Are you in some way constrained from offering a full take on the film? Because your throwaway comments on it have piqued my interest, being the only first-hand (not routed through publicist) response I've heard, and I'd love a fuller reaction. By the way, why are you in on all these early screenings? -- SAG Nominating Committee, or just knowing the right people?The Original BJ wrote:I haven't been the best at anticipating the Academy's affection for Stephen Daldry films OR Sandra Bullock...but having seen Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, I'm not as sold on Sandra Bullock's chances as web consensus seems to be. She has a fairly reserved part, and unless the movie becomes a big hit, and she's just SO well-liked by Hollywood that she can now get nominated for anything remotely serious, I'm not sure enough people will be THAT excited by her work here. (I'd definitely side with what I assume Mister Tee will argue with respect to her candidacy -- is she REALLY the kind of actress who needs a Supporting Oscar nomination?)
There's no WAY Tom Hanks places, though -- he's barely even in the movie. Max von Sydow's chances are better -- supporting actor seems the haziest of any of the acting categories, and if it ends up being a weak slate, why wouldn't some voters just push for another nod for the legend? But, frankly, it wouldn't shock me if he didn't enter the conversation either, if there are enough interesting candidates.
Most of the web buzz on Extremely Loud and War Horse remains PR-generated (with a dollop of "the Academy always loves these kind of films"). Same with the Iron Lady -- right now, bloggers are chiming in with "Meryl's Oscar picture", but, since most went in with that stance, I'd like to hear some actual critics' takes on it before I start slotting it in anywhere. The Narrative remains the most pernicious force in the Oscar world today.