276. The Reagans

276. (16 Nov) The Reagans (2003, Robert Allan Ackerman) 39



The decision not to cast younger actors to portray the Reagans when they first met is a strange one, since Judy Davis and James Brolin are age appropriate for the White House years, but at least it gives us an opportunity to spend more time with these talents. Neither is at the top of the game, to be sure, but they're having fun portraying and often times eviscerating the iconic characters. It's enjoyable watching the pure mean-spiritedness this has, sometimes brimming on plagiarizing Mommie Dearest. Bad writing, cheap wigs and Judy Davis's over-the-top turn make this the camp it ought to be.

255. Dead End

255. (28 Oct) Dead End (2003, Jean-Baptiste Andrea & Fabrice Canepa) 36

This starts as okay road trip horror, but rapidly devolves into banality. Rather than inverting or playing with clichés, Dead End lazily relies on them. The ghost story is trite, the loop the characters are trapped in is lame, and this shrill, unlikable family is never worth rooting for. There's not an element of the film that feels original or that hasn't been done much better elsewhere. The terrible twist ending is the final insult. Lin Shaye's performance is playful, at least, which prevents much of this from being a total snooze.

Review: Manic (2003)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt in 2003's indie gem.

Directed by Jordan Melamed
Produced by Trudi Callon and Kirk Hassig
Written by Michael Bacall and Blayne Weaver
Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Michael Bacall, Cody Lightning, Elden Henson, Sara Rivas, and Don Cheadle

***1/2

Despite its 2001 Sundance premiere, this great little film did not premiere in the U.S. until almost 2 and half years later. This indie drama takes place in a mental institution's juvenile wing, which is joined by the hotheaded newcomer, Lyle Jensen (Gordon-Levitt). Some of the other teenagers there are Chad (Bacall), Kenny (Lightning), Sara (Rivas), Michael (Henson), and Tracy (Deschanel). All of these characters have their own problems, and they are under the watch and guidance of Dr. Monroe (Cheadle). Lyle and Michael both struggle with rage and get into fights. Kenny is Lyle's roommate and is dealing with sexual molestation issues. As Lyle tries to get Kenny to open up, he also bonds with Chad, a teen waiting on a large inheritance from his rich uncle. Meanwhile, Sara is getting better, and she tries to help Tracy, who is quiet and who has been verbally abused by her mother for years. Lyle even takes a liking to Tracy when they share similar problems in a group session. Though Lyle is fighting his own demons like the others, he tries put his life together before it's too late.

From what I've read, people either love or hate this movie. I'm in the former category. The film just works. Shot with jarring handheld cinematography, the film revels in its independent roots. Other than Don Cheadle, the cast is mostly full of unknowns (at the time of its release anyway). Both of these distinctions are what makes the film work. The camerawork puts the viewer right in with these characters, as the actors deliver confident, authentic performances. Gordon-Levitt, Cheadle, and Rivas are particularly noteworthy. Gordon-Levitt does an excellent job of internalizing Lyle's anger and somehow externalizing it without overplaying his scenes. Cheadle is both calm and collected as Dr. Monroe, but he explodes in a truly powerful moment that should've been his "Oscar scene". Though Rivas hasn't done much since, she is a natural as Sara, a damaged girl who paints and who is attempting to overcome her problems.  The rest of the cast also performs well. If you want a solid film with great performances, or if you just want to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel in a film together made before (500) Days of Summer, see this movie.

Oscar Tally: None

114. The Wicksboro Incident

114. (14 May) The Wicksboro Incident (2003, Richard Lowry) 29

A joyless, often obnoxious found footage film about an alien takeover, it's almost astounding how The Wicksboro Incident is determined not to have an iota of fun with itself. The aesthetic is cheap and flimsy. The acting is irritating. There's really not much redeeming here except for the way this sets a paranoid mood.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2003

2003

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Samantha Morton in In America

This is a wasted opportunity.2003 offered some really weak Best Actress nominees and Morton was one of them. There were some points where I was minimally impressed but for most of the time I felt really nothing. Too bad, as this could have been something very interesting and moving and yet it became a little dreary and lifeless.

4. Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

I'm very confused. How should I feel? What should I be thinking? For me, Naomi Watts' performance in 21 Grams is a failure. It's not epic fail, it's more of a missed opportunity even though it's extremely hard to say anything about this performance and the movie. All so shady and confusing and again, not in a good way.

3. Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider

Keisha Castle-Hughes, stands out in the awful field of 2003. Although this is not one of the greatest performances, she still turned in a beautiful work, full of substance. The great parts make up for the weaknesses and overall it's a really great job by an extremely young talent.

2. Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give

I ask myself: is this that much from Diane Keaton? Well, probably not. Still, she's extremely funny and entertaining as Erica Barry, she has a wonderful chemistry with Jack Nicholson and she enlightens the screen with her wonderful, radiant personality that I love so much. I might be biased but who cares? I liked her.

1. Charlize Theron in Monster

SURPIRSE! :) This performance is universally praised and for a reason. Charlize Theron gives an unfogettable, astonishing, breathtaking, mindblowing, heart-breaking, angry, bitter, desperate, devastated, devastating, in short brilliant performance as Aileen Wuornos. This might look like another deglam role but it's more than that in my opinion. Charlize really rocks as Aileen, showing the dark sides of human life. Brilliant.

So I can proudly announce

the winner is...

Charlize Theron

in

Monster

As easily as it gets.

Congratulations to Malcolm! Excellent predictions! Prize: you can pick the year I'm going to do after the next one (available for me: 1933, 1943, 1953, 1956, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1968, 1971 1976, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008)

Final thoughts: An awful year. There you go, I said it. I guess that's pretty much what I expected. Charlize was the easiest winner so far. There was so much gap between the first and the second that it almost hurts. Diane and Keisha are pretty solid. However, the other two ladies were not that satisfying (ot put it delicately). Actually, this was the first year when two nominees were fighting for the #4 spot. :) I gave the edge to Naomi because she grew on me a bit.


Omissions: 

• Uma Thurman in Kill Bill Vol. 1. 
• Jamie Lee Curtis in Freaky Friday

The ranking of the reviewed years:

1. 1944
2. 1969
3. 1974
4. 1989
5. 2001
6. 1959
7. 2006
8. 1978
9. 2010
10. 1996
11. 1964
12. 1939
13. 1977
14. 1997
15. 2009
16. 1980
17. 1941
18. 1972
19. 1963
20. 1966
21. 1973
22. 1983
23. 1986
24. 1937
25. 1990
26. 1954
27. 1958
28. 1948
29. 2002
30. 1957
31. 2003
32. 1940
33. 1998
34. 1975

About the next year: Oh, I can't wait to do the next year. It offers not one, but two (or even three?) iconic performances. I really want to make my thoughts clear on that year. It's a historic year. This clue says why:

• VIVA ITALIA! :)

What do you think?

Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider

Keisha Castle-Hughes became the youngest person to receive a Best Actress nomination. She received the acclaim for playing Pai, a girl trying to live up to her grandfather's expectations in the movie Whale Rider. This nomination is also kind of odd as she campaigned in the supporting category so not many saw her nomination coming. However, I really can't decide if the Academy preferred her or Samantha Morton. I guess Morton got more votes, mostly because she was much better-known than Keisha Caste-Hughes.

Whale Rider is a beautiful movie. Although sometimes I felt it was the kind of movie that the Channel 2 of the Hungarian National Television shows on Saturday at 11 PM (= an art movie shown late at night on a channel that nobody watches), I found it really beautiful and pure. The direction avoids being sentimental and that's probably why I loved the movie. There was nothing really artificial about it and everything seemed so natural. Many say it's a family movie but it's not something that I wuold watch with my child (I think it would be incredibly boring for a kid). The actors give proper performances though this isn't really an actor's movie.

That brings me to Keisha Castle-Hughes. I haven't heard much about her, except that she had a baby at 17 and that she starred as Virgin Mary (I think she really was the best choice to play a 14-15-year-old girl, not some 30-year-old Hollywood actress with tons of make-up and lots of lipstick like in the old epics). I think she really has talent but I don't feel that it's that often used. Still, I'm here to talk about one particular performance of hers that helped her to an Oscar nomination.

