So it looks at this point that the show itself will have more surprises than the winners, but I'm hoping I'm kind of wrong. Not in all categories. Just in some? Here's my "will" and "should" picks for tonight:
Best Pic:
Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Milk
I truly think our children will be astonished if MILK doesn't win Best Pic as they'll all be required to see it in history classes when studying civil rights. It's also - incidentally - by FAR the best film on the list. The Slumdog love affair will, I think, look very naive and silly...it's the CRASH of this year.
Best Actor:
Will Win: Mickey Rourke
Should Win: This is an exceptionally impressive category, there'd be no one I'd be unhappy with winning. Rourke will give the best speech and by a slim margin Penn is the "should" winner.
Sean Penn is one of my least favorite all-time (over)actors. But his work in MILK is subtle and seamless. It's the best performance of his career. He's unrecognizable in it. I would have to vote for him in good conscience (which I did for the Indie Spirit Awards), but I'm perfectly happy for a Rourke win.
Best Actress:
Will Win: Winslet
Should Win: Winslet
There's a weird scenario where Streep and Winslet split and Leo or Hathaway surprises. But it's likely Winslet's LONG OVERDUE night finnnaaalllyyyy and I'm very much looking forward to it!!! :)
Best Supporting Actor:
Will Win: Heath Ledger
Should Win: Heath Ledger
Nuff said.
Best Supporting Actress:
Will Win: Penelope Cruz
Should Win: It's tight but I'm going to go with Viola Davis.
Tomei is astonishingly good in a role that no where near written as well as she plays it. Everyone else is terrific, including Cruz (who in some ways gave this same solid performance in BLOW) but I'm pulling for Davis who manages to convey - not a string of subtext - but a full TAPESTRY of subtext in a few short minutes. It's the best short story you've ever read and it's all in her face.
Best Director:
Will Win: Boyle
Should WIn: Fincher
Boyle's work is impressive. It is. But Fincher actually achieves the most impressive technological feat presently imaginable in cinema and he does it all to serve the story, the humanity and the sometimes brutal truth of life and death and everything in between, without EVER pointing out his own prowess (unlike Boyle) and saving the films most powerful moments from the surges of sentimentality in the script.
Adapted Screenplay:
Will win: Slumdog
Should win: Doubt
This is a pretty middling category actually. The screenplay is the thing I have the most problem with in Slumdog, but it's pretty much a shoo-in here. If this is BUTTON's "consolation prize" I may be inconsolable as the screenplay is singlehandedly the worst thing about it.
Original Screenplay:
Will Win: Milk
Should Win: Milk
In fact, if it doesn't win - then wherever you are - you will hear a vague screaming and smashing coming from somewhere in Brooklyn....
Best Documentary:
Will Win: Man on Wire
Should Win: Encounters at the End of the World
Otherwise expect lots of well deserved technical awards for Button and annoying amounts of self-congratulations for the love affair with Slumdog (as if that somehow makes the Academy "humanitarians by proxy")... Last note: If Dark Knight wins Sound Editing I might break something. It's got TERRIBLE gaps and sticky mixes all over it.
