Best Pic Oscar Nods for Django, Les Mis, Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty...

Reason 24/7 notes that Stephen Speilberg's Lincoln has snagged a dozen nominations at this year's Oscars.

Here's a rundown of the top categories.

Best Picture:

Best Director: 

Best Actor:

Best Actress:

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Best Original Screenplay:

All the other nominees are here.

Bonus: The Biggest Oscar snubs this year!

Read Kurt Loder's movie reviews here.

Your opinions matter, so fill the comments below!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Have not seen any of those movies.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Same here. Not one. I'd like to see Django, and maybe Lincoln.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I haven't seen any of the other movies, but Lincoln should get everything.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Especially director. Bigelow got shafted, Russell got a gift. For that matter Bigelow's shaft was Spielberg's gift.

  • ||

    Lincoln is so overrated.
    Besides being historically inaccurate.

    Out of that batch, I'd have to say Django Unchained was the best, but I havn't seen them all.

    Still, I fully expect Lincoln to win.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Four score and seven minutes ago you brought forth on this blog, a new comment, conceived in stupidity, and dedicated to the proposition that Django was the best film ever.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Tarantino usually bores me.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I mostly enjoy Tarantino in the small doses I take his films, and will probably like Django. Lincoln was highly entertaining, even if you're not a fan of the man. Day-Lewis is gold.

  • Killazontherun||

    Day-Lewis is the reason it's on my Netflix list already, but I fully expected the movie to be this year's Shakespeare in Love. A movie that stroked Hollywood in all the right places, but no one has bothered to watch again in well over a decade. The Oscar nomination dominance is almost like a confirmation. I hope you're right, though.

  • ||

    Sharespeare in Love is still good. it was better than Saving Private Ryan, which nobody has watched in over a decade either.

    But Elizabeth is better than both of them and is beloved by millions, and has entered the canon as a classic.

  • ||

    Django is actually rather restrained for a Tarantino film.

    And I did not find the number of n-words distracting.

    Leonardo Di Caprio chews the scenery.

  • Bee Tagger||

    A dedicated commenter would have waited until 11:42 to post this.

  • Tim||

    The problen with Lincoln winning is that we'll be subjected to a series of increasingly awful presidential biopics:
    Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Cleveland I and Cleveland II.

  • ||

    I can't wait to see Hoover.

  • mr simple||

    Your opinions matter, so fill the comments below!

    It stinks!

  • Redmanfms||

    One of the best cartoons of the early-'90s.

  • Juice||

    That and Dr. Katz.

  • ||

    Was it just my computer, or was the formatting on that article just terrible? Words ran together, there were no italics, underlining, or other ways of identifying the movie from the actor unless you knew which was which.

  • Drake||

    I couldn't tell if I was reading it wrong or if I had just never heard of any of the people and most of the movies. Both is the likely answer.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    This is what happens when lazy people copy and paste into HTML and don't bother proof reading or adding the relevant tags that would properly format the movie titles to conform to Reason's style guide.

    That or Nick got the intern to do his job for him on this one.

  • Rasilio||

    Wait, so you're saying that Atlas Shrugged pt 2 Didn't get nominated for anything?

    I'm sorry but that just proves the whole thing is a sham.

    /sarc

  • sarcasmic||

    I signed up for Netflix last month and found they have Part 1.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think they had it pretty early on, they just weren't bragging about it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's on Amazon Prime, too. Still not that interested in watching it.

  • Brandon||

    It's better than part 1. The cliffhanger ending is kind of frustrating, though.

  • SIV||

    If anyone deserved a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Django Unchained it was Samuel L Jackson in the role of Clarence Thomas.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    It's almost as if Jackson were born to play the role of the house slave...

  • ||

    Evil. But I laughed.

  • RyanXXX||

    Agreed. He nailed the role, and was the most interesting character in the film

  • SIV||

    Jackson had the best role and performance in the movie. He easily upstaged de Caprio but that was by design.

  • SIV||

    "DiCaprio"

  • ||

    DiCaprio was great too. But I agree that Jackson's was the best performance. Or maybe it was merely that it was such a great (and well written) character.

    DiCaprio was a bit over the top.

  • Rasilio||

    As far as the actual nominations, I do believe this is the first year in my adult life where I have only seen 1 nominated movie, Life of Pi.

    Not sure I would say that it was the best movie of the year, it was certainly very good and worthy of being in the discussion. I would say it deserves a best cinematography award because it is probably the most beautiful movie I have seen since Avatar

  • Drake||

    Agreed - my only movie too. The visuals reminded me of "The Fall" which I really liked.

