Best Film - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Focus)

Best Director - Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Best Actor - Jamie Foxx (Ray)

Best Actress - Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake)

Best Supporting Actor - Jamie Foxx (Collateral)

Best Supporting Actress - Cate Blanchett (The Aviator)

Best Acting Ensemble - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Focus)

Best Screenplay, Original - Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Best Screenplay, Adapted - Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor (Sideways)

Best Foreign Language Film - Maria Full of Grace (Fine Line)

Best Animated Film - The Incredibles (Buena Vista)

Best Documentary - Fahrenheit 9/11 (Lions Gate)

I don't understand why they just couldn't give Jaime one award for both performances, and give someone else Best Supporting Actor. Makes no sense to me.

Because he just may be the best in both.

I saw Collateral again last night, it's an amazing film, all things considered.

He is definitely great, but I have to repeat: he is NOT supporting in Collateral! This is nothing against his performance, but right people should be rewarded in the right categories. Supporting actors are already earning less salary and harder to get recognized. Why rob them the opportunity when you can just give Foxx best actor and say that's for both Ray and Collateral? Oscar does get confused a lot of times because of the campaign, but critic groups should know better.

Because the Oscars have a rule that you cannot have one person nominated for two films in the same category. And Foxx is lower on the totem than Cruise as far as the movie goes. I don't necessarily disagree with you (Collateral doesn't work without 2 strong leads) but that's the way the cookie crumbles...

In order to make Dreamworks money (if the theory that noms = moolah) is correct, you campaign Foxx as a supporting player. The Oscars are not bound to Foxx as a supporting player in Collateral, but some awards are different and ARE bound to the studio's entries and Dreamworks has submitted it as such. Also by not competing with Ray, Dreamworks reaps the benefits of curious seekers looking at Foxx's back catalog.

So Foxx is supporting in Collateral. That's the way it is. If he is running in that category, then in my opinion, he definately is worthy enough of a nom in Collateral for supporting.

I'm beginning to think he will get a nomination (for Collateral as well as Ray).

That's the rule for Oscar, but critic groups don't have to bide that rule. If they think a performance is leading, then it should be leading no matter what the studio says in its FYC ad or whatever. Because there is no nomination process for the critic groups, they have far fewer slots/chances to reward someone, and they should be careful about their choices, especially not to award someone in the wrong category.

Although I don't want to link it, I do there is also a racism problem here where people automatically think a black person that is on the same screen with Tom Cruise is supporting, even though he has more screen time. Anyway, I'm just a little disappointed with the predictability of the critics so far. Spread the wealth; you are the only ones that give small performances and indie films a chance to get noticed and compete for Oscar.

Also if Fox is running supporting, I do believe he deserves a nomination too, but the problem is how do you compare his performance with other real supporting performances. He automatically has an advantage because he has far more screen time. This is why Jennifer won for A Beautiful Mind. It's not necessarily because they're better, but because they have more chance to showcase their talents.

I definently think he's Lead in Collateral, that's why I don't think it's right he won both. He was great in Collateral, don't get me wrong, but he was lead.

Jesus Christ almighty, how many times am I going to see Jamie Foxx put into the supporting actor category for Collateral ! The movie is like ALL Jamie Foxx for the first twenty minutes or so until Cruise comes into it, and from there, Foxx shares damn near every scene with him. Besides that issue, Cruise totally blows him away in the movie and himself deserves kudos for his supporting work. If the studio is going to push for anyone as supporting for Collateral it would be the mega-popular Cruise over Foxx (unless anyone has some "FYC Jamie Foxx for supporting actor in Collateral" adds to prove me wrong). But what I really want to get across is the fact that Clive Owen in Closer owns both of their asses 8) .

Clive has a shot. He's gotten countless nominations, more than Jaime I think, and has won two critic's awards. It's down to him and Thomas Hayden Church, imo.

Actually I believe Morgan Freeman has more than a better chance of winning. He only needs to be good in a great movie for a "career achievement" award, and it seems that he is more than that in Million Dollar Baby, evening winning a runner-up at a critic awards. I can't imagine academy will ignore him again.

Ah, I forgot about Morgan. He is definently in the running. I change my mind...it's between Clive Owen, Thomas Hayden Church and Morgan Freeman.

Hey everyone....been off a few days due to travel and visiting family...

It's nice to see Eternal Sunshine finally getting some love from the critics. I just saw it this week and loved it....Kauffman's best script yet and maybe Carrey's best performance. I also finally saw Collateral and thought Foxx and Cruise were both great. There's no way Foxx should be supporting, but Ethan Hawke wasn't supporting in Training Day either.

But it matters for the guilds.

I think that's reaching. We've all been through this before with The Hours and Whale Rider and endless amounts of movies. Foxx is supporting because Cruise is the draw. It's Hollywood politics but it's not the first time this has happened.


This is not true at all. Judi Dench won for 7 minutes of screentime vs. Rachel Griffiths... who was a character named Hilary, in a movie called Hilary and Jackie.

Morgan Freeman or Clive will probably win BSA. We'll see. Foxx is a better contendor in Actor anyway, where he is more of a sure bet.

Well since you guys are bringing up the fact that Academy can choose to put who they want in what category...

does anyone then think it possible for the Academy to switch tom Cruise and place him in the supporting category???

I don't think it will happen, but hey, it's a possiblity.
One thing working against it is that if he is nominated, he will probably be front-runner to win Supporting Actor. BUT he is ALWAYS the leading man in movies and that just doesn't seem to work out with his career.

Just a thought :wink:

If Tom couldn't get enough support for his role in Magnolia, he's fuck out of luck for Collateral.