Enjoy!!!! :-)
Showing posts with label oscars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oscars. Show all posts
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Wrestler - A Review
THE WRESTLER may not seem like a new story. In fact it covers a lot of what we might think is familiar ground. The has-been looking for redemption, the stripper with a heart of gold and the disgruntled daughter are hardly new fodder for film. But the lack of showcase shots and the earnest, committed and infinitely understated performances - particularly by Rourke whose performance is a master class in completely inhabiting a character for the characters sake, rather than the actor's acclaim and consequently is sooooo rightly acclaimed - succeed in making us understand the complexity and ubiquity of the formulas on which they are based. While the has been athlete has a legendary treatment in Raging Bull - the wrestler succeeds not in evoking that precendent, but in unexpectedly mining the flaws and crippling failure that follows any and every man who has invested all of his self-worth in his work, no matter how spectacular or mundane the profession may be. At first, I wanted to take issue with the screenwriter for falling into formula, but as the movie settled in, it became ever so clear that the banality and brutality of the context of minor league professional wrestling gives us opportunity to refresh the formula and recapture it's emotional power. Note, that much like Darren Arronofsky's previous work, particularly REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, there are moments in the film that are not at all for the faint of heart. The brutal toll these men take for entertainments sake, no matter how "fake" the outcomes of matches are - is shocking. Arronofsky's direction is stunning, mainly because it's it's simple. PI and REQUIEM (two films close to my heart) make clear the showy cinematic wonders of which his camera is capable, but rightly and generously he foregos all of them to achieve the timeless mandate of a film director, which is to show you want you need to see, in precisely the way you need to see it. It's masterful - much like Rourke's performance - because it doesn't appear to be or announce that it is. It's dramatic and profound because he revels in precisely the moments that filmmakers have been cutting out of movies since their birth. A swig of beer, a silly thank you card, a a scoop of potato salad, a brief and somewhat awkward kiss...these are the tentpoles of life. Arronofsky honors our lives and his audience by lingering on them and leaving so many questions unanswered. Just like life.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Deranged Penguins and other Encounters at the End of the World
Werner Herzog - the filmmaker whose documentary ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD – just received an Academy Award nomination – once made good on his promise to eat a shoe (yes EAT A SHOE) as a motivation ploy for fellow filmmaker Errol Morris. It worked, Morris’ classic GATES OF HEAVEN was completed and released, and made the name of it’s now legendary filmmaker.
This anecdote should tell anyone, whether their familiar with his work or no, that Herzog is wackier than your average bear (his last film was GRIZZLY MAN, get it? Get it? heeehehhheeee :-)), and - btw - no less effective.
ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD chronicles Herzog’s trip to the South Pole. He makes it clear from the get-go that this is no travelogue, no NOVA episode, and no romantic mediation on the demands of life as a cute penguin. His explorations have the same wanderlust as its subjects, whose reasons for being at the South Pole count as many as there are inhabitants of this unfriendly terrain. Herzog avoids entirely the “checklist of important facts” approach of so many television science docs, instead asking the kinds of random questions which beset any curious mind in a bizarre environ. Nor does he over-sentimentalize. Herzog’s voice sways from so many extremes that he could seem scattered. He could, that is, if these switches didn’t ultimately create a strange kind of balance. Just when you think Herzog is getting uncomfortably pretentious, he undercuts himself with self-aware humor. Just when he’s exploring the banal disappointments inherent in any visit to an exotic locale, he side swipes you with images full of true wonder. And where the film finds its most haunting resonance, in: the futility of nature, the isolation of the truly unique, the delay of science, the potential of extinction, etc. Herzog is savvy enough – and generous enough as a filmmaker - to refrain from stating those themes too explicitly. Instead, Herzog invites the most powerful ideas swim through the audience’s thoughts like the deep sea divers under the world’s icebergs, who inspired his adventure in the first place...
This anecdote should tell anyone, whether their familiar with his work or no, that Herzog is wackier than your average bear (his last film was GRIZZLY MAN, get it? Get it? heeehehhheeee :-)), and - btw - no less effective.
ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD chronicles Herzog’s trip to the South Pole. He makes it clear from the get-go that this is no travelogue, no NOVA episode, and no romantic mediation on the demands of life as a cute penguin. His explorations have the same wanderlust as its subjects, whose reasons for being at the South Pole count as many as there are inhabitants of this unfriendly terrain. Herzog avoids entirely the “checklist of important facts” approach of so many television science docs, instead asking the kinds of random questions which beset any curious mind in a bizarre environ. Nor does he over-sentimentalize. Herzog’s voice sways from so many extremes that he could seem scattered. He could, that is, if these switches didn’t ultimately create a strange kind of balance. Just when you think Herzog is getting uncomfortably pretentious, he undercuts himself with self-aware humor. Just when he’s exploring the banal disappointments inherent in any visit to an exotic locale, he side swipes you with images full of true wonder. And where the film finds its most haunting resonance, in: the futility of nature, the isolation of the truly unique, the delay of science, the potential of extinction, etc. Herzog is savvy enough – and generous enough as a filmmaker - to refrain from stating those themes too explicitly. Instead, Herzog invites the most powerful ideas swim through the audience’s thoughts like the deep sea divers under the world’s icebergs, who inspired his adventure in the first place...