  • Restoras||

    The only movie I saw on the list is Zero Dark Thirty, and it was excellent.

    What did you think of it, Mr. Jacket?

  • John||

    I heard it was pretty kick ass.

  • kinnath||

    I used to love going to the movies. I would typically see at least 4 out of the 5 best picture nominees before the nominations were announced.

    I haven't been to a theater in a couple of years. I just wait for movies to show up in HD on HBO or Showtime. Even then, I only watch a few movies.

    Looking at the expanded list of ten best picture nominees, it is likely I will only bother to see two, maybe three, of this years nominees when then come out in rotation.

    Hollywood absolutely sucks at this time.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I tend to agree. I'm far less interested in new films than I once was. Though one will surprise me now and then.

  • kinnath||

    Zero Dark Thirty may be a compelling movie, but I don't see how it can stand up to Season 1 of Homeland.

  • Pro Libertate||

    TV, interestingly enough, may be producing some of its best works ever. What's interesting about that is that it's happening at a time when the amount of crap--primarily of the reality nature--dominates much of the airtime.

  • kinnath||

    TV is splitting into two different domains: bulk crap and niche, high-quality shows {fulfilling cableTV's promise about 20 years after it was made}.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I watched an episode of Homeland the other day for the first time. Other than the Mandy Patinkin character I did not find it all that compelling. I think the whole potential VP story line just seems a bit too farfetched. Yeah, know it's just a show but still.

  • kinnath||

    Season 2 was eratic. Season 1 was amazing (almost perfect, but they chickened out when he pushed the button).

  • Lord Humungus||

    ^^this^^

    I loved movies right up to the point that uber-CGI and the remakes started clogging up the theaters.

    Personally I blame Star Wars and the erosion it caused.

  • AlmightyJB||

    They're better if you're high.

  • Ted S.||

    Hollywood has been doing remakes since the 1930s. Humphrey Bogart's version of The Maltese Falcon is at least the third version of the story.

    Obviously, they haven't been doing CGI that long.

  • Ted S.||

    Most of my movie watching is TCM: movies made before I was even born.

  • ||

    Beasts of the Southern Wild?

    Seriously?
    That was interesting, in an anthropological kind of way, but I wouldn't call it a great film. It's the worst sort of poverty porn.

    The thing that bothers me the most about it is that the characters, despite priding themselves on their independence, do absolutely nothing to improve their quality of life. They are unrepentant alcoholics who can't be bothered to do so much as weave a fishing net or fix a leaking roof. They're all pretty much hopeless failures of human beings. The most initiative they show is blowing up a levee to drain their area after a hurricane.

    The film seems to fawn over their poverty stricken state, yet their behavior displays that the conditions they live under is almost entirely their own fault, considering they can catch fish just by sticking their hands in the water, but havn't figured out how to make a fishing rod (and don't seem inclined to try). Not once does any adult do anything beyond the absolute minimum necessary to stay alive. They don't clean, they don't make repairs, they leave their trash lying around, they live in their own filth, they're constantly drunk, and then we're supposed to feel sorry for their poor state of health and the squalor they live in.

  • John||

    Hollywood loves poverty porn. Look at how they fell all over Precious a few years ago. That movie was nothing but exploitative poverty porn to make white liberals feel good about themselves. Beasts of the Southern Wind is similar.

  • ||

    I agree.

    Sadly, the trend seems to have started with 'City of God' which is legitimately an awesome film. (One of my all time personal favorites).

    But then a few years later they made 'Slumdog Millionaire' which is essentially the same story as 'City of God', in English, with a love interest and a happy ending. And when that won Best Picture, poverty porn became the new Oscar Bait. And ever since then we've been treated to sappy stories about children living in squalor.

    City of God had the benefit of also being a great gangster movie and a coming of age tale. It wasn't just about children living in a slum.

  • sarcasmic||

    Poverty is romantic. That's why liberals are so enthralled with socialism. It reduces everyone to romantic poverty.

  • ||

    The poverty in Beasts of the Southern Wild isn't romantic. It's repellent.

    These aren't your hard-working poor suffering under the yolk of capitalist oppressors. These are your abject drunks floundering in the gutter with their own vomit.

  • John||

    Hazel,

    Liberals think that is romantic.

  • ||

    Ironically, though, that one of the most heroic moments of the movie is when they escape from the social service workers they were taken to after the hurricane. Rather than be relocated to a nice clean housing project, they hijack a bus and drive it back to the filth infested 'Bathtub'.

    The thing is that the characters have a libertarian streak in them. But that annoys me because the film portrays them as being inacapable of actually helping themselves. They want to be free of the well-meaning welfare state, but the film implies that the only alternative to government aid for them is abject stinking poverty and filth.

