You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2011.

Oscar nominees are announced on the 25th.  Yay!  So let’s summarize what we (the royal we, at least) know.  Keeping in mind, of course, that when it comes to the Academy, no one knows anything.  Especially me.  This time: Best Original Screenplay.

VIRTUAL LOCKS

  • David Seidler, The King’s Speech
  • Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg, The Kids Are All Right
  • Christopher Nolan, Inception

Seidler is a great story.  He’s over seventy years old with no major features to his credit and has been chasing this film much of his life.  Plus, it is a heck of a script, an Oscar bait movie that exceeds expectations.  I personally don’t understand the love for The Kids Are All Right.  But the script has been nearly universally praised, and there’s a palpable feeling that the Academy wants to recognize Cholodenko‘s voice.  Let’s make one thing clear: Inception isn’t nearly as deep as people seem to be making it out to be.  I think they actually mean Memento.  Nolan‘s script, though, is big and bold and most of its misses are noble failures.  I’m a sucker for intellectual sci-fi thrillers, so I’ll be pretty happy to see one get nominated here.

LAST TWO IN

  • Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, John J. McLaughlin, Black Swan
  • Mike Leigh, Another Year

You may want to have a fire extinguisher on hand for anyone who claims to know the final two spots in this category, because their pants are surely on fire.  Black Swan is a psychological horror flick that crossed into the mainstream and Oscar because of the big names associated with it.  I was under the impression that people generally thought Heyman, Heinz, and McLaughlin‘s script was the movie’s weak spot, but it has been nominated for everything and the film is en fuego.  Mike Leigh has six Oscar nominations, four of which were for original screenplays.  So yeah, I’m not going to count him out until he misses.

FIRST ALTERNATE

  • Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, The Fighter

I’m now on the record expressing how much I disliked The Fighter‘s script.  So maybe my bias is placing this film on the wrong side of the line.  It has every shot at getting a nomination.  Which would mean the guy who wrote Air Bud would be Oscar-nominated.  Just sayin’.

DARK HORSES

  • Derek Cianfrance, Cami Delavigne, Joey Curtis, Blue Valentine
  • Nicole Holofcener, Please Give

The Academy has a pretty well-established trend of using a slot in this category for a smaller film.  If that spot isn’t filled by Another Year, look for the gritty Blue Valentine or sublime Please Give to sneak in.

SHOULDA BEEN A CONTENDER

  • Sean Anders, John Morris, She’s Out Of My League
  • Nicholas Fackler, Lovely, Still
  • Jacob Tierney, The Trotsky
  • Raymond De Felitta, City Island

There’s been a lot of talk about this year being a great year for animation. I went through the list of eligible animated features this year and… not so much. Actually, last year was a much better year for animated films. Look towards that crop for a group of entertaining and ambitious films.

So what if I had a ballot? Well, I would have had to see more of these, for one. Voters must see 80% of eligible films and then award scores from 6-10 to those films. The Academy defines 10 as excellent, 8 good, 7 fair, and 6 poor. To me, this means a 6 can run the score between mildly disliked and outright hated. A film must achieve an average score of 7.5 to be nominated.

And unfortunately The Illusionist, one of my most anticipated films, has not come to DC yet. When it does I’ll see it and add it to the list.

Despicable Me: 7

A cute movie, but not particularly noteworthy. It also isn’t all that funny. It just doesn’t have any spark to make it memorable.

How to Train Your Dragon: 8

I wasn’t bowled over by this one as so many seemed to be. But it is charming and has some terrific animation. A couple flying scenes really use the 3D well.

Idiots and Angels: 6

Bill Plympton has two Oscar nominations for shorts and I like that he brings a neat, hand-drawn style to this year’s race. The wordless plot follows a jerk who sprouts angel wings and changes his life. But it’s actually really boring, unfortunately.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole: 6

A standard, poorly-drawn (in plot and character development, not animation) fantasy film. But with owls. It does have some beautiful animation and I bet all the flying looked great in 3D.

