We are but six hours to Oscar and I am finally ready to post my predictions. For the first time ever - thanks to AMC's (the movie theater chain) Best Picture marathon yesterday - I have seen every one of the Best Picture nominees. My personal favorite is The Reader with Milk a close second. My least favorite is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. (Best Picture nomination over The Dark Knight, really???) But alas, the Academy rarely votes for my favorite films so what follows is my best guess of how the Academy will vote.
Picture - Slumdog Milloinaire
Actor - Mickey Rourke
Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger
Actress - Kate Winslet
Supporting Actress - Viola Davis (but Penelope Cruz could sneak by her)
Director - Danny Boyle
Documentary Feature - Man on Wire
Documentary Short - The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306
Animated Feature - Bolt (HAHAHAHAHA obviously Wall-E will win this one)
Foreign Language Film - The Class
Original Screenplay - Milk
Adapted Screenplay - The Reader (this may be one of the toughest competitions)
Cinematography - Slumdog Millionaire
Art Direction - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Animated Short Film - Presto (does Pixar ever lose in this category?)
Live Action Short Film - Auf der Strecke (On the Line - going with "A" like my man Jamal)
Visual Effects - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (but The Dark Knight could take it)
Costume Design - The Duchess (big period dresses and hair = Oscar)
Film Editing - Slumdog Millionaire
Sound Mixing - The Dark Knight (high action usually equals win in sound)
Sound Editing - The Dark Knight (see above)
Original Score - Slumdog Millionaire
Original Song - Wall-E (historically splitting the vote in this category is a bad thing)
Makeup - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (duh)
Enjoy the Hollywood spectacle tonight! May Hugh Jackman be on and may the show actually stop in three hours. Hooray for Hollywood!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Hugh Jackman was definitely on! He was awesome and Anne Hathaway was great too for her little part. I loved how genuinely enthusiastic he is about movies.
I loved the 5 previous winners introducing each nominee also.
As for the winners, I can't really opine since I haven't seen a lot of the movies yet. Sean penn made a great speech though.
I also loved Hugh Jackman. The opening song had me laughing from the garage-made sets to the Wolverine reference. I especially loved "The Dark Knight" bit about "What did I do wrong?" and Anne Hathaway. Who knew she could sing??
The five-winner thing has gotten some criticism. I loved it. I thought the tributes were lovely. My favorites were Shirley Maclaine (which it appeared Anne Hathaway loved as well) and Robert De Niro's. I just wish they would have done that for the Director. I love that idea of honoring one of your own. (By the way, did anyone else notice Alan Arkin messing up the order of Philip Seymore Hoffman's name?)
The best acceptance speeches were definitely Sean Penn - loved his opening - and Kate Winslet.
Unfortunately we were not at home last night so we didn't see a minute of the Oscar's. I was curious about your predictions, though. Good job!
I absolutely LOVE Sean Penn and think he is one of the greatest actors of our generations (I'll forgive him for Shanghai Surprise w/ Madonna -- everyone makes mistakes!).
I haven't been to the movies in forever due to our busy schedules but can't wait for this year's best picture nominees to come out on DVD. This was the first year in a long long time where I've wanted to see every movie.
I didn't watch too much of the Oscars--no particular reason, I guess I don't have a lot of interest in awards shows anymore (except the Tonys!). But I loved the opening number. Really, Hugh Jackman singing and dancing is never, ever a bad thing. And Anne Hathaway was great--what a surprise!
I also have been confined to DVDs these days so I haven't seen any of the flicks, I don't think. But I have no reason to disagree with any of the winners. I've read that Kate Winslet should have won for Rev. Road rather than Reader, but at least she won.
I have to disagree with you on the five-winner thing. I thought it was boring as all heck. Having not seen the movies, I would have rather seen clips of the actors doing their stuff.
And I've also heard that because of that format, as well as other choices, there were almost no montages of movie history. Is that true? Chris Matthews complained about that on Monday on his show (he's a real movie buff). I love those montages too, tying the current ceremony in with the history of movies, so that's a shame that aspect wasn't more present.
Valerie,
Thank you for the Shanghai Suprise reference, you saved it from the dustbin of my memory. I needed that.
