Swank gets another feather, but this late in the game it won't help. For that matter, none of the other choices help except Being John Malkovich for Screenplay. The backlash for BJM not getting a pic nomination could spill over to the Oscars.
History: Not much can be said, the group is relatively new at the predictions game. The CFC's record is terrible since 1996, they have predicted the eventual winner only 9 times out of 30. 4 right in 96: McDormand, Gooding Jr., Fargo for Screenplay and English Patient for Cinematography. In 97, it got worse with only three right: L.A. Confidential for screenplay and Titanic for score and cinematography. Yet further disappointing, they dropped another correct prediction in 1998 with only two: Shakespeare in Love for screenplay and Life Is Beautiful for Foreign Film. While this doesn't look good for most of their choices (Snow Falling, Sevigny and South Park [ineligible anyway]), most of the others are good bets with Being John Malkovich for screenplay and Tom Cruise for supporting actor as potential upsets. That would leave them with a record 5 right...
Some say that the Ensemble award goes to SAGs choice for best picture. I think that is quite evident this year, because the truly best ensemble was ignored (Mangolia). That said, only one of the choices is surprising and even that isn't as much so. Annette Bening takes the Actor over Hilary Swank threatening the indie-darling's chance at an Oscar. While it does dwindle it, I'm not giving up just yet. The rest all seem to be the likely Oscar winners at this point.
History: The category to watch is Actor. Every year, SAG has correctly picked the eventual Oscar winner. This could be the year it ceases, but it seems more likely that Spacey will win. Actress has the next best shot, but look at the last time it happened. Hollywood celeb Jodie Foster took the SAG award and then it went to Jessica Lange. I see the similar thing happening here. Big celebrity beats out actress in a very small film for the SAG award but the very small film'd actress takes an Oscar home...We'll see. Supporting Actor is next with only 3 out of 5 right, but with the Miramax push, Caine seems to be a good choice for winner. As for Supporting Actress, it's the definite worst of predictors getting only two out of five right. It was the first year and in 1997. I don't see it avoiding this year. Jolie has the Hollywood parent behind her like Sorvino did a few years back. Look for Voight's daughter to win this year.
No surprise and now the 90% guaranteed winner of the Oscar.
History: The DGA is incredibly accurate in their predictions. Since their inception (and barring the years they claim to have correctly predicted, but technically did not), they have only missed the Oscar winner 4 times. The last time was in 1995 when Mel Gibson surpsingly took home the award. Before that, it was '85 when Spielberg was snubbed at the Oscar nominations. Then you head back to 72 when Cabaret nearly swept the Oscars, but Coppola took the DGA. Then it was 1968 when Oliver made a surprise sweep of the awards giving Sir Carol Reed an Oscar and leaving Anthony Harvey, director of Lion in Winter and a DGA winner Oscar-less. It's about one time per decade and the '90s already have their miss.
American Beauty does look like it's on its way to a win. Election is looking a little better, but still not all that likely. The Academy will likely honor either Insider or Cider House Rules, since both have7 nominations and are sort of unlikely to get wins elsewhere.
History: Not bad getting at least one right per year and sometimes two. With only one per year, American Beauty looks like it will be the only one this year, Election seems very unlikely.
I still feel American Beauty will win, but this Miramax BS is becoming completely and totally annoying.
History: History has taught us that the PGA is accurate, but can be off. Last year, the DreamWorks-Miramax showdown left DreamWorks without a prize for the Oscars, but not the PGA. The potential exists now as well as then with Cider House being the Miramax juggernaut. Perhaps Beauty WILL win.
Further proof that Star Wars backlash is real and potential. Here's hoping Matrix pulls some upset victories.
History: For the past two years, the winner has been correct. Perhaps this year will be no different.
BJM's win seems rather unnecessary, but overall, no real surprises. Not a real impact on this year's race unless there's an upset in The Matrix' favor. Look for American Beauty to stave off science fiction.
History: As with most of the precursor awards, histories aren't readily available. For the ACE, their winner has been a correct prediction for the past 3 years. With the split in the categories this year, perhaps a little less division was seen and with the choice of The Matrix, it seems as if they have gone Sci-Fi, which doesn't generally win. This looks bad for American Beauty, but I think since the eventual best picture winner and the film editing winner are generally the same, it's a safe bet that the ACE will be wrong this year.