Megamind: 6

I had been looking forward to this one for a long time due to its terrific premise: a supervillian whose life loses meaning after defeating his superhero foe. Unfortunately it’s seriously deficient in humor and the plot is not nearly as clever as the premise.

My Dog Tuplip: 8

A very nice film based on JR Ackerly’s memoir of his time with his often misbehaving dog. The story is amusing, touching, and frank while the hand-drawn animation style is neat. Oddly, it’s not a film for children as a surprising amount of it deals with topics like Tulip’s urination habits and procreation.

Shrek Forever After: 6

At least it’s a huge improvement over the putrid Shrek the Third. It also has a lot of good jokes. The plot is awful and barely thought-out, however. There’s nothing to enjoy between hilarious one-liners.

Tangled: 6

Another one that just didn’t move me like it did others. It always seems to be lacking something: a joke that doesn’t quite connect, an emotional connection that doesn’t quite hit home, a plot point that doesn’t quite work.

The animation is also disappointing and sort of drab. I think part of it is that I saw it in 2D. Some scenes that aren’t visually interesting are probably improved by 3D. One romantic scene surrounded by floating lanterns is dull in 2D but I bet looks neat in 3D. Similarly, Rapunzel’s animated hair doesn’t stand out as much.

Toy Story 3: 9

Again, can’t really say it slayed me like it seemed to everyone else, but still very good with a tight story.

I couldn’t see everything (for some it was actually impossible) and these are the other eligible films:

  • Box office bomb Alpha and Omega
  • DVD sequel given a qualifying run to try to push the category over the threshold for five nominees (which it did not) Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue
  • Animated hybrid Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore
  • Asian imports Summer Wars (Japan) and The Dream of Jinsha (China)

Oscar nominations arrive Tuesday, January 25. To prepare, we’re giving you our sharpest insight and predictions. Today: What disappointing nominations do you anticipate?

Jared:The Fighter should be KO’d

At first I wondered if the cut of The Fighter in my theater was different than what everyone else seemed to have saw.  But no, the audience in my viewing seemed to have enjoyed themselves.  So I’m left to conclude that David O.Russell managed to incorporate some subliminal message telling people they love the movie and my brain just isn’t wired to receive said messages (kinda like how I can’t see those 3-D Magic Eye pictures).  Because the film is bad, failing on nearly every conceivable level, other than the acting.

I’d call the story cliche, but that would assume there was any semblance of a story.  We get very clear depictions of each character’s lot in life, but no clue as to got they got from point A to B.  To wit, the relationship between Mark Wahlberg and Amy Adams is almost entirely glossed over.  They meet, go out on a date, some undefined time apparently passes and then they are inseparable.  Time, I should point out, is also irrelevant to the filmmakers.  Anyone have any clue the time between Wahlberg’s first fight show in the film and his title bout?  Melissa Leo and Christian Bale both see their characters kinda sorta maybe have a change of heart, but it isn’t clear how superficial that change is or why we should care.  Of course, that little change is really the only character or plot development in the entire film.

But OK, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with a simple story.  The Fighter is a boxing movie and obviously a good chunk of boxing movies involve the fights, and it is hard to advance the story too much while the main character is in the ring.  But here’s why I’m absolutely appalled David O. Russell is on the shortlist for a best director nom: the boxing is depicted as if he really rather doesn’t like the sport.  The final match aside, the fights are glossed over at best, portrayed as some weird rejected video game cut scene at worst.  Not even bland, the fighting scenes are, if you’ll excuse my limited vocabulary, stupid.  They aren’t suspenseful, interesting, exciting, or even artistic.  Just a complete waste of time.

"Say hi to yourself for me."

Absolute worst of all, though, was the character interactions.  It felt like a quarter of the movie could be described in the following three beats: Character A says a line talking at character B.  Character B “responds” with something no human would say and tangentially relevant to what character A said.  Then there’s a cue (be it in the dialogue or visual) about how these people are white trash.  I could see a line or two for comic relief, maybe, but the filmmakers felt this bizarre need to consistently unsubtly describe the characters and their town as white trash.  It wasn’t funny, it wasn’t clever, it was just obvious and worse, it was mean.