I've already said that Whale Rider wasn't an actor's movie and that also applies to Keisha Castle-Hughes, in my opinion. This is the kind of movie that has its effect on you with its complexity, the combination of directing, music, cinematography and acting. The individual achievements don't stand out alone, however, together they really do. Castle-Hughes campaigned in supporting for two reasons I think. First, she was a child adn had a better chance in supporting (we know this). Second, Pai doesn't stand out in the story. She may have a crucial part but it's not really emotional or showy.

Some are complaining that her acting is a little bit obvious due to the fact that she's a child. However, I never had any problems with that. Actually, I felt that she acted very naturally and nailed the more emotional scenes. I think she showed well how much Pai wants to gain the love and acceptance of her grandfather. Their relationship on the screen works quite well and I really felt the silent tension between them. I liked how she showed Pai's devotion towards her family. She wants to be the member of the community, she wants to be equal.

There's something so beautiful in this part. I guess it's in its simplicity and naturality. I loved that it wasn't about Oscar or the effect. It was about serving the movie and it did it wonderfully without anything off or unnatural. The development of Pai is also excellent. Keisha showed us the journey of Pai excellently, very rare for such a young actress. I guess it was also about my taste, I like these kind of spiritual movies (and performances). I was amazed how well she understood the point of the movie.

My complaint could be that she's not that outstanding (as I said). Although this performance offers some beautiful, emotional scenes (like her monologue in the end), there wasn't a point when I was totally blown away and captivated by the work. Actually, I was captivated to a degree but not completely, I was still aware that this wasn't reality (I totally lost my sense of reality while watching Theron, for example).

Keisha Castle-Hughes, however, still stands out in the awful field of 2003. Although this is not one of the greatest performances, she still turned in a beautiful work, full of substance. The great parts make up for the weaknesses and overall it's a really great job by an extremely young talent.

When I started, I thought this would be a 3,5 but in the end this was the obvious choice.

What do you think? The Final Conclusion comes soon.

Samantha Morton in In America

Samantha Morton received her second Oscar nomination for playing Sarah, an Irish emigrant in Jim Sheridan's movie, In America. Morton's nomination was pretty much a shocker, something that happens rarely at the Oscar. I think I would have expected Scarlett Johannson or Uma Thurman to be nominated instead of her. Still, it was Samantha Morton who got in but I don't think she received many votes. I believe she was either fourth or fifth depending on how much the Academy lvoed Keisha Castle-Hughes.

In America, while it's not bad, it's not that great, either. Somehow I don't feel as if I've seen it. I mean I know the story and such but somehow I didn't get the whole thing. Still, I was quite moved sometimes, despite the sometimes clichéd story. I think the performances of the children are just excellent. They played their part with such naturality and charm and I feel that they would have deserved some kind of a recognition. Djimon Hounsou was the one who received an Oscar nomination in Best Supporting Actor. I think he was pretty good (certainly better than Benicio del Toro or Ken Watanabe).

Samantha Morton is most certainly a very interesting actress. I've seen people comparing her to Emily Watson and I might just have to agree. The type of acting they offer is quite similar though I feel there's a strong difference between them. Morton mostly plays women who seem to be very strange and nervous but playing a silent role, full of kindness and loveliness (Sweet and Lowdown, that's such an underrated, fun movie). Her character Sarah in this movie is the mix of strange and lovely.

OK, there's one huge problem with this performance (just like with the movie): I feel that I haven't even seen her performance. And there are two reasons for that. First of all, her part (to put it delicately) is quite thin and it's not developed at all in the screenplay. Second, she has very little screentime. Therefore, she doesn't look more than a supporting character. She doesn't have the force and the substance to be considered a true leading performance. It doesn't bother me that much if a supporting role gets nominated in leading as much as the contrary of it. Not at all. I feel that if a smaller role has a huge enough impact on the viewer and the story, it could be considered leading. But, alas, that doesn't apply to Samantha Morton here.

What really bothers me that this could have been such an incredibly effective performance had it been given more time. I felt that Morton was always in the background and the movie was never about her, really. I just wanted to see more of her as the character itself seemed to be very interesting. I mean she's a mother who lost her child and I felt that we should have seen more of Sarah's grief. There's one scene at the hospital where she's crying about her dead child and she cries and screams with her husband. Until then, I've never seen that much desparation and that otherwise excellently done scene felt out of place.