No surprise, the eventual winner.
History: In their 13-year history, they've only gotten 4 right, so this isn't the best of precursors, but this year's choice seems to be the overwhelming favorite for the Oscars.
No major surprises from this group. They have made some selections that will not win Oscars for they are not nominated, but the others seem to be quite accurate. No South Park for score, no Fight Club for editing, no Moore for supporting actress, no Beautiful Stranger for song or Star Wars for either costume design or makeup.
History: The OMPA has both a good and bad history at the Oscars, not too terribly different from most other precursors, but a little more accurate than others. Overall, the OMPA has predicted half of the awards correctly since its inception in 1996. Two categories have become unerringly accurate in its first three years successfully predicting all three: Original Screenplay and Cinematography. However, there are categories on the opposite end not having predicted any in the past 3 years: supporting actor, supporting actress and documentary. Good categories to watch, receiving 2 of 3 correct predictions in three years are: Picture, Actor, Director, Original Song, Film Editing, Costume Design, Sound, Sound Effects and Visual Effects. The certainty of all of these categories is in question at the moment.
No surprise here. American Beauty is hugely popular and Sleepy Hollow is one of the odds-on favorites to take the Costume award.
History: For the past several years, the winners have aligned almost perfectly. In 1998, they chose Pleasantville and the eventual winner was Shakespeare in Love. However in both 1997 and 1996, the awards went to the eventual Oscar winners, Titanic and The English Patient respectively.
The inclusion of October Sky comes as a minor surprise, but the other choices seem pretty normal on the whole. Though, Kubrick's non-nomination for Eyes Wide Shut seems to indicate that people are avoiding EWS a little too much.
History: With the WGA, it seems the like to nominate 4 out of the 5 eventual Oscar nominees annually. This is the case for the past 2 years, information other than winners farther back is unknown. In 1997, they chose popular favorite Life Is Beautiful over independent WGA choice Opposite of Sex for Original Screenplay. Then in Adapted Screenplay, they chose veteran writer/director Terrence Malick for Thin Red Line over the more popular-minded Civil Action. In 1998, a similar thing occurred. Veteran writer/director Woody Allen received an Oscar nod for Deconstructing Harry over populistic Titanic for Original Screenplay. In the Adapted Screenplay category, they switched independent for independent choosing the more accomplished Atom Egoyan, a popular, but non-Picture nominated film over The Ice Storm, a considerably less popular film. Prescribing this pattern to this year, I see a similar thing happening. In Original Screenplay, Three Kings could be the odd man out. Though a replacement is hard to find. I would say they may pick the same 5 or change Three Kings for The Straight Story. I doubt a change there will occur. However, in the Adapted Screenplay category, I see a few potentialities. Insider is the only complete lock. Cider House is the only other film sitting very well. Election could be too independent for the Academy and Mr. Ripley seems to have a slight backlash going. October Sky is by an extremely new writer, which the Academy doesn't tend to honor. The films that are sitting in the wings include The Green Mile, Eyes Wide Shut or Angela's Ashes. Kubrick is a one of the few old-school writers up in this category and I don't see them ignoring him, since this is his first film since 1987 and he died this past year on Top of everything. Look for Eyes to take October Sky's position and depending on how the Academy feels Green Mile possibly find itself nominated.
There were very few surprises in the OMPA nominations. Kidman's nomination for Actress and the strong showing for Eyes Wide Shut may be simply a tribute to the late Stanley Kubrick, but it is indeed a good showing. American Beauty proves to be the film to beat and perhaps Mr. Ripley isn't out of the race just yet.
History: For nominations, in 1998, the OMPA predicted 52% of the nominees overall with 80% correct in the Screenplay categories and 63.3% right in the Top 6 (picture, actor, actress, sup. actor, sup. actress, director). In 1997, the record was slightly better with 58.6% of the nominations correct with 73.3% of the Top 6 correct and 66.7% of the music categories correct. In 1996, their very first year, the OMPA correct predicted 59.6% of the nominees overall. Their best predictions came 70% in the Top 6, 64.7% in the technical categories and 60% in the writing. Not much to look on, but this year's slate of nominees seem to be the prominent choices being pressed for Oscar recognition.
