With Best Actor's record-breaking success broken this year by the unprecedented win for a Supporting Actor nominee, the SAGs have to be happy with their choice of Best Actress being the winner since Roberts is the only one sitting in the position of front-runner now. Look also for Finney to win his long-deserved Oscar. Despite the liberal choice of Del Toro as Best Actor, which could weigh in his favor for the Oscar; longevity in the Supporting Actor category has been overwhelmingly important of late. Then again, this double win for the category tonight could spell victory for spoiler potential Willem Dafoe. As for Supporting Actress, Dench has obvious designs on the award, especially since her last win for Shakespeare in Love and last loss for Mrs. Brown were undeserved. However, the Supporting Actress trend, likely to carry over, is second generation Kate Hudson, whose mother won 31 years earlier.
History: Actor once had a flawless record; now they won't. Actress has a good record and should maintain this year barring a sympathy vote for legend Ellen Burstyn. Supporting Actor accompanies Actress with 4 of 6 correct predictions. The worst record is Supporting Actress with a dismal 3 of 6.
With surprise split of the PGA and DGA, it may mean a split at the Oscars. However, Crouching Tiger may end up as best picture, but it's still got to knock off the PGA winner.
History: The DGA is incredibly accurate in their predictions. Since their inception (and barring the years they claim to have correctly predicted, but technically did not), they have only missed the Oscar winner 4 times. The last time was in 1995 when Mel Gibson surpsingly took home the award. Before that, it was '85 when Spielberg was snubbed at the Oscar nominations. Then you head back to 72 when Cabaret nearly swept the Oscars, but Coppola took the DGA. Then it was 1968 when Oliver made a surprise sweep of the awards giving Sir Carol Reed an Oscar and leaving Anthony Harvey, director of Lion in Winter and a DGA winner Oscar-less. It's about one time per decade and it's a new decade, this might be the year.
Traffic proves that it has what it takes to eclipse its fellow nominees for a victory, since Best Picture is obviously out of its reach. As for You Can Count on Me, it's a good bet to win, but it's also a good bet to lose. The support for Almost Famous after its snub is quite high and with everyone voting and not just writers, they may find that AF is far more friendly than YCCOM. There's also the Erin Brockovich factor. Soderbergh could find two of his films taking screenplay awards since he isn't likely to win himself. The race is tight, who'll win is completely uncertain at this point.
History: Not bad getting at least one right per year and sometimes two. But with their trend, it seems like Traffic is the guarantee and You Can Count on Me is the weaker link. We'll have to see, but it could go anywhere at this point.
The PGA is really good at predicting Best Picture and this year, Gladiator seems to be the film to beat.
History: History has taught us that the PGA is accurate, but can be off. Last year, things went as scheduled with American Beauty as the victor. The year before, Saving Private Ryan became a big loser on Oscar night, even after a PGA win. The only thing that could railroad Gladiator out of a victory is a surprising surge by Soderbergh's Brockovich, or the more likely Crouching Tiger.
Gladiator seems to be poised to take the lion's shares of trophies on Oscar night, including the award for Best Sound, for which the CAS is noted for predicting.
History: Three years in a row correct. This year should be no different.
Being the most populist of the film organizations, CFC throws a wrench into picture and actress, upsetting the heavy favorites in those categories.
History: Not much can be said, the group is relatively new at the predictions game. The CFC's record is terrible. Since 1996, they have predicted the eventual winner only 14 times out of 40. 4 right in 96: McDormand, Gooding Jr., Fargo for Screenplay and English Patient for Cinematography. In 97, it got worse with only three right: L.A. Confidential for screenplay and Titanic for score and cinematography. Yet further disappointing, they dropped another correct prediction in 1998 with only two: Shakespeare in Love for screenplay and Life Is Beautiful for Foreign Film. They ended 1999 with 5 correct, American Beauty for picture, actor and director, Swank for actress and All About My Mother for Foreign Film.
The Gladiator ball keeps rolling despite a lack of editing quality. This is further proof that it's the film to beat regardless of critical favor.
History: As with most of the precursor awards, histories aren't readily available. For the ACE, their winner has predicted correctly for the past 4 years. Comedy isn't a serious contender in awards shows, so Gladiator looks to be picking up its share of Oscar precursors.
