comment #1

BurmaShave says ...

Now's a good a time as any to say EASTERN PROMISES is looking better and better, and those banner ads are fuckin' sexy. Why do I have a feeling that again Cronenberg will be the critic's darling again but get fucked over?

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

*only one again.

comment #3

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Why is Charlie Wilson's War a sure thing? I thought the script was a boring mess. I know it's got Tom and Julia and Philip and Mike Nichols at the helm but it's still an Aaron Sorkin script and even though he's a very good writer, he's very divisive and will probably split audiences. I expect critical reception to be mixed, especially with the high expectations that come attached to the A-list cast. I'd really like for it to be good, or at least better than the script, but I have major doubts about that one. And Jeff, why no love for Elah? You don't think lightning will strike Haggis a third time? And the biggest omission of all in your bubble, even though I haven't seen it, is Reservation Road. Please explain why that didn't make the cut because I think it looks fantastic.

comment #4

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Burma, Eastern Promises was good but no Oscar darling. It lacks the depth of A History of Violence. And it's too damn short. I would've watched another half-hour. Viggo was great but if there's any hope at all for a nomination I think it'll be for Armin Mueller-Stahl.

comment #5

EDouglas says ...

"It's no secret that violent movies about angry, vengeful men tend to be dismissed or undervalued by older, stodgier Academy members"

Yeah, no way that something like The Departed could EVER be considered Oscar-worthy... at least that's what I thought after I saw it, only to be proved wrong months later. I think there's something to be said about movies geared towards guys because there is a lot more of them in the Academy when you take into account all the tech categories, and I think that could help something like "3:10 to Yuma" be considered. I think people are far too divisive on "Assassination" and its pace to be considered in the picture category, but I'd love to see a campaign for Casey Affleck, as I think he makes that movie.

comment #6

MPNeeb says ...

And not a single one has seen wide release yet.
Or any sort of release.
Of course, no hope for Zodiac.

comment #7

NDH says ...

The only film I would feel comfortable calling a "lock" at this point would be "Atonement." It seems to be getting a lot of praise from all the right corners, and it just looks like something the Academy will swoon over. "Charlie Wilson's War" seems like a safe bet, considering the pedigree, but I've yet to see or hear anything about this film. Where the hell are the posters and trailers already? "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" also looks Oscar friendly, but I'll reserve judgment until the first reviews come out of Telluride.

I agree with Wells that the Academy doesn't usually go for the darker, more violent pictures, but I'm willing to bet that "American Gangster" will slip into the top five. First off, it's got two former Oscar winners starring in a true story (Oscar loves that); the film has that 3-hour epic scope without seeming too long, according to the reviews I've read (Oscar loves the BIG films); and it deals with the drug trade, and we all know Oscar loves to acknowledge the "important issue" films. Plus, I think the release of Ridley Scott's new cut of "Blade Runner" will remind voters that he's one of our great directors, and still without an Oscar. So I feel pretty safe by including "American Gangster" in the final list.

As a musical, "Sweeney Todd" will have to play well with audiences for it to even be considered. Being R-rated and bloody as hell, I'm not sure if it has a chance. "No Country for Old Men" is brilliant and certainly has my vote, but I doubt if the movie-going public, or even the Academy for that matter, will find the film's message very accessible. Oscar voters tend to vote with their heart, not with their head (for better or for worse).

All that said, there's usually a smaller, domestic-style picture that manages to squeeze in. Perhaps "Reservation Road" actually has a shot. I've heard nothing about it, but it certainly has that "In the Bedroom" vibe. And I wouldn't discount "There Will Be Blood." All it has to do is meet everyone's expectations (which I'm sure it will) and it's in good standing. In a perfect world, "Blood," "No Country" and "Jesse James" would all be nominated for best pic, but that seems like quite an impossibility.

comment #8

Zimmergirl says ...

You wouldn't be the first to call No Country for best pic. AwardsDaily.com has been since Cannes. Predicting what Academy members will do based on genre almost fails. The only film of those you mentioned is Sweeney Todd. The Academy has no problem nominated dark and violent pictures as long as they are also critically acclaimed (Fargo, Pulp Fiction) or crowdpleasers (Gladiator, Braveheart).

Nice work, though, Jeff. I think this is (so far) your most spot-on best pic analysis.

comment #9

Zimmergirl says ...

Sorry, I meant the only one that I wouldn't include right now is Sweeney Todd. Also to clarify, not predicting No Country for Old Men to WIN just to be a player in the best pic race.

comment #10

EDouglas says ...

Jeffrey, have you actually seen Eastern Promises yet? Focus seems to be keeping this one fairly under wraps until Toronto for some reason.

comment #11

jjgittes says ...

"Charlie Wilson's War" is going to be a misfire - that shoot didn't even go well.