Moreover, Morton and/or the screenplay also could have done something with the self-sacrificing side of this character. I mean, this woman was a teacher and yet she sacrificed her career and worked as a waitress to let her husband look for a job as an actor. However, this aspect is barely mentioned even though it would have added to the drama and it would have made it much more interesting. The supportive wife is a bit cheap way to get the audience's love but even that would have been better.

What I want to point out as a positive thing is that Morton really nails the emotion of this character sometimes. At some points, she was really effective and touching and showed how great this performance really could have been. Again, this is another wasted opportunity.

So after all, 2003 offered some really weak Best Actress nominees and Morton was one of them. There were some points where I was minimally impressed but for most of the time I felt really nothing. Too bad, as this could have been something very interesting and moving and yet it became a little dreary and lifeless.

What do you think?

Charlize Theron in Monster

Charlize Theron received her first Best Actress nomination and the Oscar for playing Aileen Wuornos, a serial-killer prostitute in the movie Monster. In my humble opinion, Charlize Theron's win was pretty much locked. She won tons of awards possible for this performance of hers (though not as much as, say, Helen Mirren for The Queen). Entertainment Weekly actually predicted the win for her eleven months before she won. That's really something and I think Theron won by over 70% of the votes. I just don't buy that Naomi Watts was a serious rival for Charlize.

Monster is a pretty great movie, I think. Patty Jenkins wrote a very interesting screenplay and her directing was free of clichés. I really think that this movie could have been nominated for Best Picture. I guess it was too small compared to LOTR and such. I also believe that Christina Ricci also should have been nominated. Although she's not nearly as great as Theron, she's still pretty good, way better than the actual winner of the year.

There are the so-called deglam roles. A beautiful, sexy actress becomes ugly, even disgusting, play a character of a poor social background, gets nominated for the Oscar and then wins in most of the cases. If wee look at Monster this way then it's really just a deglam role with tons of make-up for Charlize. However, if we look more closely, we get to discover what a truly amazing, mindblowing performance this is. In fact, I've never seen anyone who criticised Charlize's performance (or I just didn't look). For some reason (God knows why), there are some who think Naomi Watts should have won for her overacting but nobody is critical of Charlize. Why? The answer is easy.

As I said, Charlize Theron is amazing in this movie. You don't have to be an expert to see that. You just feel her performance in your guts. There are performances when you forget to be amazed as you are so blown away by it and you're so absorbed that you cannot control your emotions. For instance, Elizabeth Taylor in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf or Jane Fonda in They Shoot Horses, Don't They? In these cases, the actress goes so deep inside the character's mind and identifies with her so well that there's no margin between the performer and the part. They became thos women. Same goes for Charlize Theron. You just don't see the beautiful, sexy Charlize Theron on the screen. You see an ugly, bitter and crazy Aileen Wuornos on the screen. The transformation of Theron was so astonishing that it could have won the Oscar alone.

However, I still haven't even mentioned the darkness that Charlize added to Aileen. To watch the changes in the character is just a terrific experience. First, she seems to be a hardened hooker who wants only beer. And along comes Selby, a young girl seemingly attracted to her and slowly Aileen falls in love with her. I guess Selby is the only one who keeps Aileen sane and Charlize showed that wonderfully. The desperation of Lee in the scenes where she's looking for a decent job is just unbearable. The struggle that we can see is so wrenching. There's a short scene when she's on the street basically begging. It's an astonishing, unforgettable moment. There's so much humiliation there and it's just heart-breaking.

Again, the way Charlize showed Aileen's lvoe for Selby is just amazing. The scene at the skating rink is just unbelievable. I mean the chemistry between the two ladies is just so brilliant that I became really speechless. Selby, in my opinion, was a selfish person who actually used Aileen and forced her into prostitution. Aileen was just desperate not to lose the only great thing about her life. That's Selby. Theron and Ricci work exceptionally together. They really make this a very realistic relationship.