PS Heather, if Oscars can be won on history or potential, do you want to argue that Shanghai should have disqualified Mr. Penn?
Or better yet:
Worst film featuring a great actor.
Go!
There were movie montages, definitely. I think there were more about the movies of the past year, in particular - like, non-nominated romances, action movies, comedies, etc. of the last year. So that was different.
Then for each of the best pictures, there were short montages of past movies with similar themes - like political protest for Milk, etc.
I think there were other montages too, but I can't recall specifically.
So much to comment on!
Valerie, I would definitely recommend all five movies. I even recommend "Benjamin Button" despite it's length. (It really should have been 45 minutes shorter.) All five movies are worth the watch.
I think every actor should have the chance to screw up. No one has a good day at work, after all. The problem is, when you act your bad day at work turns into a bad film. Besides, it's Sean Penn. How can you really fault the guy? By the way, we were laughing at the end of "Milk" because Harvey Milk is essentially Jeff Spicoli all grown up. Very funny!
As for montages, I didn't miss them much. I think the montages can bog down the ceremony. I like change. But Krista is right, there were still plenty of montages. They were more about a recap of 2008. They had things like "Action in 2008" and "Romance in 2008." I thought it was a nice way to honor the non-nominated films. Also, they did montages of past acting winners accepting their Oscars, which was nice. And of course there was the requisite death montage. I feel bad when some people aren't applauded, like the technicians.
I wish they'd just turn off the applause during the death montage! I wince when unknown-to-us people are shown and no one applauds or the clapping is very soft. And every awards show does it.
Well, what about actors who really shine in a certain movie, but then choose a lot of crap parts? For instance, I think Sean Penn's appearance in Shanghai Surprise cannot match the post–Leaving Las Vegas choices of Nicolas Cage.
The award should be based on the person's performance in the movie that is nominated, but voters can't help but take into account past good performances (like Kate Winslet). Past good performances should count more than the odd bad movie.
This brings up an interesting point about Heath Ledger. Did he win because he died? Personally, I think his performance in "The Dark Knight" was phenomenal. Not having seen "Doubt," though, I can't say it was better than Philip Seymore Hoffman. Did the Academy want to reward Leder's lifetime achievements knowing there would be no other?
Another good example is Al Pacino. Was his performance in "Scent of a Woman" all that brilliant? Sure the movie is good but I would never say it was his best work or even that it was Oscar-worthy.
They always said that Jimmy Stewart's win for Philadelphia Story was really atonement for him not winning for Mr. Smith the previous year.
OK, so I just looked up posthumous acting Oscars - and really, not a lot of them win. James Dean was nominated for 2 years in a row after his death and he didn't win either. Spencer Tracy didn't win for GWCTD. Peter Finch did win for Network. There are a few others too who didn't win.
As for the other "sentimental" nominations (like Julie Christie or Lauren Bacall or Peter O'Toole) they more often don't win than win, I think.
I think a lot of Awards voters regretted both that Brokeback Mountain lost Picture and that Ledger lost Best Actor that year too when some critics had him picked to win. (Plus, Prop 8 now.) That feeling played into it, definitely. Plus Hoffman had already won for Capote not long ago. And finally, all those things together combined with such a strong performance in a final film at such a young age led to the win.
Isn't Pacino's Scent of a Woman win widely regarded as an atonement win for previous slights?
Russell Crowe/Gladiator is another one. He has been stronger in other parts, but he won for that one.
Those last three sentimental nominations you mentioned are definitely a shame. Julie Christie was a strong second finisher for Away from Her, and very arguably should have won (but doesn't she already have an Oscar?). Juliette Binoche probably had a more challenging performance in English Patient than Bacall did in Mirror Has Two Faces, but it's still a shame that Bacall never won.
Wouldn't Philip Seymour Hoffman feel crappy if he won over Heath Ledger twice? (Capote was up against Brokeback)
Indeed, Brokeback will be remembered as a "should have won" movie. Crash already seems kinda dated.
I think The Departed and Scorsese was a reputation win. The film itself was a dry following of an established formula and even the actors re-played rolls they had performed before.
