Is it already over? I'm not so sure.

[OscarGuy]

Also, I detest the word "Oscarologist" sounds too much like "Proctologist".

[OscarGuy]

Let's also remember that trailers aren't always the best indication. They are often manufactured out-of-house by companies who are tasked with getting butts in the seats, not with appealing to cineastes (unless they are making a trailer for the latest indie film). These guys make trailers for their audience. Sometimes it works (Harry Potter has had the best se of trailers I can remember) and sometimes it doesn't (Transformers, etc.).

Right now, I'm predicting J. Edgar to win, not War Horse, so while I think War Horse will do well with the Academy (it's the kind of thing they love), so is J. Edgar. But I never cement my predictions in stone until the very end. Critics awards can throw a wrench into things and sometimes I see something so hailed by critics I pick the next best thing to compensate because the Academy has a tendency to do that as well.

[Big Magilla]

And on this whole anti-War Horse thing, I'm astounded by all of the sudden bickering and trash talking. I think what's happening is prognosticators, not wanting a boring race, are trying to shoot its chances down so one of their early-anointed pics can take the prize and prove them accurate. They want there to be some other film that arrives to trash it, but the trailer looks really good and the emotional essence of the film's subject is likely to resonate with older voters and war enthusiasts. This seems to be Spielberg back in his element after years of skirting it, so I don't see why people are trashing a film they haven't even seen. On paper, it looks pretty good. It may blow, who knows, but it's Spielberg and even his worst efforts are entertaining (though, the execrable Crystal Skull would try to refute that).

If they had the same reaction to the trailer that I had, then that's not the reason at all. I hope it doesn't become the front-runner because if the movie is anything like the trailer, it's gonna be so reactionary and out-of-fashion. It's an amazing simulation of a 1980s film pretending it's a late 1940s sepia epic. And with taglines like "Tested By Battle", it's also unbearably pompous.

But it is the self-importance of these self-proclaimed Oscarologists that is driving this nonsense. Whether this or that unseen film proves award worthy in the end is just speculation. Trailers are mareting tools to get the most bodies into seats. They do not necessarily accurately reflect the finsihed product. We shall see what we shall see regardless of who thinks what beforehand.

[Sonic Youth]

And on this whole anti-War Horse thing, I'm astounded by all of the sudden bickering and trash talking. I think what's happening is prognosticators, not wanting a boring race, are trying to shoot its chances down so one of their early-anointed pics can take the prize and prove them accurate. They want there to be some other film that arrives to trash it, but the trailer looks really good and the emotional essence of the film's subject is likely to resonate with older voters and war enthusiasts. This seems to be Spielberg back in his element after years of skirting it, so I don't see why people are trashing a film they haven't even seen. On paper, it looks pretty good. It may blow, who knows, but it's Spielberg and even his worst efforts are entertaining (though, the execrable Crystal Skull would try to refute that).

If they had the same reaction to the trailer that I had, then that's not the reason at all. I hope it doesn't become the front-runner because if the movie is anything like the trailer, it's gonna be so reactionary and out-of-fashion. It's an amazing simulation of a 1980s film pretending it's a late 1940s sepia epic. And with taglines like "Tested By Battle", it's also unbearably pompous.

[VanHelsing]

Original BJ, may I know how was Sandy B. in EL&IC? Thank you.

[OscarGuy]

I think Olsen's a very like "Jennifer Lawrence" kind of nomination, but nothing more. I don't think she has much of a chance. Matter of fact, with recent history in place, this could be Michelle Williams' year. Like Streep, she's playing a well known character, but she has the Natalie Portman/Reese Witherspoon kind of performance. Young, talented actress with a solid prior career whose performance blows critics away even if her film does not. If Streep's perf doesn't pick up the lion's share of critics prizes, I'll be surprised, but if you want a late-year Best Actress emergence, I think Williams is your woman, not Davis. I don't think The Help is nearly as popular as Sabin does. It's more on the lines of The Blind Side, which could work in its favor for Best Actress, but Blind Side was a late-year success. The Help's already come and gone and is likely going to be overshadowed by other films and performances later in the year.

