Official Oscar Speculation Thread - Page 2  

His Terrence-confusion aside, that does raise the question: is The New World getting a limited release before the end of the year? If so, does that matter at all? What's the early word?

Damn, too many fuckers named Terrence. I was talking about Malick, of course. As for the lead of Hustle & Flow, the subject matter of the flim is just too far away from members of the Academy. The summer release didn't help.

And yes, THE NEW WORLD is getting a limited release before the end of the year.

New World is a dark horse right now. It's got Malick behind the camera, and the fact that he didn't wait a full decade before making another movie will probably be of note, but it really all depends on how it pans out.

The Producers looks fun, but Best Picture? No. Same thing with Rent, which looks really hammy.

Another question mark is King Kong. Yes, it's a remake and it's a big action picture, but if PJ pulls off the tricky task of validating the neccessity of a remake and putting his own unqiue stamp on the already well-known story, you can bet the Academy will love him for it. I already mentioned Jack Black for supporting, but it should also be considered a contender for Best Picture and Director (the production noms have been a no-brainer since he started shooting.)

And, while we're at it, Chronicles of Narnia might also have some big weight come awards time, provided it turns out to be any good (the trailer looks amazing, but it's a first-time venture into live action from the man who has until now only directed the Shrek movies).

Based on the trailers, I don't think Producers will be cinematic enough to be nominated for Picture. Say what you will about Chicago (and I'm not a big fan), but it looked good.

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is too dark to win for Best Picture or Director, but expect Mortensen or Bello to pick up some nominations.

Should be an interesting battle of documentaries this year. PENGUINS is clearly the favorite, but MURDERBALL was a better film and I hear GRIZZLY MAN is great too (it finally starts today in my area).

WALK THE LINE is far more focused -- it doesn't try to be a musical, love story and civil rights flick all at the same time. It picks a specific story and tells it. Better than RAY? Absolutely.

Edit to say: Of course, it just tries to be a musical and love story at the same time, and succeeds. And only kinda a musical.

Even if its fantastic, I have doubts the academy would give him props so soon after they showered ROTK.

Ah, g-dude, making the crucial yet common mistake that a movie's quality will determine its chances of nomination.

Is it darker than SILENCE OF THE LAMBS?

That's one of the best exceptions. It's obvious that the academy is usually very hesistant to give out major awards to films that have a dark, violent or anti-sentimental core subject matter.

I suppose they could pull an UNFORGIVEN with it, but I don't think they will.

I'd like to see HISTORY get nominated but realistically I think it's the performances that will be more recognized than the film. I could see it being viewed the same way as UNFORGIVEN but that film had the benefit of the Academy really wanting to highlight Eastwood.

It'll probably be nominated for visual effects but I think Best Picture is possibly stretching it.

It is gonna be beautiful...trust me.

I don't think HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is going to get any awards. It's just too cold and cerebral for the academy. What made SILENCE OF THE LAMBS stand out was Hopkins iconic Lecter performance (which he has now successfully ruined by overdoing it in HANNIBAL and RED DRAGON).

The academy that awarded SoTL and Unforgiven has been dead for over ten years now.
The one that now stands in it's place is a political frankenstein crafted by the mad hands of Dr. Weinstein.

Does that make it the "Weinstein Monster"?

It's been a political beast for much longer than a decade. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH being named best picture back in 1952 was not a decision based on quality; it was an inside political push to award Cecil B. Demille an Oscar for what was going to be one of the last pictures of his career.

I suppose you could make a good argument that it's gotten worse over the years, but it's always been an integral part.

Good soundbite, but do you really believe that? The Academy has thousands of voting members. It's the 'Whole Lotta Rosie' of cultural organizations. Is it political? As much as anything else, and certainly capable of making decisions based on politics. But exclusively so? Nah.

I think it comes and goes in cycles. When the bulk of the academy is made up of aging fuddy duddies, they tend to have a less critical eye and vote for whatever shiny object gets dangled in their face the most. In the 70's and even on through the beginning of the 90's, the majority of the members seemed to take artistic quality into account. Now it's swinging back to awarding sentimental formula pap with big marketing budgets.

I agree that A History of Violence is more likely to be recognized for it's acting performances than the film as a whole.

Given its potential for a huge opening and strong critical reviews, I'd have to think that Narnia is a lock for a lot of special effects awards, costuming, make-up etc. and maybe even an outside contender for a Best Picture nomination.

I would hope that Sin City is considered for Cinematagraphy, and it certainly seems like Munich could be a contender to some degree, but it is hard to tell this far out.