Surprises!! Yay!!!
There seems to be a rather annoying delay on getting the full list posted on www.oscar.com... urgh...but from what we got from the TV announcements - just a couple of thoughts:
- They reaaaallllly liked the READER and really DIDN'T like REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, eh?
- Melissa Leo and Richard Jenkins!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!
- Sorry, Sally Hawkins.
- No DARK KNIGHT for pic or director but THANK HEAVEN MILK wasn't overlooked.
- The sheer number of BENJAMIN BUTTON nods gives it alot of momentum back....
- They reaaaallllly liked the READER and really DIDN'T like REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, eh?
- Melissa Leo and Richard Jenkins!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!
- Sorry, Sally Hawkins.
- No DARK KNIGHT for pic or director but THANK HEAVEN MILK wasn't overlooked.
- The sheer number of BENJAMIN BUTTON nods gives it alot of momentum back....
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Man on Wire - A review
Over the years, from time to time, my beloved friend and intrepid journalist Kate Luce Angell has taken me to see people do the following things (among others):
• swallow swords,
• swallow neon tubes in a sword shape,
• walk on blades of swords,
• lie on beds of nails,
• lie on a bed of nails while sandwiched between another bed of nails that people stood atop,
• eat fire,
• eat GLASS….
…well, you get the picture.
See, she’s been working on a book about the resurgence of Sideshow. She’s a great writer and it’ll be a fascinating book, I’m sure. I tagged along partly because I love her, partly because she has a way of explaining things that makes anything sound interesting, and partly because, well, I’m game.
But at some point (I think it was around the time I saw a guy in Soho tape a bunch of firecrackers to his chest and then light them), the “side show” experience went from curious to profound.
See, first off, side shows differ from magic shows in that there’s no trick. Prior to Kate’s exploration of this world and her introducing me to it, I didn’t really realize that. I may have sort of known it, but I didn’t REALLY know it.
People ACTUALLY swallow swords. They ACTUALLY make themselves the meat in a bed-of-nails sandwich. They ACTUALLY eat glass. They are not a-foolin.
Some part of me had always assumed swallowed swords were retractable or something. But no, these people are truly taking bizarre (I mean that in a good way) health risks for our entertainment. There are parameters and necessary requirements for how to do those things so you don’t die INSTANTLY, of course, but the acts themselves and the risks for injury - however well calculated – are real.
For some people, that’s automatically thrilling. The potential for violent injury has a well-earned place in our recreational lives and rears its head in everything from car races to action films. And it should. Confronting and exposing ourselves to things we fear is how we conquer those fears. The process of desensitization is a necessary one or we’d spend our entire lives locked up in a padded bunker.
But what captured my interest was something less reactive and more inspiring. It struck me that these people were staring human limitations – and all notions of impossibility - in the face and defying them. That they shared this defiance with us for our entertainment wasn’t just for our curiosity, but for our liberation. While watching these irreverent souls defy physical limitations, I found myself realizing that “Achieving what is presumed impossible doesn’t rest only with astronauts or Olympians, but with anybody who chooses to re-make the rules of their own bodies.” As we all age, the risk of becoming prisoners to the hue and cry of our bodies aches and pains increases. It’s startling to find new limitations in your own skin. But here are people who artfully refuse to accept the should/shouldn’ts or can/can’ts. They remind us that as crazy or foolish as these acts may seem, you can’t call them impossible.