No surprises. Any Given Sunday is the weakest choice. American Beauty furthers its reputation of being this year's Best Picture front-runner.
History: Nominations beyond last year aren't available, but in 1998, they picked 3 out of the 5 eventual nominees. The X-Files and The Horse Whisperer are the odd nominees out, but they left out for hugely popular films. What would get left out is uncertain at this point.
Considered a potential precursor for the Sound Effects Award, these lists feature too many choices to be a very accurate indicator.
History: No history found on these awards.
The Matrix and American Beauty surprises. The rest were expected.
History: There's not much of a history to look back at. 1998 is the only year I have results for nominations. In 1998, they predicted all five nominees successfully. We'll see next week what will happen this year.
The only surprises ewre Hoffman's nomination for Flawless and the why-must-she-be-nominated-every-year-Streep. Other than that, most were expected. Carrey looks poised for his well-deserved first Oscar nomination. Everyone else seems to maintain their position in the rat race.
History: For predictions, the SAGs are hard to beat. In the Lead Actor category, every year since its inception, at least four out of the five nominees went on to Oscar nominations. This time it won't be Carrey who falls out, it will be Hoffman. For Actress, they have at least three out of five every year and since its second year, four out of five (97 had 6 nominees instead of 5). Meryl Streep definitely looks like the odd-woman out like she was when she was nominated for The River Wild in '94. For Supporting Actor, the prognosis is less accurate. Three of their five previous years have seen four out of five nominees go to the Oscars, but 2 years in the middle (95 and 96) saw only two of the five. This could be one of those years where either three or four take on the Oscars. Cruise and Osment are certainties. Caine is very likely now, but Duncan and Cooper have the best possibilities of being left out on Oscar morning. For supporting actress, we have the worst predictor to date. While they've steadily improved (2 in '94, 3 in '95, 2 in '96, 4 in '97 and 5 in '98), they still aren't a very certain category. Jolie, Keener, Moore and Sevigny seem sure things. Diaz is the only worry, but does seem likely to get a nod as well. We'll compare and see for future reference. The SAGs are quite young, so their accuracy is still being checked.
Surprises abound. Star Wars is snubbed and they split their categories. Eyes Wide Shut's nomination isn't a surprise and could mean that the Oscars could find favor with the film.
History: Not much of a history so far with the Costume Designers Guild. Last year, only 2 of their choices, Beloved and Pleasantville pulled Oscar nominations.
Not a lively bunch of nominees. The Haunting, one of last year's better Sound Effects films was completely ignored. The nominations, being so many, don't seem to bear much influence on the Oscars, compare lists between the finalists for the Oscars and this list and maybe you'll figure out which the nods are...too bad the Academy only picks 3.
History: Not much of a history. With so many nominees, an accurate history is near impossible. Don't put too much faith in these lists...only when they announce their winner should you pay attention.
Nothing unexpected here.
History: In 1998, only one nominee didn't place an Oscar nod, that was Horse Whisperer. In 1997, the same happened with The Boxer. Look for one of the below nominees to be left out of the Oscar race for another film. My guess would be either The Insider or Snow Falling on Cedars, possibly The Sixth Sense.
Mr. Ripley's exclusion from the picture race seems more and more an affront to its chances. Straight Story and Topsy-Turvy star Jim Broadbent gain more recognition and Jim Carrey's chances are uncertain. Nothing else seems out of the ordinary, other than Eyes Wide Shut's surprise inclusion in the year-end critics awards.
History: Not much can be said yet, since these are only nominations. Don't trust this group too much on nominations, they aren't always right and it's hard to tell when they will or won't be.
Interesting choices, actually. Darabont was considered to be an outside nominations choice, but seems to bolster his chances with his nomination here. Jonze and Shyamalan also boost their chances at nomination. Anthony Minghella's exclusion makes one wonder if Talented Mr. Ripley will be nominated after all. From here on out, it will take heavy support at the SAG nominations to tell us if Ripley is in our out.