Ziyi's win is a sign that this has been a weak year for concensus on many awards. They have made some selections that will not win Oscars because they weren't nominated, but the others seem to be quite accurate. The OFTA have been known for their ability to predict Best Cinematography and Best Original Screenplay. This also applies to the 3-for-4 record in Picture, Actor, Director, Sound and Visual Effects.
History: The OMPA has both a good and bad history at the Oscars, not too terribly different from most other precursors, but a little more accurate than others. Overall, the OFTA has predicted half of the awards correctly since its inception in 1996. Two categories have become unerringly accurate in its first four years, successfully predicting all four: Original Screenplay and Cinematography. However, there are categories on the opposite end not having predicted any in the past four years: supporting actor, supporting actress, original score and documentary. Good categories to watch, receiving 3 of 4 correct predictions in four years are: Picture, Actor, Director, Sound and Visual Effects. The certainty of all of these categories is in question at the moment.
As mainstream as the Academy, so it doesn't seem like they'll be too hesitant to follow suit.
History: No history available for research.
Nothing terribly surprising. Gladiator shows its likelihood of sweeping lots of Oscars early.
History: If this is the same group as the SMPTAD, then the history is as follows. Otherwise, no such luck) There's not much of a history to look back at. 1998 is the only year I have results for nominations. In 1998, they predicted all five nominees successfully. We'll see next week what will happen this year.
Who knows what they were thinking. Perhaps it was because Deschanel is a well-respected Cinematographer and that he's never won a ASC award they decided to throw him a bone. For whatever reason, the win doesn't feel like it will repeat in March.
History: In their 14-year history, they've only gotten 5 right, so this isn't the best of precursors.
With the inclusion of most of the big contenders, this list seems more indicative of what the Academy may do in both these categories and the Top prize.
History: With the WGA, it seems they like to nominate 4 out of the 5 eventual Oscar nominees annually. This is the case for the past 3 years, information other than winners farther back is unknown. In 1997, they chose popular favorite Life Is Beautiful over independent WGA choice Opposite of Sex for Original Screenplay. Then in Adapted Screenplay, they chose veteran writer/director Terrence Malick for Thin Red Line over the more popular-minded Civil Action. In 1998, a similar thing occurred. Veteran writer/director Woody Allen received an Oscar nod for Deconstructing Harry over populistic Titanic for Original Screenplay. In the Adapted Screenplay category, they switched independent for independent choosing the more accomplished Atom Egoyan, a popular, but non-Picture nominated film over The Ice Storm, a considerably less popular film. In 1999, Three Kings was left out in favor of Topsy-Turvy and October Sky was replaced with The Green Mile. The odd boy out for Original Screenplay, will be Best In Show, possibly in favor of a more mainstream selection such as veteran David Mamet for State and Main or William Broyles for Cast Away. For Adapted Screenplay, High Fidelity seems a more subversive choice, I picture The House of Mirth or Quills sneaking in for nominations. Watch out for Chocolat which is making a rather strong showing and could be a surprise Best Picture Nominee.
This relatively new guild is inexperienced and untested, though some of the finalists for the Oscars are on this list. We'll have to watch for next year.
History: No history currently available.
Like the Makeup/Hairstylist Guild, the CDG is relatively inexperienced in predicting, though with a lack of period/fantasy nominees, it seems that the CDG may see fewer of its selections mentioned at the Oscars, because contemporary is NOT a word the Academy Art Direction, Makeup and Costume Designers like.
History: No history currently available.
The only major surprise was the virtual igorance of Gladiator and the near-record nominations for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
History: For nominations, in 1999, the OMPA predicted 54% of the nominees overall with 70% correct in the Screenplay categories and 60% right in the music categories. in 1998, the OMPA predicted 52% of the nominees overall with 80% correct in the Screenplay categories and 63.3% right in the Top 6 (picture, actor, actress, sup. actor, sup. actress, director). In 1997, the record was slightly better with 58.6% of the nominations correct with 73.3% of the Top 6 correct and 66.7% of the music categories correct. In 1996, their very first year, the OMPA correct predicted 59.6% of the nominees overall. Their best predictions came 70% in the Top 6, 64.7% in the technical categories and 60% in the writing. Not much to look on, but this year's slate of nominees seem to be the prominent choices being pressed for Oscar recognition.