Also, Nicholas Cage could have should have been soooooooooo good, but for some reason he must have decided that he really likes money and does not need to read the script before signing the contract. However, I also think that some of the best good actor in a bad movie scenarios come about early in one's career. For example: Tim Robbins in Howard the Duck.
I totally forgot that it was Hoffman who beat Ledger!
You have the same Crash/Brokeback thing with Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan. I still thoroughly enjoy SiL, but there's little doubt that Ryan is the better achievement.
Hard to argue with wanting to make money. There was a recent article in EW about Brendan Fraser too, about how he has been extremely good in some movies (Gods and Monsters, Crash) but then has chosen to be in crap too (George of the Jungle), all at the same time. He made no apologies for any of it.
Jennica, that was an excellent article on Brandon Fraser. I just had my theory students watch "Crash." While it is somewhat dated, it makes for good discussion material. Brandon Fraser is very good in that film. And, of course, there is "Gods and Monsters." But what about the "fun" film? Fraser was talking about how much he enjoyed making "The Mummy" movies. Not all actors want to win Oscars. I definitely don't begrudge folks who do it for fun and a nice paycheck.
The problem I have with the whole Brendan Frasier/Nick Cage thing is that the ability to make films (or to make any other kind of art professionally for that matter) is such a rare gift considering all of the sincere people who do not have the opportunity to do so. And why would someone being given that rare opportunity willingly waste it rather than doing the best possible thing. I mean its one thing to be starting out (Tim Robbins in Howard the Duck) and its another thing to just not be very good (Ed Wood) but to have choices and to expend that opportunity on making easily forgettable crap...I just don't get it.
I also heard that Kevin Bacon lost almost everything in the Maddoff ponzi scheme, which I guess means that he may be less selective in the immediate future.
I can somewhat excuse when they do family movies - I mean like the Frasier wholesome adventure movies or maybe the crap family comedies of Robin Williams (RV, anyone?).
But I don't know what the heck is up with Nick Cage. I mean, if you want to do man-friendly action movies, there are plenty of semi-decent ones floating around. Why pick the total crap?
Hey, I eagerly await Footloose 2! :)
I think Nic Cage is definitely making some stupid choices. I liked the "National Treasure" films and I can excuse "Ghost Rider" but "Bangkok Dangerous" just puts me over the edge. Like Krista, I am more than understanding of family films. Also, I can appreciate a good turn in a cheesy slasher. But the blatant bad movie choices do get on my nerves.
In the Fraser article, it sounded both like 1) He likes making fun family films, partly because 2) He has been focused on providing for his family and is a non-Hollywood type.
At least he mixes it up (as has Robin Williams during his career). Nicolas Cage is just a mess. Action movie after action movie. I actually liked the National Treasure movies (I'd say they're more in the Fraser/family mode though), but he's been in so many bad, shoot-em-up type movies too. Has he done another movie of relative quality to compare to Leaving Las Vegas?
Yeah, poor Kevin Bacon. His wife still has the Closer, though. And he was just in that Taking Chance movie on HBO.
I see the argument about art over crap movies, but sometimes I think it's difficult to make the right choices. So much depends on the studio funding, the writing, the director...a good movie idea or script can easily become something terrible.
Just watch Entourage sometime, which many showbiz types have said is scarily accurate! In Entourage, Vince (the actor) constantly wants to make good-quality indies, after a starring role in the box-office hit "Aquaman." That career goal led to the film "Medellin" about Pablo Escobar. In the context of the show, Medellin was this high-quality production that everyone said would be a huge hit. Until it was shown at Cannes and bombed. In the following season, Vince could not get an acting job to save his life, so he was open to taking nearly anything that came along. (Even singing at a bat mitzvah.) So the choice of art movie vs. popular flick is not always cut and dry.
Moxiecat,
Too true.
You just bummed me out for the rest of the day, but true indeed.
post-LLV Nic Cage: "Adaptation"
Beyond that, nothing comes to mind.
Sorry. :-) Entourage is a pretty good show though, if you're interested in how Hollywood works. And to be fair, Vince thinks he is a better actor than he really is, and I wonder how prevalent that self-view is too!
Forgot about Adaptation. So he's got one other "respectable" flick since Leaving Las Vegas (which was '95, I think?)
Post a Comment