And on this whole anti-War Horse thing, I'm astounded by all of the sudden bickering and trash talking. I think what's happening is prognosticators, not wanting a boring race, are trying to shoot its chances down so one of their early-anointed pics can take the prize and prove them accurate. They want there to be some other film that arrives to trash it, but the trailer looks really good and the emotional essence of the film's subject is likely to resonate with older voters and war enthusiasts. This seems to be Spielberg back in his element after years of skirting it, so I don't see why people are trashing a film they haven't even seen. On paper, it looks pretty good. It may blow, who knows, but it's Spielberg and even his worst efforts are entertaining (though, the execrable Crystal Skull would try to refute that).

[Big Magilla]

It's possible that Plummer and Max von Sydow will split the supporting actor vote and throw it to another contender, but who?

I've seen Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, and I don't view Max von Sydow as a very strong win possibility. I actually don't think that movie is going to be as strong as a lot of prognosticators do, though at this point, it's hard to know how reviews/box office will shape its chances. Sometimes desperate Oscar-bait hits, but sometimes it's rightfully seen as desperation.

I've also seen My Week With Marilyn, and hope to write something about both of those films in the next few days. (Though I do think Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh are probably nominees.)

Please do!!!

[Reza]

[Martha Marcy May Marlene

The Olson younger sister appears to be getting very good reviews. Could she be the ''babe'' who wins over Viola Davis?

[The Original BJ]

It's possible that Plummer and Max von Sydow will split the supporting actor vote and throw it to another contender, but who?

I've seen Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, and I don't view Max von Sydow as a very strong win possibility. I actually don't think that movie is going to be as strong as a lot of prognosticators do, though at this point, it's hard to know how reviews/box office will shape its chances. Sometimes desperate Oscar-bait hits, but sometimes it's rightfully seen as desperation.

I've also seen My Week With Marilyn, and hope to write something about both of those films in the next few days. (Though I do think Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh are probably nominees.)

And if anyone still has Like Crazy on any list of predictions, CROSS IT OFF! UGH! Cliched, angsty, hipster mush.

And maybe someday I'll find the time to chime in on a pretty decent crop of already-released efforts -- Moneyball, The Ides of March, 50/50, The Skin I Live In, Martha Marcy May Marlene. I just haven't been able to find the time to write here as much as I'd like! (Geez, I haven't even thrown my opinion on The Help into the fray yet.)

[Big Magilla]

It's possible that Plummer and Max von Sydow will split the supporting actor vote and throw it to another contender, but who?

It's not just Wells now, but that new guy on Movieline who is saying Davis will win because of the speech she gave the other night. He's also taken War Horse out of teh spotlinght for the win based on O'Neil and others saying it's between The Descendants and The Artist largely because the New York Film Critics likely won't get to see it before their early vote, thus starting the bandwagon for one of the other two films. Did The King's Speech's victory over The Social Network last year teach them nothing?

[Reza]

Just to be provocative: how did Christopher Plummer become such an overwhelming favorite for a film that got middling reviews and didn't set any box-office fires? I should say upfront, I haven't seen the film, and those here who have seem to have liked it well enough, so I may even end up endorsing the campaign in time. But right now I have to question where this zealous enthusiasm came from. I don't recall reviews telling me Plummer gives the performance of a lifetime; what I recall rather is alot of bloggers and columnists telling me this is a perfect spot/time to give Plummer an Oscar (an honor for which I was unaware his career had made him a must-win candidate). All this has shot him to the top of every Oscar prediction list I've read this year -- many constructed by people who also haven't seen the film. I'm not naive enough to think Narratives haven't played a role in winning Oscars over the years -- but they used to be (especially post- the dominant studio era) more connected to the reception the films got from critics and audiences. Now, buzz alone seems to carry the day. independent of the films. Hell, for the Broadcast Critics, seeing the films only gets in the way of their propelling the propaganda.

I saw Beginners a few days ago and I'm surprised the ''acclaim'' Plummer is getting. His performance is no worse or better than a number of other supporting performances he has given in films in the past. I think it's the role - playing a gay man coming out at age 75 and acting flamboyant - that has brought him into the limelight. Not too sure about his competition this year but I wouldn't mind if he ended up winning. The film, I found a big chore to sit through - especially the scenes with Ewan McGregor, playing such an annoying loser.