    That's why it pisses me off that it never shows any of them showing any skills or initiative or cleaning or making any repairs. It's like the don't even think that human beings are actualy capable of helping themselves.

  • John||

    The sad fact is some people are not capable of helping themselves. They like living in filth because doing so gives them a certain amount of freedom. Kristoferson had it right when he said freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. Some people really live by that motto.

    Liberals go astray when they fail to realize that and think they can use the miracle power of government to make such people into hard working middle class citizens. Libertarians also sometimes go astray and over sell their ideology by pretending that such people don't exist or that they wouldn't exist if it were not for government. Even in libertopia, some people are going to choose to live in filth and do horrible things. No, people can't be perfected by being left alone anymore than they can be perfected by government.

  • sarcasmic||

    Libertarians also sometimes go astray and over sell their ideology by pretending that such people don't exist or that they wouldn't exist if it were not for government.

    I smell a straw man.

  • John||

    This may come a surprise to you, but Libertarians like every other ideological group have blind spots and are susceptible to being naive over selling their claims.

    If you think that is a straw man, then you think you are perfect and are proving my point.

    Thank you.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you think that is a straw man, then you think you are perfect and are proving my point.

    I don't know what you are talking about. Libertarianism is about personal choice and responsibility, which includes living like a bum.

  • Brandon||

    This may come a surprise to you, but Libertarians like every other ideological group have blind spots and are susceptible to being naive over selling their claims.

    Is that why you're a Republican?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sure, some people are worthless fucks. But far fewer than leftists appear to believe, and definitely fewer in a society that doesn't reward non-productive members.

    I'm frequently amazed that blacks and other groups that the left basically owns don't revolt precisely for that reason--that they are viewed as incapable of doing things and thinking for themselves. It's an absolutely reprehensible mindset to me.

  • John||

    For sure. The number of absolute worthless fucks is much fewer than liberals believe. But there will always be someone who abuses their freedoms. It is the price we all have to pay for having them.

  • ||

    I don't doubt such people exist. It just makes it extremely hard to sympathize with them. Which makes watching the film a rather obnoxious experience.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Ernest Hemingway?

  • John||

    Not saying they should win, but I bet Amour wins best picture, Lincoln isn't that good, and Zero Dark thirty has too many enemies. I bet the old farts go for the dreary French Drama so they can feel artistic. Then I would guess Lewis and Chastain win the acting awards.

  • ||

    Have not seen Amour yet.
    What did you think of it?

  • John||

    I thought it was depressing. I like foreign flicks. But it didn't do a lot for me.

  • SugarFree||

    What a terrible year for movies made to win Oscars.

  • John||

    I thought Argo was really good. I am told Life of Pi and Zero Dark Thirty are good. And I would imagine that Les Miserables is good if you have a taste for Andrew Lloyd Weber, which I don't but a lot of people do. So it wasn't all bad.

  • SugarFree||

    But overall it wasn't a good year for the Oscar genre. Les Mis, of course, but there wasn't one doomed Pixar movie for everyone to gush over, or a nice solid costume soap opera to bored the fuck out of people.

    I mean, they hit all the right notes--picaresque poverty, adaptation of a novel the right peopleclaimed to have read, elderly French dreariness, a woman director, the white guilt buffet and the whites-only musical, with sops to the master pastichists and Normals who see films--but I'm note sure all those notes make a song.

  • John||

    There wasn't a single great movie made this year. Just some very good ones.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Why is everyone panning Lincoln? Is it ideology? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

  • John||

    I haven't seen it. I heard it just wasn't that good, although I am told Lewis was amazing in the role. What did you think of it? I am not a Lincoln hater at all. Was it great?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I went into the theater not really wanting to see it, but ended up enjoying it immensely. And it wasn't just Day-Lewis, although he was pretty solid as usual.

  • SugarFree||

    I haven't seen it, it might be a fine movie, but I a) don't care about Spielberg and b) I get far more than my fill of the Civil War at my job.

    Fun fact: Mary Todd Lincoln's childhood home was a whorehouse in the 1880s.

  • John||

    Mary was crazy, but made up for it by being fat and domineering. I think maybe fat, loathsome wives make a great man. If your wife is hot and pleasant, you spend your time at home. If she is fat, crazy and loathsome, you become a workaholic and get to the top because the other alternative is going home at night.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...I get far more than my fill of the Civil War at my job.