History: In 1998, all 5 picks of the DGA received Oscar nominations. In 1997, James L. Brooks and Steven Spielberg did not go on to Oscar nominations. Before that, figures are not available. Certain directors do enjoy an amount of recognition by pure popularity, such as in the case with Brooks and Spielberg. This year, Darabont could be considered for such and so could Shyamalan, but Shyamalan seems like a very likely nominee. We'll see how the Oscars pick this year and then we'll better see a trend for next year.
American Beauty seems to be the growing favorite in the Oscar derby. With Golden Laurel and DGA nominations along with the Golden Globe award, AB is to be considered the all-in-all front-runner at this point unless the Producers Guild decide not to honor the film.
History: See other Broadcast Film Critics awards below.
Denzel props himself up for an Oscar nomination and the chance to become only the second African-American Best Actor winner in Oscar history. Very little else was surprising during the evening, so it's not much of a boone for anything except for Washington and Toy Story 2.
History: Original Score is not the category to look at. In recent years, the Globes have had a problem predicting. They are the oldest awards-giving group outside of the NYFCC, but here's how things have shaped up in the past few years: Overall, they are 66% successful in predicting the Oscars. In five years, 62%; 10 years, 60% and in 20, 65%. Their best categories in the past 5 years are picture, actor, director, screenplay and song with 4 out of 5. Their worst in five years are supporting actor and foreign film each with 1 out of 5. In the past 10 years, actress, director and song are their best predictions with 8 out of 10. The worst is still Foreign Language Film with 3 out of 10. I the past 20 years, their best category is Song again with 17 out of 20 and their worst was Foreign Film again with 7 out of 19. Song isn't certain this year, but there are others that seem certain based on their record, which is pretty good. We'll just have to wait for the Screen Actors Guild for more info.
Normally the PGA is very accurate in their predictions, but this year they have 3 films that are all considered weak contenders. Notice there's no Talented Mr. Ripley, considered one of the few front-runners and BJM, Hurricane and the out-of-nowhere Cider House are all the films that have the potential of getting left behind at the Oscars. It will definitely prove to be a race for the gold.
History: In the record books, the PGA is generally accurate. In 1998, Gods and Monsters and Waking Ned Devine didn't get Oscar nominations, but the other nods did. In 1997, only Amistad didn't go on to a nomination. Overall, it seems like thy are slowly getting worse as predictors. We'll have to wait until February to tell for sure.
The only surprises are: Stamp, Hoffman, Macy and Sixth Sense for Original Screenplay and Cinematography. The rest were to be expected. It definitely seems like Insider has the best chance, being a pro-Freedom of Speech film.
History: The Satellites are definitely not known yet for their accuracy. They have no perfect categories, but plenty of years where the successfully predicted 2 out of 3 winners. Supporting Actress and Foreign Film are their worst categories, yielding no correct predictions.
They split their award into Drama and Comedy categories, not that good, but makes their chances of picking winners easier. The comedy nominees are the least likely to be nominated, but the dramas contain at least 4 likelies, excluding The Matrix, though it still has a chance.
History: Like most guild awards, the ACE is known for getting at least 4 of the 5 nominations correct. '98 saw Horse Whisperer get replaced at the Oscars by Life Is Beautiful, but all of 1997's selections were nominated. The record back as far as I can find indicates they have a 2 for 2 record of successful winner predictions. We'll see how this continues this year.
Magnolia and the award to Snow Falling on Cedars/Bringing Out the Dead are the only real surprises. Everything else is expected. Magnolia gains a small boost, but considering the Florida Film Critics aren't very influential, there's not much of a chance these will help or hinder nominations.
