First 2009 predictions - It's time...

[Big Magilla]

Smart People was a nice little movie but it was released in April and all but forgotten by year's end.

[rolotomasi99]

The trailer certainly does not seem like that of an Oscar worthy film.

I had the same reaction to the trailer of the last Ellen Page movie.

The last Ellen Page move before WHIP IT was SMART PEOPLE. That definitely looked like they were going for the whole LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE/JUNO snarky, quirky, messed up people shtick of those films. Thankfully the Academy was not interested.

While Barrymore's debut film looks too quirky for the Academy, maybe it is just her finding her legs. Who would have thought after Mel Gibson's directing debut that his sophomore film would win him an Oscar and win Best Picture.

The comparison between the two ends there, but I can certainly hope Barrymore enjoyed the experience of directing enough to stick with it. We certainly need more female directors out there.

[Big Magilla]

I never heard of the "Oscar-meter" before, but I read the whole article and can't say I found out anything new or enlightening.

Quote: "Could Hilary Swank win a third Oscar (for Amelia)? Sure!" Could Roman Polanski return to the U.S., be let off the hook legally and be given a standing ovation when comes out to give next year's Best Director Oscar? Sure! Neither, however, is likely to happen.

[The Original BJ]

The trailer certainly does not seem like that of an Oscar worthy film.

I had the same reaction to the trailer of the last Ellen Page movie.



Edited By The Original BJ on 1254263817

[rolotomasi99]

http://www.avclub.com/article....t,33455

Here is a funny take on the Oscar possibilities of upcoming films from The AV Club.

Their description of the Oscar chances of WHIP IT made me laugh--
"Oscar-O-Meter rating: 2. Unfortunately, Barrymore may have to settle for widespread popular adulation, because disposable dramedies about marginal sporting pursuits tend not to win awards."
--because that is the description I would give to CHARIOTS OF FIRE, and we all know how that turned out.

Other than Big Magilla, I did not think anyone even had this movie on their Oscar radar. The trailer certainly does not seem like that of an Oscar worthy film.

[OscarGuy]

Jim Broadbent is a space filler for me. Meryl Streep is NOT a space filler for you. That's really the only difference. The second I find a more plausible nominee for Broadbent's spot, he's probably gone. In lieu of Streep, I found several other strong possible contenders.

[flipp525]

I haven't seen Julie and Julia, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the instant-zeitgeist entry that The Devil Wears Prada was. On a sidenote: a very good family friend of mine went to undergrad with Julie Powell and said that Amy Adams played her the polar opposite of how she really is. So, I wouldn't lean to heavily on the "biopic" aspect of your argument.

IMDB lists under the writing credits the screenplay having been adapted from the book "Julie & Julia" written by Julie Powell, and "My Life In France" written by Julia Child and Alex Prud'homme.

I wrote, "I think playing Julia Child in a biopic adapted (in part) from her memoirs..."

I am not sure how you got confused, but what I said is absolutely accurate. The film is partially a biopic about Julia Child. I do not know how we would label the Julie Powell section of the film...other than annoying.

Not confused, just offering up another point of view.

You didn't address any of the Meryl stuff in my original post. What are your thoughts?

[rolotomasi99]

It's Jim Broadbent. The only reason he's included.

???
Jim Broadbent being nominated for an unimpressive performance in a film that will likely not even register on the radar of most Academy members is likely, but Meryl Streep being nominated for a critically acclaimed performance in a lightweight-but-successful film is iffy at this point?

I promise I have given up on changing your mind on Streep, but your answer just tickled me. :p

He may be Jim Broadbent, but I swear his performance was unimpressive. Not bad, just barely made you notice he was on the screen.

Side Note: I like your bold prediction of a sound nomination for IT MIGHT GET LOUD. It probably will not happen, but I like your outside-the-box thinking in that area. Other than WOODSTOCK, has any other documentary ever been nominated for sound?

[MovieWes]

How could you leave Star Trek off for Best Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Visual Effects when those are three of the most assured nominations so far this year? 2012 has about as good a chance at being nominated in the tech categories as The Day After Tomorrow did.

Also (nothing big), why is The Fantastic Mr. Fox on your short list for Best Visual Effects? The trailer showcases some of the cruddiest stop-motion animation ever. Not a chance, even as a finalist. I'd say Where the Wild Things Are or even The Lovely Bones has a better chance.

You can also safely take Public Enemies off your short list in the sound categories. I read somewhere that it has been unanimously agreed upon among sound techs that it is the worst sound work done on any big-budget Hollywood film this year.



Edited By MovieWes on 1254025522

[Sabin]

Wes, I disagree with what you wrote.

I have both Mulligan and Clooney in the short list and that's where they're staying for the moment.

Considering that you have UP IN THE AIR up for Best Picture and Director and this is turning out to be a strangely muted year for leading male performances, I have no idea why you would leave Clooney off considering that he is turning into an Academy favorite. As for Mulligan, she's become the darling of the festival circuit.

Matt Damon. The trailer for his film looks utterly stupid.

You have AVATAR up for Best Picture.

And Damon doesn't look that great to me.

He's been singled out as exceptional by basically every single review written about the film.

Is he really even in consideration here? It seems so unusual, especially considering the tone of the film, it just doesn't seem like the kind of film the Academy would see, let alone nominate from.

