flipp525 wrote:does any of this Marion Cotillard Best Supporting Actress talk have legs? Also, does Helena Bonham-Carter actually give an Oscar-worthy performance in The King's Speech or she simply being swept along for the ride? And...is Amy Adams losing steam for a nod?
1) The Cotillard candidacy is strictly fanboy fantasy -- like the now-forgotten Sean Astin/Return of the King campaign.
2) Haven't seen King's Speech, but every trustworthy reaction I hear is that, minus the pull of her film and her long career, no one would be touting Bonham Carter.
3) Amy Adams seems to be singled out in every review, for not only being good but offering an image-change. Melissa Leo's role is apparently more flamboyant, which cuts both ways: some find her over-the-top and thus less appealing than Adams, but (probably) more like the showiness and will vote for her first.
But all signs point to both making the list. I don't see it as such a thin category, esp. if Manville runs here. (I'm not persuaded by one NBR vote that she'll be in lead) Bonham Carter, however undeserved, is viewed as almost surely in, and with the Fighter pair, Weaver, Wiest, and (apparently category fraud) Steinfeld, you have better than a full slate without even stretching.
Inception is deliberately confusing and incoherent. The entire film is a dream. Nothing makes sense except within the context of a dream and even then things have double and triple meanings.
Except it doesn't feel like a dream. And if it does, it's not an interesting dream. The best scene in the film is where Leonardo DiCaprio encounters Cillian Murphy at a hotel bar. Everything else feels like a video game. Which is ironic because Scott Pilgrim is about video games but feels like a dream. (we'll, uh, get back to that).
(Big Magilla @ Dec. 08 2010,8:44)
It's more enjoyable if you approach it as a shrink listening to a patient explaining his dream and trying to figure it out. In the end, you really don't care what it all means. It's a pure popcorn movie, fun while it lasts if you don't take it too seriously, torture if you are expect everything to be wrapped up with a neat little bow.
Except it feels like the intrusive ramblings of a film student talking about his derivative masterpiece in class. I went into Inception with incredible expectations, as I did The Life Aquatic, Where the Wild Things Are, etc. The difference between this movie and those is I couldn't wait for Inception to be over. Popcorn = fun. Inception = endurance.
(Big Magilla @ Dec. 08 2010,8:44)
I get more annoyed with the nonsensical talk about Toy Story 3 not only being a Best Picture nominee but also being a possible winner. The toys were cute in the original and sadly discarded in the second. All the third entry does is replay themes from the first two. There's nothing original in it, but it will be nominated because with ten slots you have to have at least one film that appeals to the masses, right?
While no doubt rooted in commerce as any studio must, the spirit of Toy Story 3 is something pure. It wants the audience to relive the last moments of childhood through these toys and then say goodbye. It has to mark the end of some chapter in The PIXAR Story, as now the directing duties are taken over by assistants to the directors. But if it's a rehash, it's one of something that IMO is aligned so much with my sensibilities that I find it hard to fault it for doing so. The PIXAR Formula is so above any other animation studio's today that even when they whiff, it's still a marvel of narrative construction. It's an irrelevant film because Toy Story 2 leaves them exactly where they need to be, but the film is breakneck in its narrative construction like no PIXAR film in ages. It's not great by any means, and in truth I'd only rank it above Cars and perhaps maybe Up, but it's hard to fault it.
(flipp525 @ Dec. 08 2010,9:54)
On the Inception issue, I haven't seen it, so I can't really say where it places in the Editing race, but does any of this Marion Cotillard Best Supporting Actress talk have legs?
Although it may not be fair to her, I would mark down Marion Cotillard on my list of the Worst Supporting Actresses this year. You have no idea how annoying this bitch gets. We are supposed to be moved by her tragic relationship with DiCaprio and yet every time she emerges on-screen there is a palpable joylessness that I wanted to get away from. It's such a phony relationship, and the film is desperate in its desire to make it phonier, louder, more annoying, less personal. I suppose it's possible that her non-character could register with voters because it's the film's best chance for an acting nomination, but it would be a real shame.
(Greg @ Dec. 08 2010,11:51)
Sabin, here's a big irony. You consider Inception, which I loved, to be an incoherent mess. I ended up with no desire to see Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, which you loved, because the trailers made it look to me to be an incoherent mess.
Here's a bigger irony, Greg. If somebody tells me that there is a pretty good film out there that people are just not going to see because it is difficult to market, because it is difficult to market, because it is difficult to (HITS THE RECORD PLAYER) you see what I'm getting at? Inception had a better marketing campaign. Beyond that, it's Inception, and who isn't going to see it? Scott Pilgrim does look like a mess in the trailers. I think it's the best American studio film of the year IN SPITE OF Michael Cera, who I don't really like in the film. There is no American comedy this year that takes more chances or tries to give audiences something they haven't seen before, and it failed because you can't market it as a teen comedy, as an action film, as any anything. It's a mish-mash of so many things, and I can't say this enough: Scott Pilgrim is full of techniques utilized to original results. Inception is the absolute opposite.
Sabin, here's a big irony. You consider Inception, which I loved, to be an incoherent mess. I ended up with no desire to see Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, which you loved, because the trailers made it look to me to be an incoherent mess.
Reza wrote:All this talk about Marion CotIllard getting a nod for Inception is absurd. There are far too many superior performances around this year for her to be even remotely considered. And why is Julianne Moore suddenly off the map?
