Entertainment Weekly Predicts... - EW Looks at the Hopefuls

[OscarGuy]

Sorry, eclectic stories do not make a film "experimental" to me. Un Chien Andelou was "experimental", to an extent Battleship Potemkin was "experimental".

Babel was just straightforward storytelling with a couple of "twitchy" moments that made it seem like art.

I just can't share your opinion on this one.

[rolotomasi99]

I would hardly consider Babel experimental. It's very much in the tradition of films like Crash.

I think No Country For Old Men would be more experimental than any of these other films at least from all I've read.

come again. :p

i have seen quite a few experimental films in my life. BABEL takes the cake for most experimental best pic nominee. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN looks like a straightforward thriller; an amazingly well made straightforward thriller, but still pretty straightforward. it looks more like FARGO (straightforward) than BARTON FINK (out there).

how can you think BABEL was at all straightforward? i felt like i was seeing a film out of the 60's...a european film from the 60's! it was so off the wall crazy in some parts. adriana barraza lost in the desert was definitely surreal, and the whole storyline with rinko kikuchi was just bizarre. santaolalla's score was the definition of "alternative." i liked the film, but it was definitely out there.

CRASH has a very straightforward presentation style. other than starting at a certain point and then flashing back one day, the film moves along a set timeline, the character's motivations and reasoning are pretty much spelled out for the audience, and almost all the plot points are tied up neatly at the end. for some people this is why they loved the film, for others it is the reason to dislike it.

i have not seen THERE WILL BE BLOOD or NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, but from the trailers and the many reveiws i have read, it seems the former is much more like BABEL (i.e. experimental) than the latter. i just think if a movie like BABEL can be nominated for bp, it is possible for THERE WILL BE BLOOD to be nominated. previously, i would have said neither could have been nominated, but the academy membership is quickly changing as younger and more experimental members become the majority.

[OscarGuy]

I would hardly consider Babel experimental. It's very much in the tradition of films like Crash.

I think No Country For Old Men would be more experimental than any of these other films at least from all I've read.

[rolotomasi99]

If I'm proven wrong and THERE WILL BE BLOOD nabs a Best Picture slot, it'll be the most formally unusual film to earn such since THE THIN RED LINE.

your post sounds like someone who has actually seen the film, as opposed to just reading the reviews. i must say i am very jealous. i have been eagerly awaiting this film from more than two years (when it was still being written).
i would agree with you that it is probably the most different film nominated for an oscar in a long time...if it were not for BABEL.
i thought BABEL was a very good film, but i did not fall in love with it the way i thought i would. however, whatever i thought about it was immaterial to its oscar chances, which i thought were minimal. it was just such a different film from anything previously nominated for best picture. it was almost experimental, with its strange score, long passages without dialogue, barely any plot, very naturalistic acting, and general third world filmmaking style.
somehow, this film found a previously unheard from sector of the academy to support it. i think those same people will gladly embrace THERE WILL BE BLOOD. they will love how different it is. plus, p.t. anderson has worked with many, many actors in the academy. this film, above all others, is the closest he has come to having a shot at a best pic nom; and i think his supporters really want this for him. they are going to be doing their best to see his film nominated.
if this new academy can ignore an oscar bait film like DREAMGIRLS for a very experimental film like BABEL than i think THERE WILL BE BLOOD has a better chance than SWEENEY TODD these days. we shall see how far the academy has come.

[rain Bard]

The difference is that THERE WILL BE BLOOD is at least as aesthetically "difficult" (which may just read as naive/amateurish to a good number of voters) as it is thematically difficult. The worldless opening, recalling 2001 and WOMAN IN THE DUNES, the loudly self-announcing score (which will surely be considered intrusive to certain viewers even as it's catnip to Radiohead fans), the mismatched acting styles (which, I feel, have good reason to be mismatched, but are likely to be taken as unprofessional and ahistorical to viewers accustomed to a certain level of decorum from their period pieces), and the obstinate departure from the narrative arcs of the original source novel, all should secure this film to also-ran status at best. Daniel Day-Lewis should still be nominated but unless this is a bigger commercial hit than I can possibly imagine, that ought to be the only major nod. If I'm proven wrong and THERE WILL BE BLOOD nabs a Best Picture slot, it'll be the most formally unusual film to earn such since THE THIN RED LINE. And though I don't think it's nearly as good as the Malick film, it's definitely Paul Thomas Anderson's best film so far, so I'd consider that a very pleasant surprise.