So when ones of the interviewees in MAN ON WIRE, the James Marsh documentary (newly available on iTunes) about Phillippe Petit’s stroll across a wire connecting the Twin Towers describes his feat as “profound,” I knew what he meant.
Because I’d seen the Sideshow.
But not because of MAN ON WIRE.
MAN ON WIRE is getting what seems to be uniform critical acclaim this awards season and is on the short list for Oscar. One can see why - it’s deftly constructed, sharply paced and has a compelling story.
But it left me quite cold.
James Marsh quite rightly makes no mention of the demise of the Towers. It would be inappropriate and exploitative. But the unspoken end of the story hangs over the piece like a dark and thunderous cloud. Perhaps in light of the extremely dark end of the Towers, Petit’s act seems to many to be particularly defiant, inspiring and glorious. But it struck me instead as frivolous. That could be just “where I’m at” with regards to the Towers, but I’m more inclined to blame the film, and I’ll tell you why.
Marsh has indicated in interviews that part of his attraction to the story was his sense that it provided much the thrill of a good heist movie. I love me a good heist movie. I love the Robin Hood quality of a rag tag group of guys going up against the system and getting their own little slice of the big pie. I love the craft and suspense of the well-laid out victimless crime. The film plays into that delight, as the films beginning involves THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR style behind-the-scenes glimpses of the fake ids and disguises used to gain access to the Towers.
MAN ON WIRE would have likely filled me with the same delight, if it weren’t for that ever present cloud. If it had been any other building, I too, might have thought it was thrilling and exciting. But the source of the suspense – that the gang Petit needed to support his elaborate goal might get arrested – seemed well, just irresponsible compared to the security needs of buildings which ultimately suffered three terror attacks, finally being felled by the last two. Marsh invites you to revel in the “crime”, which for me, simply served to remind me of crimes inextricably associated with those buildings and therefore made me feel a lot less sympathetic to criminals, as harmless their particular crime may seem. Rooting for Petit to succeed in his impertinent quest - and engagement with the film requires that we see Petit as the righteous perpetrator of a victimless crime against a large institution - is difficult in light of the victims that the Towers and their tragic inhabitants became. And frankly, the idea of his potential death in pursuit of an acrobatic dream feels not romantic and idealistic, but disrespectful and narcissistic compared to those who felt no choice but to drop that distance as the Towers burned.
I know I’m being DeLisa Downer here – I get that - and I’m glad for whoever might feel inspired by the film. But next time I need to see something “out there” and “silly” to remind me to set goals beyond my easy reach, I’ll be out at Coney Island looking for a man with a sword in his stomach.
• swallow swords,
• swallow neon tubes in a sword shape,
• walk on blades of swords,
• lie on beds of nails,
• lie on a bed of nails while sandwiched between another bed of nails that people stood atop,
• eat fire,
• eat GLASS….
…well, you get the picture.
See, she’s been working on a book about the resurgence of Sideshow. She’s a great writer and it’ll be a fascinating book, I’m sure. I tagged along partly because I love her, partly because she has a way of explaining things that makes anything sound interesting, and partly because, well, I’m game.
But at some point (I think it was around the time I saw a guy in Soho tape a bunch of firecrackers to his chest and then light them), the “side show” experience went from curious to profound.
See, first off, side shows differ from magic shows in that there’s no trick. Prior to Kate’s exploration of this world and her introducing me to it, I didn’t really realize that. I may have sort of known it, but I didn’t REALLY know it.
People ACTUALLY swallow swords. They ACTUALLY make themselves the meat in a bed-of-nails sandwich. They ACTUALLY eat glass. They are not a-foolin.
Some part of me had always assumed swallowed swords were retractable or something. But no, these people are truly taking bizarre (I mean that in a good way) health risks for our entertainment. There are parameters and necessary requirements for how to do those things so you don’t die INSTANTLY, of course, but the acts themselves and the risks for injury - however well calculated – are real.
