Second verse, same as the first.
I'm with many that Into the Wild is one of the most overrated films of 2007. It just...really doesn't do it for me. That said, Hal Holbrook is perhaps the best thing about it. In very little screen time, he completely transforms the movie, and perhaps even your thoughts on Chris. His portrayal is honest and layered. You'll notice I haven't said anything even remotely bad about Hal. That's because Best Supporting Actor this year is pretty fucking amazing. Good on that, Academy. On a completely unrelated note - yikes, how short are those shorts on Emile in this picture?
Why he might win: The Academy sure as heck loves their old veterans - shades of Alan Arkin?
Why he might not: Not at all the frontrunner. The Academy clearly didn't like his film as much as we all thought they would. Not Javier Bardem.
I think a lot of people get bitchy about Charlie Wilson's War because it has Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, and PSH, a combination of which makes a lot of people break out in hives. Truth is, it's really clever and actually says something for the most part (its flaw is that script got some of the bite taken out of it by the real-life Joanne Herring, who sued, so it's perhaps not as smart as it could be) - but the banter between the male leads alone makes it worth watching. Hanks is just great, but it's the Hoff that runs away with this show. Simply put, it's his movie, and the absolute glee as he gobbles up scenery while somehow, improbably, creating a character is palpable. Hammy? Maybe. But I ate that ham right up.
Why he might win: His film made the most money in this category. I think the Oscars just woke up to the fact that PSH is, you know, an awesome actor, and will now want to reward him forever. Just like they did with C.Blah around 2004, but PSH is way better than boring ol' C.Blah...
Why he might not: This is his film's only nomination. He's the only previous winner and in a category with the potentially snubbed in the past, that hurts him badly. Not Javier Bardem.
Tom Wilkinson is easily one of the best actors working today. Wilkinson + baguettes + crazy = YES! That voice brings gravitas. Is he insane, or is he the only one in this movie that's actually woken up? This isn't a particularly original thought, but he is so much like Peter Finch in Network. And that, my friends, is a very good thing to be.
Why he might win: In a Best Picture nominee. The Academy loves 'em old and British.
Why he might not: No other precursors. Not Javier Bardem.
And here we have the year's honorary Egregious Category Fraud nomination (Foxx [in supporting, obviously] 04, Gyllenhaal 05, Blanchett 06) where an absolutely unquestionable lead gets thrown in supporting. That's not to diminish Affleck's achievement, however. The character is completely annoying at first, but he just portrays his need to be liked so badly that we feel for him nevertheless. The way his obsession with Jesse James gets played is simply great as well. Robert Ford is incredibly complex, and Affleck nails every nuance and character trait. He's utterly mesmirizing to watch as well; kid's got charisma. I know I'm a huge fan of Ben Affleck, and I do think he's a good actor, but Casey put him in his place to a ridiculous extent in this movie. Sort of related - Casey's fans are the second most annoying this year (first are Marion's, duh). I have no problems with people liking him, as clearly I do too. But do you always have to put down the front-runner and say "IF YOU SAW CASEY AND THINK JAVIER IS BETTER, YOU ARE A STUPID MORON!!!!!!" No. You don't. It's also very annoying that whenever someone lists Javier as their preferred winner they go "DID YOU SEE JESSE JAMES??????????" Anyway. Rock on, Casey.
Why he might win: He clearly has legions of fans. The critics awards Javier Bardem didn't win, he did.
Why he might not: His film made very little money. Not Javier Bardem.
What is Anton Chigurh? Is he a serial killer? A madman? A drug lord? Or is he not something human at all, but merely a symbol of something else - death? evil? Only a master could play such an inspecific role and get it to feel completely like an actual person, and Javier Bardem absolutely does that. What's more, he adds tons of humor into the role, somehow, and even makes you feel a squeeze sorry for him in the last scene. I know Javier Bardem is a dashing, handsome Spanish man, but now all I can see him as is a crazed killer, completely lacking in soul, with, yeah, that crazy haircut. I know I'm not saying much that's specific, but a. I always find it so hard to write about films (I keep doing it though, dammit!) and b. Javier kind of leaves me without words in No Country. He's just...effing amazing.
Why he might win: Super frontrunner!!!! Won almost every critics' award, the Globe, the SAG, and the BAFTA. In the probable Best Picture winner.
Why he might not: Ben Affleck stuffs the vote box? My host mom from Spain who hated him (I don't know why. He brings your country fame. And Oscars!) convinces everyone to vote against him? I can only think of one actual reason - the Academy pulls an Alan Arkin and gives it to Hal Holbrook. But Into the Wild doesn't have nearly the support with the Academy that Little Miss Sunshine did... and Holbrook hasn't been thought of as a threat like Arkin was.
Will win: JavBar.
Might win: Anyone except Bardem would be extremely shocking, but Holbrook would leave me less shocked than anyone else after last year.
Dark horse: Affleck's clearly got his legions of fans, but it comes down to the fact that his film was just too small.
The snubbed: Of the ones Oscar might have noticed, primarily Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men and Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood. Like I said, though, Oscar picked really great nominees here (all of them are in my top 10 Supporting Actors, or rather would be if I considered Casey supporting), and thank God John Travolta didn't get in here.