So when Mo’Nique reads off The Fighter as a best picture nom, I’m going to be disappointed that a movie which had great acting, but failed on nearly every conceivably important other level is taking the place of so many other actually watchable films.

John: Man the levies, nomination waves are coming!

The nomination wave: it’s a common occurrence in Oscar season. A beloved film gets support across all guilds, sweeping many to nominations even if their work wasn’t as exemplary. It’s going to happen to two supporting actresses this year.

She wasn't nearly as committed to head enlargement in The King's Speech

The first, and most prominent, is Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech. Carter is a great, versatile actress, but this is such a nothing performance. It’s not like she’s bad, but she’s a stock supporting character without a ton to do. She’s more interesting this year in both Alice in Wonderland and Harry Potter. Even she admits to being puzzled over why this performance is getting singled out for award attention.

I'm wicked strong willed!

The other is Amy Adams for The Fighter, a sentiment I know is not shared by many. I’ve actually seen plenty of arguments that she’s the supporting female star in the film and not supposed category front runner Melissa Leo. I just don’t think she does much beyond sporting a Boston accent. The film’s treatment of her character bothered me, and part of it is due to her performance (though the bulk is probably the script’s fault).

I’ve always said I’m an Amy Adams fan, but this is the third time I’ve come to complain about her on this blog so maybe my affection is waning? But maybe she just gets recognized for the wrong roles. Oscar nod for Doubt, critical acclaim for Sunshine Cleaning, and a probable nod for The Fighter, but not enough support for Enchanted or Julie & Julia.

Brian: The Town will rob a nomination from a more deserving film

Jared and John adeptly discussed why The Town is overrated last month. As Jared put it in his elegant way, “Frankly, I don’t even think the film is particularly good genre fare, much less a good movie.” So since they’ve covered much of why its bad, especially the horribly underdeveloped relationship between Ben Affleck and Rebecca Hall, I’ll keep my entry to this category short.

A Best Picture nom for The Town would be an embarrassment as it would only provide fodder for those critics who last year assailed the Academy’s decision to expand the category to 10 films. “It will allow mediocre, commercially successful films to sneak in,” they warned — and The Town is just that. After last year, when the final 10 offered a little something for everyone to be happy about, I hoped that these concerns would be laid to rest. But I imagine they will reappear on Tuesday when The Town gets its undue recognition.

Does anyone know why we love each other?

How anyone can deem that the best of the year is beyond me. The characters were one-dimensional (ooh, Jeremy Renner as a hothead!), the stakes were non-existent, the shootout at Fenway was cool to watch but ultimately unfulfilling, and the heists were forgettable. It’s as if the Academy has a Departed hangover and thinks that all Boston-related movies are somehow deep because people have funny accents. (Also see: The Fighter) So put this down as my big disappointment.

This year, of the two front runners for Best Picture, The King’s Speech is the most obvious addition to the long list of “based on a true story” nominees and the fact vs. fiction questions that arise (as they do with any “Based on a True Story” movie) are largely immaterial. Conversely, The King’s Speech biggest competition, The Social Network, has been dogged by these questions from the start. And not unfairly. The former is considered largely accurate and the latter’s relationship with the truth is spotty. Yet…I don’t care.

The question of The Social Network’s authenticity is once again rearing its head as the inevitable backlash against the frontrunner begins. Andrew Sullivan already linked to one screed from The Awl that I mostly disagreed with. But it wasn’t until later that a friend was humming Mozart to herself that I drew a connection between The Social Network and Amadeus, the 1984 Best Picture winner; both are predicated on a glaring biographical lie.

In Milos Forman’s film, we are told the story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce) through the eyes of Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham). Salieri is a jealous, spiteful, and senile old man when we first meet him. On his deathbed, he calls in a priest to confess one final sin: killing Mozart. For the next two plus hours, the Peter Shaffer script (based on his play by the same name) weaves an engaging story of Mozart’s path from child prodigy to alcoholic trainwreck — and how Salieri drove Mozart to his untimely death.