History: One of the few to pick Shakespeare in Love for Picture in '98, the FFC can be quite interesting to compare. That year, they predicted 3 awards: picture, actress and screenplay. Of their choices, all but the supporting actress winner received Oscar nominations. In 1997, FFC was also one of the few groups to pre-select Titanic as best picture (trend maybe?). Of their winners, picture, actress, screenplay and cinematography went on to Oscar victories. Only their supporting actor, foreign film and documentary winners didn't go on to receive Oscar nominations. That's all the info, though it seems to be providing a very interesting trend. 2 years in a row, it selected the exact same winners in the exact same categories of picture, actress and screenplay. And of the remaining selections, it's supporting categories were the least accurate. We'll see how that holds up for Magnolia for picture, Swank for actress and Election for screenplay and count against Osment or Keener for nominations. Unlikely considering both are likely and Magnolia and Election are iffy winners.
Not a surprising selection, nor is it all that interesting. A lot of their choices are Oscar contenders and a lot aren't. The ones that are are quite obvious. Those that aren't are equally as obvious.
History: Not the place to look for potential Oscar nominees until winners are selected, unfortunately, winners aren't selected until AFTER the nominations, so they can't be used for much of a guage at all.
Nothing majorly surprising has come from the group. Sevigny, Crowe and Plummer all seem like locks now along with BJM for Screenplay and Beauty for Cinematography. Witherspoon now has a better chance and BJM is looking more and more like a best picture contender every day.
History: Historically, the NSFC isn't an extremely great predictor. Less than 1/4 of the time have they ever been right. This average has been good in the past 20 and even 10 years, but has slipped heavily in the last 5. The best categories for the past five years have been Supporting Actress and Screenplay with a scant 2 out of 5 correct predictions. Their worst are Picture, Actress, Director, Cinematography and Foreign Film receiving no correct predictions. These averages improve only slightly going back 10 years with Actor and Screenplay being successful 3 out of the 10 times for the best and only Foreign Language Film receiving 0 correct predictions. Don't look to these for winners.
Their slate is as predictable as others, though their choices of Osment, Witherspoon and Keener bring their names closer to nominations. The streak by Run Lola Run seems strange and will not be duplicated at the Oscars because Run Lola Run isn't eligible for Foreign Language Film.
History: Winner prediction-wise, the OFCS isn't very good. Last year, they only chose Director, Editing, Cinematography and Foreign Film with the Oscars. In '97, they didn't do much better getting Actor, Director and Screenplay. Don't look to them too heavily for winnesr, though director is their best category.
What a nice, yet not so nice list. Fight Club did extremely well and while it was a very good film and one of my favorites of the year, it's a mistake to choose it as one of the Top nominees. It reflects badly on the organization and has NO chance of getting a nod. The support for Blair Witch Project is indeed surprising, but not at all a good or bad thing, just interesting. It's the first time we've seen Kubrick as a nominee anywhere and might go to make things more interesting...will he or won't he get nominated for his final film at the Oscars? Will he win? Who knows for sure, but with these nominations, very little actually changes, but a brave list it is indeed.
History: Nominations-wise, the group has previously only selected 3 choices in very few categories, they've expanded only recently. In 97: of the 3 picture nominees, only Sweet Hereeafter didn't make it; of the 3 actors, Ian Holm didn't make it; all 3 actresses made it; Rupert Everett didn't make supporting actor; Cusack was nominated for Grosse Pointe Blank, not In & Out and Moore was nominated for Myth of Fingerprints, not Boogie Nights; all 3 screenplay nominees received Oscar nods; Paul Thomas Anderson didn't receive an Oscar nod. 98: Truman Show wasn't nom'd for picture; all 3 actors got nods; all 3 actresses received nods; Jason Patric was not a supporting actor nominee; Neither Allen nor Kudrow received nods; All 3 directors got nods; Happiness was not an Original Screenplay choice; All 3 adapted screenplay choices received noms; all 3 score choices received nods, though Prince of Egypt in a separate category from the others; Pleasantville was not a Cinematography nominee; nor was it a Film Editing nominee along with Truman Show. As for winners, in 97: their only successful predictions were Actor, Screenplay (the Adapted choice) and Director. In 98: they successfully predicted Director, Cinematography, Film Editing and Foreign Language Film. Not a very good precursor it would appear.
They seem to have a fetish with American Beauty, but not enough to surpass their like for David Lynch. Interesting, if not expected choices. Hoffman getting a supporting award for a role he's being pushed for lead means no Oscar nom for Flawless. Thora Birch makes her first show as one of the great ensemble of American Beauty. No other surprises other than to see no All About My Mother in Foreign Film.