[rolotomasi99]

Did the critics really "love" Cold Mountain, though? I don't really recall rhapsodic reviews for it, only raves for Zellweger's scene-stealing performance (in which she channeled Marjorie Mann in The Egg and I).

i knew i was going to get in trouble for COLD MOUNTAIN. i though maybe i should remove it from the list, but then did not. i just put the film there because it was one of those films that was supposed to be nominated for best picture. it scored a 72% on r.t., so it was not exactly panned like the other big oscar bait film which crashed and burned because of the critics, MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA (35% r.t.). it was nominated in several other categories, and it had the right studio behind it. it certainly was more deserving of best picture than freakin' SEABISCUIT!

i was just pointing out how sometimes great production value and good reviews do not guarantee a best pic nom. i would love for THERE WILL BE BLOOD to be nominated for best pic, but even the most glowing reviews mention how difficult it is to sit through. i take heart in the fact that something as difficult (though well made) as BABEL can be nominated, then this new breed of academy voters will not shy away from THERE WILL BE BLOOD or NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

[flipp525]

as A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, ADAPTATION, FAR FROM HEAVEN, COLD MOUNTAIN, QUILLS, ALMOST FAMOUS, WONDER BOYS, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, etc. can tell you, even if the critics love you, the academy may still ignore you for best picture.

Did the critics really "love" Cold Mountain, though? I don't really recall rhapsodic reviews for it, only raves for Zellweger's scene-stealing performance (in which she channeled Marjorie Mann in The Egg and I).



Edited By flipp525 on 1194552710

[Zahveed]

I think it would be interesting to see Juno in the running. The humor slot will probably be taken by Charlie Wilson's War though.

[rolotomasi99]

What about There Will Be Blood? I'm surprised to see it on the Long Shots portion. I've been hearing great things about this one.

as A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, ADAPTATION, FAR FROM HEAVEN, COLD MOUNTAIN, QUILLS, ALMOST FAMOUS, WONDER BOYS, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, etc. can tell you, even if the critics love you, the academy may still ignore you for best picture.
you can be recognized in several other categories, but best picture may slip through your fingers for some reason.
we can only hope the academy continues their recent good sense to not ignore films because they are "difficult" because the early reviews are saying THERE WILL BE BLOOD is a very difficult film to sit through. brilliant, but difficult.

[Zahveed]

I see there's a lot of talk about Blanchett amongst you. What about There Will Be Blood? I'm surprised to see it on the Long Shots portion. I've been hearing great things about this one.

[Precious Doll]

Elizabeth II is a total snooze and Cate Blanchett looks like she doesn't even want to be there.

I would love to say something profound or "different" about this but... It's impossible. Impossible to defend the movie, and impossible to defend its star's performance. I have a frustrating relationship with Cate Blanchett - every time I say to myself: "I was wrong, she IS great" (like I did last year after I saw Notes on a Scandal), something like this second Elizabeth happens. I can't even say that it's a dreadful performance - it's just so depressingly empty (like her Katharine Hepburn), all form and no substance, and what's even worse, no emotion, either. Meryl Streep was - and is - a very technical actress, still she could move you to tears; Blanchett isn't exactly cold, rather SO vague. I'm sure that there are directors who can use this in a very good, inventive way - and she coud, can be very good. But this movie treats her as a national monument - much more than the first one - and she simply can't carry it; she's not the kind of actress who can face such bad material and triumph on it, and she's probably too sophisticated to just enjoy its trashiness, so she's not even entertaining. She's serious, committed, and this is completely wrong for such a thing. (In the same movie, Samantha Morton has just one big scene, and the movie finally breathes, feels human in those moments).

So let's hope that she will just be nominated for her (supposedly much better) performance in (the supposedly much better movie - I should really see it one day) I'm Not There.

I completely agree about Blanchett.

I'll go a step further and say that her performance in I'm Not There, judging by the trailer and the extended scene on Yahoo Moives in which she's interviewed by "reporter" Bruce Greenwood looks dreadful. She has the look down - we can probably credit the make-up artists with that - but her line readings do not suggest Dylan at all, she makes no attempt to disguise the fact that she's a woman pretending to be a man - this is not Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously or even Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria.

I don't get it. I know supporting actress is supposed to be weak this year, but why her? She already has an undeserved recent Oscar, she doesn't need another one. A line-up of Vanessa Redgrave, Tilda Swinton, Catherine Keener, Amy Ryan and Samantha Morton would suit me just fine.

Thankfully Blanchett is pregnant again and will be running the Sydney Theatre Company with her husband for the next few years. Anything that keeps her away from a movie set is a big plus in my book.

I wasn't going to see The Golden Age but as the reviews have been so brutal I can't resist. Nothing like a good laugh at a big bad film directed by a hack and staring a bunch of hacks (Samantha Morton excluded).

And I won't be paying to see the wretched thing. I have a couple of freebies.

[Big Magilla]

Elizabeth II is a total snooze and Cate Blanchett looks like she doesn't even want to be there.

