Carrey will always be one of the most infamous Academy bridesmaids. The winner of two Golden Globes for lead actor (The Truman Show and Man on the Moon) has never been nominated for an Oscar. (If we were going back more than ten years, his omission for Truman would be near or at the top of this list. Shameful.) There wasn't nearly as much of an uproar about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as the two in the ‘90s, but I think that's just because we all expect poor Jim to get snubbed by now. Watching Michel Gondry's amazing film, one of the best of the '00s (and one that Kate Winslet should have WON for), it's clear that Carrey didn't get nearly enough credit for his work in it. He was nominated for a Golden Globe for the performance and was chosen as a nominee by the Online Film Critics Society, but he was generally snubbed during the entire awards season. Johnny Depp was nominated that year for Finding Neverland, a good performance for sure, but one that hasn't held up as well or remained as memorable as Carrey's work in Eternal Sunshine.

Gosling had been nominated the year before for his work in Half Nelson (which I think he should have won for) and was short-listed by the Broadcast Film Critics, Chicago Film Critics, Hollywood Foreign Press Association (Golden Globes), and Screen Actors Guild for Lars and the Real Girl, but it wasn't enough for the Academy to take a chance on a drama/comedy about a young man who falls in love with an anatomically correct doll. Gosling's touching and believable portrayal of an emotionally and possibly mentally damaged soul who opens up through the one relationship he knows he can control was absolutely pitch-perfect, a lesson in taking a role that dozens of other actors would have turned into a caricature and making it three-dimensional. It's not that I hate Johnny Depp, but, once again, I think he got in for Sweeney Todd when Gosling deserved the spot more. And, as much I love Tommy Lee Jones, his work in In the Valley of Elah won't be nearly as remembered down the road as Gosling's in Lars and the Real Girl.

Ken Lonergan's touching drama was one of the best movies of 2000, and Laura Linney earned heaps of deserving praise for her role in it, but the film also introduced the world to the great Mark Ruffalo, an underrated actor who has yet to earn an Oscar nomination for any of his performances (and, arguably, deserved more consideration for Zodiac in 2007 as well, but EVERYONE from that movie deserved more consideration). I still think Ruffalo's best work is in You Can Count on Me. He is completely believable in a role that's a lot harder than it looks and sells half of what is easily one of the more realistic brother-sister pairings in the last decade of film. I still think about Ruffalo's work in You Can Count on Me and, as great as they are, I hadn't thought of Javier Bardem's work in Before Night Falls nor Geoffrey Rush in Quills until I had to check and see who beat out poor Mark. He should have had one of their spots.

I suppose it was a pipe dream to think that the Academy would ever recognize a character like The Bride, but it started to look possible when Uma Thurman scored nominations from BAFTA, the HFPA, and the Online Film Critics Society. Then Diane Keaton got in there instead for Something's Gotta Give. Are you serious? Does anyone out there think that we'll still be watching Keaton's work in that average romantic comedy the way we will be both Kill Bill films for decades to come? It's comes down to a prejudice against physically demanding roles. Critics and award-givers love emotional performances, but often fail to recognize when an actor or actress uses their entire body to inhabit a character. Uma Thurman's work in both Kill Bill films is some of the most daring, challenging, and underrated of at least the last ten years, probably longer.

Is it possible that Steve Buscemi simply didn't kiss enough Academy ass? How else to explain a snub for a performance that not only had several pre-Oscar nominations but had actually WON the Chicago, Kansas City, Las Vegas, National Society, and Online Film Critics' Awards? He also would go on to win the Independent Spirit Award and was nominated for the Golden Globe. Quick - who beat out Steve? The Ethan Hawke nomination for Training Day was the big shocker of the day, but I would argue that the supporting performance from that year that time has forgotten in the less-than-a-decade since is Jon Voight in Ali. Is it too late for someone who counted votes that year to admit they made a mistake?