History: San Diego has made some nice choices in the past, but they are quite bad at predicting...even for nominations. 1998: Actor, Sup. Actor, Sup. Actress, Director, Adapted Screenplay and Foreign Film winners took home Oscar nods, but only Foreign Film was a correct winner prediction. No information prior to last year...so accuracy is not assured at this juncture.
No surprises. Swank and Crowe have become the contenders-to-beat. Jolie and Duncan received great boosts towards nominations. No other surprises and all of the choices are major contenders for Oscar nominations.
History: This is the group to pay attention to for nominations predictions. In the three years I've tracked them, the BFCA has taken every single winner and turned it into an Oscar nod (the one exception involves a tie in the Sup. Actress category last year when Joan Allen and Bates tied for the win. Bates took an Oscar nod, perpetuating their record, Allen did not). Here's how the winner predictions stacked up: 1998: Director, Orig. Screenplay and Foreign Film winners took home Oscars; 1997: Actor, Director, Adap. Screenplay and Orig. Screenplay winners took home Oscars; 1996: Actor, Actress, Sup. Actor and Director winnesr took home Oscars. Now, this isn't the best of precursors for actual winners, but for nominations. This is EASILY the best. Though Jolie seems the weakest of their choices, I don't see a problem with ANY of these choices getting nominations. Now, watch out...the BFCA is HORRIBLE at predicting Best Picture. For the past three years, it has not ONCE submitted the winning choice...the same goes for Supporting Actress.
Well, it's the electric chair for The Green Mile. Another potential front-runner has fallen by the wayside. Right now, the only sure bets for nods are Insider and American Beauty. Being John Malkovich could benefit heavily from the Globes. As could both Mr. Ripley and Man on the Moon. Crowe, Spacey and Washington continue their head-to-head race for best actor. Bening, Swank, McTeer and Weaver become the best bets for acting nominations. Law is in despite early complaints that he wouldn't be. Cider House got a little extra exposure, but not enough to figure into the race. Though, the front-page ad in Variety for the film by Miramax could mean some big things come Oscar time. Score is a scary sight. They nominated more films than ever. Some are surprising, others are not. Song brings Beautiful Stranger back into contention and finds a new song from Anna and the King that could figure into a race. East-West pushes its way towards continuing France's record of nominations at the Oscars. All About My Mother is guaranteed a Foreign Film slot.
History: There's not much to say about the Golden Globes' history. They're great for nominees, but only in the main categories. Score is their worst category yielding very few nominees and not to mention very few successful winner predictions. However, they are hedging their bets this year with an unprecedented 9 nominees. They're bound to get a couple right. Song isn't their best, but they have been known to vault their winner to an Oscar. Screenplay is easy since there are two Oscar categories and one in the Globes. This means all of them COULD get nominations, but nothing is guaranteed at this point.
The NYFCC go off the wall to choose independents over Hollywood. Topsy-Turvy finally enters the spotlight. Being John Malkovich picks up a little prestige for Malkovich and Keener. Swank furthers her chances at an actual Oscar. Farnsworth ups his chance at a nomination in a rather tough category.
History: A pretty good average for precursors, but not extremely great. Just over a third of the time ever have they coincided with the Oscars. Their average has dipped to 23% in the last 10 years and further to 22% in the last five. Screenplay has been their best category in the past 5 and 10 years. They are, however, quite bad at predicting Foreign Film in the past 10 years and the last five along with Picture, Actress, Director and Cinematography...all of which have not gone on to Oscars. In the past 10 years, here is how good they are at predicting nominations: All picture except The Player in 92; All actors save David Thewlis in '93; Actress has been a sore spot with Cameron Diaz in '98, Jennifer Jason-Leigh in '95 and Linda Fiorentino in '94; No supporting actor nods in '98, '96, '91 or '89; No supporting actress nods in '98, '96, '93, '91 or '90; No director nods in '96 or '89; No screenplay in '96, '91, '90 or '89.