As mainstream as the Academy, so it doesn't seem like they'll be too hesitant to follow suit.
History: No history available for research.
History: If this is the same group as the SMPTAD, then the history is as follows. (Otherwise, no such luck) There's not much of a history to look back at. 1998 is the only year I have results for nominations. In 1998, they predicted all five nominees successfully. We'll see next week what will happen this year.
No surprises. U-571 would be the weakest link here, but a backlash against the Braveheart-wannabe The Patriot could force it out of a nomination.
History: Nominations beyond last year aren't available, but in 1999, they picked 2 of the five eventual nominees. Only The Matrix and Star Wars Episode I managed to follow up with nominations. In 1998, they picked 3 out of the 5 eventual nominees. The X-Files and The Horse Whisperer are the odd nominees out, but they left out for hugely popular films. What would get left out is uncertain at this point, though The Patriot, U-571 and The Perfect Storm are the hardest choices.
Michael Douglas' surprise exclusion at the hands of Supporting Actor contender Benicio Del Toro raises significant issues. Will Del Toro be forgotten because of voter confusion over lead/supporting status? The remaining nominations all seem plausible, though Jamie Bell's nod is rather unsettling.
History: For predictions, the SAGs are hard to beat. For Best Actor, their record for nominations as been 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3 (1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99). This recent slump doesn't seem to bode well for Bell, who may be an Academy darling, but because of his age may be difficult to nominate. Del Toro is also out, he's being pushed as Supporting Actor, but voter confusion could seal his fate as a nominee altogether. For Actress, the record is 3, 4, 4, 4 (of 6), 4, 5. This slow progress towards perfection makes this year's nominees almost guaranteed nominations, though any one could be knocked out in favor of Bjork or Gillian Anderson. The record for Supporting Actor: 4, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4. Barring those two years where only two successfully went on to Oscar nominations, this year's slate seems to have only one weak link. Gary Oldman's nomination is by far the least impressive. He probably will not carry on to a nomination and should easily be replaced by Del Toro if the Academy doesn't vote split. As for Supporting Actress, the record is 2, 3, 2, 4, 5, 3. This doesn't make for a very good record. The predictability is dangerously difficult. However, this year should see another set of four nominated with Kate Winslet as the odd-woman out.
Only Crouching Tiger and Gladiator were truly expected. The others are rather surprising, but seemingly of questionable quality; probably nominated because they are career cinematographers with big names.
History: In 1999, only one nominee didn't place In 1998, only one nominee didn't didn't place an Oscar nod. The Sixth Sense was replaced by End of the Affair. place an Oscar nod, that was Horse Whisperer. In 1997, the same happened with The Boxer. Look for one of the below nominees to be left out of the Oscar race for another film. Though, I doubt either O Brother or Perfect Storm will make it, The Patriot could easily be left out as well.
Well, can't say that I'm surprised. With this and the Golden Globe, a PGA win will cement Gladiator as the eventual Oscar winner, too bad we go another year without picking the TRUE best picture of the year.
History: See other Broadcast Film Critics awards below.
Nothing shocking. This doesn't look good for Soderbergh as a likely split will knock him out of an Oscar, giving Ridley Scott and unfair advantage. We'll see how things pan out.
History: In 1999, four of the five went on to nominations. In 1998, all 5 picks of the DGA received Oscar nominations. In 1997, James L. Brooks and Steven Spielberg did not go on to Oscar nominations. Before that, figures are not available. Certain directors do enjoy an amount of recognition by pure popularity, such as in the case with Brooks and Spielberg. This year, Soderbergh could have been the overly popular choice.
Really, there were no major surprises. Only Zellweger and Clooney are not destined for Oscar nominations, the rest are almost certain.
History: There's not much to say about the Golden Globes' history. They're great for nominees, but only in the main categories. Score is their worst category yielding very few nominees and not to mention very few successful winner predictions. Song isn't their best, but they have been known to vault their winner to an Oscar. Screenplay is easy since there are two Oscar categories and one in the Globes. This means all of them COULD get nominations, but nothing is guaranteed at this point.
Overall not too surprising. The few surprises were more a tribute to the lack of serious contenders than from any bizarre voting ritual held by the group.
History: Not much can be said yet, since these are only nominations. Don't trust this group too much on nominations, they aren't always right and it's hard to tell when they will or won't be.
