Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Ronald Epstein, Jan 10, 2013.
And no Best Documentray nomination for Marley? WTF!?
Nolan got screwed!
I guess I'm the only one that thought 'Cloud Atlas' was easily the best film of 2012. In the least, how does that not get adapted screenplay?
It was likely the Best Picture category snub of THE DARK KNIGHT from 2008 that spurred the AMPAS' prez to expand the nominations in that category from five to ten in subsequent years, imo to provide a wider opportunity for those kinds of mass appeal movies to be recognized in that category and, therefore, to boost the ratings of the televised ceremony when one or more of those blockbusters is in the race. Since then, however, I would only count AVATAR (and maybe INCEPTION) and possibly a couple of Disney or Pixar animated features among the mass appeal blockbusters that made it on that expanded list but might not have made it without the expansion. And that's out of 40 possible Best Picture nominations since 2009 inclusive. This time around the highly anticipated follow up to the movie that probably triggered the Best Picture nomination expansion from five to ten in the first place, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, was a total shut out in all categories, even for categories like sound mixing, sound editing and visual effects. I guess when it comes down to it, your typical AMPAS voter still can't summon enough enthusiasm for boosting the ceremony's television ratings or rewarding record-breaking box-office returns with very many "Best" nods over what could be considered the "art house" fare. I think actors still make up the lion's share of AMPAS voters, so that might be one reason the votes will generally lean more toward movies that hired more actors and actually gave them something having to do with acting to do rather than the green screen special effects product.
Sci-fi almost never gets Oscar recognition. I haven't seen Cloud Atlas yet but based on what I've heard, I think it's going to end up being fairly highly regarded and definitely a cult classic as time passes.
I went to a private screening in October, before the film was released, and in the reviewers forum (for those that want to verify) I said openly I was completely blown away by the production values. It was one of the most unique uses of 3D effects I've seen, and one of the few times I've seen 3D effects that really surprised me. What made it work for me was tha tit didn't just start throwing effects out of the screen at you, it's that the effects seemed to fall backwards giving you incredible depth, especially in the ocean scenes. I loved it and found it incredibly effective.
There are lots of things I'm unhappy with, but I think Scores and Costumes I'm most unhappy with; Beasts of a Southern Wild had one of the best original scores I've ever heard, so I was disappointed to see it not get a nom.
Another hack job from Hollywood but I really can't blame them. This is just a reason to get together, down a few drinks and pat each other on the ass and ask what they have coming out next. It's always been like this so there's nothing overly shocking from this list. Again, these people are incredibly busy, under a lot of stress and have much better things to do than catch 150-300 films. I, on the other hand, had quite a bit of time to go through the majority of films released this year outside those that only play in LA or NY. A few shockings thing: --Affleck. This here was just downright shocking because Hollywood loves actors who turn into great directors. Ask Scorsese when he made RAGING BULL and GOODFELLAS. --John Hawkes. This here is just a real shame. One, Hollywood usually loves people who play cripples or mentally challenged. The amount of acting he did without being able to move his body was just amazing but I'm guessing not enough people saw the picture. Hunt was probably a word of mouth for her doing full frontal nude scenes. I first noticed this when Hanks beat Newman but flashy roles (FORREST GUMP) are just going to get more attention than more quiet ones (like NOBODY'S FOOL). FLIGHT and LINCOLN, two great performances, were just more viewable. Jackman? Wow. --Richard Gere. I'm guessing not enough people saw the movie or perhaps he's too good looking. --DiCaprio. I've followed his career since around 1992 and it's just shocking what has happened to him. I'm really not sure what it is because most people/actors seem to admire his work and how he just won't do anything. The supporting actor race is always tight though. --SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. I thought this was very good but Best Picture and Director? --BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD. I'm one of the 15 people who saw this in the theater and while it's very good, I think some of over praising it. No one saw this movie so this must be one that got the noms just based on word of mouth. No way this gets Picture and Director. I'd argue the actresses great performance was more to do with the director but.... --THE INTOUCHABLES. One of the most loved foreign film in decades gets shut out? IMO it should have gotten a Picture, perhaps an actor/supporting actor and at least a Best Foreign Picture nom. I guess Hollywood is going to wait for the American remake. This one here has to be one of the biggest upsets in Oscar history. I still need to see AMOUR, THE IMPOSSIBLE and ZERO DARK THIRTY (as well as RUST AND BONE, which didn't get the nom people were expecting)
What's interesting is I wouldn't even consider it sci-fi. I suppose one of the six arcs could be considered sci-fi but it never felt like a sci-fi movie to me. It was probably more like 'Babel' than it was like 'Bladerunner' (which I've heard it compared to).
I couldn't disagree more. Did we see the same film? I would characterize Foxx's performance as very restrained and, if anything, his low-key, nuanced performance was lost in the shuffle of performances by Waltz, Jackson and DiCaprio -- none of which were flat or one-dimensional for me. I think the scene between Jackson and DiCaprio in the study after dinner sums up their motivations and characterizations pretty clearly. Waltz was tremendous, too. (I loved all the cameos from the character actors, as well.) The screenplay, score and cinematography were exemplary and I thought the film had all the hallmarks of Tarantino's work without the obvious lifts from other films. (His early work is very derivative although his screenwriting ability is fantastic.) This film was a love letter to spaghetti westerns. Flimsy plot? A freed slave tuned bounty hunter hunts for his wife -- seems pretty strong to me. Illogical? In what way? Incoherent? If anything, this film was easier to follow than any of his previous works (although I have never had a problem following his films. I'm thinking of my wife who dislikes non-linear story-telling and subtitles.) The violence and language was cartoonish and over the top and that was the point -- if he went serious on us, the whole film would collapse under the weight of it.
And the five guys nominated for Best Actor AREN'T really handsome?
I suspect The Dark Knight Rises omission is due to the shooting tragedy. If the nominations are really made with "the show" in mind, who wants the audience thinking about what happened every time the film gets mentioned? I could be completely wrong of course.
Oh, I loved Life of Pi as well. It just hasn't had the media "buzz" like the other favorites, which is why it's a "quiet" 11 noms to me. I'd love for it to sweep the Oscars, but I just don't see it happening, especially without any acting nominations.
I'd say it's more due to people in general not liking it as much as Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Inception. A film that is pigeon-holed as a "genre" film has to be exceptional to get consideration, and many people found TDKR as below the exceptional mark.
Cloud Atlas has its fans (and rightly so), but the general reaction to the film was mixed at best. It didn't find an audience, and Warner spent no time whatsoever promoting it for awards since they had Argo to boost (same goes for The Hobbit - they saw the reaction as being more mixed than for the LOTR films and didn't campaign for it in any major categories whatsoever). Getting nominations is about getting people to see the film and persuading them to vote for it. Cloud Atlas didn't do either very well.
On this, I will happily agree to disagree about Django Unchained's merits (or lack thereof). That's the great thing about art; it allows for individual interpretation and enjoyment. And, really, any movie that can get people talking gets a thumbs-up from me, in the end. Having said that, here's a link to a review from Salon that pretty much sums up my take on it (and does so much more clearly than I could). You'll certainly take issue with its conclusions, but you might find it an interesting read nonetheless: http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/tarantinos_incoherent_three_hour_bloodbath/ Cheers!
I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on the specifics, but besides being poorly written, that reviewer seems to have a personal vendetta against Tarantino and/or the subject matter of the movie. Not a very objective review IMO and that reviewer shouldn't be allowed to review movies.
If you read past the review and onto the comments section, this very same sentiment is raised. You have a lot of company in this suspicion. Does this reviewer hold a grudge against Tarantino? Who can say but the reviewer himself? Maybe. He does hold strong critical opinions of Tarantino's work as a whole, certainly. But I find the backlash against this sort of critical review at once typical and curious. Ironically, this is the sort of reaction I was commenting on earlier with my misplaced 'Tarantino apologists' remark. I don't think that the notion that Tarantino is eliciting a strong response to his work would be open for much debate, and a strong response in the positive is always welcomed, but it's when folks use the same force (that his work is clearly and transparently) eliciting in service of a negative interpretation that things get interesting. Immediately, folks cry 'foul' and seem to interpret some motivation that lies beyond the examination of Tarantino's actual work, i.e. vendettas, jealousies, plain dislike of Tarantino as a person (as if anyone could actually know), etc. How is it possible, one imagines these folks thinking, that anyone could find fault with this? It must be that they have something against him! As far as a 'vendetta' against the subject matter of the movie, this reviewer--and many others--have quite the opposite. If anything, it is clear from his review that he holds the subject matter in high regard and wished that it was treated with greater respect and solemnity. (See Spike Lee's remarks about Django.) Believe it or not, I'm not in entire agreement with his review, but he clearly writes well and supports his--to many, incorrect--assessments. And, really, that's all you can ask of any reviewer. Seems harsh to suggest that he 'shouldn't be allowed to review movies.' Sorry; don't mean to be too on the nose, but this kind of statement sort of supports my earlier misplaced 'apologist' comment regarding how folks get their hackles up if anyone dares criticize Tarantino's work.
It's not so much a pretty contest. Ugly people are jealous of other ugly people. I'm sure there are many in Hollywood who are jealous of Gere and this might play into him never getting a nom. I mean, this year and this film was pretty much "his time," which is something else Hollywood likes to do to those who hung around for a long time. Some sort of a career thank you. Perhaps it's part jealousy, part no one saw the movie and perhaps some just don't care to honor him because he's never really had a rough spot anywhere in his career. If he wasn't in a blockbuster or dating a model he was at least giving a great performance in a small film. There's really no where to point and say he had a low period in his career or life. He's always been on top and perhaps some don't want to give this an even "higher" award. Perhaps the same for DiCaprio. Re: Tarantino debate I've been rather critical of him (especially his last film) but I still think DJANGO is the best film I've seen so far this year. It's still far from perfect but unless ZERO, IMPOSSIBLE or AMOUR really knock me out, to me 2012 had some very good movies and some great ones but none that were really out there or stood above all others. In fact, I'd say TITANIC 3D was the best movie of the year just like it was when it was originally released. :ducksforcover:
As an ugly dude, I can confirm that.
The directors category is where I've seen the least of the nominated work but those guys must have done some seriously good work to trump Ben Affleck, Paul Thomas Anderson, Katherine Bigelow or Quentin Tarantino. In the case of Affleck and Bigelow, I thought they both made the best movies of their careers this year.
Which of these have you seen, and which one would you vote for? Best Picture Beasts of the Southern Wild Silver Linings Playbook Zero Dark Thirty Lincoln Les Miserables Life of Pi Amour Django Unchained Argo I have not seen Beasts, Zero, Amour, or Django yet. I'm planning on seeing Zero tomorrow. Tanantino is not really my cup of tea. Amour sounds very depressing. Beasts looks potentially interesting, but.... Anyway, of those I've seen I quite liked Silver Linings, Lincoln, Pi, and Argo. Tough call for me between Silver Linings Playbook and Lincoln. Really tough. But right now I'll go with Lincoln, but could change my mind.