Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Ok. I finally made myself see the dreaded Magic Mike. Very surprisingly, it is an excellent personal drama. The strip scenes are stark but generally not gratuitous.

McConaughey is superb. Well-deserving of his accolades. (I thought less of his performance in Bernie, though it wasn't bad.)

Soderbergh delivered. Not exploitation or sleaze.

criddic3 wrote:

flipp525 wrote:

Mister Tee wrote:Yeah, BJ, as you might imagine, for heteros of a certain age, Magic Mike has been as much a dare as a movie.

I actually went to see Magic Mike with two “heteros” (one my age and one in his late 40's) and they had a frickin’ blast. Heterosexual men who are completely comfortable with their sexuality don’t have a problem with doing stuff that reads "gay". (Because they’re not gay and they know they’re not.)

I would add..."and not afraid of being around people who are." Plenty of guys who know they are not gay never get comfortable "doing stuff that reads 'gay.'" But I know what you mean. If a guy is comfortable with himself and he doesn't have any hang-ups about what others think of them hanging around with gay guys, they can relax. My last job was like that, where everyone was cool about that, though I'm not sure if any of them would have chosen to see Magic Mike in a theater with a group of guys.

Glad it wasn't just me. There is an entire psychology to Selina Kyle, and I think hardly any of it was used.

flipp525 wrote:

nightwingnova wrote:I see that Ann Hathaway has come in second again...this time at the LA Film Critics...and again, The Dark Knight Rises is cited. Honestly, I see nothing special about that performance. In fact, I see it as sub par compared to what could have been done with it.

I couldn't agree with you more, nightwing. I'll go one step further and say that it was one of the worst performances in the film (of which there were a couple).

nightwingnova wrote:I see that Ann Hathaway has come in second again...this time at the LA Film Critics...and again, The Dark Knight Rises is cited. Honestly, I see nothing special about that performance. In fact, I see it as sub par compared to what could have been done with it.

I couldn't agree with you more, nightwing. I'll go one step further and say that it was one of the worst performances in the film (of which there were a couple). It didn't hold a candle to Michelle Pfeiffer's iconic 1992 work.

I see that Ann Hathaway has come in second again...this time at the LA Film Critics...and again, The Dark Knight Rises is cited. Honestly, I see nothing special about that performance. In fact, I see it as sub par compared to what could have been done with it.

Mister Tee wrote:The question is, will a slew of mediocre to poor reviews do anything to halt Anne Hathaway's road to a statuette? People are chanting "Jennifer Hudson" as precedent, but Dreamgirls seemed to get better notices than this -- enough that it seemed a credible best picture contender right up to nominations day (and was carrying Eddie Murphy along for the ride up till Oscar night). And Effie was a Tony-winning role that featured one of the legendary Broadway showstoppers of the era. Hathaway has a well-liked song, but I don't think that's quite comparable. Obviously Hathaway has her points -- a respected career, previous nomination, individually impressive notices, and no obvious competitor (Sally Field would clearly make people hesitate over the idea of anyone going 3-for-3 in Oscar nominations). Hathaway may still breeze to a win, the way Renee Zellweger did. But it doesn't seem as clear-cut as it did a few days ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 51916.html

HuffingtonPost is also pointing out how the reviews swing from "bombastic" to "heart soaring."

Out of the many cinematic musicals out there, I think only a tiny handful are actually great films: THE WIZARD OF OZ, WEST SIDE STORY, CABARET, VICTOR VICTORIA, and maybe a few others. The rest offer very little as films. Everything good about them comes from the original stage show, and they are just recreating that for the screen. THE SOUND OF MUSIC is a fun, but cinematically dull.

If Hooper is able to make LES MISERABLES visually interesting and emotionally moving, the music will do the majority of the heavy lifting. I have not seen the show, but I have heard the music. Bombastic seems like the appropriate word to associate with this musical in general, though clearly some folks are using it to attack the film.

As for Anne Hathaway, it seems even the folks who dislike the movie have high praise for her. In fact Mister Tee, they say her "I Dreamed A Dream" is almost literally a showstopper in the sense that the film can never recover from such a high point.

flipp525 wrote:rolo, have you ever actually read a screenplay?

Yes my dear flipp525, I have. My reply to Greg should have been more clear. I thought he meant all the visual flourishes in the film will be credited to the writer. Obviously screenplays have descriptions of characters' actions, but as Mister Tee said I associate dialogue and plot with the screenplay, while visuals and emotions I associate with the director. THE RED BALLOON won screenplay despite containing almost no dialogue, so I understand this type of thing happens. I just figured a movie with mostly singing was not likely to push out a more worthy film in such a crowded field.

rolo, have you ever actually read a screenplay?

The Hamlet nomination was fluky. 1996 was the rare year where four of the five best picture nominees were from original scripts. Writers were used to burrowing deep for originals, but seemed less certain about digging up adaptations. Branagh was still somewhat on his roll from Henry V/Much Ado, bouncing back from Frankenstein, and his film opened in December and was fresh in voters' minds. Still, it was viewed as a borderline silly nomination. I know people like to dredge up that "screenplays are more than dialogue" nostum, but the fact is most screenplay nominees are dialogue-centered; it's obviously what the branch prefers.