Much of what we are told about Mozart is faithful to the era, but there is one big falsehood that today would likely cloud its Oscar chances: everything about Salieri is based on centuries old slander. Not just the supposed murder (which even in the film is seen as the ramblings of a crazy man), but Salieri’s entire relationship with Amadeus was invented as a narrative technique. Music scholar A. Peter Brown broke down the truth vs. fiction in an incisive 1991 essay: “‘fictional ornament [using a term coined by Shaffer]’ understates the gulf between what was the invention of the authors and historical truth.”

Brown takes down many of the myths concocted about Salieri: that he was jealous (their relationship was a “healthy professional one”), that his music was simple and unworthy of the royal court (he was “a highly respected and successful” composer), and that he conspired to kill Mozart (“Salieri’s two attendants attested that they had never heard such words from their charge.”) Brown makes a great effort to show his admiration for Amadeus, in spite of the fact that Shaffer drew the central conceit of the film from unfounded rumors that had been circulating since Mozart’s death.

And Brown is absolutely correct in his evaluation of the film — it is brilliant, engaging, fun, and suspenseful. And the leading and supporting male actors put in career-defining roles.

I’d say the same thing about The Social Network — and it too derives its plot from a giant, but in the end immaterial, lie: that Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook in an attempt to get others (girls, finals clubs, the world) to like him. The critique I linked to above by Richard Rushfield gets into it, as have others. Sorkin, with help from author/fabulist Ben Mezrich, ignores the fact that the real Zuckerberg has had the same girlfriend for years — predating Facebook. He apparently had no interest in the finals clubs; he was a member of a fraternity. Rushfield writes, “Zuckerberg is portrayed as an angry, vengeful sociopath, which by most accounts and all appearances, he is not.”

So why should we judge these films differently? Shaffer made the decision to tell the story of Mozart through the prism of a manufactured competitor just as Sorkin told the story of Facebook by taking Eduardo Saverin’s side and twisting it a bit to make it more dramatic. The more I think about the comparison between these two films, the more it fits. And if The Social Network wants to combat the backlash it will get as the frontrunner of the Oscars, it would be good for them to consider what made Amadeus‘ half-truths seem less relevant to voters*

*Yes, the 80s were a different era of Oscar voting. Yes, I know one had 200 years of murky history and one had 5 years of rather well-documented history. I still don’t think it matters.

Oscar nominees are announced on the 25th.  Yay!  So let’s summarize what we (the royal we, at least) know.  Keeping in mind, of course, that when it comes to the Academy, no one knows anything.  Especially me.  This time: Best Adapted Screenplay.

VIRTUAL LOCKS

  • Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network
  • Michael Arndt, Toy Story 3

I’ve almost started multiple physical altercations defending Studio 60, so it isn’t terribly surprising how strongly I feel about Sorkin’s script for The Social Network.  Fortunately, the rest of Hollywood seems to agree with me as this lockiest of locks has been cleaning up the precursors.  I’m kinda bummed about the love for Toy Story 3.  Sure, it has the touching scene at the end, but the rest of the film was generally unremarkable.  Michael Arndt wrote Little Miss Sunshine, though, and that’s probably worth an extra Oscar nomination anyway.

LIKELY IN

  • Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, True Grit
  • Debra Granik and Anne Rosselini, Winter’s Bone

Man, I really got to get my lazy butt to see True Grit, huh?  Given the film’s strong box office and the Academy’s love for the Coen brothers, this nomination should be nearly in the bag.  The buzz for Winter’s Bone started with Jennifer Lawrence, I think.  From there, it was an easy Frozen River jump to a screenplay nomination.  I don’t really get it.  The story is relatively weak and dialogue nothing special.  I think Hollywood wants to pat itself on the back for recognizing an indie, especially one that doesn’t take place in a city.