I've seen "American Gangster" and ......well it's a decent film, but, I wouldn't say it's a lock for anything - not acting nods and even less so for Best Picture.

"Grace is Gone" is going to be the dark horse picture nominee I think. I'm not kidding, it's going to push the manipulative buttons.

comment #12

Mr. Gittes says ...

I think Gone Baby Gone will get nominated for best picture if one of the "big ones" becomes a bust. And maybe Ed Harris for a supporting nom...

comment #13

jjgittes says ...

Nobody still have any high hopes for "Youth Without Youth"? I think the Academy would like to embrace Coppola and his film even if it's just 'good".

comment #14

Josh Massey says ...

I don't know why everybody thinks a good movie will win Best Picture. It happened last year, so the odds are against it repeating for at least a decade. Whichever Iraq movie is the perfect mix of overly manipulative, meandering, simplistic and preachy will certainly get the prize (Mr. Haggis, I'm lookin' at you!).

comment #15

Mr. Gittes says ...

Yeah I wouldn't look to Paul Haggis making the definitive movie about the war in Iraq. After all, Stone's Platoon, which is considered the definitive movie about Vietnam, didn't come out until years later after the Vietnam War. However, Paul Greengrass' Imperial Life in the Emerald City could be THE movie about Iraq...whatever that means.

comment #16

austin111 says ...

Geez, like Ed Douglas says, who in hell was really predixing The Departed to go all the way, Scorsese or not. I mean you even had Little Miss Sunshine vying, didn't you? Personally happy to see The Departed win and successive viewings haven't weakened my opinion of it. I don't think it's beyond any of the above to go all the way. This looks to be shaping up to be a much tougher year all 'round, but if I was to lay odds right now -- I'd say Atonement might just have the edge because the others will cancel each other out and because it's supposed to be heart-breaking. Second guess would be Charlie Wilson's War. Third goes to Elizabeth. Wait, aren't those Well's picks? I don't think the academy will go for two hard assed crime flix in successive years, even if they are completely different. No Country for Old Men looks great but will the academy be tuned into a flick about drugs and murder that's set on the border. Probably in a weaker year but I doubt this one.

comment #17

Undercover Brother says ...

No "Knocked Up" or "Bourne Ultimatum?" These are two of the best reviewed movies according to Rotten Tomatoes. So are "Sicko" and "Hairspray." Will Academy reward none of the above? Is Rotten Tomatoes not the be all end of critical evaluation?

comment #18

romeoisbleeding says ...

Why not Zodiac? of all of the movies I have seen this year, to me Zodiac is still the best with Once close behind. It should get some Oscar attention. And by the way, Ebert just got around to reviewing it and he gave it a great review.

comment #19

BurmaShave says ...

If this were 1973, I have no doubt ZODIAC would be the winner of Best Picture. I hope at least the Screenplay, Editing, Cinematography, and Downey are remembered next January.

comment #20

BurmaShave says ...

"We'll know the truth about Atonement when it plays Toronto next week and some real Americans with no cousins in England have a look at it."

There are no real Americans without cousins in England. 'The rest of you are just visiting.'

comment #21

Josh Massey says ...

Hell, The Host is the best movie I've seen this year, but if I had to pick an out-of-left-field nomination, I'd say Waitress. Now I didn't even see the movie, but if there was a Little Miss Sunshine-type marketing blitz, coupled with the chance to honor the late Shelly, and again coupled with the fact there might not be five sure nominees, it might just make it.

comment #22

romeoisbleeding says ...

to Burma Shave... I like your ideas. I think an Oscar nod for art direction would not be out of line for Zodiac. The scene where John Carrol Lynch was questioned was so perfect.. down to the grit of the lunch room and old pop machines. Cinematography and editing for sure and best supporting nomination to Downey... all totally deserved.

comment #23

nemo says ...

"... violent movies about angry, vengeful men ..."

Sounds like the Hollywood-Elsewhere blog and its comments. Especially that Jesse James thread!

comment #24

Ian Sinclair says ...

"We'll know the truth about Atonement when it plays Toronto next week and some real Americans with no cousins in England have a look at it."

The origin of the name Wells - variant of Well
English: topographic name for someone who lived near a spring or stream.

comment #25

austin111 says ...

Of course Zodiac is easily one of the very best flicks of any year. But let's face it, it's far too challenging to win anything, even perhaps from critics. Certainly it achieves most of it's ambitions which is to lay bare all the criss-crossing hairs involved in revealing the real difficulty of identifying a true serial killer. Unless you can absolutely link a complete stranger to a murder victim, it's extraordinarily tough. It takes absolute obsession to even get close. Add that to the fact that Zodiac never gives us the actual killer (or maybe it does) so the mystery remains unsolved even if the trail that the film follows is fascinating. That's real life and has nothing whatsoever to do with hollywood endings. In short, unsatisfying, and that's one reason why it never achieved much at the box office.