The inclusion of the abysmally edited Gladiator gives us an indication that Gladiator is the likely Best Picture winner this year. Elliot's nomination is the biggest surprise inclusion and the biggest surprise exclusion is the fantastic editing of Requiem for a Dream...so much for good taste.
History: Like most guild awards, the ACE is known for getting at least 4 of the 5 nominations correct. '99 saw The Talented Mr. Ripley get replaced by The Cider House Rules. '98 saw Horse Whisperer get replaced by Life Is Beautiful, but all of 1997's selections were nominated. The record back as far as I can find indicates they have a 3 for 3 record of successful winner predictions. We'll see how this continues this year.
History: The Satellites are definitely not known yet for their accuracy. They have no perfect categories, but plenty of years where the successfully predicted 2 out of 3 winners. Supporting Actress and Foreign Film are their worst categories, yielding no correct predictions.
An interesting selection with plenty of this year's Oscar contenders mixed in. More so than usual because of the unusually difficult year to make selections.
History: Not the place to look for potential Oscar nominees until winners are selected, unfortunately, winners aren't selected until AFTER the nominations, so they can't be used for much of a guage at all.
A pretty astute list that favors Soderbergh's Erin Brockovich over Traffic. This could very well be the eventual list, but there are definitely no guarantees.
History: In the record books, the PGA is generally accurate. In 1999, only Being John Malkovich and The Hurricane failed to get nominations. In 1998, Gods and Monsters and Waking Ned Devine didn't get Oscar nominations, but the other nods did. In 1997, only Amistad didn't go on to a nomination. Overall, they seem to be stalled at 3 of 5 nominations. Of the ones below, Gladiator and Crouching Tiger seem to be the most guaranteed. That would mean that I could easily see either Almost Famous or Billy Elliot being the third, maybe even fourth. We'll see in February.
The list below is becoming a common site around the Critics groups. Burstyn and Hudson are big among smaller critics groups. Soderbergh, Crouching Tiger, The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg and Del Toro are huge all over.
History: History currently unavailable.
They may not have much to do with American films, but the Goyas have a category for European films and two hot contenders for the Oscars are nominated: Palme d'Or winner Dancer in the Dark and animation sensation Chicken Run. Encuentros is a film by Ingmar Bergman starlet Liv Ullman
History: History currently unavailable.
History: History currently unavailable.
Crouching Tiger takes further steps towards an Oscar nomination. Tobey Maguire's status is improved, but still isn't that great.
History: Unknown history.
Brockovich picks up its first award and the first victory for the haphazard editing of Gladiator should provide some surprising worries.
History: Unknown history.
The second group to single out Soderbergh for a particular film. Also the first group to recognize Finney for Supporting Actor, a likely Academy favorite. Nothing else unusual or particularly prediction-enhancing.
History: Unknown history.
A curve ball like no others. The NSFC doesn't seem to WANT to predict Best Picture. The rest are all falling into place except May who's not a huge contender and Beau Travail for Cinematography.
History: Historically, the NSFC is a terrible predictor. Less than 20% of the time have they ever been right. This average has slipped heavily in the last 5 to only about 10%. The best categories for the past five years have been Actor, Supporting Actress, Screenplay, Cinematography and Documentary with a scant 1 out of 5 correct predictions. Their worst are Picture, Actress, Supporting Actor, Director, Cinematography and Foreign Film receiving no correct predictions. These averages improve only slightly going back 10 years with Screenplay being successful 3 out of the 10 times for the best and only Foreign Language Film receiving 0 correct predictions. The best way to tell not to look to the NSFC for winners is that only 8 times in 33 outings have they correctly predicted the Supporting Actress category and that is their BEST category.
With Burstyn, Del Toro and McDormand locks, Soderbergh continues to confuse over which film he will be nominated for at the Oscars. Some pundits predict him taking two nominations, but more savvy Oscar connoisseurs are doubtful through lack of recent precedent.
History: The Florida Film Critics have a strange record. When all of the critics groups start supporting one candidate, they go off and make their own mark. While Traffic is not an unusual choice this year, it is still a film that seems unlikely to garner an Oscar for Picture. Last year, their choice of Magnolia was bold and unvaunted as the film went on to collect sadly few nominations and no picture nod. The two years prior, however, the FFC were the first to send both Titanic and Shakespeare in Love an award and then the Oscar for Picture. A pattern isn't developing, but it's interesting nonetheless.