The most devasting scenes in this movie are the ones where Aileen kills her guys. There's only one man who can avoid his fate and it's such a terrifying and intense moment. We see Aileen feeling sorry for her and in the end she just gives her a handjob. However, later she's not this forgiving and she kills an innocent man who really just wants to help her. That's probably one of the best acted scenes in history. Charlize is unbelievable. We just see her become hysterical that she can see a man who has a great life. A life she could never have. It's a brutal, unforgettable, terrifying scene and I'm really not overenthusiastic. The way she screams "I'm sorry!" is so... oh, I can't describe it, watch her. :)

Of course, Aileen cannot avoid her own fate. She has to face with the consqeuences with her acts. That extended telephone scene with Christina Ricci is just amazing again. All the emotion that she put there is just astonishing. Really. Not to mention her breakdown in the courtroom. Fantastic.

This performance is universally praised and for a reason. Charlize Theron gives an unfogettable, astonishing, breathtaking, mindblowing, heart-breaking, angry, bitter, desperate, devastated, devastating, in short brilliant performance as Aileen Wuornos. This might look like another deglam role but it's more than that in my opinion. Charlize really rocks as Aileen, showing the dark sides of human life. Brilliant.

What do you think?

Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

Naomi Watts received her only Best Actress nomination to date for playing Christina Peck, a woman who loses her husband and two daughters in a hit-and-run accident. Some say that Naomi could have been close to Charlize Theron but I wouldn't say so. In fact, I think even Diane Keaton might have got ahead of Watts in that race. Watts didn't get a Globe nomination (that's almost crucial to a leading Oscar) and in my opinion the movie was a bit too much and indepandant for the Academy. Still, I feel that she was at least third.

21 Grams is an incredibly confusing movie. It takes so much time to really get it and this is not a very positive thing. I mean it wants to be so artsy and yet comes off as quite incoherent and complicated. The director made some very stupid decisions, in my opinion. The cinematography wasn't that impressive to me, either. It's just gave a very miserable feeling to the movie and it wasn't in a good way. Sean Penn is quite boring in his role and his achievement is really uneven and the same goes for Benicio del Toro who even got nominated. Melissa Leo (whom I dislike in real life) is the one who's truly outstanding here.

Many people are crazy about Naomi Watts' performance in Mulholland Drive but I'll be very honest with you. Although I've seen Mulholland Drive and I even loved it, I cannot remember Watts' performance at all. She could be brilliant, I just don't remember that's it. Still, I started to watch 21 Grams as open-mindedly as humanly possible. In fact, I expected to love her as her part seemed to be very much like Halle Berry's in Monster's Ball. True, there's some kind of a similarity between the characters and even the performances and yet Watts didn't work with me, at least.

People are mad about this performance. Some are mad in a positive sense and some are mad at it because I hate it. However, once again I just cannot say that I fall into either of those categories. Actually, I'm really in the middle. Or not? Because I don't feel indifferent about it. That's what I felt about Martha Scott in Our Town or Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love. I have very complicated feelings about it. I feel a little bit of anger and hate but I'm not furious and I'm not scratching my own head crazily like I did with Ann-Margret. Or do I?

It's so incredily hard for me to talk about this performance. I guess all of the other bloggers/writers know what I mean. I just really don't know what to say about this work. The first reason for that is that it's so... little. It might be unfair that I'm comparing her work to Halle Berry's tour-de-force in Monster's Ball but I expected emotional fireworks from this performance. And I felt that Watts did try to create them and yet she failed and it was a bit ugly fail, at least for me.

Watts' performance is mostly criticised for the things that I liked the most about her. Her Oscar clip ("I'm PARALYYYYYYYYYYYZED!") is certainly her strongest scene in the movie. I actually saw bits and pieces of those much-needed fireworks. The other loud and hysterical scenes are all too much, though. And the thing that really bothered me was what the heck she really wanted to say with this work (or I can ask the same question about the movie). What was the point? I guess it wanted to show the effects of death but I've seen much better movies in the subject. It's all a really failed effort, which may not be a total disaster but it's really like a fly on the wall. It bothers you. Although it's able not to do so, it does once you think about it. That would be OK, if the movie or Watts was disturbing but (for me) they weren't. I constantly see all the goals of Watts and yet they never really materialize on the screen. Too bad. I guess something really midnblowing could have come out of this movie. Or not? In fact (as I said), Christina's part is very little. Not in screentime, in content. I would expect some more depth.

