doen’t have the unanimity that “The Social Network” had last year.  Thus, it has become their gentle suggestion of the best movie of the year, not like the mandate that backfired last year.  It has been scoring everywhere it needs to score – a field-leading 11 nominations at the Critics Choice Awards including Best Picture (which it will most likely win), a field-leading 6 nominations at the Golden Globes including Best Picture, and 3 nominations at the SAG Awards including Best Ensemble.  Now all it needs to do is start winning things to make it undeniable.

Running closely behind is Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants,” which looks to be the “Milk” of 2011 as it seems to be the favorite for both the Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay trophies.  It could win Best Picture; indeed, it seems likely to win Best Picture in the drama category at the Golden Globes.  But in a year where nostalgia and an old-fashioned yearning for movies to take us out of our misery – not face it – could hurt this movie which is already burdened by comparisons to Payne’s last film, “Sideways.”

Then again, having a virtual monopoly on the brain vote may help “The Descendants” because the heart vote is being tugged in a number of directions.  ”The Help” makes a big case as it’s a period piece (Oscars love the past), it’s a feel-good movie (“The King’s Speech” won last year), it has real audience support ($169 million), and it has the actors behind it.  Davis and Spencer are both serious threats to win their categories, and I would definitely consider “The Help” to be the favorite for the coveted SAG ensemble prize.  Given how well-acted the movie is down to its core, this may be the movie that rallies the biggest branch of the Academy.  But if “The Artist” wins that award, I would consider the race to be pretty much over.

There’s also the case to be made for “Hugo,” which harkens back to the pioneering days of moviemaking, and “War Horse,” which reminds all who see it of the weepy sentimentality and soaring scopes of a John Ford picture.  But with neither making blockbuster cash and neither getting a single nomination from the SAG, it’s really hard to see either mounting a serious threat.  It’s particularly problematic for “War Horse” as it missed a Best Director nomination for Spielberg at the Globes and a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination with the WGA.  Spielberg’s legendary status will likely get him into the Best Director field at the Oscars, but not having a screenplay nomination will be problematic.  Not since “Titanic” in 1997 has a movie won Best Picture without having a nominated screenplay, and only once in the last 10 years did the Best Picture winner not also win a Best Screenplay Oscar.

The acting thing is also an issue as it’s pretty rare for a movie to win Best Picture without an acting nomination.  The last time two times it happened was with “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” – both of which had the actors’ support as shown by their wins in the SAG ensemble category yet were consensus favorites anyways.  The nomination may be the prize for these movies.

As a final word on the category, don’t count out “Midnight in Paris.”  It’s been flying under the radar, but it could win Best Picture in the comedy category at the Golden Globes.  Woody Allen has won the category twice before, and this is his tenth film nominated for Best Picture overall.  It’s also his fifth Best Director nomination and sixth Best Screenplay nomination.  All this talk about career rewards for Spielberg and Scorsese need to be equally focused on Woody Allen.  The movie has scored with the SAG, PGA, and WGA – so there’s no reason to take this movie lightly.

Best Director

1. Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”
2. Alexander Payne, “The Descendants”
3. Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”
4. Steven Spielberg, “War Horse”
5. Woody Allen, “Midnight in Paris”

It’s never wise to predict a split Picture-Director ticket … even when the director is as widely regarded as David Fincher, who may come into play as a dark horse for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.”  But in my mind, the top four is set with Hazanavicius, Payne, Scorsese, and Spielberg, who were all BFCA nominees (and all but Spielberg were HFPA nominees).  Woody Allen, to me, seems like the logical fifth nominee.  The director’s branch has nominated him six times, four of which were not a complement to a Best Picture nomination.  They like him, even when they don’t like his movie.  While Terrence Malick may have crafted a more ambitious, director-driven movie, I still don’t see them opting for him over Allen.

Best Actor

1. George Clooney, “The Descendants”
2. Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”
3. Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
4. Michael Fassbender, “Shame”
5. Leonardo DiCaprio, “J. Edgar”

The top three are locked in after getting nominations from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA.  Fassbender can’t be put in the same category since he missed with the SAG, the group with the most overlap with Academy voters, but he seems pretty safe given that the nomination would be a reward for his ubiquity just as much as his performance.  In addition, physical commitment to a role always plays well with the actors branch; see nominations for James Franco in “127 Hours” and Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler” as proof.  ”Last Tango in Paris,” another controversial NC-17 film, received a nomination for its leading actor back in 1973.   However, his name was Marlon Brando.