Not a very good slate. It doesn't seem like they Satellites are being very "unique" anymore. They've chosen a lot of questionable items and it doesn't look like it will represent the Academy's choices very well.
History: In 1998, they predicted 4 of the 5 picture, 2 of the 5 actors, all 5 actresses, 3 of the 5 supporting actors, 3 of 5 supporting actresses, 2 of the 5 directors, 2 of the original screenplays, 2 of the adapted screenplays, 3 of the foreign films and 3 of the original songs. In 97, 5 of the pictures, 4 of the actors, 5 of the actresses, 3 of the supporting actors, 4 of the supporting actresses, 3 of the directors, 3 of the original screenplays, 4 of the adapted screenplays, none of the foreign films and 2 of the original songs. For 1996, their first year, I don't have the exact figures, except for alignment of winners. On the winners front, however, here is how the satellites have fared: They are at a good 50/50 approximately. The categories they've gone 2/3 in are: Picture, Actor, Actress, Adapted Screenplay, Score, Song, Film Editing and Visual Effects. They've gone 0/3 in the categories of Supporting Actress and foreign film.
With the less-than-stellar choice of Three Kings as picture and director, the Boston Critics seem a little less reuptable, but then they chose Swank, Sevigny and Plummer on Top of Being John Malkovich, all hailed previously. This is also the first indication that Jim Carrey will be headed towards an Oscar nom.
History: I don't have the history of the BSFC, but from the past few years, here's what I've gathered. In 1998, they chose another George Clooney movie as best picture, Out of Sight. Billy Bob Thornton and Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski were the only ones to go on to Oscar nominations. In 1997, they were a little more successful. Picture, Actress, Director, Screenplay and Cinematography went on to Oscar nominations, unlike 1998, one of their choices won the Oscar: Screenplay. Then, in 1996, Picture, Actor, Actress, Director and Cinematography all received Oscar nominations. Only Cinematography and Actor won. Not the best of predictors by any means, but they do pick three of the others who've won, so those are lookinng like better bets all the time.
It's not surprising that the press went after a Freedom of the Press film. This could mean that Hollywood will be a little more influenced. Hilary and Chloe have become larger contenders. Mendes isn't out of the director's race as some had thought before. Being John Malkovich made a MUCH larger showing this time. Insider was a surprise winner for Cinematography until you look at the winner: Dante Spinotti (of L.A. Confidential fame).
History: Overall, the LAFCA has been one of the more accurate organizations, but with only about a 1/3 accuracy. In the past 10 years, however, their rating has signicantly dropped to around 1/4. Screenplay is their best predicting category with 4 in the last five years, but only 5 in the last 10. In five years, they have yet to pick Picture, Score or Foreign Film, while only Score and Foreign Film have received no awards in 10 years. Not since 1993 have they successfully predicted more than 50% of the awards and since then, their best year was '94 with 36% and their worst 1998, 1997 and 1995 getting only 2 out of 12 awards right. In the past 10 years, the LAFCA's winners that have gone on to receive nominations are good for the upper categories: Save "Do the Righ Thing" in 1989, all of their Picture winners; ALL of their Actor winners; At least 1 of all of their Actress winners (the second person in ties usually didn't get a nod); Supporting Actor is the same way as actress with 1995 being the sole year it didn't; Supporting Actress didn't get nominations in 91 & 98; And Director mirros Picture. The same can't be said for most other categories.
The results are in and there are no major surprises. For those who said Talented Mr. Ripley was out of it, think again. This just proves that it's still in contention. For those who swear this means that any one of these choices will win, I need to remind you that this is just the beginning and there are much more things to watch for before declaring a winner.
History: The NBR is not known for accuracy. In its 55 year history, it has only been about 1/4 correct. In the past five years, this has not changed. Their most accurate category is Actor with a 60% accuracy rating in the past 5 years and Picture which has a 50% accuracy in the past 10. 1990 and 1995 were the best years in the past 10 years, with neither getting more accurate than 50%. The worst categories are director, foreign film and documentary in the last five years, getting none correct, while only documentary holds the record for worst in the past 10...still at 0. Last year, the NBR got 0 correct. The year before they got only 1 correct. The screenplay category was back after having been gone since 1951.