Early 2010 Oscar Candidates

[OscarGuy]

Let's put it this way: while I know now that it was motion-capture animation, at the time I didn't. It doesn't look like it. And that may be why it was nominated. Robert Zemeckis and Richard Linklater have tried to get nominated for this award and have failed despite having solid critical backing. I think the animators look for a style, not necessarily a subject. Thus, A Scanner Darkly, Waking Life, Beowulf and The Polar Express have all failed to earn nominations from the animation branch.

Now, this could entirely have to do with those two individuals, but I think it's more the style and look of the films in question, which is what many people link with Motion Capture animation. Monster House used mo-cap in a completely different way and thus got recognized. So, I seriously doubt Zemeckis will earn his Oscar nomination for A Christmas Carol, a literary source that has largely been ignore by the Academy anyway.

[Zahveed]

I forgot about Monster House. That one didn't have soulless eyes either.

[anonymous1980]

This is true, and though I find his previous works in this particular medium to be boring, I think eventually one of these motion-capture films will get some kind of recognition. Probably not this year, though; it looks like a pretty strong one for animation.

A motion-capture animated film HAS already been nominated: Monster House. I think it worked because they made it look animated (the characters look NOTHING like the actors playing them unlike in Beowulf where most of them look like the actors).

I personally think it's the best non-PIXAR CGI animated feature.

[Zahveed]

This is true, and though I find his previous works in this particular medium to be boring, I think eventually one of these motion-capture films will get some kind of recognition. Probably not this year, though; it looks like a pretty strong one for animation.

[The Original BJ]

A Christmas Carol may finally be Zemeckis' first animated nod if the well is dry.

Except the well is not dry. A Christmas Carol will still have to fight off Up, Coraline, Ponyo, The Princess and the Frog, 9, and Fantastic Mr. Fox. Even with five nominees, some seemingly strong candidates are still bound to be left off, and Zemeckis's motion-capture efforts haven't been successful in less competitive fields.

[Zahveed]

So, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has been moved up to December 25.

Avatar is receiving extraordinary buzz.

Invictus will be this year's token Eastwood flick.

Everybody's Fine may reap acting nods.

A Christmas Carol may finally be Zemeckis' first animated nod if the well is dry. Fantastic Mr. Fox may have a more likely shot.

[Zahveed]

I'd love to see a new Dracula emerge. Gary Oldman was fine in the 1992, but even he wasn't dynamic enough to start a new trend.

I'd like to see Dracula portrayed more like Vlad the Impaler than some mystical bloodsucker, which I don't think has been done and if so, not too often.



Edited By OscarGuy on 1248301224

[Big Magilla]

I agree with your assessment of Dwight Frye and Edward Van Sloan.

[criddic3]

"Unrealistic" I don't buy as an argument...they're vampires. It is a bit stagey, but it was a stage play that had starred Lugosi, so I give it a pass on that. The year was 1931, when few if any films were really that fluid. Despite the obvious over-the-topness, no Renfield was ever better than Dwight Frye. Edward Van Sloan is just as I'd expect a Van Helsing to be, very professorial in manner. And the lead couple is just as dull and nice as it needs to be, in order to emphasize the horrorific changes that occur once Dracula enters their lives.

The Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing version adds color and more immediate urgency to a modern sensibility, but I like the old-world feel of the Lugosi version. It's in some ways spookier, as he strolls down the foggy streets and the way he commands Renfield through his glowing eyes. Besides, Lugosi (despite his Hungarian accent) has more lines than Lee (who speaks quite well in other roles), and the character gains a nobler feel as a result. To me it's eerier when Lugosi's Dracula talks about how beautiful true death must be than any of Lee's growls. I like both versions, but I have a fondness for the earlier film. Both are preferable to any of the vampires we've seen since.

I'd love to see a new Dracula emerge. Gary Oldman was fine in the 1992, but even he wasn't dynamic enough to start a new trend. Well, you could argue that the success of that movie led to Interview with the Vampire, Wolf and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein being green-lit, but who knows?