Leonardo DiCaprio, after garnering notices from all three of the major groups, would normally be considered a lock.  But here’s my hangup on predicting him: this is a category that almost always requires a quality movie behind a quality performance.  You have to look back to ten years ago when you saw a movie with a Rotten Tomatoes score below 70% – “Ali” at 67% and “I Am Sam” at a staggeringly (and unfairly) low 34%.  ”J. Edgar” currently stands at 42% on the review aggregator. Not since 2005 has anyone with nominations for BFCA, SAG, and HFPA missed an Oscar nomination in this category, and that was previous winner Russell Crowe who was up this time for “Cinderella Man.”  It also happened to Paul Giamatti for “Sideways” in 2004, the victim of Clint Eastwood coming out of nowhere and scoring a nomination thanks to the rising tide of “Million Dollar Baby.”

But if DiCaprio misses, who gets in?  Ryan Gosling is having a great year but his two performances could cancel each other out, and neither “Drive” nor “The Ides of March” seem to have much momentum.  There isn’t consensus either on which is the more deserving performance; BFCA nominated him for “Drive” while HFPA nominated him for “The Ides of March.” I feel like this is prime territory for a dark horse candidate to rise … but who will it be?  Michael Shannon for “Take Shelter?”  Joseph Gordon-Levitt for “50/50?”  Woody Harrelson for “Rampart?”  Or will SAG nominee, but still underdog, Demian Bichir capitalize on the actor’s love for his work in “A Better Life?”  Unfortunately, there’s not much opportunity for any of these candidates to gain traction in the race, so you either go smart and pick Leo here or go with a hunch.

Best Actress

1. Viola Davis, “The Help”
2. Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”
3. Michelle Williams, “My Week with Marilyn”
4. Tilda Swinton, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
5. Rooney Mara, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

For the past 15 years, the SAG field has provided a clue to at least 4 of the 5 eventual nominees for Best Actress at the Oscars.  The top four in the field – Davis, Streep, Williams, and Swinton – have all scored nominations from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA.  Then, the plot thickens. The way I see it, there are three actresses competing for that final slot.  History says go with the SAG nominee, which is Glenn Close in “Albert Nobbs.”  But Charlize Theron is also a threat for “Young Adult” after cracking the field for both the BFCA and HFPA.

And I definitely don’t think anyone can count out Golden Globe nominee Rooney Mara for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.”  People sensed the passion wasn’t there for this film, but it’s been stealthily building a healthy résumé throughout the season.  It was one of the top ten movies for the National Board of Review and the American Film Institute; this week, it was nominated by both the Producers Guild and the Writers Guild.

The movie has supporters where “Albert Nobbs,” which currently sits at 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, has few. But love from producers, directors, and critics doesn’t provide any direct aid to Mara, who must be nominated by her peers in the acting branch of the Academy.  They may be more inclined to vote for Glenn Close because she’s a five-time nominee who worked tirelessly for three decades to get this story on screen, whereas Mara is making her first big splash (and will likely have two other chances to be nominated for this role) and Theron seems to have had her moment in the sun.

Here’s an interesting mini-trend I’ve picked up on: since 2003, only once has the Academy not included an actress under the age of 30 in the field.  Michelle Williams is now 31, so only Mara (or dark horses Felicity Jones and Elizabeth Olsen) fills this new quotient.

Best Supporting Actor

1. Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”
2. Kenneth Branagh, “My Week with Marilyn”
3. Albert Brooks, “Drive”
4. Jonah Hill, “Moneyball”
5. Brad Pitt, “The Tree of Life”

At once, this is the most solid and the most fluctuating race this year.  The frontrunner still is – and has been since June – Christopher Plummer for his incredible turn in “Beginners.”  I don’t really think anyone else has a prayer because this is both a sentimental, Lifetime Achievement Oscar (think Morgan Freeman and Alan Arkin) and a consensus pick (think Tim Robbins and Javier Bardem).  Of course, this assumes that he will steamroll to wins from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA, a scenario which I think is incredibly likely.

Branagh is the only other sure-fire nominee after scoring nominations from all three of the big organizations thus far.  Brooks also seems pretty secure, although the SAG omission raises some eyebrows since the Oscars have matched the SAG five in this category for the past two years.  I would also say that given the support for “Moneyball,” Jonah Hill seems like a decent bet after SAG and HFPA nominations.  It’s that very support and presence that I think is the X-factor for him and perhaps the nail in the coffin for Nick Nolte, whose movie “Warrior” is totally absent on the precursor scene.

