"As this season of insane Oscar foreplay approaches its inevitably unsatisfying climax, making predictions is a dangerous game," writes City Beat critic Andy Klein, who dares to say the following a couple of lines later: "Alan Arkin will win Best Supporting Actor.

"Much of the smart money has been on Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls, but, as several commentators have already noted, the release of Norbit in the middle of the voting period could cost Murphy dearly. It may not be the sort of movie Oscar voters go out for in droves, but no one with a television could have avoided the barrage of wretched, unfunny, even offensive ads in the run-up to its opening -- ads that remind us of everything that’s worst about a sometimes brilliant performer’s work.
"At the same time that the folks at DreamWorks/Paramount are spending money to promote Murphy’s Oscar chances, they’re spending far more on unintentionally undermining them.
"If Murphy is out, then the award is Arkin’s to win. Nearly everyone loved him in Little Miss Sunshine, a film that was itself hard to dislike. And he has 40 years of work, often great, behind him -- a factor that, however unfairly, has been known to sway voters. It would also represent an Oscar comeback for Arkin, whose two previous nominations were in the ’60s."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 16, 2007 at 3:10 PM
comment #1
PaulKolas
says ...
Enough with the Oscar navelgazingregurgitationoverload. The trailer for Grindhouse is more entertaining than any full length feature lately. It's time to stop talking about Oscar and start talking about the films of 2007. "Breach" is stronger than any February film has a right to be, hopefully a good harbinger of things to come. Seriously people, I don't give a damn who wins what anymore, except for the oh-so-slim-let's-not-get-excited prospect of Peter O'Toole pulling the rug out from under Adi Amin. Even if Marty wins Best Director, it won't be for his best film. If the message thumping Babel wins Best Picture, no one is really going to care. Little Miss Sunshine is far from the Best Picture of the Year either. The Best Pictures of the Year are mostly foreign (of course): Pan's Labyrinth, Letters From Iwo Jima (well done Clint), and the absolutely brilliant The Lives of Others. Maybe Children of Men will gain in luster over the years in ways that these mostly tepid nominees will never do so. Now let's move on.
Posted by PaulKolas
at February 16, 2007 3:31 PM
comment #2
Mr. Peel
says ...
Serpentine! Serpentine!
Posted by Mr. Peel
at February 16, 2007 3:34 PM
comment #3
kyle21
says ...
ah yes, Breach. Would have been so much better without Phillippe. Poor Chris Cooper, acting in a vacuum must be hard.
Posted by kyle21
at February 16, 2007 3:45 PM
comment #4
bipedalist
says ...
I hope you aren't deluded enough to think that people fighting you aren't fighting you because Murphy "deserves" the Oscar over Arkin. It isn't even about that.
Posted by bipedalist
at February 16, 2007 3:53 PM
comment #5
jeffmcm
says ...
Bipedalist, I think he does think that.
Posted by jeffmcm
at February 16, 2007 4:01 PM
comment #6
berg
says ...
Breah was okay,but it is a tv movie ... except for Chris and Ryan the character development is non-existant ... Kathleen Quinlan has a Laura Bush hairdo, the film tries to tackle themes like spying against your country and being an undercover mole but lacks the thematic depth given those subjects in movies like The Departed and The Good Shepherd. The funniest, perhaps not intended as same, line is Ryan chastising Chris: "You were scaring my wife, dropping by unexpectedly to lecture her on Opus Dei."
Posted by berg
at February 16, 2007 5:15 PM
comment #7
Dan Revill
says ...
I say Wahlberg upsets both of them. Now that would be a great story.
Posted by Dan Revill
at February 16, 2007 6:30 PM
comment #8
Chicago48
says ...
About Breach - saw it last night at a pre-screening. Did anyone else see microphones and wires hanging in the scenes? There was a shot of Dennis Haysbert and a microphone right at his face. Maybe we had a bad print....otherwise I agree with Berg, it was a TV movie...Cooper was very good...but it wasn't worthy of big screen.
Posted by Chicago48
at February 16, 2007 6:35 PM
comment #9
christian
says ...
wow. stop the presses. no shit arkin will win.
Posted by christian
at February 16, 2007 7:39 PM
comment #10
FNG
says ...
Nah, uh. That Bling is gonna win.
Posted by FNG
at February 16, 2007 9:24 PM
comment #11
hiviper
says ...
so what IS it about? Wells does not think that Murphy deserves the Oscar for various reasons he has made clear, including the performance itself. So why are people fighting him then in your opinion, Bipedalist?
Posted by hiviper
at February 16, 2007 9:55 PM
comment #12
jeffmcm
says ...
Bipedalist has said in other threads that Wells has gone beyond reasonable into stubborn and repetitive/obsessive to the point of getting people to backlash against what is, at bottom, a pretty non-controversial thing.