I think that it's fairly obvious that two of the Best Picture spots will be taken up by Star Wars: RotS, and Serenity.

Yes, Carrell. If I were on the Academy, I would seriously campaign for that. His turn felt so moving, real and funny... that movie would have been a disaster with anyone else in the lead.

And I still think, if its released, MUNICH is the film to beat.

Whatever happened to THE FOUNTAIN? I guess that was moved to 2006, but WB never actually said anything, did they?

Concerning Kong:

Expectations regarding the quality of the film are very high. I think King Kong could earn Director/Best Picture nominations, but only if it manages to exceed those expectations, and exceed them by a large margin. Hollywood won't be surprised to see a great rollicking action/adventure film with the signature Jackson mix of epic and intimate. They WILL be surprised if PJ manages to create authentic, respectable drama out of this pulp material.

What I mean is, even if Kong is a smashing success in the box-office and gains universal praise from critics, it won't get nominated for the big awards unless it busts out of its genre conventions.

On the technical side... well, they have a spot reserved in pretty much every category. The big question marks would be score/song and costume design. More interesting is the never-ending debate surrounding Andy Serkis. If the Academy didn't nominate him for the raspy, sideways-speaking Gollum they sure as hell aren't going to nominate him for a giant ape that can't talk... But it's still obvious that this film couldn't succeed without crucial contributions from an actor who is never seen on screen in the title role (Lumpy the Cook doesn't count).

The Academy NEEDS to address this problem. Andy Serkis SHOULD have been given some recognition for Gollum and now Kong. Not in the Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor categories, that's obvious... But it's long past time they made a new category for performers who never appear on screen.

"Best Performance in Voice or Motion Capture", please.

I think "Good Night" is pretty much of a lock because the Acedemy is in love with Geroge Clooney.
"Jarhead" seems to be another lock. Since when was Hollywood ever hostile to an anti war film?
And that the film seems to takes the "Let's just show what war is like and let the viewer make their own opinions"
rather then a" Hit Them OVer the Head With Politican Opinions" approach just adds to it's strength.
I also suspect that one "Small" film that none of us are even thinking about will open in December and be a major factor.

Viggo Mortensen’s performance in A History of Violence had Mark Kermode describing him as ‘The new Robert De Niro’.

I half suspect he’s gone a bit over the top, but he’s certainly got me interested in watching the film.

Thus making THREE KINGS one of the biggest Oscar winners of all time.

Isn't Robert Patrick supposed to be amazing in WALK THE LINE? If the film is a decent-sized hit, I can see him getting some recognition as well.

I'd love to see Willam Hurt get nominated for HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. The guy's been out of favor for too long and deserves a comeback.

Even though I haven't seen NORTH COUNTRY, I thought it would be cool if Woody Harrellson picked up a nom, just because I like him and he looks pretty good in it.

As for BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, it should pick up an Adapted Screenplay nom based on its pedigree alone (legend and Pulitizer Prize winner Larry McMurtry adapting a short story by another Pulitzer Prize winner). From what I've read, while Gyllenhall delivers a decent performance, Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams knocks it out of the park. They're both kind of young, but maybe one or both of them will score a dark horse nomination.

Also, I predict that THE PRODUCERS will be huge. Nathan Lane, at the very least, will get a nomination for Best Actor.

And if Gwyneth gets nominated for PROOF I'll be mighty unhappy. That is, and will remain, a part that belongs to Mary-Louise Parker.

What's with the love for William Hurt this year? He was teetering on the edge of full-blown charicature in History of Violence. His character was fun and memorable, but I'd hardly call it a stellar acting job. He played the character broad enough to be memorable for the short amount of screen time, but just this side of cartoon so as not to derail the whole movie. It didn't look like an Oscar performance to me.

Anything Oscar worthy in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang?

Saw this at TIFF and while Patrick was good, he wasn't amazing. The supporting cast really didn't have much to do. I'd say the only stand-outs were Dallas Roberts as Sam Phillips and Waylon Payne as Jerry Lee Lewis. Roberts gets a great speech at the start of the film and he delivers it beautifully. And Payne is just a lot of fun as Lewis and stole the scenes he was in.

As for who stole the whole show? That's Witherspoon all the way. She's fantastic and just as good as Foxx, in my opinion. She's got a great voice too and sounds a lot like Carter.

If I was a betting man, I'd pick Barry Pepper for supporting actor as an asshole redneck border patroler in Tommy Lee Jones' Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

Trailer: http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=9727

I Think Hollywood is going to be very political this year. Last year, they avoided giving nominations to controversy-filled films like The Passion and Fahrenheit 9/11. I think that the academy will award the first IMPORTANT movie best picture since Schindler's List.

I'm going with Munich.

I agree...I loved "History of Violence" but feel that Hurt's scenery chewing was one of the film's weaker points...but scenary chewing has oftne been rewarded with a gold statue.
I really hope that Ed Harris gets a nod and a statue for suppoting actor. The guy is so overdue and has been screwed over by the academy so often that his only competition in the overdue department is Marty Scorsese....

I missed this in Toronto and was sorry that I did. It's a film that I'd pick as a dark horse for several categories based on word of mouth alone. But I'm not even sure what the release date on it is.

What are some predictions for Best Score?

Mine are:

Walk The Line, The Producers, Episode III

Also, any chance of Oldboy getting a nom in the foreign film category? The buzz alone should carry this one if it qualifies.

My prediction for SFX noms:

REVENGE OF THE SITH
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA
KING KONG

With the previous two prequels losing in this category, I'm not so sure that SITH really has a shot, though I do really believe it deserves a nom and maybe even a win. ILM hit on all cylinders the third time around, and Lucas was fittingly comfortable with the strides made in CGI integration between 1997 and 2005. With MENACE and CLONES, there were certain frames I could easily nitpick in regards to lackluster or lazy or simply unimpressive SFX patchwork. Not so much with SITH.

I can't wait for KONG. It's gonna be a visual wonder. The way Peter Jackson uses color and light will be the upmost of interest to me, if the trailer is any indication.

Sounds reasonable, but to be honest SITH's score has yet to wow me. I mean, I like it well enough, but it's lacking that certain vision and humanity that made Williams' original STAR WARS an essential for not only film buffs, but any music lover. I prefer the CLONES score over SITH, actually.

Not to keep babbling, but does Gwyneth Paltrow have a shot with PROOF? The Academy loves her, and the consensus seems to be that the performance is her best yet.

Concerning Visual Effects:

I've already said that Kong's nomination may as well be in the mail, and I don't see how the Academy can ignore Episode III. That leaves 1 spot.

- Chronicles of Narnia: I'm not impressed so far. Yeah, it's fantasy. Yeah, they're using WETA. I'm still waiting to be wowed, though.
- War of the Worlds: This would be my favorite for the third spot at this point. The Death Ray effects are the best ever, the Machines look terrifyingly convincing, and there's enough other jaw-dropping moments to justify recognition (the "camera rotating around the actors in a moving car" scene, for instance). And the sequence showing the rise of the Machine from under the street in Jersey would look mighty fine in a VFX showcase segment.
- Sin City: One of the big SFX efforts of the past year, but it has little chance. Too early in the year, too intentionally comic-book style (Oscar loves realistic effects), and the effects quality is too hit-and-miss. Technically speaking nothing approaches the difficulty of some of the effects from films shot on real sets.
- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: This has an outside chance. The material certainly provides the opportunity to show off some grand visuals. They need a big money shot like the Buckbeak sequence from Azkaban.
- Fantastic Four: AH hahahaha!

I don't think Hollywood loves "realistic" effects. I think it loves "noticable" effects, hence crap like Mrs. Doubtfire winning the Oscar for Best Makeup over more subtle jobs. That's not to say Sin City is a likely candidate, but I wouldn't write it off for that reason.

I think Brokeback Mountain will probably get a nom in at least one of the major categories (probably Ledger for Best Actor, he's really damn good) but not for Best Picture. If it does, hoo boy, are you going to hear a lot of squealing from the Moral Watchdogs.

No way in hell does Robots get a nom unless I've lost count and there are 5 slots this year. It's almost guaranteed to be Corpse Bride, Wallace & Gromit and Chicken Little for Best Animated, and I'll go so far as to say Wallace & Gromit will get the win unless Chicken Little REALLY blows everyone away. Certainly Disney is lavishing extra care on that one, since aside from everything else it's supposed to be the foundation for their new era of CG flicks. In fact, Disney might deem it neccessary to pull a Weinstein and do whatever it takes to schmooze an Oscar for that.

Wouldn't it be something if ALL the best doc noms this year were widely-seen, relatively popular movies? Movies, that is, that most people have heard of? I seem to recall the Academy avoiding popular documentaries like the plague in past years, though obviously Fahrenheit changed that. But will they have room for more than one well-known documentary, or is there a chance the race might actually be interesting this year?

What Dreams May Come- deserved it and won.

I expect March of the Penguins to get nominated.

When is Harsh Times being released? I 've heard very good stuff about Bale's performance....

I agree with you in that Episode III soundtrack has yet to wow me either. I figure that since Williams will have worked on several high profile movies this year (Episode III, WOTW, Goblet of Fire, Munich and Memoirs of a Geisha) they are bound to include him in the nomination with one of them. Figured the academy will try to squeeze in as many noms for Lucas' film as they can considering it was the last one.

I enjoy movie award shows and the upcoming Oscars should be pretty good and from all accounts it is doubtful one movie will hog all the awards.

Granted, a few years ago it would have been out of the question. But after Johnny Depp's similar nomination for POTC (for almost single handily carrying its box office past 300 million on the strength of his comedic performance), could a left field Vince Vaughn Supporting Actor nom for WEDDING CRASHERS be totally out of the question?

Probably.

But hey, if it ends up being a weaker crop, New Line wouldn't be entirely foolish to push for it.

Other Thoughts:

Shirley MacLaine seems to be making somewhat of a comeback of late, perhaps if RUMOR HAS IT hits big, or IN HER SHOES becomes a sleeper she has a shot in the Supporting Actress category (for IHS).

If WHERE THE TRUTH LIES weren't NC-17 I think Kevin Bacon would have had an alright shot at Supporting Actor, if only because guy's way overdue (and was the only MYSTIC RIVER lead not to be nominated IIRC).

Haven't heard much about FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS lately, but then this time last year no one knew fuck all about MILLION DOLLAR BABY either.

Terrence Howard could swing a sympathy (Supporting Actor) nod for CRASH if he doesn't get it for HUSTLE & FLOW.

Good point and Academy members love placing an Oscar in older actors hands.

It'll never happen in a million years, but I'd love nothing more than for Viggo Mortensen and Christian Bale receive nominations just to see the headshots they'd have to show during their category. Attend the Oscars? Couldn't be bothered.

In my alternate universe, Viggo, of course, would recieve a nom for History of Violence, and Bale for...I dunno, ANYTHING. Someone remind me why he wasn't nominated for The Machinist? To the Oscars I say *pfft*

(Knowing I still follow the race obsessively....up until Oscar night when I cease to care.)

2006, no?

Bumped! With the awards season now gearing up proper I thought it time to dig this bad boy up and rekindle the predictions in earnest. Here are my picks, which I eagrly await being totally wrong.

BEST PICTURE
Munich
Broke Back Mountain
Good Night, And Good Luck
Walk The Line
Crash

The first four are pretty much locks, and Crash is the traditional "no chance in Hell, but we wanna put it somehwere" nominee. The winner is a two-horse race 'twixt gay cowboys and wronged Isrealis.

BEST DIRECTOR
Steven Spielberg, Munich
Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
George Clooney, Good Night, And Good Luck
Fernando Meirelles, The Constant Gardner
Paul Haggis, Crash

Bennet Miller strikes me as too unknown to get a serious nomination. Haggis is an apparent favourite amongst Hollywood for his scripting work, and rewarding his highly-overrated but critically-acclaimed directorial debut with a nod seems likely.

BEST ACTOR
David Straitharn, Good Night, And Good Luck
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Eric Bana, Munich
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk The Line

If anyone were to get bumped in favour of say, Russell Crowe, which I don't think they will, it would be Bana or even Ledger.

BEST ACTRESS
Reese Witherspoon, Walk The Line
Mario Bello, A History Of Violence
Charlize Theron, North Country
Judi Dench, Mrs Henderson Presents
Zhang Ziyi, Memoirs Of A Geisha

Memoirs will walk away with at least one high-profile nomination, and this is it. Huffman's good, but the role's too weird to get consideration. Bello's riding a HISTORY undercurrent.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
William Hurt, A History Of Violence
Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
Terrence Howard, Crash
George Clooney, Syriana

Not as much of a lock as other award ceremonies suggest, I think. Despite the SAG love Howard rings more true than Cheadle or Dillon for me, due to the 1-2-3 punch of awesome performances over the last year. Giamatti is a given, and Hurt's the surprise nominee du jour, and well-deserved too. They always seem to fool around with expectations in the supporting categories, after all.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Catherine Keener, Capote
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardner
Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain
Frances McDormand, North Country
Scarlett Johannson, Match Point

WHY: McDormand's a vet compared to Adams' whippersnapper, and Johannson's waaay overdue. The other three seem fairly certain.

Personally, I'd like to see it included because it's A: an amazing score and B: the best since EMPIRE. But I dunno.

It's crazy to rate CLONES over it though. Across the Stars and the odd actiony bit aside, that score is pretty much phoning it in.