Assuming the reviews emerging today are the norm, I'd say Les Miz' chances of a screenplay nomination would be slim if there WERE spoken dialogue. Without it, I think it's a hopeless case, competing with Lincoln/Silver Linings/Argo/The Sessions; even Life of Pi seems stronger.

The question is, will a slew of mediocre to poor reviews do anything to halt Anne Hathaway's road to a statuette? People are chanting "Jennifer Hudson" as precedent, but Dreamgirls seemed to get better notices than this -- enough that it seemed a credible best picture contender right up to nominations day (and was carrying Eddie Murphy along for the ride up till Oscar night). And Effie was a Tony-winning role that featured one of the legendary Broadway showstoppers of the era. Hathaway has a well-liked song, but I don't think that's quite comparable. Obviously Hathaway has her points -- a respected career, previous nomination, individually impressive notices, and no obvious competitor (Sally Field would clearly make people hesitate over the idea of anyone going 3-for-3 in Oscar nominations). Hathaway may still breeze to a win, the way Renee Zellweger did. But it doesn't seem as clear-cut as it did a few days ago.

rolotomasi99 wrote:That nomination for the full text of HAMLET is one of the biggest embarrassments the writer's branch has ever given us. Olivier's HAMLET and HENRY V, Mankiewicz's JULIUS CAESAR, and Zeffirelli's ROMEO AND JULIET were nominated for Best Picture, yet even they were not nominated for their screenplays. Also, I was told by several folks on this board the director's are responsible for most of the visual elements in a film, not the screenwriter. Unless the Academy members are able to read the screenplay, how could they possibly know what visually the writer was responsible for and what the director was responsible for?

All physical action, such as Valjean and the other prisoners pulling in the ship at the beginning of the film, is in the script. The director makes decisions on camera lengths, camera angles, lighting, sound levels, length of scenes, etc.; but, all decisions for physical action are in the script. Remember, the nominations are made only from members of the respective branches; so, only the writers, who know quite well what goes into scripts, will vote for screenplay nominations. Also, there probably will be some sung-through dialog that was not in the original stage musical that would then be attributable to the person who adapted the musical in the scrreenplay.

rolotomasi99 wrote:If the Academy loves LES MISERABLES enough, they may very well nominate the screenplay. However, since most of the dialogue in the movie is sung (from what I understand), I figured perhaps the writers would refuse to nominate a script entirely made up of song lyrics. If the movie is not nominated for its screenplay, it still has a good shot at wining Best Picture.

I'd say for Les Misérables to have a GOOD shot at winning Best Picture, it would absolutely have to be nominated for Best Screenplay, unless it became the highest grossing movie of all time.

See: The Sound of Music, Titanic.

Greg wrote:

rolotomasi99 wrote:While I think LES MISERABLES is going to earn a huge number of nominations, it will probably miss out on adapted screenplay since its mostly just the libretto from the stage production. While some screenplays which are almost word-for-word copies of the already written stageplay have been nominated and even won Oscars, I think the writers branch will not go for that this time.

Screenplays also contain descriptions of physical action; and, this could be much different for the movie version of Les Miserables than the stage musical. The trailers make it appear to be substantially "opened up." William Nicholson could very well get an adapted screenplay nomination just like Kenneth Branagh did for Hamlet.

That nomination for the full text of HAMLET is one of the biggest embarrassments the writer's branch has ever given us. Olivier's HAMLET and HENRY V, Mankiewicz's JULIUS CAESAR, and Zeffirelli's ROMEO AND JULIET were nominated for Best Picture, yet even they were not nominated for their screenplays. Also, I was told by several folks on this board the director's are responsible for most of the visual elements in a film, not the screenwriter. Unless the Academy members are able to read the screenplay, how could they possibly know what visually the writer was responsible for and what the director was responsible for?

If the Academy loves LES MISERABLES enough, they may very well nominate the screenplay. However, since most of the dialogue in the movie is sung (from what I understand), I figured perhaps the writers would refuse to nominate a script entirely made up of song lyrics. If the movie is not nominated for its screenplay, it still has a good shot at wining Best Picture...but if it is nominated for its screenplay, then it would be pretty clear how universally loved the film is within the Academy.

Some Italian journalists (not even critics) have seen it two days ago in London and they don't seem that enthusiastic either - a big show definitely, but not as touching as they were expecting. One says that, despite several nominations, Best Supporting Actress is the only Oscar the movie will win (it will, of course, actually get more than one), and points out that, good as she is, Hathaway is on screen for only six minutes! I don't know if it's true - I knew it was a short role but not that short.

I thought it was quite strange that Hathaway was also cited for The Dark Knight Rises. I didn't find her performance there remarkable.

There's always Maggie Smith for The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel...and she was great in it!

flipp525 wrote:I'm also quite over the fanboys frothing at the mouth over Anne Hathaway, who the media seems to be pushing as "the anointed one" this season. It's giving me Kate Winslet flashbacks. I'm already actively hoping for some kind of dark horse or spoiler in the Best Supporting Actress race.

I guess I saw a different film than these guys because I thought it was fantastic. But what do I know?

I'm also quite over the fanboys frothing at the mouth over Anne Hathaway, who the media seems to be pushing as "the anointed one" this season. It's giving me Kate Winslet flashbacks. I'm already actively hoping for some kind of dark horse or spoiler in the Best Supporting Actress race.