Well, the ceremony hasn't started yet, so I can share my opinions on what I hope wins, what I wish was nominated, and so forth.

First of all, I haven't seen Three Billboards or Lady Bird. I was really interested in the latter. The former didn't catch my attention so much, although a friend of mine has a strong interest in seeing it. In any case, from what's nominated, I've seen most of them, but from what I've heard of Lady Bird, if it's anything like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, I'd kind of want that one to win. Perks didn't get enough attention when it came out, and it was in my opinion one of the best movies of the whole decade. I'd also put Rudderless on my top ten for this decade as well. Anyway, everything that I hear about it makes me want it to win Best Picture. It doesn't sound like it's the favored, though.

Going off of what's favored, I'd have to say Get Out makes sense as a pick. Judging what is the "best picture" is incredibly subjective, and there are really no criteria. On one hand, I'd say "It's what's most cinematic!" At the same time, Best Picture often reflects something about its time in history and gives people in the future a good snapshot of a period. If you go back in time, you'll notice that there was a time when we reflected a great deal on World War II, and movies of that subject often won. Culturally, we're in a different place now. We're thinking about the present. I also think that the most common criteria used by voters isn't "What feels the most cinematic?" but more specifically, "What movie is of the greatest benefit to society? What are we better off for having that we should acknowledge?" Get Out fits those criteria.

Best Screenplay awards, by the way, often have similar criteria. One way you could judge them is "Which screenplays have the best structure?" but that often gets put into editing. Usually, it's more, "Which stories provide the most interesting and rewarding talking points?" Again, Get Out had a lot going for it in this category.

With that having been said, I don't think that it deserved a nominated for Best Director and Best Actor. Picture and Screenplay, yes, but not the others, because as it happens there are other talents that I'd nominate first.

So here we go...

Best Picture

I would have liked to have seen The Disaster Artist get a nomination here. Just a nomination. It doesn't have to be a win. Due to the way that this category works, it didn't even need to bump anyone off. Wouldn't it be hilarious if the "sequel/prequel" to the so-called worst movie of all time ended up with a nomination for Best Picture? I think that would have been a pretty cool narrative. This is one that I'd nominate not for any sort of message, but for being such a special cinematic experience.

Best Director

Dennis Villeneuve should have replaced Jordan Peele. Of the people nominated, I think that del Toro should win, but if you asked me who was the best regardless of nomination, I really rooted for Villeneuve. I didn't like his last sci-fi film, Arrival, all that much, but I really liked Sicario and Prisoners (that's a very long movie, by the way). Blade Runner 2049 was one of the best movies of the year and really put hmi on my radar. I'm pretty disappointed that he didn't get nominated, especially since Roger Deakins might finally win his Oscar, and there has been a five-year streak where Best Cinematography and Best Director went hand-in-hand. I really love good cinematography, and I hoped that this streak would continue in order to encourage directors to care more about their cinematographers. Seriously, though, Blade Runner 2049 had more than just good cinematography going for it. It was a superbly directed movie that really surprised me on just about every level, and for me Villeneuve is the unquestionable best director of the year.

Additionally, while I might have given some consideration to Steven Spielberg for how he managed to make and release The Post on a dime, while also directing Ready Player One. He's a legend. However, it isn't necessarily the freshest choice, and as well-directed as The Post was, I understand that this is a case where the film is better than the director. Plus, I don't know who I would have him replace. I already said that Villeneuve should replace Peele, but can I really make the case for Spielberg to replace Christopher Nolan? Personally, I didn't like Nolan's out-of-order style for Dunkirk, but that's more bad editing than bad directing. Overall, Dunkirk was an incredibly impressive technical achievement for which he is to credit, so I can't really say that Spielberg should have been nominated over him. I haven't seen Lady Bird yet, so I can't say if its strength is more in its script and its performances or in its technical direction, but perhaps Spielberg could replace Greta Gerwig, but again, I don't feel that I can make that call, especially having not seen the movie yet.

So ultimately, the only change here is that I'd replace Peele with Villeneuve.

Original Score

Michael Giacchino delivered one of the better scores of the year in War for the Planet of the Apes. Having heard now The Shape of Water and Phantom Thread, I think that those two are the clear front-runners and the most worthy of actually winning, but I think that Giacchino could have bumped out Hans Zimmer. If not him, then the other person worthy of bumping out Hans Zimmer is Hans Zimmer himself, since I enjoyed his score in Blade Runner 2049 better.

The other people I thought would be acknowledged but weren't were John Debney and Joseph Trapanese. They scored The Greatest Showman, which was a musical. And it was catchy. Musicals are, like, the prime suspects for Best Original Score nominations. How did they not get nominated? I understand that the critics didn't like the movie's story for not being the most true-to-life, but a good score is a good score. And furthermore, you know who I would have them bump off? Lord-Commander John Williams, Legend of Leitmotifs, Keeper of Scores, Crafter of Compositions, Master of Maestros, and The Man. Yeah. I actually rather liked the score for Episode VIII, but a lot of it was recycled that I don't know why it was nominated for Best Original Score. John Williams is the best of the best, but I have to give credit where it's due. Debney and Trapanese had more ambition this year.