Buscemi's snub happened in the same year that the Academy failed to recognize another daring physical performance like Uma's in Kill Bill, deciding that the cutesy shtick from Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones' Diary was a better example of acting at its finest than the incredible range shown by Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive. Watts had won awards from the Chicago Film Critics Association and the National Society of Film Critics, but she was absent from the top five from the Academy. David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive was a divisive movie in an awards season marred by the weight of the recent tragedy that had descended on the entire country. I think the Academy wanted to make "safe" choices in early 2002, and there's nothing safe about Mulholland Drive (or even Ghost World). A Beautiful Mind on the other hand?

This one made me angry. I think Bello missed the short list three years ago because voters had no idea what category to put her in and, consequently, left her out entirely. She had won CFCA, New York, and Online Film Critics awards and been nominated for the Golden Globe for one my favorite performances of the last several years, but she was left out of both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress when the big morning came around. She deserved a spot in either and could have replaced Frances McDormand in North Country if they chose Supporting (which I think they should have) or taken the very undeserving nomination from Judi Dench for Mrs. Henderson Presents away from her. I love Dame Judi, but even she would probably agree Maria deserved it more.

Dennis Quaid is one of the most underrated actors of the last thirty years, never having been nominated for an Oscar, but it really looked like that would change in early 2003 when he was considered a near-lock for his great work in Todd Haynes' Far From Heaven. He won the CFCA, Independent Spirit, New York Critics, and Online Critics trophies and was nominated for a Golden Globe and a SAG Award. He was beat out by Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can, John C. Reilly in Chicago, and Ed Harris in The Hours, none as deserving as Dennis. I hate to bring up a controversial issue surrounding the Academy, but one has to wonder if homophobia didn't play into Quaid's snub. After all, the Academy loves gay characters, but only if they die or get shunned for their homosexuality. (Read this for more on that subject.) I worry that Frank was Quaid's last shot at a nomination. History will be surprised that this above average actor never found the part to connect with the Academy. Or that he did and they ignored it.

This may be the biggest WTF snub in lead actor history. They nominated Sideways for Best Picture and Best Director and gave the film the trophy for Best Screenplay and yet the performance that most would agree truly sets the film apart and elevates Alexander Payne's great words off the page was snubbed. They clearly had a thing against performances with any comedic tones that year (Carrey for Eternal was the same year). Giamatti has been nominated for the Golden Globe and by his fellow actors in the Screen Actors Guild, won awards from Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, and New York critics, and would take home the Independent Spirit Award, but he was beat out by Johnny Depp for Finding Neverland. Let's assume for a second that this list needs to be in agreement with itself and Carrey had replaced Depp, who should Giamatti have replaced? Sorry Clint fans, but Giamatti is better here than Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby. And, as much hate mail as this might get me, he's better than Jamie Foxx in Ray too, the eventual winner that year. He would have been a solid number one choice, except...

The most complete and compelling performance of 2008 in any acting category wasn't even nominated. Shame on you. Sally Hawkins had won the Golden Globe, won the LA, New York, and Boston Film Critics, and been nominated by my colleagues and me in the Chicago Film Critics Association. I could understand her not winning because of the strength of 2008 for actresses, but the snub for even a nomination blows my mind. As much as I love Kate Winslet, I have to think that her inclusion in this category pushed out Sally. I blame you Harvey Weinstein. What's most mind-boggling about the Hawkins snub is this - Academy watchers have suggested for years that personality plays a role in the awards. If you do well at the luncheons and give good speeches during awards season and your peers genuinely like you, they're more likely to vote for you. It's human nature. I've spoken to Sally Hawkins. She's one of the nicest people I've ever interviewed and I've done hundreds. So it can’t be that. All I can think is that voters assumed she would get in and wanted to spread the wealth out to other nominees. Or that they made a mistake on the morning of January 22nd, 2009 and meant to read her name instead. And who should she have been nominated instead of? Sorry Frozen River fans, but Hawkins is better here than Melissa Leo. In fact, she should have won, so I suppose she should have been nominated instead of any of the five. You choose.