I'm not sure where to put this. Sorry if it's in the wrong section.
Anyways, I'm a pretty big movie buff. Seen pretty much every movie nominated this year. Thank you torrents, don't tell on me. I've been good on these in the past.
Here is my only take on the entire board. I see no-plays via very good lines everywhere. My only other play (that I'm not posting because the lines to bet into are long gone) is a Day-Lewis lock for Best Actor I got early. Now remember, it’s very hard to express my bet and points without spoilers (which I’m doing). This is the best analysis that I can do without giving anything away in the movies.
Best Supporting Actor: Casey Affleck +1000 (Bookmaker)
I've seen all but one movie in this category which I'll state right now so you can decide if you're going to read the rest or not: Philip Seymour Hoffman (Wilson's War).
Affleck wins this. Why? He's the only person in this group whose category is misrepresented. Not only is he the "Best Supporting Actor" but he should be considered for "Best Actor". He would lose to Day-Lewis but that isn't the point, it is the category he should be in. That is how much weight he has in this film; a film which wasn't even very good beyond moments of cinematography and Affleck’s tremendous performance. In a movie, “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” where the entire plot synopsis is given in the title, I’m left dumb founded with the fact any actor can shine. Pitt is considered the main actor with his portrayal of Jesse James for reasons which are beyond my comprehension. Affleck has more screen time and makes more of an impact. Affleck’s creepy and mysterious role is the only reason worth watching this average movie.
Who doesn’t win?
Javier Bardem -1300 (No Country For Old Men):
Thought I’d start out with the large favorite and largest summary. Bardem was very good in this role (perhaps the best that could have played it) and in a movie that will probably win Best Picture. Where’s the problem? Not the actor, the character. Anton just isn’t quite dynamic of a character for a Best Supporting Actor. Not enough dialogue, not enough emotion or even just personal time on screen to adapt to his savage character. Sure, lack of emotion is his strong point, but that’s the point – the Academy doesn’t like that. Add that with the dialogue and genre, I don’t see it happening. Albeit, it’s very hard criticizing this role because it’s a favorite for good reason. Unfortunately the books are looking at the quality of the movie and not the actor. There is no question which movie is better: No Country, as a whole “Jesse James” is just average. However, there is also no question which performance is better: Casey Affleck.
Tom Wilkinson +1000 (Michael Clayton)
Wilkinson does a good job in this role, which suits his nomination. Will he win? No chance. The movie itself is overrated and not the type that wins these awards. The business thrillers (this one which reminded me of Pelican Brief) are a strong watch but not powerful enough. The characters are way too distant and unappealing to be winners, this includes Clooney for Best Actor. There just lacks an unexplainable connection with the actors who play the roles. In addition, I’d argue Wilkinson played the face but not the role.
Hal Holbrook +900 (Into The Wild)
I was honestly shocked when I saw this nomination. Holbrook had way, way, way too little screen time to be nominated. I would say he had 10 minutes max on this role. There really isn’t much say to beyond this. Any half-decent old guy playing Holbrook’s part would have done just as good, if not better. He played the stereotypical run-down man whom had more regrets then not in life, this is far to a simple character to win this role. I’m shocked this line is lower then Affleck, what a joke.
My Advice: From what you can see, obviously take a small shot or to the (also probably small) limit of your books line at Affleck depending on your interest/bankroll in this event. There are no other lines worth taking, and I’d say this has a very good shot of hitting above Bardem.
Anyways, I'm a pretty big movie buff. Seen pretty much every movie nominated this year. Thank you torrents, don't tell on me. I've been good on these in the past.
Here is my only take on the entire board. I see no-plays via very good lines everywhere. My only other play (that I'm not posting because the lines to bet into are long gone) is a Day-Lewis lock for Best Actor I got early. Now remember, it’s very hard to express my bet and points without spoilers (which I’m doing). This is the best analysis that I can do without giving anything away in the movies.
Best Supporting Actor: Casey Affleck +1000 (Bookmaker)
I've seen all but one movie in this category which I'll state right now so you can decide if you're going to read the rest or not: Philip Seymour Hoffman (Wilson's War).
Affleck wins this. Why? He's the only person in this group whose category is misrepresented. Not only is he the "Best Supporting Actor" but he should be considered for "Best Actor". He would lose to Day-Lewis but that isn't the point, it is the category he should be in. That is how much weight he has in this film; a film which wasn't even very good beyond moments of cinematography and Affleck’s tremendous performance. In a movie, “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” where the entire plot synopsis is given in the title, I’m left dumb founded with the fact any actor can shine. Pitt is considered the main actor with his portrayal of Jesse James for reasons which are beyond my comprehension. Affleck has more screen time and makes more of an impact. Affleck’s creepy and mysterious role is the only reason worth watching this average movie.
Who doesn’t win?
Javier Bardem -1300 (No Country For Old Men):
Thought I’d start out with the large favorite and largest summary. Bardem was very good in this role (perhaps the best that could have played it) and in a movie that will probably win Best Picture. Where’s the problem? Not the actor, the character. Anton just isn’t quite dynamic of a character for a Best Supporting Actor. Not enough dialogue, not enough emotion or even just personal time on screen to adapt to his savage character. Sure, lack of emotion is his strong point, but that’s the point – the Academy doesn’t like that. Add that with the dialogue and genre, I don’t see it happening. Albeit, it’s very hard criticizing this role because it’s a favorite for good reason. Unfortunately the books are looking at the quality of the movie and not the actor. There is no question which movie is better: No Country, as a whole “Jesse James” is just average. However, there is also no question which performance is better: Casey Affleck.
Tom Wilkinson +1000 (Michael Clayton)
Wilkinson does a good job in this role, which suits his nomination. Will he win? No chance. The movie itself is overrated and not the type that wins these awards. The business thrillers (this one which reminded me of Pelican Brief) are a strong watch but not powerful enough. The characters are way too distant and unappealing to be winners, this includes Clooney for Best Actor. There just lacks an unexplainable connection with the actors who play the roles. In addition, I’d argue Wilkinson played the face but not the role.
Hal Holbrook +900 (Into The Wild)
I was honestly shocked when I saw this nomination. Holbrook had way, way, way too little screen time to be nominated. I would say he had 10 minutes max on this role. There really isn’t much say to beyond this. Any half-decent old guy playing Holbrook’s part would have done just as good, if not better. He played the stereotypical run-down man whom had more regrets then not in life, this is far to a simple character to win this role. I’m shocked this line is lower then Affleck, what a joke.
My Advice: From what you can see, obviously take a small shot or to the (also probably small) limit of your books line at Affleck depending on your interest/bankroll in this event. There are no other lines worth taking, and I’d say this has a very good shot of hitting above Bardem.