LAST ONE IN

  • Ben Affleck, Peter Craig, and Aaron Stockard, The Town

Don’t forget that Affleck already has a screenplay Oscar.  The film’s buzz may have peaked just a tad before nominations were due back, but the movie inexplicably raked in plenty of dough and generally positive critical reviews.  If it does get a nomination, I’m going to pretend the nom is actually for Inside Man, because it seems to me that a heist movie should actually have a compelling heist.

FIRST TWO ALTERNATES

  • Robert Harris and Roman Polanski, The Ghost Writer
  • Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy, 127 Hours

Adapted screenplays and I just aren’t getting along this year.  I’m completely mystified as to The Ghost Writer‘s buzz.  It just isn’t an interesting film.  127 Hours‘s star has been plummeting over the past few weeks, giving me mixed feelings because while I didn’t think it was anything special, I’d rather it get in than others on the bubble.  It may come down to how many people realize just how difficult it is to write an engaging screenplay when the film almost entirely takes place in one spot.

DARK HORSES

  • Laeta Kalogridis, Shutter Island
  • David Linsday-Abaire, Rabbit Hole
  • Glen Ficarra and John Requa, I Love You Phillip Morris

Shutter Island is floating around the fringes of a number of categories, but I really hope it doesn’t break through here.  Haven’t seen Rabbit Hole yet, but it seems like exactly the kind of movie Oscar loves to nominate.  Brian told me I wouldn’t like I Love You, Phillip Morris so I haven’t seen it.  The WGA gets a huge kick out of ruling films ineligible for its awards, so it doesn’t necessarily mean anything that Phillip Morris picked up a nomination, but youneverknow.

SHOULDA BEEN A CONTENDER

William Davies, Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders, How to Train Your Dragon
Michael Konyves, Barney’s Version
Michael Bacall, Edgar Wright, Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World

I think my biggest disconnect with the Academy this year will be in the Adapted Screenplay category.  There’s a ton of middling fare that will see nominations.

Fighting for the liberation of blog posts from awful pun headlines

The past few months I’ve included Carlos on my top five lists. “What is Carlos?” some of my fellow Grouches asked me.

When I told them, they then tried to disqualify it from our lists.

I clearly do not work with serious people.

Carlos is the latest from Olivier Assayas, the director of one of my favorite 2009 films, Summer Hours. It showed at Cannes to wonderful reviews.

Also it’s 5.5 hours long not including intermissions.

The length has made has made it something of a curiosity. It was commissioned as a French miniseries and IFC took the full-length version on a US roadshow. A condensed version got a larger release while Sundance aired it as a miniseries.

The film tells the story of Carlos “The Jackal,” the terrorist and revolutionary. In the early 70s he is a idealistic young man fighting for Palestinian liberation. He attempts some assassinations, kills police officers who try to arrest him, and leads a daring raid on the OPEC headquarters. By the 90s, he’s a pudgy mercenary relying on unsavory friends and exiled in Sudan, barely giving lip service to his former ideals.

Édgar Ramírez is remarkable as Carlos and undergoes a striking physical transformation. Young Carlos is strong and sure, full of conviction and a Cassanova. Old Carlos is desperate, paranoid, delusional, and haggard. Thankfully, Ramírez has received some awards season attention, albeit often in the miniseries category.

The film itself flies by despite its length. The action comes and goes and is mostly concentrated earlier in the film, but it succeeds as an in-depth and engrossing character study. Carlos is in every scene and is a thrill to watch. By taking its time developing the character and charting his rise and fall, the audience really understands him.

That said, you don’t necessarily need to watch it all in one sitting. It works great in its long form, but I doubt it would lose anything if watched in its three miniseries chunks.

I am curious about the abridged version. I feel like it wouldn’t work just by chopping half the scenes since its greatness is derived by its deep dive into the character. It would require a whole new edit to maintain its power, I would think, re-editing scenes instead of cutting out plots.

It’s not eligible for the Oscars, I think because its commercial debut was on French television. If not, I think Edgar Ramirez may well have been a player for Best Actor.

Anyway, well worth seeking out.

Oscar nominees are announced on the 25th.  Yay!  So let’s summarize what we (the royal we, at least) know.  Keeping in mind, of course, that when it comes to the Academy, no one knows anything.  Especially me.  This time: Best Supporting Actress.