Chicago48, your Breach screening didn't have a bad print, it had a projectionist who didn't know what he was doing. Blame the theater and ask for your money back.
Posted by jeffmcm
at February 16, 2007 11:55 PM
comment #13
wholovesya
says ...
Desperate huh, Jeff? Qouting City Beat? What's next, Entertainment Today?
Posted by wholovesya
at February 17, 2007 12:51 AM
comment #14
Chicago48
says ...
Alright, those of you who saw DG (and not the ones who didn't), you have to admit, that for the first time you saw Eddie do something 'different'; right? I know I did. I never pay to see those clownish movies he makes (IMO), but was pleasantly surprised to see him sing and dance in this and do something totally different. And I wonder - why can't he do Tallega Nights? or Number 23? In one of his interviews he said he's never offered roles. Now I think there's a disconnect somewhere. Why isn't he offered those roles? and if you look at other black comics, Chris Tucker for example, the ONLY role he's played is Rush Hour. Makes one wonder - is there a little racism working here? Can't Chris Tucker and Eddie Murphy, two high-boxo comics get something BETTER? Why aren't they offered those parts?
There are tons of comedy scripts written and they can't be cast in one of them? Hmmm....and if you remember - didn't he have a TV show that went off the air because of criticism by the black public that it portrayed poor people poorly? The man can't get a break. But you never see him in print or interviews complaining. But I bet he's a bitter man because of all this.
Posted by Chicago48
at February 17, 2007 4:32 AM
comment #15
EDouglas
says ...
If Oscarwatch still had its charts available, we could probably easily tell how many times an actor has won a Golden Globe, a Critics Choice and a SAG award in the supporting category and *NOT* won the corresponding actor. I'm guessing that it's very, very rare.
So many others who've seen Dreamgirls have decided that Eddie Murphy's performance is worthy of recognition, so why on earth would the Academy suddenly bestow the award to Arkin, who didn't even get nominated for half the awards above? There's really nothing special about Arkin's performance in LMS that he hasn't done good or better in other movies,but the more anti-Murphy posts made here is just going to make it look even sillier when he wins.
Posted by EDouglas
at February 17, 2007 5:14 AM
comment #16
Dixon Steele
says ...
I like Murphy and he was terrific in DG. But I'd love to see Arkin win. He's a comedic genius, and as anyone who saw WAIT UNTIL DARK, THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER & GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS knows, a great dramatic actor. He's been nominated three times and has yet to win. And he's not getting any younger.
What's interesting is that when an black actor wins an acting Oscar, a big deal is usually made. This year, THREE are favorites. At least it's not Tyler Perry for Madea's Family Reunion.
This is not a cue for NYC Busybody to vent on the liberal elites of the Academy.
Posted by Dixon Steele
at February 17, 2007 5:44 AM
comment #17
bipedalist
says ...
"If Oscarwatch still had its charts available, we could probably easily tell how many times an actor has won a Golden Globe, a Critics Choice and a SAG award in the supporting category and *NOT* won the corresponding actor. I'm guessing that it's very, very rare."
It's fact, it's never happened. The closest was Lauren Bacall winning the Globe and the SAG but losing to Binoche at the Oscars. I think only one other supporting actor was in that position and it was Tim Robbins for Mystic River (BFCA is not worked in) http://www.oscarwatch.com/Awards/charts/chart-actorschart.php
Posted by bipedalist
at February 17, 2007 7:14 AM
comment #18
gruver1
says ...
Wells to wholovesya: City Beat is fine -- a regular weekly freebie in Los Angeles, on the same level as the "L.A. Weekly" in terms of the writing. And Andy Klein is one of the finest, sanest (i.e., feet on the ground, doesn't live in the ivory tower), most perceptive critics in the country. Plus he writes in a refreshingly clear, clean and personal fashion.
Posted by gruver1
at February 17, 2007 7:15 AM
comment #19
EDouglas
says ...
Right, Robbins won it all and I don't think there was any doubt he'd win the Oscar. As I've mentioned here and elsewhere, Murphy is the only actor in the supporting category who's been nominated by everyone, let alone won, and I think there's a lot of momentum and people who agree that Dreamgirls is his and Hudson's movie.
(SPOILERS FOR LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE!!!!!!!!)
LMS gets better after Arkin's character dies... Dreamgirls doesn't.
Posted by EDouglas
at February 17, 2007 7:30 AM
comment #20
The Movie Man
says ...
Arkin should win, I'm not as appalled by Murphy as Wells, but his performance is a solid "ok", and Murphy, as Wells as suggested, is done a disservice by the fact the part essentially goes nowhere.