"Critical meets popular" typifies this year's Online Film Critics Society Awards. With Cast Away's Tom Hanks standing shoulder to shoulder with Requiem for a Dream makes for an interestin slate of selections. Many are bold choices, while others seem to be the norms this year.
History: Best Director may have become a losing category for the OFCS with their choice of Requiem for a Dream. They have successfully predicted the winner since its innception, but may fall short. Overall, the OFCS has a decent record compared to other awards, but their accuracy may be called into question with such bold choices, especially considering their steady decrease of accuracy each year since their inception.
A very interesting list. It contains many of the front-runners and several newcomers. This could be an interesting year for the OFCS.
History: Their nomination capability is spotty at best. Their choices for winners are slowly becoming more likely Oscar nominees. Watch out for the director award, the OFCS has successfully predicted Best Director 3 years in a row...too bad they haven't picked a single concurrent winner in the categories of Actress, Supp. Actor, Supp. Actress, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Original Score or Documentary.
Populism is balanced with newness. This year's Golden Globes only make predicting the Oscars more difficuult. With no mention of Quills, there are a lot of things that can be found in the nominations, but nothing is more sure than the veritable lack of support in Comedy/Musical, means this year's crop is heavily Dramatic and most of our nominees will come from those categories (which isn't terribly unusual, but more so this year than any.)
History: There's not much to say about the Golden Globes' history. They're great for nominees, but only in the main categories. Score is their worst category yielding very few nominees and not to mention very few successful winner predictions. Song isn't their best, but they have been known to vault their winner to an Oscar. Screenplay is easy since there are two Oscar categories and one in the Globes. This means all of them COULD get nominations, but nothing is guaranteed at this point.
Shadow of the Vampire makes its first major showing of the year with several notable runner-up awards. Adapted Screenplay is like a Miramax showcase with both winner and runner-up films being pushed by Miramax.
History: San Diego has made some nice choices in the past, but they are quite bad at predicting...even for nominations. 1999: Picture, Actor and Original Screenplay were eventual winners last year.
What a traditional list. It is becoming more apparent with each group that the list of nominees will include Roberts, Phoenix, McDormand and Soderbergh.
History: This is the group to pay attention to for nominations predictions. In the four years I've tracked them, the BFCA has taken every single major (Picture, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Director, Screenplay, Song and Score) winner and turned it into an Oscar nomination (only exception involves a tie in the Sup. Actress category when Joan Allen and Bates tied for the win. Bates took an Oscar nod, perpetuating their record, Allen did not). And in the past three years, all of the eventual best picture nominees have been included on the BFCA list. Here's how the winner predictions stacked up: 1999: Picture, Actress, Sup. Actress, Director, Orig. Screenplay and Foreign Film. 1998: Director, Orig. Screenplay and Foreign Film winners took home Oscars; 1997: Actor, Director, Adap. Screenplay and Orig. Screenplay winners took home Oscars; 1996: Actor, Actress, Sup. Actor and Director winnesr took home Oscars. Now, this isn't the best of precursors for actual winners, but for nominations, this is EASILY the best. Now, watch out...the BFCA is HORRIBLE at predicting Best Picture. In the past four years, 1999 is the only year its submitted the winning Picture or Supporting Actress.
International Press Academy, an off-shoot of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, have strived to stand out as the leaders of the pre-Oscar season. This year, however, it seems like they've gone overboard. Six choices not only makes the group look giving, but it makes the choices all the more convoluted. It seems as though the worst year in recent film memory is turning out to be one of the worst for predictions. Everything's up in the air and it's not going to be easy. Decipering these nominations is a task and one that can't be taken lightly. Their nomination history is checkered and with so many categories, who knows how they'll do.
History: Here is how the satellites have fared in the awards: Dipping further each year, the SAT have been only 41.5% accurate. The categories they've gone 3 for 4 in are: Actress and Adapted Screenplay. They've gone 0/4 in the Supporting Actress category.
Almost Famous finally gets the support it needs to pull a picture nomination. It is more of a likely DreamWorks choice than Gladiator, but could end up falling aside. Ellen Burstyn finally came into view as one of the surefire nominees this year and an obvious sentimental favorite. Crowe makes a play for director while Almost Famous and Wonder Boys split the Screenplay award (strangely, one is Original and one Adapted).