VIRTUAL LOCKS

  • Nobody

There are at least ten women you could legitimately claim to have, based on precursor awards, a shot at a nomination.  Coupled with the fact that the Oscars have a tendency to go crazy in the supporting categories (as commenter Sarah astutely pointed out) and you are looking at a category impossible to call with any certainty.

LIKELY IN

  • Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
  • Melissa Leo, The Fighter
  • Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech

Everything I’ve read about True Grit suggests two things about Steinfeld: that’s she absolutely deserving of a nomination; that nomination should be for a leading role as she’s in every single scene.  I haven’t seen the movie yet so I can’t weigh in there.  Best Actress is a crazy tough category to break into this year, so I understand why she’s been campaigned as supporting, but Oscar voters are free to place her as they see fit.  I’m enjoying the Melissa Leo buzz because it means Adam gets to rant about Frozen River some more.  She plays a mother quite easy to hate, desperately close to going over the top as a scheming, manipulating manager/mom, but never quite doing so.  Impressive considering how much of a hack job that script was.  I loved The King’s Speech and I’m always a fan of nominations for muted performances, but I don’t know, I think Helena Bonham Carter is riding the coattails of the movie and her co-stars.  Not her fault, her character is really only given two or three instances to shine.

LAST TWO IN

Mila Kunis, Black Swan
Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom

I reserve the right to change my predictions, but here’s where I’m at right this instant.  Black Swan has been getting widespread support in the precursors, suggesting to me there’s an opportunity for it to pick up a nomination in this category.  I’ll get to the other contender shortly, but, if you’ll forgive my crassness,  given that I’m predicting a forty-something, fifty-something, sixty-something, and a fourteen year old, I think the Academy will find a place for the incredibly sexy Mila Kunis.  Which, please understand, isn’t meant to take away anything from her performance as the sometimes real, sometimes friend, sometimes rival, sometimes missing half to Natalie Portman’s character.  Animal Kingdom will be arriving very shortly, so I can’t speak to it, but from everything I hear, the only way Weaver doesn’t get the nomination is if not enough voters saw the movie.

FIRST THREE OUT

  • Amy Adams, The Fighter
  • Barbara Hershey, Black Swan
  • Lesley Manville, Another Year

Amy Adams has garnered a number of precursor nominations, is ridiculously cute, and is a damn fine actress, but her character lacks depth.  Given the crowded race, I think if voters have to choose only one supportive partner, they go with Bonham Carter or one actress from The Fighter, they go with Leo.  But if/when I’m wrong, it most likely will be her.  Way  back before people had really seen the film, Hershey was touted as strong favorite here.  Her star has dimmed a little since then, perhaps because there are so many other actresses playing mothers with severe issues handling their offspring.  I’m stunned I can’t find a place for Manville, given director Mike Leigh’s consistent ability to create strong, Oscar-friendly female characters.  I’m told she’s wonderful, it again may just come down who did due diligence and watched her film.

DARK HORSES

  • Dianne Wiest, Rabbit Hole
  • Olivia Williams, The Ghost Writer
  • Dale Dickey, Winter’s Bone
  • Pretty much anyone from For Colored Girls

Everyone was talking about Dianne Wiest and then no one was, I don’t quite get it.  Dollhouse proved to me that Olivia Williams deserves more recognition, and she’s actually quite good in The Ghost Writer, the film just can’t get any traction in the U.S. (and rightly so).   If I had done this two months ago, I would have put Dickey in the top five, given the buzz for Winter’s Bone, and she’s absolutely deserving of a spot.  I hope whoever did the awards promotion for For Colored Girls learned some lessons from the near total failure to get the film out there.  Granted, I hear the subject matter is difficult and it is can be hard to narrow down an ensemble, but we’re looking at a year with twenty white nominees.