Mark Wahlberg is good in his part, but Oscars are about sentimentality so lets go with that and let the old pro, who's been doing rich, largely unsung character work for years, win the Golden boy.
Posted by The Movie Man
at February 17, 2007 7:50 AM
comment #21
Silverscreenvideos
says ...
Norbit was a pile of crap. However, Norbit is making the studio a lot of money, so why shouldn't Eddie Murphy get a good payday? Or should he just keep looking for quality roles in artistic films that pay a fraction of what he can make for Norbit?
I'm always curious how many people who criticize actors who "sell out" devote their careers to doing "quality" work at a fraction of the salary they can make at a "crap" job? For every Peace Corps volunteer out there, there are thousands trying to do the best they can.
AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
If you want to downplay Murphy's acting in Dreamgirls, that's one thing. And if you even want to downplay him for being a jerk, I can go along with that. But any actor only has so many years and so many roles where he can get good money. Murphy and the studio obviously knew the public's taste (or lack thereof) better than the so-called critics here, and that's a big improvement for him, at least, since the days of Pluto Nash.
And why hasn't anyone trashed Alan Arkin for The Santa Clause 3 or Djimon Hounsou for Eragon?
Posted by Silverscreenvideos
at February 17, 2007 8:34 AM
comment #22
Silverscreenvideos
says ...
Did anyone else see microphones and wires hanging in the scenes? There was a shot of Dennis Haysbert and a microphone right at his face. Maybe we had a bad print
It's not the print. It's the projectionist in the theater you saw it in who used the wrong lens. 35mm film is naturally 1.33 to 1, which is why for years, movies were made in that aspect ratio.
For today's wider screen films, many cinematographers photographe a scene full frame and rely on the projector to crop it to the right ratio. So, there will be boom mikes and other stuff above and below the scene, and if the projectionist screws up, you can see it in some scenes.
Posted by Silverscreenvideos
at February 17, 2007 8:41 AM
comment #23
LYTrules
says ...
And why hasn't anyone trashed Alan Arkin for The Santa Clause 3 or Djimon Hounsou for Eragon?
I'll hazard a guess: Arkin was one of the only good things in SC3. Hounsou was forgettable in Eragon. Eddie Murphy in the ads for Norbit is aggressively obnoxious. And his performance as Norbit is a really terrible acting job, uncommitted as to what the character is trying to be.
What happened to the idea that Jackie Earle Haley might win Best Supporting? Has he been written off already?
Posted by LYTrules
at February 17, 2007 2:19 PM
comment #24
Brigadier Pudding
says ...
i'm pulling for arkin but i'm not getting my hopes up. i sometimes think oscar prognosticators like to predict upsets, even when one's not there. eddie has won most of the important precursors. i just don't see him losing.
of course, who would've thought adrien brody would beat daniel day lewis, so what do i know? that was probably the last big upset in the acting categories... 4 years ago.
Posted by Brigadier Pudding
at February 17, 2007 4:17 PM
comment #25
royalonemn
says ...
If the Academy doesn't feel compelled to give Peter O'Toole an Oscar, I don't see why they would for Alan Arkin. Arkin's body of work doesn't even compare to O'Toole's or Eddie Murphy's. But we will see next week. It is normally an early award. But after next week who will care anyway? Murphy will go back to making #1 movies and Arkin will fade into the sunset (uneventfully).
I almost say give it to Arkin because the Oscar really won't matter to anyone but him (or Jackie Earle Haley). I can't imagine either of those two working substantially more because of the Oscar. So let them have it in their shelves, the other three noms will continue to work, Arkin and Haley won't.
Posted by royalonemn
at February 18, 2007 12:04 AM
comment #26
christian
says ...
arkin's work doesn't compare to eddie murphy?
arkin's role in THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER is worth all of eddie's ouvre. but then we're taking drama not broad comedy.
Posted by christian
at February 18, 2007 11:18 AM
comment #27
Silverscreenvideos
says ...
Norbit was a piece of crap. But it would have been a piece of crap with Martin Lawrence, or Chris Rock, or Denzel Washington or Laurence Olivier in the lead. This isn't a case of an actor ruining what might have been a good movie with an overbearing performance. The film called for just what Murphy gave it.
Picking on Murphy for Norbit is wrongheaded. I don't think he deserves the Oscar. Arkin, Haley and Wahlberg were better, as were some who weren't nominated. But this shouldnt be about Norbit.
Posted by Silverscreenvideos
at February 18, 2007 9:48 PM
comment #28
L.B.
says ...
So, royalonemn...If he wins the Oscar, Arkin will go from making (on average) 2-3 movies a year for the last three decades to never working again? That's one powerful award!
Posted by L.B.
at February 20, 2007 4:53 PM