    It was more about working the House of Representatives to pass the 13th Amendment than about the war. There are some pretty good scenes of congressmen on the House floor ripping each other. SPOILER ALERT.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I just like the part when he starts slaughtering vampires wholesale.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    YOU GET OUT OF HERE WITH THAT I ALREADY USED THAT JOKE AT THE THEATER.

  • Tim||

    With Lincoln and Django unchained you get practically the whole civil war.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The Hobbit was good, but not great.

  • Tim||

    Except for when the X-Men fight at Gettysburg.

  • RBS||

    "..I get far more than my fill of the Civil War at my job."

    This. I've lived in the South my entire life and have been surrounded by Civil War stuff for as long as I can remember.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Of all the nominations, I've only seen Django Unchained. Therefore it should win all the awards, because I have impeccable taste.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Indifferent, I am.

    The only movie I have seen in a theater in at least five years was Senna.

    As for Lincoln; based on a slobbery review by one of the usual NYT suspects, the whole story boils down to THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

    It will undoubtedly sweep the noteworthy categories.

  • John||

    Sometimes the ends do justify the means. It depends on what the ends and the means are. If the end is ending slavery, a whole lot of means are justified.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Invade, free the slaves, leave.

  • John||

    Sure. And that is kind of what they did. But after they were finished, there wasn't much left and the South didn't see much point in remaining independent.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The bad thing is that by killing the idea of secession--which was THE founding principle of this country--and by weakening the states, the foundation for the tyranny to come was established.

    It's like a Greek tragedy, where America's greatness is destroyed by a fatal flaw.

  • John||

    There is some truth to that. And I completely blame the South for using the right of secession for the most loathsome purpose imaginable. Slavery is in many ways the great Greek tragic flaw of this country. That is why I loath the people who owned slaves and have little patience for anyone who defends or tries to make excuses for them.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sure, but I think we tend to not give the South (and, let's not forget, some Union states) the historical perspective we do for past cultures. After all, Greece, Rome, Florence, and pretty much everyone else had slaves or near slaves for thousands of years.

    That doesn't make slavery right, even back then, but we are standing on the shoulders of people who made individual rights important enough for people in general to realize that at least some forms of oppression were (and are) wrong.

    In other words, would we go back and nuke classical Athens because it had slaves?

  • John||

    No Pro I wouldn't nuke Athens. But slavery was on its way out in the 18th Century. They were already banning the international slave trade. People were waking up to it. And it was dying. That is until the cotton gin made it profitable.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's all academic now, anyway. I'm just saying that the evil of slavery was an American problem, not just a southern one, and the means used to end it fatally damaged the U.S. (I believe) in the long run. Perhaps there was no other way, but I still wish things had been handled differently.

  • John||

    If the South hadn't gone crazy and started shooting, it would have turned out differently. If slavery hadn't spread, eventually, the western states would have been numerous enough to amend the Constitution and end slavery.

    Slavery was going to end one way or another. It only ended the way it did because the South refused to let it end peacefully.

  • Tim||

    "If the South hadn't gone crazy "

    A little too simple John, there was a bloody little war in Kansas where guys like John Brown were trading atrocity for atrocity.

  • John||

    There was a bloody war in Kansas because southern terrorists came over from Missouri to terrorize the state into being slave. John Brown didn't commit 1/100th of the atrocities that people like Cantrell did.

    The Antebellum Southerners were scum.

  • sarcasmic||

    If the end is ending slavery, a whole lot of means are justified.

    Except that the war was not initiated to end slavery. That came later.

  • John||

    So what. It resulted in the end of slavery. You judge things by their results not by their intentions. Suppose the war had been initiated to end slavery but had failed. Would that war have been a better war than the one that was initiated to end secession but resulted in ending slavery? I don't think so.

  • $park¥||

    You judge things by their results not by their intentions.

    Speak for yourself there, chief.

  • John||

    So you don't judge anything by its results there Sparky? You totally judge things by their intentions? You must love welfare then. Never was there a more well intentioned program. And since you don't judge anything by its results, just its intentions, the fact that welfare resulted in horrible second order effects is not something you would consider, right?

    Come there Chief, tell us all about how you only judge by intention and not results.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's a matter of honesty, John. Stories of Lincoln and the Civil War are sold as if everything was about ending slaver, when that is in fact a lie. The war was to end all notions of state sovereignty. Ending slavery was incidental.

  • $park¥||

    So you don't judge anything by its results there Sparky? You totally judge things by their intentions?

    Way to put words in my mouth, dummy. YOU judge only the results, as evidenced by your post. Intention is a fine starting point, but it's the action itself that really matters.

  • sarcasmic||

    So what. It resulted in the end of slavery.