History: I don't have the history of the BSFC, but from the past few years, here's what I've gathered. In 1999, nominations fell in five categories: Supporting Actress, Screenplay, Cinematography and eventual winners for Actress and Foreign Film. In 1998, Billy Bob Thornton and Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski were the only ones to go on to Oscar nominations. In 1997, they were a little more successful: Picture, Actress, Director, Screenplay and Cinematography went on to Oscar nominations. Unlike 1998, one of their choices won the Oscar: Screenplay. Then, in 1996, Picture, Actor, Actress, Director and Cinematography all received Oscar nominations. Only Cinematography and Actor won. Not the best of predictors by any means, but they do traditionally pick five nominees (save their bad year), so those are looking like better bets all the time.
Crouching Tiger hit it big with the LAFCA. With four awards, it was the film-to-beat from LA. They continued to push Steven Soderbergh into a director lock and pushing Julia Roberts closer. Willem Dafoe finally blips on the screen alongside Frances McDormand and Micahel Douglas who are all considered Top contenders, but critics awards push them farther.
History: Overall, the LAFCA has been one of the more accurate organizations, but with only about a 36% accuracy. In the past 10 years, however, their rating has signicantly dropped to around one-quarter. Screenplay is their best predicting category with 3 in the last five years (dropping from 4/5 the previous year), but only 5 in the last 10. In five years, they have yet to pick Picture, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress or Score, while only Score has received no awards in 10 years. Not since 1993 have they successfully predicted more than 50% of the awards and since then, their best year was '94 with 36% and their worst 1998, 1997 and 1995 getting only 2 out of 12 awards right.
What could only be seen as a hodge-podge of American cinema, the New York Film Critics Circle avoided awarding but Traffic and You Can Count on Me multiple times. Tom Hanks' surprise nomination has pretty much been guaranteed and Laura Linney's victory further's her already great chances. Del Toro pushes further into the Supporting Actor race while a surprise choice of Marcia Gay Harden in Supporting Actress has put her on the map. The films You Can Count on Me and Traffic have taken a good trek onto the path of nominations. The bad news is for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon which needed desparate critical support in Best Picture contests to crack the difficult Top spot at the Oscars. It's not a common occurrence for a foreign film to make the trip to Best Picture and New York film critics have not made that journey easier.
History: A pretty good average for precursors, but not extremely great. Just over a third of the time ever have they coincided with the Oscars. Their average rose last year to 24% in the last 10 years and dipped to 20% in the last five. Screenplay has been their best category in the past 5 and 10 years with three-fifths predicted exactly. They are, however, quite bad at predicting Foreign Film, Picture, Director and Cinematography. In the past 10 years, only one correct prediction each for Director, Cinematography and Foreign Film; In the past 5 years, no correct predictions for either Picture, Director or Cinematography. In the past 10 years, here is how good they are at predicting nominations: All picture except The Player in '92 and Topsy-Turvy in '99; All actors save David Thewlis in '93; Actress has been a sore spot with Cameron Diaz in '98, Jennifer Jason-Leigh in '95 and Linda Fiorentino in '94; No supporting actor nods in '99, '98, '96 or '91; No supporting actress nods (their worst category) in '98, '96, '93, '91 or '90; No director nods in '99 or '96; No screenplay in '96, '91 or '90.
The results are in and with the exception of Quills, Julia Roberts and Joaquin Phoenix, there's not a lot to point at. Phoenix and Quills itself become more likely every day, but require better support to continue. Julia Roberts virtually cements her place on the final list with this selection. The rest of the choices could be thrown away and never missed by many prognosticators.
History: The NBR is not known for accuracy. In its 56-year history, they have an accuracy rate around one-quarter. Their best category is one that hadn't been seen since 1951. Screenplay only became Top after a victory last year and the loss of both the Actor and Supporting Actress trophies. The accuracy rate is so abysmal that nothing it posts will likely figure into the final tally, despite a brief resurgence last year with three of nine matching. For the record, 1998 saw no accurate predictions and 1997 saw only one.
Dancer in the Dark gained some clout, but being the European Film Awards, it will only minimally impact the Oscar contest.
History: This is the first year for the EFA on my lists.