For some people, that’s automatically thrilling. The potential for violent injury has a well-earned place in our recreational lives and rears its head in everything from car races to action films. And it should. Confronting and exposing ourselves to things we fear is how we conquer those fears. The process of desensitization is a necessary one or we’d spend our entire lives locked up in a padded bunker.
But what captured my interest was something less reactive and more inspiring. It struck me that these people were staring human limitations – and all notions of impossibility - in the face and defying them. That they shared this defiance with us for our entertainment wasn’t just for our curiosity, but for our liberation. While watching these irreverent souls defy physical limitations, I found myself realizing that “Achieving what is presumed impossible doesn’t rest only with astronauts or Olympians, but with anybody who chooses to re-make the rules of their own bodies.” As we all age, the risk of becoming prisoners to the hue and cry of our bodies aches and pains increases. It’s startling to find new limitations in your own skin. But here are people who artfully refuse to accept the should/shouldn’ts or can/can’ts. They remind us that as crazy or foolish as these acts may seem, you can’t call them impossible.
So when ones of the interviewees in MAN ON WIRE, the James Marsh documentary (newly available on iTunes) about Phillippe Petit’s stroll across a wire connecting the Twin Towers describes his feat as “profound,” I knew what he meant.
Because I’d seen the Sideshow.
But not because of MAN ON WIRE.
MAN ON WIRE is getting what seems to be uniform critical acclaim this awards season and is on the short list for Oscar. One can see why - it’s deftly constructed, sharply paced and has a compelling story.
But it left me quite cold.
James Marsh quite rightly makes no mention of the demise of the Towers. It would be inappropriate and exploitative. But the unspoken end of the story hangs over the piece like a dark and thunderous cloud. Perhaps in light of the extremely dark end of the Towers, Petit’s act seems to many to be particularly defiant, inspiring and glorious. But it struck me instead as frivolous. That could be just “where I’m at” with regards to the Towers, but I’m more inclined to blame the film, and I’ll tell you why.
Marsh has indicated in interviews that part of his attraction to the story was his sense that it provided much the thrill of a good heist movie. I love me a good heist movie. I love the Robin Hood quality of a rag tag group of guys going up against the system and getting their own little slice of the big pie. I love the craft and suspense of the well-laid out victimless crime. The film plays into that delight, as the films beginning involves THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR style behind-the-scenes glimpses of the fake ids and disguises used to gain access to the Towers.
MAN ON WIRE would have likely filled me with the same delight, if it weren’t for that ever present cloud. If it had been any other building, I too, might have thought it was thrilling and exciting. But the source of the suspense – that the gang Petit needed to support his elaborate goal might get arrested – seemed well, just irresponsible compared to the security needs of buildings which ultimately suffered three terror attacks, finally being felled by the last two. Marsh invites you to revel in the “crime”, which for me, simply served to remind me of crimes inextricably associated with those buildings and therefore made me feel a lot less sympathetic to criminals, as harmless their particular crime may seem. Rooting for Petit to succeed in his impertinent quest - and engagement with the film requires that we see Petit as the righteous perpetrator of a victimless crime against a large institution - is difficult in light of the victims that the Towers and their tragic inhabitants became. And frankly, the idea of his potential death in pursuit of an acrobatic dream feels not romantic and idealistic, but disrespectful and narcissistic compared to those who felt no choice but to drop that distance as the Towers burned.
I know I’m being DeLisa Downer here – I get that - and I’m glad for whoever might feel inspired by the film. But next time I need to see something “out there” and “silly” to remind me to set goals beyond my easy reach, I’ll be out at Coney Island looking for a man with a sword in his stomach.