Again, I'm very confused. How should I feel? What should I be thinking? For me, Naomi Watts' performance in 21 Grams is a failure. It's not epic fail, it's more of a missed opportunity even though it's extremely hard to say anything about this performance and the movie. All so shady and confusing and again, not in a good way.

What do you think?

Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give

Diane Keaton received her fourth Best Actress nomination for playing Erica Barry, a divorced, rich playwright in Something's Gotta Give. I think if it hadn't been for Charlize Theron, Diane Keaton would have won her second Oscar in that so-so year. She won the Golden Globe (actually, she was the only nominee besides Theron who was nominated for the Golden Globe), this was sort of a comeback (and also a movie that brought many movies for her that are all total disasters) plus she's Diane Keaton, who's nominated every decade. I wonder if she'll get a nomination this decade, too.

Something's Gotta Give is a movie that really doesn't fit my taste. Just like with It's Complicated I feel a bit awkward looking at these divorced people who are rich as hell and don't have any real problems just some issues in their love lives. That being said, I still had some fun while watching it, despite the fact that it's totally predictable. I think Jack Nicholson is very good in his role but I don't feel that it was much of a strech for him. The others gave pretty forgettable performances.

OK, let's start it here: I really love Diane Keaton. Her performance as Annie Hall is beyond words for me and I'm so in love with her roles in the 70s and the 80s. One can say that she's playing Annie Hall over and over again but I wouldn't say so. I think she's much more versatile than people actually think. She could play a totally iconic character, she could light up one of the most boring movies of all time (Reds) with her performance as the radical feminist, she could be a lonely, forgotten spinster in Crimes of the Heart or a leukemia patient in Marvin's Room. I think she's pretty great despite the horrible choices she's made in her career recently. I still hope for a really, truly great role for her.

Because to tell the truth, the part of Erica Barry is not that great. Seriously, she's a typical middle-aged rom-com heroine who hasn't had sex since the Mesozoic Era. She really doesn't have much depth but she's the one you can laugh at. I guess Diane Keaton really was the best choice to play her. She's like an older, updated version of Annie Hall without that special sparkling that was present in Woody Allen's classic.

There are many people who really love this performance. Although I'm not one of them, I still really liked Diane in this movie as she managed to be very entertaining plus she delivered the best performance of the actors. I had fun while looking at her, while I saw her laughing, crying and so on. The first scene of Erica is a typical Diane Keaton moment with the loud, over-the-top scream and exaggerated mannerisms. And they all work or at least for me. A memorable entrance is always a positive thing in my book. I guess that influenced my way of looking at this performance. If I instantly like something, it's hard for me to dislike it after a while.

Keaton's chemistry with Jack Nicholson is the most crucial element of the whole movie. If it had not been there, everything would have failed. Fortunately, it's really present and they make up a really great couple (that's probably why they are still my favorite Best Picture presenters of the past). I don't know there's something both simple and extraordinary about them that I really cannot explain. They just seem to be great together.

There's something that Diane Keaton managed to do here that Meryl Streep failed to do in It's Complicated. Keaton was able to avoid making a total fool of herself even though that naked scene was on the edge. It wasn't even that funny but still it could have been way more awkward. Somehow, she was able to keep the balance between funny and idiot. Just like the crying scene. She's so over-the-top and yet I laughed my butt off as she was just hilarious. I guess it would be much for some but not for me. Somehow I have a thing for exaggerated cries in a comedies. Looking at Diane is like watching Doris Day in Pillow Talk sometimes and that's also probably why I loved her so much sometimes.

As I said, the movie is totally predictable and yet Diane's performance elevates it somehow. She gives it what it needed: spirit. She fills it with her luminous, wonderful presence and made it a really funny, lovely experience.

I ask myself, though: is this that much from Diane Keaton? Well, probably not. Still, she's extremely funny and entertaining as Erica Barry, she has a wonderful chemistry with Jack Nicholson and she enlightens the screen with her wonderful, radiant personality that I love so much. I might be biased but who cares? I liked her.

A true, strong 4.

What do you think?

The Next Year

2003

So the nominees were:

• Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider
• Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give
• Samantha Morton in In America
• Charlize Theron in Monster
• Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

I surrender. Let's see this year. :)

What do you think? Who's your pick? What are your predictions?