Anne Hathaway | Daniel Day-Lewis | Film and TV | Hugh Jackman | News | Oscars | Sally Field

'Lincoln,' 'Les Mis' Lead 2013 Oscar Nominations: COMPLETE LIST


Seth MacFarlane and Emma Stone were up early this morning (or up late last night) to announce the 2013 Oscar nominations, and the selection is both predictable and deserving.

Biopic Lincoln is definitely leading the pack with five nominations out of the six major categories, including Daniel Day-Lewis in Best Actor and Sally Field in Best Supporting Actress, and Les Miserables received four, including Hugh Jackman for Best Actor and Anne Hathway for Best Supporting Actress. Both flicks were also nominated for Best Picture, as were Quentin Tarantino's controversial Django Unchained, the Denzel Washington-starrer Flight, which also garnered him a Best Actor nomination, and Zero Dark Thirty, the tale about the SEAL team's successful quest to kill Osama bin Laden.

Check out the complete list AFTER THE JUMP...

Screenshots via Business Insider:








Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Ripper, Stephen lucas does appear to be infamous homophobic, racist, and misogynistic troll Jason. Everyone should just ignore him. He's here to rile up the comments section, not engage in meaningful discussion.

    Posted by: MateoM | Jan 10, 2013 10:57:33 AM

  2. Colour me unimpressed.

    Best Supporting Actor may be the dullest, most uninteresting race in more than a decade. Who'll win? Who CARES?

    Best Actress - well, this makes me happy. Finally, some new blood!

    But the snubs are galling - not even a measly TECHNICAL nomination for Cloud Atlas? ya gave TWO to freakin' Snow White and the Huntsman! I don't even care if one like Cloud Atlas or not - score, art direction, editing, sound, cinematography, SOUND?

    The Master gets a bunch of nominations...but none for Cinematography? REALLY? 70mm gorgeousness - ignored.

    the academy is fellating Skyfall and I'm not sure why. It was a retro-cool treat, but it aint the Second Coming.

    And I found Lincoln to be sorta like this year's Gandhi - a sturdy, efficient film make with impeccable skill that, due to its subject matter, convinced people of a brilliance that wasn't actually there.

    I am however chuffed that our lil'annie hathaway got nominated.

    and three cheers to How To Survive a Plague!

    so, of the Big nominated films, I'd be most satisfied with wins for Life of Pi. why? it was the boldest pure filmmaking.

    but it'll get tossed some bones: likely score, visual effects, etc.

    *le sigh*

    and on an uttery-odd note, i was hopeful that Arcade Fire's end title song from The Hunger Games would be nominated. why? well, for once it was a great rock song that actually had something to do with the film it was written for, and actually added to the experience. check it out - it's called "Abraham's Daughter" - it's an incredible track.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 10, 2013 12:39:39 PM

  3. DiCaprio was ROBBED!

    Posted by: Andy | Jan 10, 2013 1:07:49 PM

  4. For the first time, I have not seen one single movie nominated. I guess because I have not set foot in a theater in 2012.

    Posted by: loverOFlife | Jan 10, 2013 2:15:46 PM

  5. Why do we continue to pretend that the Oscars should be about artistic merit, when we know full well that they are about industrial profits?

    The Oscars are an advertising event by the industry, for the industry. Receiving either a nomination or a statuette is worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. That (and only tangentially any kind of merit) is why the films and people that were nominated were nominated.

    Posted by: BABH | Jan 10, 2013 2:47:52 PM

  6. People tend to forget that, except for Best Picture, nominations are made by different members of different branches. So snubs sometimes happen as a result of that, and also because of the chance factor when there are a limited number of nominations. But overall, I think the nominations consistently represent a decent - if not comprehensive - highlighting of the best films of the last quarter of any particular year.

    Films released in the first 3 quarters of any year are typically forgotten, and that's a crying shame - because not all "Oscar-worthy" films are released during Oscar Consideration Season.

    Posted by: Zlick | Jan 10, 2013 4:00:22 PM

  7. @ Little Kiwi I agree -- the Best Supporting Actor nominations were pretty uninspired and predictable, as Seth McFarlane and Emma Stone made clear when they pointed out that each of the nominees have already one Oscars. There were plenty of more interesting worthy choices, such as Irrfan Khan in "Life of Pi"; Matthew McConaughey in any of "Killer Joe," "Magic Mike," or "Bernie"; Samuel L. Jackson in "Django Unchained"; or Tom Holland, who played the youngest son in "The Impossible."

    I have to take issue with your calling "Life of Pi" pure filmmaking given how much of it, like the whole tiger, was generated by computers -- not exactly pure in the traditional sense of motion picture making (ie, use of film and cameras). But it was a great achievement by a director who has made so many great yet varied films, and the young man playing the lead, Suraj Sharma, should have been nominated in the Best Actor category.

    Posted by: MichaelJ | Jan 10, 2013 6:28:47 PM

  8. So glad 'Beasts' was nominated. It was a beautiful modern American odessey of magical realism! Best movie of the year!

    Posted by: Toto | Jan 11, 2013 1:27:11 AM

  9. "Plague" was brilliant, heart-wrenching and inspiring. Fingers crossed that it wins.

    Posted by: Douglas | Jan 12, 2013 9:34:31 AM

  10. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «Log Cabin Head Tries To Explain Hagel Opposition On Fox News: VIDEO« «