Baffling BAFTAs
Well, some HUGE surprises at the BAFTA's!!! And as my friend, E, knows - I've said for years - NEVER underestimate the impact of the British wing of the Academy. Anne Hathaway was completely denied, which after the GG loss makes her chances of winning look dead, dead, dead in the water. Brad Pitt got DOUBLE nods (for BENJAMIN & BURN AFTER READING) so he's moved solidly into second place with Penn behind Rourke. If Rourke's publicist takes so much as a weekend off in the next couple of months and he gaffes it up, Pitt could pull a surprise, as Penn already has a statue on the mantle... The Changeling did surprisingly well all around, which bodes very well for Angelina to secure a nod after being passed over last year for MIGHTY HEART, but decreases Eastwood's chance of an acting nod for TORINO. Winslet increases momentum with her double nods, but a READER nod in the Lead category confuses the issue a wee bit. DARK NIGHT misses a Best Pic nod, but it got so much attention in the technical awards that I doubt that will have to much of an impact on its chances for Best Pic Oscar nod. Amy Adams picked up momentum, but Supp categories are always full of surprises so that hardly takes Viola Davis out of the picture.
The HUGE shocker????? Absolutely no mention of HAPPY GO LUCKY at all whatsoever. None. In ANY category. Was it not eligible for some reason??????? How could this be possible? It's a British film. By a beloved and legendary British Director. Sally Hawkins has been on an award parade. What happened there???
We are ONE week away from hearing the Oscar nominations. The BAFTA surprises suddenly make the roster seem more intriguing than they have in weeks!!! :-)
The HUGE shocker????? Absolutely no mention of HAPPY GO LUCKY at all whatsoever. None. In ANY category. Was it not eligible for some reason??????? How could this be possible? It's a British film. By a beloved and legendary British Director. Sally Hawkins has been on an award parade. What happened there???
We are ONE week away from hearing the Oscar nominations. The BAFTA surprises suddenly make the roster seem more intriguing than they have in weeks!!! :-)
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Oscar short films to be shown in theaters (yay!!)
(from AP) Shorts International has just announced that it will bring the Oscar-nominated short films (we'll know what they are when the nominations come out on Jan. 22) in the live-action and animated categories to U.S. theaters on Feb. 6, giving us a chance to see the quirky, fun, moving films before the 81st Academy Awards ceremony on Feb. 22.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Goldie Locked Up
Okay – so CLEARLY everything has changed. Of course Oscar ballots are due TODAY, so if the Academy were to trump SLUMDOG for DARK NIGHT or MILK it’s game on, once again. And with BUTTON having lost momentum it’s wide open once again. There were many surprises, but all great ones, no? I could not love everyone associated with SLUMDOG more. They are divine and adorable. I look forward to actually seeing it and likely giving you my glowing review once I do ;)
And can you say KARMIC RETRIBUTION for Ms. Winslet who was the best thing about the night!!! (She was also the most beautiful woman in the room on the inside and out although the ever stunning Laura Linney gave her a run for her money. ) Sally Hawkins win and Oscars’ past attention to Mike Leigh’s leading ladies bodes well for her, although let’s hope she eats something before March so she can have the strength to carry a clutch purse...
All right, now – not everything has changed. Mickey Rourke? Sewn-to-the-up. Of course, I stopped the Tivo just before his began his speech and turned to my very patient and enabling companions (I love you A&T!!!!) in watching the program and said “He wins or loses the Oscar in the next two minutes.” Clearly, he won it. Great speech. The doggie section was very touching and not just because I obviously love doggies, but because we all understand loneliness. And nice of him to pass off “gaffe” duties to my beloved Mr. Aronofsky (who hasn’t learned yet that he should have married me and not Rachel Weisz who I would hate for stealing him if she wasn’t so clearly awesome in every way.) And Christopher Nolan is doing an exceptional job in honoring Ledger, which must be truly difficult to rise to among the sadness we all feel for his loss...
For TV, I’m thrilled that MAD MEN got the chance to reclaim the spotlight they didn’t get a chance to shine in last year, although it would have been nice to see HAMM get a chance to give a speech. Well, it’s nice to see HAMM do ANYTHING. He’s just breathtaking. I was disappointed that RECOUNT didn’t do better, but it’s hard to argue with the Giamatti, Linney, Wilkenson and Hanks corner.