[The Original BJ]

Although I agree with your overall argument, Mister Tee, I think Christopher Plummer's campaign (much like Jacki Weaver's last year) is coming from genuine enthusiasm from those people who liked the performance and film, who are eager to create enough buzz to push him onto the ballot. This, to me, seems like a decent enough attempt to create buzz that affects the Oscars; the kind of buzz I hate has to do more with declarations about films/performances that have yet to be released, about which no one really knows anything, but about which people pretend that they do.

I quite liked Beginners, so take this statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't use the term "middling" to describe the film's reviews either. I'm not suggesting anyone start using Rotten Tomatoes as a flawless critical barometer -- especially in terms of minutiae and rankings -- but in broad terms, it can give one a GENERAL sense of how well-reviewed a movie is, and Beginners is at 84% fresh. That to me seems well within the margin of error for "pretty good" reviews. (And, to cite a more specific example, Beginners earned a very rare four stars from Slant Magazine, which I think reflects genuine enthusiasm from a certain niche for this movie.)

I don't think Plummer gave the performance of a lifetime, nor do I expect him to be my rooting interest by year's end. I also would be SHOCKED if he ended up winning the Oscar; ask Steve Buscemi how easy it is for supporting performers in tiny indies to even get nominations, much less wins. But I do think the performance is rather lovely, and worthy of a nomination. Or maybe I just have less of a problem when the "Narrative" elements are helping a candidate about which I find worthy, and who doesn't seem (to me, at least) to be anything like a sure thing.

[Mister Tee]

Magilla, don't you know by now that everything out of Jeff Wells' brain is suspect? I don't trust a word he says about movies, politics or actual life -- even though on the first two I don't necessarily disagree with his ultimate opinions; I just despise his stupid reasoning and jump-the-gun, scattershot approach. The guy's a totally entitled, narciisstic dilletante, who loves to makes idiotically sweeping statements with little behind them. Of which this is one.

Certainly Viola Davis COULD win this year's best actress prize; as I said a while back, she's in a bona fide hit and has been praised even by people whose skin crawls to think of her film. But, you know, for once we have some potential late-year surprises coming our way; beats me why people seems so determined to glide by them and call the race today.

But that's what the Oscars have turned into -- a 12-month-a-year exercise where getting enough people to chatter about a performance or film is enough to get it into contention, regardless of whether anyone -- among critics or audiences -- actually likes it when it finally appears. Just to be provocative: how did Christopher Plummer become such an overwhelming favorite for a film that got middling reviews and didn't set any box-office fires? I should say upfront, I haven't seen the film, and those here who have seem to have liked it well enough, so I may even end up endorsing the campaign in time. But right now I have to question where this zealous enthusiasm came from. I don't recall reviews telling me Plummer gives the performance of a lifetime; what I recall rather is alot of bloggers and columnists telling me this is a perfect spot/time to give Plummer an Oscar (an honor for which I was unaware his career had made him a must-win candidate). All this has shot him to the top of every Oscar prediction list I've read this year -- many constructed by people who also haven't seen the film. I'm not naive enough to think Narratives haven't played a role in winning Oscars over the years -- but they used to be (especially post- the dominant studio era) more connected to the reception the films got from critics and audiences. Now, buzz alone seems to carry the day. independent of the films. Hell, for the Broadcast Critics, seeing the films only gets in the way of their propelling the propaganda.

Sabin, I wouldn't risk money I can't afford to lose on it, because there's always the out-there fluke chance of a Peter Cattaneo/Full Monty nomination. But I would be shocked beyond recognition were The Help to be slated by the directors' branch. It is EXACTLY the kind of corny but successful film that has historically got a best picture nod but been passed up by the directors. Even right now, I can't imagine Tate Taylor slipping in past Alexander Payne, Terence Malick and Bennett Miller, and I think some combination of Woody Allen/Tomas Alfredson/Spielberg/Fincher/Daldry/Eastwood/Hazawhateverhisnameis will solidify the slate and keep him out. I think The Help can get a best picture nomination, easily, but it would take an extraordinary confluence of events to bring a best picture win (like...I don't know...competing against a movie about gay cowboys).

[Big Magilla]

Well at least Sabin puts some reasoning behind it, but Wells' assertion that Davs will win because she gives the best speech still sticks in my craw.

[jack]

The Help could really win Best Picture.

If it does, Chris Columbus wins an Oscar. Think about that.