I would love to say something profound or "different" about this but... It's impossible. Impossible to defend the movie, and impossible to defend its star's performance. I have a frustrating relationship with Cate Blanchett - every time I say to myself: "I was wrong, she IS great" (like I did last year after I saw Notes on a Scandal), something like this second Elizabeth happens. I can't even say that it's a dreadful performance - it's just so depressingly empty (like her Katharine Hepburn), all form and no substance, and what's even worse, no emotion, either. Meryl Streep was - and is - a very technical actress, still she could move you to tears; Blanchett isn't exactly cold, rather SO vague. I'm sure that there are directors who can use this in a very good, inventive way - and she coud, can be very good. But this movie treats her as a national monument - much more than the first one - and she simply can't carry it; she's not the kind of actress who can face such bad material and triumph on it, and she's probably too sophisticated to just enjoy its trashiness, so she's not even entertaining. She's serious, committed, and this is completely wrong for such a thing. (In the same movie, Samantha Morton has just one big scene, and the movie finally breathes, feels human in those moments).

So let's hope that she will just be nominated for her (supposedly much better) performance in (the supposedly much better movie - I should really see it one day) I'm Not There.

I completely agree about Blanchett.

I'll go a step further and say that her performance in I'm Not There, judging by the trailer and the extended scene on Yahoo Moives in which she's interviewed by "reporter" Bruce Greenwood looks dreadful. She has the look down - we can probably credit the make-up artists with that - but her line readings do not suggest Dylan at all, she makes no attempt to disguise the fact that she's a woman pretending to be a man - this is not Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously or even Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria.

I don't get it. I know supporting actress is supposed to be weak this year, but why her? She already has an undeserved recent Oscar, she doesn't need another one. A line-up of Vanessa Redgrave, Tilda Swinton, Catherine Keener, Amy Ryan and Samantha Morton would suit me just fine.

[atomicage]

Exactly. See, it's the weakness of the Best Supporting Actress category that makes me see Blanchett not only as a locked nominee, but an easy winner. Seriously.

Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd were the funniest married couple I've seen in a film for a whiile, and I would like to see both receive some sort of recognition. I mean, with Golden Globes, the same institution that nominated Will Ferrell for "The Producers" (how did he manage that?), I believe that Mann has a chance for a spot there. In terms of Oscar, the category's weakness could work for her too, but so far, I don't see it happening, much to my own dismay.

Blanchett to win. No doubt.

As for her "Elizabeth 2" performance, I really haven't seen her film... nevertheless, I think she has a chance being nominated for the Best Actress category definitely. However, just as someone said before, I can see Christie winning easily, or Cotillard sneaking into the top spot Brody-style.

[Okri]

I'm a big Blanchett fan (hell, I even think the first Elizabeth was the best of the best picture nominees in 1998), but no, she doesn't do anything really good here (though I don't think Morton was very good either. She didn't suit the temperment of the film - I was actually more interested in Tom Hollander whenever Morton was onscreen). I think Sabin's hit the nail on the head though. Blanchett's probably the closest thing to a lock in the supporting categories (at this early juncture), so for her to get a nod in the leading category would require a deeply weak category and a groundswell of love that, well, the academy hasn't really shown her (as the Original BJ says).

The only reason she's a darkhorse candidate, at this point, is the simple fact that it's an oddly empty category right now. I can think of more reasons why many of the contenders WON'T be nominated then will.

[ITALIANO]

Elizabeth II is a total snooze and Cate Blanchett looks like she doesn't even want to be there.

I would love to say something profound or "different" about this but... It's impossible. Impossible to defend the movie, and impossible to defend its star's performance. I have a frustrating relationship with Cate Blanchett - every time I say to myself: "I was wrong, she IS great" (like I did last year after I saw Notes on a Scandal), something like this second Elizabeth happens. I can't even say that it's a dreadful performance - it's just so depressingly empty (like her Katharine Hepburn), all form and no substance, and what's even worse, no emotion, either. Meryl Streep was - and is - a very technical actress, still she could move you to tears; Blanchett isn't exactly cold, rather SO vague. I'm sure that there are directors who can use this in a very good, inventive way - and she coud, can be very good. But this movie treats her as a national monument - much more than the first one - and she simply can't carry it; she's not the kind of actress who can face such bad material and triumph on it, and she's probably too sophisticated to just enjoy its trashiness, so she's not even entertaining. She's serious, committed, and this is completely wrong for such a thing. (In the same movie, Samantha Morton has just one big scene, and the movie finally breathes, feels human in those moments).

So let's hope that she will just be nominated for her (supposedly much better) performance in (the supposedly much better movie - I should really see it one day) I'm Not There.

Otherwise, I can see the point in this magazine's predictions. And yes, it is true that Keira Knightley's short and not impressive performance (the Kristin Scott Thomas role, except that Scott Thomas was very good) will be nominated only if Atonement is truly loved by the Academy (and of course if Best Actress this year is weak, which at this point, honestly, it seems to be). Unfortunately, this will also be true for Vanessa Redgrave, great as she is - but in her case it's the cameo size of her role which could prevent her from getting a nod. (Though I still refuse to believe that the not-terribly-expressive child will be the nominated Briony).

And finally, I will root for Tilda Swinton to be among the final five: her performance - in a not always convincing movie and as a not always convincing character - is so full of small, subtle details, that despite the obviousness of the role on paper, she makes it real, and even complex. She's a brilliant actress.