Those who know me know that I’m no fashion maven, but even I can make some obvious observations:
- How did it become the hair style of the moment to look like you spent five hours on your hair only to mess it up after you got rough and tumble with someone in the coat closet minutes before the show started? (yes, Drew Barrymore I'm talking to you)
- Furthermore - powder blue eye shadow??? Sequins??? Metallic dresses??? Do you people not realize that the only reason they got away with that at Studio 54 was because everyone was on cocaine????
- Further furthermore - strapless dresses look WRETCHED on women who don't stand up straight. The stylist who starts making actresses practice walking around with a book on their heads will make a mint this season...
- Furtherest - I’m putting Renee Zellweger on a fashion time out until Carolina Herrera recovers her mind. Or eyesight. Or both.
- Lastly, Hollywood - please note: You do not look tan. You look like a pumpkin. Please stop.
And can you say KARMIC RETRIBUTION for Ms. Winslet who was the best thing about the night!!! (She was also the most beautiful woman in the room on the inside and out although the ever stunning Laura Linney gave her a run for her money. ) Sally Hawkins win and Oscars’ past attention to Mike Leigh’s leading ladies bodes well for her, although let’s hope she eats something before March so she can have the strength to carry a clutch purse...
All right, now – not everything has changed. Mickey Rourke? Sewn-to-the-up. Of course, I stopped the Tivo just before his began his speech and turned to my very patient and enabling companions (I love you A&T!!!!) in watching the program and said “He wins or loses the Oscar in the next two minutes.” Clearly, he won it. Great speech. The doggie section was very touching and not just because I obviously love doggies, but because we all understand loneliness. And nice of him to pass off “gaffe” duties to my beloved Mr. Aronofsky (who hasn’t learned yet that he should have married me and not Rachel Weisz who I would hate for stealing him if she wasn’t so clearly awesome in every way.) And Christopher Nolan is doing an exceptional job in honoring Ledger, which must be truly difficult to rise to among the sadness we all feel for his loss...
For TV, I’m thrilled that MAD MEN got the chance to reclaim the spotlight they didn’t get a chance to shine in last year, although it would have been nice to see HAMM get a chance to give a speech. Well, it’s nice to see HAMM do ANYTHING. He’s just breathtaking. I was disappointed that RECOUNT didn’t do better, but it’s hard to argue with the Giamatti, Linney, Wilkenson and Hanks corner.
Those who know me know that I’m no fashion maven, but even I can make some obvious observations:
- How did it become the hair style of the moment to look like you spent five hours on your hair only to mess it up after you got rough and tumble with someone in the coat closet minutes before the show started? (yes, Drew Barrymore I'm talking to you)
- Furthermore - powder blue eye shadow??? Sequins??? Metallic dresses??? Do you people not realize that the only reason they got away with that at Studio 54 was because everyone was on cocaine????
- Further furthermore - strapless dresses look WRETCHED on women who don't stand up straight. The stylist who starts making actresses practice walking around with a book on their heads will make a mint this season...
- Furtherest - I’m putting Renee Zellweger on a fashion time out until Carolina Herrera recovers her mind. Or eyesight. Or both.
- Lastly, Hollywood - please note: You do not look tan. You look like a pumpkin. Please stop.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
SAG Awards
SAG Awards are in and my major comment is that I would be very surprised if the Oscar list doesn't look virtually identical to this. Your thoughts?
SAG Nods
SAG Nods
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Golden Globe Nods are out
Click here for the official list
Commentary to come...stay tuned and/or add your comments below! :-)
But quickly - ONE nomination for MILK? And it qualifies to me as a SURPRISE that James Franco would be nominated not for MILK but for PINEAPPLE EXPRESS??
UPDATE: I have to say that it's a really weird irony that when I'm not angry about the nominations I'm a wee bit bored with them. So I'm going to be mad about MILK not getting more attention. I think that my predicts are holding up, SUPP ACTRESS excepted (although I still stand by that - I still think Winger may be the surprise of the season). Rather than rehash work that's been done well I will refer you to the EW commentary on the nods as I agree with their assessment with one major caveat: I think Streep will win in Comedy for MAMMA MIA canceling her out of the race for DOUBT and then Hathaway will waltz away with Actress and Winslet will rack up another "SHOULD have won."