I think he's in good running right now.

I have Public Enemies down simply for the fact that people seem to hate it so much. It's just the kind of bonehead move the Academy likes to make. After all, while you may have heard negatives about the cinematography, I've heard people talk about how much they liked the look of the film.

I guess we'll have to wait and see but there's a strong anti-HD movement when it's apparent as HD. PUBLIC ENEMIES is the biggest visibly-HD movie of all time. I'd be astonished if it was nominated.

I nominate It Might Get Loud just to be different. It's a documentary about rock guitar legends, so I expect there to be music of some sort in it, so I thought I'd just stick it in for the shit of it (that and I can't pick which of the stupid blockbusters would more likely fill the slot...or perhaps I don't want to think about it.)

It's probably not going to happen.

While The Tree of Life is an unknown quantity and might not be released, I think it might be a good bet for a nomination simply on Malick's name. The New World didn't look that good on paper, but then again neither did The Thin Red Line and it got nominated. With ten spaces to fill, I think someone more auteurist like Malick has a better chance at a nomination.

THE THIN RED LINE looked great on paper. It looked amazing on paper. A legend's first film in two decades? It was on everybody's list until it came out. I'm thrilled it made its way to a nomination. I'm also thrilled THE NEW WORLD got any form of consideration. And I'm thrilled he's made THE THREE OF LIFE. I'll be thrilled if he lives to make another one. I just see patterns of THE FOUNTAIN so I'm not optimistic.

And at this point, I'm not counting out Jackson. Aside from King Kong (which still got decent critical response, mind you), Jackson has been in the Oscar derby before and we're not just talking LOTR. Heavenly Creatures proved the Academy likes his softer work. And with the subject matter and the popularity of the book, It's a stronger contender than most other films in competition this year except for maybe Nine, which is another unknown entity.

I hope THE LOVELY BONES turns out to be good. It just seems like the kind of movie hyped when there isn't really a lot of thought as to whether or not the Academy likes that kind of material. Gothic fantasy-meets-suburban Sunset Blvd? Probably not. Then again, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is a bigger stretch.

[OscarGuy]

It's Jim Broadbent. The only reason he's included.

[rolotomasi99]

Jim Broadbent in THE YOUNG VICTORIA for supporting actor?

Is that because you saw the performance and think it deserves a nomination? I saw the film and there is very little chance of it receiving a nomination for anything outside of costumes. Maybe Emily Blunt could be nominated, but Jim Broadbent's part in the film barely registered with me, let alone impress me. You think the Academy will want to recognize him?



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1253911202

[rolotomasi99]

I haven't seen Julie and Julia, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the instant-zeitgeist entry that The Devil Wears Prada was. On a sidenote: a very good family friend of mine went to undergrad with Julie Powell and said that Amy Adams played her the polar opposite of how she really is. So, I wouldn't lean to heavily on the "biopic" aspect of your argument.

IMDB lists under the writing credits the screenplay having been adapted from the book "Julie & Julia" written by Julie Powell, and "My Life In France" written by Julia Child and Alex Prud'homme.

I wrote, "I think playing Julia Child in a biopic adapted (in part) from her memoirs..."

I am not sure how you got confused, but what I said is absolutely accurate. The film is partially a biopic about Julia Child. I do not know how we would label the Julie Powell section of the film...other than annoying.

[The Original BJ]

I think the fact that the people here who have seen The Informant!, myself included, all think Matt Damon is in the running for a nomination should say something. I don't think he's anything like a sure thing -- I never underestimate the bias against comedy, particularly for lead actors -- but he's absolutely a contender.

I think what really hurts Public Enemies's cinematography (y'know, aside from the fact that it's UGLY) is that the Academy has never much gone for obviously digital photography yet (even those critics awards and an ASC nom couldn't push Collateral into the lineup.)

[flipp525]

There! That is what I do not understand. In what universe was THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA more likely going to garner her an Oscar nomination than JULIE AND JULIA is now?

Listen, no one is arguing that Meryl Streep is not a formidable possibility for a Best Actress nomination this year (or for any year, for that matter). Year after year, critics and even folks on this board (see, Big Magilla and Prada in '06) tend to discount her sheer force in the "awards industry". And time and time again, she'll pull out a Music of the Heart and everyone is silenced once again.

What I don't think you're hearing amidst all this cheerleading is that it's too early to set anyone in stone yet and, yes, that means even Meryl could slip through the cracks and be left behind for other yet-to-be-seen. I tend to take the "bird in the hand" approach myself with early contenders possessing the most favorable word-of-mouth (the Meryls, the Waltz's, the Mo'Niques -- who IS as close to a lock as you can get at this point, btw. Even more so than the three Sabin listed below).

Who would've imagined Streep would've missed out on a nomination for The Hours in lead in 2002, an almost tailor-made Oscar part and the role with the most amount of screentime out of the three main actresses in The Hours, yet there it was. See also Plenty, The Manchurian Candidate, etc.

I haven't seen Julie and Julia, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the instant-zeitgeist entry that The Devil Wears Prada was. On a sidenote: a very good family friend of mine went to undergrad with Julie Powell and said that Amy Adams played her the polar opposite of how she really is. So, I wouldn't lean to heavily on the "biopic" aspect of your argument.



Edited By flipp525 on 1253904950