As for that final slot, I’m going gusty and saying it will be Brad Pitt in “The Tree of Life.”  I don’t see why this performance can’t ride in on the coattails of his sure-fire nominated one in “Moneyball.”  And it would make Pitt both a competitor and a co-star of Jonah Hill; how awesome would that be?  Dark horse nominees, unnoticed by the big three organizations, happen in this category – look to Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road,” William Hurt in “A History of Violence,” Alan Alda in “The Aviator,” Djimon Hounsou in “In America.”  But this is a gusty pick; smart money always goes the SAG five.

Best Supporting Actress

1. Berenice Bejo, “The Artist”
2. Octavia Spencer, “The Help”
3. Jessica Chastain, “The Help”
4. Janet McTeer, “Albert Nobbs”
5. Shailene Woodley, “The Descendants”

BFCA/HFPA/SAG only agreed on Bejo, Spencer, and Chastain.  This is the only category where, to my knowledge, getting all three of these nominations does not ensure a nomination.  Last year, Mila Kunis missed for “Black Swan,” and Cameron Diaz missed in 2001 for “Vanilla Sky.”  It happens, although I’d say that that was more of a character judgement disapproving of some of their other, non-Academy friendly projects.  None of these actresses seem to be at risk for a similar fate.

I’d call Bejo the frontrunner because there might be some vote-splitting for the scene-stealing Spencer and the year-stealing ubiquitous Chastain.  If Viola Davis emerges as the one to beat for Best Actress, I would guess that the urgency to reward one of the ladies of “The Help” here will go down.

The race gets murkier beyond that, though, as the three organizations differed on how to fill those final two slots.  BFCA went Melissa McCarthy in “Bridesmaids” and Shailene Woodley in “The Descendants” (they nominate six, so Carey Mulligan was also in there for “Shame”).  SAG went McCarthy and Janet McTeer in “Albert Nobbs.”  HFPA went Woodley and McTeer.  Again, the rule is usually to follow SAG … but I just don’t think Melissa McCarthy can manage a nomination because comedic actresses just aren’t usually the Academy’s cup of tea.  I think the only precedent is Robert Downey Jr. being nominated for “Tropic Thunder,” but that was a lot more daring and probing of a performance.  McCarthy just – drains her plumbing in a sink.

McTeer disappears in her role (so I’ve heard) and Woodley is in the #2 movie of the year.  I think those are my other two.

Best Original Screenplay

1. Midnight in Paris
2. The Artist
3. Bridesmaids
4. Win Win
5. 50/50

Here is where I think the surprising “Bridesmaids” love – among the top movies feted by the AFI, SAG, HPFA, PGA, and WGA – will register.  It’s a well-written movie where the comedy is so heavily in the dialogue and the plot; while Apatow movies have yet to show up here, there has to be a first time for everything.

“Midnight in Paris” and “The Artist” are slam-dunk nominees destined to duke it out until the end, unless “The Artist” just pulls away and can’t be stopped.  I hope the WGA nominees “Win Win” and “50/50″ translate their success there into Oscar nominations, but this category could go a number of directions.  It’s hard to imagine that they would spring for a slate of five comedic nominees, but it could very well happen.

There’s a chance that “The Tree of Life,” thinly plotted as it is, will show up here.  ”Beginners” is also an option; “Margin Call” could surprise.  It was a very good year for original screenplays, so many things are fair game.

Best Adapted Screenplay

1. The Descendants
2. Moneyball
3. The Help
4. Hugo
5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

“The Descendants” is about to lap the field here; barring a huge surge for “Moneyball” (which would make Aaron Sorkin a back-to-back winner), I don’t see anything standing between Alexander Payne and a second Academy Award win in this category.

As for the rest of the field, it’s kind of a mess.  I went with the WGA five here, which subbed the surging “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” for the sagging “War Horse.”  (Funny enough, that would make Steven Zaillian nominee again in the category – the Oscars are seeing double this year!)

I think Tate Taylor, who will most likely miss for Best Director, can earn a nomination here for his work adapting “The Help.”

And while “Hugo” is a director’s movie, I don’t see why hot scribe John Logan (who also penned “Rango” and “Coriolanus” this year) can’t score a nomination.

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” ineligible at the WGA, could also sneak in for a nomination given its labyrinthine plot.  But given its total radio silence during the season, I’m seeing that as a long shot at best.

Tune in this time next week for my LIVE BLOGGING of the Golden Globes!