Commentary to come...stay tuned and/or add your comments below! :-)
But quickly - ONE nomination for MILK? And it qualifies to me as a SURPRISE that James Franco would be nominated not for MILK but for PINEAPPLE EXPRESS??
UPDATE: I have to say that it's a really weird irony that when I'm not angry about the nominations I'm a wee bit bored with them. So I'm going to be mad about MILK not getting more attention. I think that my predicts are holding up, SUPP ACTRESS excepted (although I still stand by that - I still think Winger may be the surprise of the season). Rather than rehash work that's been done well I will refer you to the EW commentary on the nods as I agree with their assessment with one major caveat: I think Streep will win in Comedy for MAMMA MIA canceling her out of the race for DOUBT and then Hathaway will waltz away with Actress and Winslet will rack up another "SHOULD have won."
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Critic's Choice & LA Critics Awards are out!
I'll stand by my predictions so far - in fact, I feel even MORE confident. And Winger may be left off this list, but all the peeps catching the Rachel Got Married screener for Hathaway's performance will remember Winger come Oscar time even if the critics and the Globes look her over.... :-)
Critic's Choice
LA Critics
UPDATE: Here's New York Film Critics. Ms. Penelope Cruz is starting to look like BIG TIME front runner, so this may be the first area where I'm wrong? :-)
Critic's Choice
LA Critics
UPDATE: Here's New York Film Critics. Ms. Penelope Cruz is starting to look like BIG TIME front runner, so this may be the first area where I'm wrong? :-)
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Early Oscar Predicts - Watch me be Wrong! Or right... :-)
The National Board and the Spirit Awards have stolen my thunder, but anyway HERE are my predicts at this point:
Picture – Benjamin Button (which looks disturbingly "heartwarming")
Actor – Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler (or Pitt if Rourke makes a PR gaffe ahead of time, which is most likely. Langella is peaking too soon...like NOW.)
Actress – Anne Hathaway (ANOTHER youngin' stealing Kate Winslet’s Oscar :(...boo. )
Supp. Actor – Heath Ledger
Supp Actress – Debra Winger (isn't it kind of bizarre in retrospect that Debra Winger doesn't have an Oscar already?)
Director – David Fincher (long overdue, but I expect the director of FIGHT CLUB - one of the greatest films ever made - shouldn’t win it for this Forrest Gumpian, sentimentalist piece)
And in the "consolation prize" categories:
Adapted Screenplay – Slumdog Millionaire
Original Screenplay – Milk
Btw – I saw FOUR CHRISTMASES with my parents, which was very, very cute. But can we talk about the fact that there are not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE Oscar winners in that movie??? Does that seem....well, kind of odd to anyone else?
Picture – Benjamin Button (which looks disturbingly "heartwarming")
Actor – Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler (or Pitt if Rourke makes a PR gaffe ahead of time, which is most likely. Langella is peaking too soon...like NOW.)
Actress – Anne Hathaway (ANOTHER youngin' stealing Kate Winslet’s Oscar :(...boo. )
Supp. Actor – Heath Ledger
Supp Actress – Debra Winger (isn't it kind of bizarre in retrospect that Debra Winger doesn't have an Oscar already?)
Director – David Fincher (long overdue, but I expect the director of FIGHT CLUB - one of the greatest films ever made - shouldn’t win it for this Forrest Gumpian, sentimentalist piece)
And in the "consolation prize" categories:
Adapted Screenplay – Slumdog Millionaire
Original Screenplay – Milk
Btw – I saw FOUR CHRISTMASES with my parents, which was very, very cute. But can we talk about the fact that there are not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE Oscar winners in that movie??? Does that seem....well, kind of odd to anyone else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