Best Actress

There are women who aren't Meryl Streep, you know. Were you aware of that, Academy? She isn't Tigger. She isn't the only one. Therefore, I'd replace her with Gal Gadot, who I thought deserved not only a nomination, but a win. She took a highly recognizable, iconic character, and stuck with the role after many-many people (including myself) said that she wasn't a good pick. She was too skinny, we said. She was only a model, we said. And yet, she surprised us. She played a character that everyone has a strong opinion of, where people have very specific expectations, and managed to make everyone love her. It was an impossible task, one that she completed with charisma. She captured Wonder Woman, and she became one of the greatest highlights of the year. You know what? It may not have been a drama, but I thought that she deserved an Oscar for that. I really did, and I still do.

Failing that, you could replace Streep with Vicky Krieps. Or Michelle Williams. Anyone who did a good job, really.

Best Actor

First of all, it's unfortunate that James Franco now faces some rather incriminating scandals, which sounds like the probable reason for his turn as Tommy Wiseau not receiving a nomination. However, if I were to go off of the performance itself, I thought that it was good enough to be in the list of nominees. The most obvious person that I'd have him replace would be Daniel Kaluuya, who also stared in a movie that was both creepy and comedic. I understand Kaluuya's nomination, actually, since comedy is harder than people think, but it just didn't stand out to me in the same way that Jimmy Frank did (Can I call him that?). He had a lot more going on, and also pulled off a pretty good imitation of Tommy Wiseau without making it a straight facsimile.

There's also the movie that I think a lot of us cared about. I think that Hugh Jackman should have received recognition for his 17 years as James/Logan/Wolverine, for how he embodied a superhero (in my opinion) better than any other actor ever has. I cannot imagine anyone else as his character. He is Logan. You know what? That's good acting. It deserved recognition. It's hard to say who I think he should have replaced, but I'd probably have to go with Denzel Washington. Washington is one of those people that the Academy nominated out of habit, and though I didn't see his movie this year, I took a glance and it doesn't look as interesting as Fences. Actually, Roman J. Israel, Esq looks really good, and it looks like he has a pretty good character. with a magnetic personality Plus, it's written and directed by the same person who did Nightcrawler, which was a really cool movie with a great script. So perhaps that movie could have bumped off one of the Best Screenplay nominees, but I haven't seen it, so again, I wouldn't know. In any case, Denzel looks like he could have been the easiest person for Jackman to replace.

People keep on saying that Andy Serkis had his best performance as a MoCap character yet, and I have to agree. Of course, looking at the other performances, I can't bump anyone to make room for him. If it's any consolation, it looks like his simian series might finally have a clear path to winning Best Visual Effects.

In the end, none of this matters. We all know that nobody stands a chance in a year when Daniel Day-Lewis announces that he's retiring.

Best Supporting Actor

Patrick Stewart. Can you believe he's never been nominated before? Now, I haven't seen Three Billboards, but I'll risk looking like an idiot by saying that Woody Harrelson could be bumped. Am I wrong? You tell me. He did give a good performance in War for the Planet of the Apes., so I know that he can act, and it's a good thing that he's getting acknowledged. But...he's the person I'm guessing could have been bumped, because I have to bump someone.

Also, I liked Dave Franco as Greg Sestero in The Disaster Artist, because he managed to be just as interesting as his brother's far more eccentric performance. However, it wasn't as if he was so good that I feel he needed to be nominated. After seeing the movie, I thought that it was a possibility and I had him on my radar, but that's not the same as my shortlist.

Christopher Plummer already has a nomination and has my pick for the top honors here.

Best Cinematography

My favorite cinematography for the whole year actually came from John Mathieson for Logan. On its own, Logan doesn't have the best cinematography. However, Logan Noir, the black and white rendition, is one of the most beautiful movies I've seen in years. With words like that, it's clear that I not only thought that it was good, but good enough to win. There were so many points throughout that movie where I wanted to freeze the frame and make a charcoal drawing of what I saw, but I couldn't exactly do that in the theatre. As an artist who works in black and white, though, man, I really appreciated it. Yes, I'm aware that in loving this so much, I'm splitting my preferences for Best Director and Best Cinematography, but hey, the best is the best, wherever it may come from. Who would I have them replace? Bruno Delbonnel, since Darkest Hour has BBC-level cinematography. For whatever reason, Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game shared the "really good BBC movie" description, and also received similar accolades. Eh. To me, that's like saying that something is a really good Hallmark Channel movie. Anyway, Darkest Hour has the weakest cinmatography of nominees.

The other cinematographers that stood out to me last year were Janusz Kaminski of The Post and uncredited cinematographer for Phantom Thread. If Paul Thomas Anderson had opted to credit himself for the cinematography of Phantom Thread (which he technically could have), it surely would have been nominated. Seeing as he didn't want the grandeur, he's technically inelligible, and I'd go with Kaminski. It's a tough decision for who I'd bump off. You simply cannot bump Roger Deakins (Blade Runner 2049) or Dan Laustsen (The Shape of Water), which leaves Rachel Morrison (Mudbound) and Hoyte van Hoytema (Dunkirk) left. Ultimately, if it was Paul Thomas Anderson, I'd replace Hoyte van Hoytema, which is a hard decision. Ultimately, though, they're the most comparable, since they both used 70mm film. And even then, I don't feel comfortable saying that, since Anderson used it gratuitously, and Hoytema had a clear and obvious reason for the 70mm format. So it's about even. All I can say is that I really liked the cinematography for Kaminski and Anderson and they at the very least deserve a shout-out.

Best Animated Feature

This is a no-brainer. LEGO Batman beats Boss Baby.

Not that it matters much. I just wanted to say that that Loving Vincent is the most worthy nomination for its category than any other nomination this year. It's also probably the best animated film since Toy Story 3.