Lists

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

OSCAR WATCH: SAG Nominations


And so it begins. The Screen Actors Guild has spoken and they've really thrown some curveballs at us this year with their nominations. As expected, Birdman (4 noms) and Boyhood (3 noms) had strong showings but almost every category had some surprises. Sure they seemed like possiblities, but was anyone confident about The Grand Budapest Hotel (Ensemble), Jake Gyllenhall (Actor), Jennifer Aniston (Actress), Robert Duvall (Supporting Actor) and Naomi Watts (Supporting Actress)? In terms of snubs, I'm sure the teams behind Selma and Unbroken will be very concerned after this shutout. Should we dismiss them as potential Best Picture winners? Taking the ultimate prize without a SAG ensemble nod is incredibly rare. We have lots to ponder, folks. In the mean time, here are your SAG nominees:

Best Ensemble
Boyhood
Birdman
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
The Theory of Everything

Best Actor
Steve Carell, Foxcatcher
Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game
Jake Gyllenhaal, Nightcrawler
Michael Keaton, Birdman
Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything

Best Actress
Jennifer Aniston, Cake
Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything
Julianne Moore, Still Alice
Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl
Reese Witherspoon, Wild

Best Supporting Actor
Robert Duvall, The Judge
Ethan Hawke, Boyhood
Edward Norton, Birdman
Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher
J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

Best Supporting Actress
Patricia Arquette, Boyhood
Keira Knightley, The Imitation Game
Emma Stone, Birdman
Meryl Streep, Into the Woods
Naomi Watts, St. Vincent

1 comment:

  1. Yay Jake! I really hope he can build some more momentum this awards season. It's insane for him to not be in the running.

    I'm getting more interested in Cake.

    And lastly, Naomi Watts for St Vincent!? She was excellent in Birdman so I thought that's what she would be nominated for, but I don't get it for St Vincent. She does perfectly well in the part, but it's so broad. I'd throw in several supporting actress performances before that.

    ReplyDelete