[Big Magilla]

The first time I saw Horror of Dracula I was 14 years old. The film scared teh shit out of me like no other film before or after. I kept the lights on in my bedroom all summer long.

I think what most frightened me was that I thought the character who visits Count Dracula at the beginning of the film was the hero. When he is killed, I was truly shocked. This was two years before Psycho when a similar occurrence shocked everyone else.

Nothing that happens after that until including the stakes through the hearts was quite as unsettling but the whole thing is a masterpiece in terror unlike the Lugosi version which is too stagy and unrealistic.

[criddic3]

I'm really looking forward to The Wolf Man. Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Lynn Redgrave and makeup by Rick Baker. At least the makeup, and possibly the art direction, could be nominated.

Is Lynn Redgrave in this? I think she's be delicious in the Maraa Ouspenskaya role but I believe Geraldine Chaplin has that role.

Anyway of all the remakes this is the only one that looks on paper like it might work. Universal's horror films of the 30s, Frankenstein, Dracula and The Mummy were successfully remade in the late 1950s, The Horror of Dracula actually being better than the original. Subsequent remakes, re-imaginings and revisions of those three have been done to death.

The original 1941 version of The Wolf Man was so perfectly done that no one has dared touch it since. Benicio Del Toro has been flirting with a third Oscar nomination for the last two years with Things We Lost in the Fire and Che. He may actually get one for this if the film turns out well and the competition isn't too strong.

You are correct. I think Redgrave was talked about prior to actual casting, and I listed her name. Chaplin is probably not a bad choice either.

I actually disagree that Horror of Dracula is "better" than Todd Browning's 1931 classic. I own both versions, but when I was a kid I knew almost every line of the Lugosi film by heart. I know, I was a wierd kid. I played Dracula for Halloween just about every year.

An Oscar for playing Lawrence Talbot aka The Wolf Man? While it would be sort of vindication for the great actors of the past, I highly doubt the Academy would even consider such a notion. Heath Ledger's win for playing The Joker this year is a near-miracle, one helped (sad to say) by his untimely death.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1260860334

[Penelope]

The Young Victoria opened last weekend in the UK and, unlike the review posted earlier, the local press was largely negative on the film as a whole ("clunky dialogue," "boring historical pageant," etc.), though Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend (as Prince Albert) emerged mostly unscathed, both being singled out for bringing more to the proceedings than the script provided.

[Big Magilla]

I'm really looking forward to The Wolf Man. Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Lynn Redgrave and makeup by Rick Baker. At least the makeup, and possibly the art direction, could be nominated.

Is Lynn Redgrave in this? I think she's be delicious in the Maraa Ouspenskaya role but I believe Geraldine Chaplin has that role.

Anyway of all the remakes this is the only one that looks on paper like it might work. Universal's horror films of the 30s, Frankenstein, Dracula and The Mummy were successfully remade in the late 1950s, The Horror of Dracula actually being better than the original. Subsequent remakes, re-imaginings and revisions of those three have been done to death.

The original 1941 version of The Wolf Man was so perfectly done that no one has dared touch it since. Benicio Del Toro has been flirting with a third Oscar nomination for the last two years with Things We Lost in the Fire and Che. He may actually get one for this if the film turns out well and the competition isn't too strong.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1260860528

[Okri]

I have. It was clearly in the "not going to win" pile at the time. Though its lack of celebrity voices was an asset, imho. Anyway, the unwritten rules for the short category are not the same as the feature category.

9's animation may be technically excellent, and the feature may do well at the Annies. Its trailer tells me that if it gets nominated it will be the least kid-friendly nominee the category has ever seen. Something's going to bust that barrier eventually, and perhaps the style of animation puts it in a class that Waking Life, Paprika and Waltz With Bashir don't inhabit. But unless its story is better than the trailer makes it look, I don't think 9 is going to be the 1.

I tend to agree, if only because I can't imagine it cracking a line-up of three and a line-up of five is rare.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1260860535

[Zahveed]

After seeing the new trailer for Up, I'd like to retract my previous statement on the film.