I believe Julianne is entering the LEAD Actress race. The Supporting Actress category is kind of bare. Beyond Helena Bonham Carter, Jacki Weaver and to a lesser extent Dianne Wiest, there aren't a lot of locks.
In addition what about Dale Dickey, Melissa Leo, Amy Madigan or Lesley Manville (if they decide to go support with her)?
Reza wrote:All this talk about Marion CotIllard getting a nod for Inception is absurd. There are far too many superior performances around this year for her to be even remotely considered. And why is Julianne Moore suddenly off the map?
I believe Julianne is entering the LEAD Actress race. The Supporting Actress category is kind of bare. Beyond Helena Bonham Carter, Jacki Weaver and to a lesser extent Dianne Wiest, there aren't a lot of locks.
All this talk about Marion Cotillard getting a nod for Inception is absurd. There are far too many superior performances around this year for her to be even remotely considered. And why is Julianne Moore suddenly off the map?
ITALIANO wrote:As the poor and much-mistreated soul who once made the mistake of correctly predicting that The Dark Knight would be excluded from the Best Picture race, let me say that this time it wouldn't be that different.
You weren't the only one to go there at the time. Or even the most vocal about it.
On the Inception issue, I haven't seen it, so I can't really say where it places in the Editing race, but does any of this Marion Cotillard Best Supporting Actress talk have legs? Also, does Helena Bonham-Carter actually give an Oscar-worthy performance in The King's Speech or she simply being swept along for the ride? And...is Amy Adams losing steam for a nod?
Edited By flipp525 on 1291826215
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
Inception is deliberately confusing and incoherent. The entire film is a dream. Nothing makes sense except within the context of a dream and even then things have double and triple meanings.
It's more enjoyable if you approach it as a shrink listening to a patient explaining his dream and trying to figure it out. In the end, you really don't care what it all means. It's a pure popcorn movie, fun while it lasts if you don't take it too seriously, torture if you are expect everything to be wrapped up with a neat little bow.
There is no great acting in the film, although Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy seem to be having fun while everyone else seems much too earnest.
Whether it ends up with four or five Oscar nominations or ten or twelve, I don't care. It's not going to take the place of any film I really care about because there aren't ten films I really care about this year, at least among those I've seen.
I get more annoyed with the nonsensical talk about Toy Story 3 not only being a Best Picture nominee but also being a possible winner. The toys were cute in the original and sadly discarded in the second. All the third entry does is replay themes from the first two. There's nothing original in it, but it will be nominated because with ten slots you have to have at least one film that appeals to the masses, right? At least Inception dared to go someplace different and managed to be entertaining as well as infuriating at the same time. Not a great film, but not a mess either.
As the poor and much-mistreated soul who once made the mistake of correctly predicting that The Dark Knight would be excluded from the Best Picture race, let me say that this time it wouldn't be that different. Inception is exactly the kind of movie that older voters (and maybe some of the younger ones as well) will find confusing if not irritating - Best Picture will happen of course, but only because there are more available spots. As for Best Director, Nolan has probably a few more chances this year if only because, after all these big hits, some will begin to feel that he HAS to be nominated sooner or later (he also seems to be, for reasons I'll never understand, much-admired by some critics). But it may not happen for Inception.
I don't get why people think it's confusing. It's easy to follow if you paid attention to the rules of the world and I thought the editing together of the action sequences and the juggling of the simultaneous level of consciousness was absolutely breathtaking when I saw it for the 2nd time.
Honestly, because it's not worth it. You could pay attention to the two and a half hours of explanations thrown at the audience with pulsing audio in the background to make it cool, but it's not worth it because A) none of it makes sense, B) you can't form emotional attachment to anything, and C) it's not that fun. There are jolts of wandering ingenious set-piece but they're filmed so literally and engulfed in boring exposition. It feels like some nerd's idea of what's cool, but really it's just derivative and dopey.
I think the Film Editing nominees will be:
127 Hours
Inception
The Social Network
The Town
True Grit
It could win for Best Film Editing, if only because it will feature more editing than any other nominated film. I wouldn't call it better editing. One of my biggest problems with Inception is that the film is so monotonously-paced. Every scene has roughly the same ASL, so there's no real rise and fall in any of the scenes. This is something that is plaguing Nolan's recent films. Although it's used to relatively good throttling effect in The Dark Knight, his movies are cut in just as much an ADD fashion as Michael Bay or Tony Scott. He just chooses to shoot his films more conservatively. I'm rooting for The Social Network.
It's just occurred to me that Inception might have more nominations this year than any other film. That's so lame!
There have been times (too many to enumerate) when the editing award has gone to the film with the most editing as opposed to the best so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it win that category as well as sound, sound effects and visual effects. That should be it, though. In fact, those categories and Best Picture due to the ten film rule may be the only nominations it gets.
anonymous wrote:Inception's a frontrunner to WIN the Editing Oscar. I don't get why people think it's confusing. It's easy to follow if you paid attention to the rules of the world . . .
It's not that the film is confusing, it's that the rules are arbitrary, incoherent and stupid. As for the film, it's superfluous and pointless. Worst 2010 release I've seen so far.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Eric wrote:As one of my friends tweeted last summer, it's amazing to see people going nuts over Nolan finally learning techniques D.W. Griffith was already using in 1915.
Brilliant!
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
As one of my friends tweeted last summer, it's amazing to see people going nuts over Nolan finally learning techniques D.W. Griffith was already using in 1915.