SHOULDA BEEN A CONTENDER

Marion Cotillard, Inception
Rosamund Pike, Made in Dagenham
Ellen Wong, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Rebecca Hall, Please Give
Ellen Burstyn, Lovely, Still
Julianna Margulies, City Island
Patricia Clarkson, Easy A
Annette Bening, Mother and Child

I think I’m leaving out at least a half-dozen interesting performances.  A pretty strong year for supporting actress roles, if you ask me.

Oscar nominees are announced on the 25th.  Yay!  So let’s summarize what we (the royal we, at least) know.  Keeping in mind, of course, that when it comes to the Academy, no one knows anything.  Especially me.  This time: Best Supporting Actor.

VIRTUAL LOCKS

  • Christian Bale, The Fighter
  • Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech

These two have been nominated in pretty much all Oscar precursors and split winning them.  Both have gobs of screen time; it is fairly easy to imagine their respective movies undergoing relatively minor rewrites to portray each as the main character.  Bale plays a loose cannon crack addict who can’t let go of the past, constantly reliving past fights, which is getting in the way of training his brother.  His performance is all kinds of showy, especially contrasted with Mark Wahlberg’s patented stoicism.  Rush, as a speech therapist tasked with helping a future king, is tasked with a more subtle role, playing mentor, friend, inferior to Colin Firth’s regal stutterer.

LIKELY IN

  • Andrew Garfield, The Social Network
  • Jeremy Renner, The Town
  • Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right

The Academy has tendency to shower films it likes with lots and lots of nominations, so if it has caught the lovefest bug for The Social Network, we could hear Andrew Garfield’s name called.  He co-starred this year in the mostly-ignored Never Let Me Go and will be donning Peter Parker’s spiderduds in the upcoming Spiderman reboot.  Garfield’s character in the Facebook movie served an interesting and perhaps necessary counterpoint to the increasingly powerdrunk Zuckerberg.  The Town raked in a ton of dough and is generally well-liked, for reasons I can’t quite understand.  It boasts a strong ensemble, but awards buzz has focused on Jeremy Renner, nominated last year for The Hurt Locker.  Renner’s character doesn’t necessarily add anything new to the sidekick who is always looking for an edge even (or especially) when bending the rules.  Think Worm from Rounders, only from Boston.  But Renner is clearly quite talented.  In The Kids Are All Right, Mark Ruffalo plays a laid-back restaurateur who finds out that a sperm donation from nearly two decades ago has yielded two kids.  The idea isn’t novel to me, but I believe Ruffalo’s talent appears so natural that his work isn’t appreciated nearly as much as it should be.

FIRST ALTERNATE

  • Matt Damon, True Grit

I haven’t seen the film yet, so I won’t comment on Damon’s role or performance.  Buzz has been waning some, but count out at a respected, well-liked guy in a critical and commercial success at your own peril.

DARK HORSES

  • John Hawkes, Winter’s Bone
  • Michael Douglas, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
  • Sam Rockwell, Conviction
  • Justin Timberlake, The Social Network
  • Armie Hammer, The Social Network

In a just world, Hawkes would see a nomination here, he truly turned in great stuff.  I just saw Wall Street 2 on the plane to Vegas, and while the movie was nothing special, Douglas does have an Oscar scene or two, and is a beloved industry veteran who was just in the news for kicking cancer.  I don’t think anyone saw Conviction, including yours truly, but Sam Rockwell is supposed to be very good.  Since the inevitable backlash for The Social Network hasn’t hit yet, you can’t count out Timberlake or Hammer, especially since they both have memorable scenes and lines.

SHOULDA BEEN A CONTENDER

  • Michael Shannon, The Runaways
  • Tom Hardy, Inception
  • Vincent Cassel, Black Swan

Click Here and follow along!

Hello everyone!

So we’re making it easier this year for you to beat the Grouches at picking the winners of the Golden Globes. Fill out the form below. The first question for each category asks who you think WILL WIN. And if you have preferences on who you want to win, fill out the SHOULD WIN question below. Be sure to answer the tiebreaker at the end.

Fill out the form here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dFVtT1pIOUdxOEpjbmp3bmpzV1ltREE6MQ

Check back in later tonight for the liveblog!

– Brian

January 2011
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031