I know you care intensely.

My winners for the honorary You Can Count on Me Award for the Movie with the Most Unfortunate Title.

2000: Well... You Can Count on Me. This title doesn't belong to a genius character study/family drama. It belongs to a Lifetime drama (though I'll admit, the way they use it in the film is brilliant. If there's one thing I hate, it's movies that make a point of having their characters say the frickin' title, something which bothers me every time I see Walk the Line. Yes, I know it's a song of his, do they really have to have poor Reese have some line that's IIRC "You better walk the line, John!!!" That was a long aside...). I read some blog entry once where the writer was moaning about how Spielberg had named his film Munich (this was obviously old) and how that was so boring and how Spielberg sucks (as I always say when people whine about Spielberg: oh, I'm so sorry that he's got more money and Oscars and respect and talent than you.). The writer then said something like, "what happened to the daring and fantastic film titles, such as You Can Count on Me?" and I was like "oh honey. No." And thus, the inspiration for this, uh, wonderful award was born.
2001: In the Bedroom. This...is a porno. Or crazy/beautiful, which is just awkward.
2002: Igby Goes Down. This...is also a porno. Or Morvern Callar, which makes me think "ooh, my cousin had that once. It hurts to pee for weeks."
2003: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World: I Think This Title Needs to be Longer
2004: Bad Education. This...is also also a porno.
2005: The Constant Gardener (pulling an upset victory against the perhaps more obvious candidate, The Squid and the Whale). That ain't a title for a political thriller, I'll tell you that.
2006: The Pursuit of Happyness. Yes, I know it's on purpose. But I'm an English minor (which is a scary thought when you look back at my "writing" on this thing). IT BOTHERS ME.
2007: I would say Ratatouille, were it not for that preview that taught you how to pronounce it. Brilliant. Instead, I'll have to go with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, because it's unfortunate to have to share a title with the worst book in history. Oh wait.

moving on to Best Actor

Analyzing: Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
My rank among the nominees: 5th
How'd he get nominated?: Baity role in a "message" film
Pros: He's got The Departed helping him. He's a huge celebrity - and AMPAS does love famous.
Cons: There is no way this performance is as good as his in The Departed (I fully believe that Leo in The Departed got more votes than Ryan Gosling at least). No precursors.
Basically, any chance of winning?: No. If it was his Departed performance, though...

Analyzing: Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson
My rank among the nominees: 1st
How'd he get nominated: Purely because of his amazing performance - the film is tiny and came out a while ago, and I don't remember any great FYC campaign for it.
Pros: If enough people saw the movie to vote for him here, how can they not say it's one of the best performances of the year? Got a bunch of "breakthrough" awards.
Cons: Movie was ridiculously small.
Basically, any chance of winning?: No...but as I said, if enough people saw the film to vote for him for a nomination, who's to say they're not going to vote for him for the win? It's still Whitaker's.

Analyzing: Peter O'Toole, Venus
My rank among the nominees: 3rd
How'd he get nominated: Peter O'Toole.
Pros: Peter O'Toole...has yet to win a competitive Oscar. Though he may not have the critics or precursors, think 1986 with Bob Hoskins in Mona Lisa and Paul Newman in The Color of Money.
Cons: No precursors - all taken by Forest Whitaker, his main competitor. I know he's not feeling well and all, but his continued absence at every awards show simply doesn't look good. Film was teeeeeny.
Basically, any chance of winning?: Yes, and a bigger chance than most people think... but I still believe this will go to Whitaker. Then again, after predicting O'Toole again and again and again, $10 says here, where it really counts, I am wrong. =/

Analyzing: Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness
My rank among the nominees: 4th
How'd he get nominated: Baity role - when comedians get serious they often love it
Pros: The film made money, probably due to him. Like Leo, super-famous and well-liked.
Cons: Beyond the nomination, he's gotten no traction. No precursors.
Basically, any chance of winning?: Probably not unless Whitaker and O'Toole are really close and split votes.

Analyzing: Forest Whitaker, Last King of Scotland
My rank among the nominees: 2nd
How'd he get nominated: Acclaimed biopic role
Pros: Virtually every precursor award. Critics have been pushing him forever. Sense of past snubs (maybe).
Cons: It's his first nomination, not his eighth. Super awkward acceptance speeches - the guy's shy.
Basically, any chance of winning?: You bet your ass.

Analyzing: Best Actor as a whole
Who will win: Forest Whitaker. It is hard to argue with every precursor award, and the Academy is not as sentimental as they were in the 1980s. Still, I will not be shocked at all if they call Peter O'Toole's name. If his film were bigger, I think he'd be as big a lock as Whitaker here.
Who should win: Ryan Gosling, but Forest was superb as well.
Unlucky sixth placer: As I said, I think Leo in The Departed got more votes than Ryan...but I guess Sacha Baron Cohen in Borat.
Should have been nominated: People with Oscar traction - Sacha Baron Cohen in Borat, Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed. People with no Oscar traction - Hugh Jackman in The Fountain, Clive Owen in Children of Men, Daniel Craig in Casino Royale, Patrick Wilson in Little Children, Heath Ledger in Candy, Jude Law in Breaking and Entering, Ken Watanabe in Letters from Iwo Jima, etc...
Random cool fact: This is the first time in um...a really long time (I think since 1927/1928) that no Best Actor nominees come from Best Picture nominees.