    Do you know what the word 'incidental' means?

    It is somewhat ironic that the war ended slavery, yet it made us all slaves to the federal government.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It is somewhat ironic that the war ended slavery, yet it made us all slaves to the federal government.

    Calling 1-800-BULLSHIT there. There is no evidence the Civil War started America's 'great decline' of freedom. Post-civil war America was as free as it had ever been. The Progressive project didn't start until decades later.

  • sarcasmic||

    Before the war the United States was plural, while after the war it became singular. While it was plural the Progressive project could never have happened. The war laid the foundation.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I agree. It diluted the power and prestige of the states and largely set the stage of the elimination of the states as a check on federal power. God knows we need more, not fewer, of those.

  • Tim||

    For example: The war on drugs, which laid waste vast swathes of the Bill of Rights, particularly the fourth and fifth amendments

  • Anonymous Coward||

    OT: Giffords gun control group wants $20 million for 2014 elections

    A new gun control group led by Gabrielle Giffords, the former U.S. congresswoman wounded in a Tucson shooting rampage, wants to raise $20 million for the 2014 congressional elections, matching the National Rifle Association's spending in last November's elections, the group's treasurer said on Wednesday.

    Giffords and her husband, former U.S. astronaut Mark Kelly, have turned to Houston trial lawyer and Democratic donor Steve Mostyn to act as treasurer. He gave $1 million of his own money to help kick start a campaign launched on Tuesday calling for what Giffords and Kelly describe as common-sense measures to curb gun violence.
  • John||

    Cash strictly cash.

  • Brandon||

    Hey, I want $20 million too. Does that make me a newsworthy 'game changer' like HuffPo was calling Giffords yesterday?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Silver Linings Playbook was actually a thing thing?

    I thought that was a kid's movie a la Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, or a Nicholas Sparks type movie.

    Then again, I don't get any ads over here.

  • John||

    It is a romantic comedy about a guy who is a bit nuts and beats the shit out of people who ends up in a relationship with a smoking hot woman who somehow manages to not do any better than an ex con with mental problems. Only in Hollywood.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    So I was right, a Nicholas Sparks movie. How the hell did it get nominated? Bah, who cares.

    I quit caring about the Oscars the year My Fair Lady beat out Dr. Strangelove. Which was a lot of years before I was born.

  • ||

    My favorite movie I saw in theaters this year was Headhunters but I'm guessing it is technically a 2011 film as that was when it was released in Norway.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    From the Nice Store You Got Here... files:

    The nation's largest retailer, meanwhile, made news for reversing a decision -- and saying it will participate in a White House meeting.

    Wal-Mart initially said scheduling conflicts would prevent its "experts" on gun control from attending. But on Wednesday it announced it will send representatives to the Thursday meeting.

    The company has had "ongoing conversations with the administration, Congress, (New York) Mayor (Michael) Bloomberg's office, sportsmen groups, suppliers and others to listen and share our thoughts and experiences," company spokesman David Tovar said in a statement to CNN.

    "Knowing our senior leaders could not be in Washington this week, we spoke in advance with the vice president's office to share our perspective," he said. "We underestimated the expectation to attend the meeting on Thursday in person, so we are sending an appropriate representative to participate."

    We underestimated the expectation to attend the meeting on Thursday in person, so we are sending an appropriate representative to participate.

    Intimidation? Threats? Reasoned, dispassionate appeals to self-interest?

  • Tim||

    They want to ban sales of those semi-auto NERF guns that take detachable mags.

  • B.P.||

    "We're not participating in this charade" would have obviously been a more laudable initial reply, but we all know that never happens. However, the "our schedules are just too darned busy here to make it to the white house this week" is an especially weak substitute reply.

  • sarcasmic||

    Listening to NPR they were talking about how guns and ammo are a very tiny part of Wal-Mart's business. The implication of course being that they won't miss it if they are pressured into not selling those items anymore.

  • sarcasmic||

    Is this all the news? Almost three hours and only one story since the links? There has to be more going on in the world.

  • Tim||

    Nick's pitching a book.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The implication of course being that they won't miss it if they are pressured into not selling those items anymore.

    For the Good of the Country, no forbearance of voluntary economic activity is too great!

  • RyanXXX||

    I think if Django had focused more on the Stephen character, and his relationship with his master and Django himself, it would be the clear pick for best picture. Whenever Jackson was on screen, the movie rose above its cool-but-trashy roots and became pretty damn serious

  • Brian from Texas||

    The only new movies I saw in 2012 were Silent Hill, Skyfall and The Hobbit. Will probably go see Django when it's at the bargain theater.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement