Amph The Oscar Race: Now Disc. Ranking the Oscar hosts of the past 20 years

I agree. Besides, Jackson just got a boatload of Oscars for Rings.So even if Kong is Oscar-caliber work, which it admittedly could be, he won't win anything for it because people will look at him and say "you've just won 11 Oscars. You don't need another one."

 

You want to know why James Cameron hasn't made another picture since "Titanic?" Because he knows that the press is laying for him, among other things. Jackson is less cautious. It may be a good picture, but Best Picture goes to Important Movies That Make Statements---usually. There are always exceptions, "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan" for one. Think that one was because of Miramax's incessant campaigning.

 

I haven't seen a lot of the movies expected to be nominated yet. I'll report back towards the end of Dec on the oscar race.

 

Not much action so far this year, though EW was reporting trade show advertisements for "Junebug" in September.

Wow. Just wow. While I thought Junebug was an excelent picture, I can't imagine it garnering even so much as a single nomination (with one possible exception in the Best Supporting Actress category). Trade show advertisements in Semptember? Holy cow.

I saw the trailer for Munich not long ago. That movie just screams Best Picture.

A controversial film to be sure though. But until the film is released, it'll be impossible to foresee whether that controvery will at all damper the film's chances of sweeping awards, nor will it be possible to know whether this is even a quality picture.

I saw " Walk The Line " and " Pride and Prejudice " over the weekend and those films will get nominated for best picture.

While I agree with Walk the Line (which has received excellent advance notices), I'm not sure that I agree about Pride and Prejudice, if not simply because it will be overwhelmed by contenders in the next few weeks and months, including the aforementioned Munich, Brokeback Mountain, and Memiors of a Geisha among several others.

And its not just my inner geek talking but objectively speaking it would not suprise me one iota if " Batman Begins " gets a nomination for picture or if Caine and/or Oldman get nominated for their work in it, as well as McDiarmid for RotS.


While it would be wonderful if these films would receive such much-deserved praise, it's highly unlikely, especially given the relative explosion of contending pictures in the next two months. However, since, as you said, "The Oscars are WAY more honest and less political with the supporting actor/actress categories," I don't think it's completely out of the question that McDiarmid could receive a nomination in the Best Supporting Actor category, especially considering that his performance was cited by several critics (especially among those who were less keen on the picture) as contributing to the picture's weighted and calculated drama.

The films fighting it out over the main categories will likely be Capote, Munich, The New World, Brokeback Mountain, Goodnight, and Good Luck, Walk the Line, The Constant Gardner and In Her Shoes.

With the exception of In Her Shoes, that seems about right. However, the jury is still out on a number of these pictures, particularly Spielberg's Munich and Mallick's The New World. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the fantastic The Constant Gardener will be snubbed come Oscar time because of it's August release date.

It seems like PSH is a bit of a lock for Capote, although I think Phoenix might get some strong support for Cash. The biopic is really quite strong lately, and both Hoffman and Phoenix seem to be pretty dead on. But I'd say Hoffman has the artsy factor on his side, which certainly helps.

This also seems right on. The biopic is currently in; however, don't count out Heath Ledger, who is apparently magnificent in Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain (I'm seeing an advance screening on Thursday night so I'll get back to you then).

Most of this discussion, however much fun, is probably futile though until January, at which time it'd probably be a lot of fun to make our own lists of nominees and compare it with the Academy's.

 

I would be highly surprised if Jarhead isn't offered a couple of nominations, most likely for Best Picture, Sound, Cinematography, maybe Best Actor, but more likely Best Supporting Actors for Jamie Foxx and Pete Saargard.

 

It kind of depends upon the impact of the Christmas movies...

 

Basically I break the Best Picture race down into various categories. Here are 20 films with any Oscar BP potential

100% lock
Walk the Line- It's the Man in Black on the Big Screen. What's could go wrong?
Munich- Spielberg hasn't created something this great since Saving Private Ryan

85% excellent
Good Night, and Good Luck- Very well executed work of the Murrow story

75% good
North Country - Had a lot of steam in October but is fading away quickly unfortunately
Match Point - Good comeback for Woody Allen, but can't see it going into January
Crash- People are still talking about this. It could get in.

50% average
The Producers - Less quirker than MH-P, but still not there
Capote- don't know the story of Capote, but is gaining much buzz
Memoirs of a Geisha- when are they going to learn Crouching Tiger was one time only
Cinderella Man - excellent work released early, but could get lost in the shuffle
Batman Begins- Best film so far, but fantasy is against Nolan here. Maybe BB 3 or 4?

25% small chance
A History of Violence - Early Buzz yes but it's practically over
Mrs. Henderson Presents - Too quirky for the oscars
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - GL's last shot, a masterpiece but GL and the DGA don't get along
The New World - Too difficult for Farrell to rebound after Alexander (though I liked it)

10% very slim chance
Brokeback Mountain- I can't take Jake Gyllenhall seriously after Day After Tomrrow
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - excellent, but won't be rewarded until Film 7.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe- the franchise still has six more shots at Oscar
King Kong - Jackson's a one trick pony...enough said.
Jarhead - Utter crap, but was in the running for a long time

 

With the exception of In Her Shoes, that seems about right.
I was thinking In Her Shoes seems likely to score some acting nominations but not BP or BD.

Brokeback Mountain as a slim chance? Think again. Its gotta be 85% at least.

Well, let's make some guesses here, based mainly on buzz and word of mouth since nobody has seen all of these yet.

Picture: Munich, Brokeback Mountain, Goodnight, and Good Luck, Walk the Line, and The Constant Gardner
Possible: Capote, Cinderella Man. Why Cinderella Man? Because box office shouldn't determine award worthiness and I have a feeling other potential candidates like The New World and Memoirs of a Geisha are going to underwhelm.

Director: Spielberg (Munich), Fernando Meirelles (Constant Gardner), Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain), James Mangold (Walk the Line), and Terrence Malick (The New World--the Academy loves this guy)
Possible: George Clooney (Goodnight, and Good Luck) or Bennet Miller (Capote). Could it be Clooney gets nominated in Directing and Acting for two different movies?

Best Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote), Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line), David Strathairn (Goodnight, and Good Luck), Terrence Howard (Hustle and Flow), George Clooney (Syriana).
Possible: Russell Crowe has worn out his welcome for now. I suppose Ralph Fiennes might get some consideration for The Constant Gardner

Best Actress: Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line), Toni Collette (In Her Shoes), Maria Bello (A History of Violence), uh...Judi Dench has done something that is getting a lot of praise...and some other actress.
Possible: ??

Supporting Actor: William Hurt (A History of Violence), Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man), Norman Lloyd (In Her Shoes), either Matt Dillon or Don Cheadle (Crash)...
Possible: Ben Kingsley (Oliver Twist), Clifton Collins (Capote)...if Ethan Hawke can get nominated out of nowhere a few years ago than Ian Mcdiarmid has a chance. But not a good one.

Supporting Actress: Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardner), Shirley Maclaine (In Her Shoes), Gong Li (Memoirs of a Geisha)...
Possible: at least two other actresses.

Almost all of the above mentioned movies will be nominated in one writing category or the other.
(A threepeat for Clooney, co-writer of Goodnight, and Good Luck?! Has the world gone mad?!

 

I wonder if they'd be crazy enough to put " Oldboy " among the best foreign films? It was certainly one of the best films in America in 2005. Its Korean release date was probably a year or two ago, but that doesnt matter with that category - its based on when the film hits the U.S. - which can be several years with the Asian market.

 

Brokeback, Jarhead will probably get something. Jarhead will most likely get something for picture, director, sound, at the very least. Revenge of the Sith? I highly doubt it, but it'll most likely get something for best CGI. Personally, I think that that should go to Serenity, which had some amazing effects. New World, maybe, screen writers. Harry Potter and Narnia, probably not. Batman Begins, not a chance. Goodnight and Good Luck, I'll let you know tomorrow night, but highly possible.

 

While I thought Junebug was an excelent picture, I can't imagine it garnering even so much as a single nomination (with one possible exception in the Best Supporting Actress category).

"Junebug" is a bit esoteric ? too much so for the majority of Academy voters to nominate it for "major" awards. Amy Adams is likely to receive a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her scene-stealing work in the film, but apart from that, the only award for which the film could contend is the Screenplay category.

Trade show advertisements in Semptember? Holy cow.

He was correct about that.

A controversial film to be sure though. But until the film is released, it'll be impossible to foresee whether that controvery will at all damper the film's chances of sweeping awards, nor will it be possible to know whether this is even a quality picture.

This is a good point. The film?s trailer is certainly quite powerful, but until the movie itself is released to the general public, it is unreasonable to assess the merits/debits of a film that likely isn?t even completed (post-production). Indeed, the production emanates with a rather prestigious glow, the sort that is likely to attract critical accolades, but for the time being there are far too many unknown variables, both in terms of the picture?s internal construction, and audience/media reception, to accurately predict the film?s chances of garnering Oscar nods. It is important to recognize that the nominations themselves do not always correspond to a film?s inherent quality ? as much as the A.M.P.A.S. does not want to admit this, the studio marketing mechanism is efficient and well-oiled.

While I agree with Walk the Line (which has received excellent advance notices), I'm not sure that I agree about Pride and Prejudice, if not simply because it will be overwhelmed by contenders in the next few weeks and months, including the aforementioned Munich, Brokeback Mountain, and Memiors of a Geisha among several others.

I haven?t seen "Walk the Line," so I am unable to comment analytically (or otherwise) on its underlying worth, but if the early critical reception is any indication, the film should be a smashing success. Having had the opportunity to view "Pride and Prejudice" last weekend, I must say that I thought it was one of the most thorough and accomplished adaptations of Jane Austen ever to have been filmed. The story is as old as the hills, but director Joe Wright infuses it with wit and poignancy, which makes the plot transpirations appear urgent and involving, rather than telegraphed and recycled from mechanical clichés.

"Brokeback Mountain" is almost a shoe-in for multiple nominations ? it is apparently a moderately conventional, yet emotionally haunting western/love story that will push boundaries as it exists comfortably within a familiar genre. The latter qualities will make the film?s more precarious issues infinitely more palatable for viewers who might otherwise be turned off by the subject matter. As General_Dodonna has indicated, early reports suggest that Heath Ledger gives the performance of his career in "Brokeback," so it seems as though he has a good shot at securing a Best Actor nomination; the ubiquitous Jake Gyllenhaal will have a shot at either the Best Actor or Supporting Actor statuette for this role, depending upon how Focus Features decides to structure their campaign. Also, Randy Quaid looks to have a pivotal role in the picture, so I wouldn?t dismiss any notions that the actor might garner a Supporting Actor nomination ? look at Alan Alda in "The Aviator" last year. The buzz surrounding Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway, the two principal female actors in "Brokeback Mountain," has been relatively quiet, so I am left to deduce that their roles are crucial, but thankless; it would appear that Ledger and Gyllenhall do most of the heavy lifting in the picture, if early notices are to be believed.

While it would be wonderful if these films would receive such much-deserved praise, it's highly unlikely,

 

Well it's official, we have our first shaft of the year, and the final nominations lists haven't even been released yet. A documentary of tremendous power and shot and edited with the craft, care, and love of a master filmmaker, Warner Herzog's Grizzly Man deserves nothing less than a nomination, but it can't even beat out the entertaining and cute, but ultimately vapid Mad Hot Ballroom? Disgusting.


"Junebug" is a bit esoteric ? too much so for the majority of Academy voters to nominate it for "major" awards. Amy Adams is likely to receive a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her scene-stealing work in the film, but apart from that, the only award for which the film could contend is the Screenplay category.

I agree with you (regards the awards), especially about Amy Adams, but I'm not so sure I'd use the word esoteric to describe the picture. Do you mean it's esoteric in that its a small-budget independent picture, or esoteric in its subject matter?

It is important to recognize that the nominations themselves do not always correspond to a film?s inherent quality ? as much as the A.M.P.A.S. does not want to admit this, the studio marketing mechanism is efficient and well-oiled.

Definitely evidenced by the list of 15 documentaries in consideration mentioned above.

It is extremely difficult to comment on films that almost no one has seen, such as Terence Malick?s new picture. Malick is an eccentric character who has directed only three feature films in his career (excluding "The New World"): "Badlands," "Days of Heaven," and "The Thin Red Line." The first two titles are masterworks, whereas the third is a meandering, but occasionally brilliant war epic; if Malick maintains his visionary excellence in "The New World," then it is quite possible that the Academy will take notice (as they did with "The Thin Red Line," awarding it seven nominations, including Best Picture, in 1999). Regardless, any film by Malick is a must-see event for cineastes, this new picture being no exception.

I'm very much looking forward to Malick's The New World, but I'm not sure that the Academy feels the same way, especially considering the film's release date has now been pushed back from a November to a December release due to Malick's continued editing.

 

Re: "The Grizzly Man"...that sucks, but they do it every year, it seems. Remember "Hoop Dreams?"

 

Viggo Mortensen was good in A History of Violence.


Jag29

 

Yeah, but AHoV is so out of Academy's minds right now that it won't get nominated. That's why an Oct-Nov or Dec release is very good.

And looking back.

04 - Million Dollar Baby - Released in December
03 - Return of the King - Released in December
02 - Chicago - Released in December
01 - A Beautiful Mind - Released in December

We haven't a BP from any of the other 11 months since Gladiator in 00.

 

Do you guys remember when Silence of the Lambs was released way back in February 1991? I don't think any film will win best picture again from that early in the year, but you never know!

What about Proof with Gwyenth Paltrow and Anthony Hopkins? I heard good things about it and it seems like a movie the Academy would like, as well as North Country with Charlize Theron. The earliest movie I think that has a chance with a best picture nom is Cinderella Man. I would say Episode III, but I don't think the Academy would be that nice.

 

I really think that it'll be between Munich and Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture.

Memoirs of a Geisha (which is no way a rip-off of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) will probably get something in the cinematography category.

Joaquin Pheonix and Reese Witherspoon will probably also win Oscars.

As for Best Supporting actor, I really want Peter Sarsgaard to win for his role in Jarhead, but it will likely be Jake Ghyllenhal for Brokeback Mountain.

Corpse Bride will win Best Animated Feature.

The special effects nominees will be Star Wars, War of the Worlds, Sin City, King Kong and Chronicles of Narnia.

 

Well it's official, we have our first shaft of the year, and the final nominations lists haven't even been released yet. A documentary of tremendous power and shot and edited with the craft, care, and love of a master filmmaker, Warner Herzog's Grizzly Man deserves nothing less than a nomination, but it can't even beat out the entertaining and cute, but ultimately vapid Mad Hot Ballroom? Disgusting.

"Mad Hot Ballroom" is a nice picture, but it does not approach the revelatory emotional power that characterizes "Grizzly Man." Herzog?s film is as affecting, profound, deep, brilliant, and true, as any film, fictional or otherwise, I have seen this year; that it is not even among the final list of contending titles is a great shame upon that particular branch of the Academy.

The documentary category at the Academy Awards has, for the last decade or so, been subjected to a rather large amount of scrutiny for their frequently dubious selection methods. I don?t wish to detail its storied and labyrinthine history in this post, so suffice to say that the voting process was almost entirely motivated by politics. For years, many of the candidates for the Best Feature-Length Documentary Oscar were banal "talking head" films in which stock footage was interspersed with stolid, well-composed shots of people expounding their positions in a starchy manner. In fairness, many a great documentary has been honored by the Academy, but the list of films that have not even received a single nomination (in the Best Documentary category) is astounding. Consider the following titles: "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker?s Apocalypse"; "Metallica: Some Kind of Monster"; "Shoah"; Apted?s "7 Up" series; "Crumb"; "Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr."; the aforementioned "Hoop Dreams"; "Roger and Me"; "The Thin Blue Line"; "Brother?s Keeper"; "American Movie"; "Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control"; and on and on and on. Even the man who is arguably the greatest living American documentary filmmaker, Frederick Wiseman, has not received an Oscar nomination in this category.

I agree with you (regards the awards), especially about Amy Adams, but I'm not so sure I'd use the word esoteric to describe the picture. Do you mean it's esoteric in that its a small-budget independent picture, or esoteric in its subject matter?

Neither, actually. "Junebug" is "esoteric" ? a crude term, perhaps, used tentatively in this instance ? in terms of its overall tonality. This is another film in which the director takes some relatively hackneyed material, and imparts it with an organizing specificity that makes all of the characters and events that occupy the filmic canvas, fresh and immediate for the viewer. The "low-rent" version of this concept is something like "Sweet Home Alabama," starring Reese Witherspoon, or even Cameron Crowe?s recent "Elizabethtown"; I am happy to report that "Junebug" shames both of those pictures.

However, the unique approach that director Phil Morrison uses to tackle the material makes his film more challenging ? not to mention, immensely richer, and more rewarding ? but those qualities are gained whilst others, such of mainstream appeal, are unfortunately lost. I imagine that some audiences will be baffled by this film, particularly in regards to its deliberate ambiguity regarding some of the characters (more specifically, Alessandro Nivola). "Junebug" will undoubtedly reward those with the patience to invest in its carefully managed narrative, but I don?t know how it will play for people who are either unwilling or uninterested in committing to a film in that way.

Definitely evidenced by the list of 15 documentaries in consideration mentioned above.

I?ve only had the opportunity to see five of the fifteen titles. While I enjoyed each of the five films, the only ones I felt were above average or extraordinary are "Murderball," and "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room." The other three films ? "Mad Hot Ballroom," "March of the Penguins" and "Rize" ? were very enter

 

Could Jake Gyllenhall be nominated for both Best Actor(Jarhead) and Best Supporting Actor(Brokeback Mountain)?

Has this been done before. Don't know too much about the history of the Oscars.

 

That has happened several times. In fact, the last time was just last year with Jamie Foxx for Ray and Collateral.

 

Believe it or not Ralph Fiennes is getting almost universally rave reviews for the character of Voldemort in the newest Harry Potter film. A critic in the NYT is calling him one of the greatest villians of the silver screen. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

Could Jake Gyllenhall be nominated for both Best Actor(Jarhead) and Best Supporting Actor(Brokeback Mountain)?

Yes. Has been done before.

Re: Ralph Fiennes; Lurking_Around has seen the movie and thought he was good but not great. We shall see...

 

Could Jake Gyllenhall be nominated for both Best Actor(Jarhead) and Best Supporting Actor(Brokeback Mountain)?

Having just seen Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain, I can safely say that it'd be a disservice to all the other actors nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category if Gyllenhal was nominated. Much like Foxx's nomination in that category last year, when a character is on film for nearly 75% or more of a picture, I'd hardly call that a "supporting" performance. The film, by the way, is uniformly excellent, and Ledger is incredibly good.

 

Yeah, I've been hearing similar things. I wonder if maybe there'll be an Oscar in it for him and why not, Johnny Depp recieved a best actor nomination for playing a drunken pirate.

 

If Fiennes gets a nod for HP, that would be Supporting Actor, right? It's a possibility, I guess, but hardly is he going to win.

I have never been that interested in predicting nominations. As soon as the nominations are announced, I'll make my predictions and then revisit them about a week or so before the Oscars. That usually works well. Doing that I average getting over half of them right.

The Return of the King sweep was my best year. I pegged every single Oscar. Every single one!