criterionforum.org

Never Cursed wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 2:45 pm

mfunk9786 wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 12:30 am

domino harvey wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2024 7:20 pm the Brutalist

This forum's most ardent Vox Lux fan is pinching himself.

The Brutalist has been bought by...A24?

First A24 film to get a 70mm release

It's also getting a 70mm release at NYFF

I didn't realize the Oscars actually had a very old and still-enforced rule that an actor or actress cannot receive multiple nominations for different performances in the same category (one nomination must be for a lead role, in the Best Actor/Best Actress category, and the other must be for a supporting role in the Best Supporting Actor/Best Supporting Actress category). That, and they can't receive multiple nominations for the same performance, which you'd think would be a given regardless of any existing rule, but both rules were instated after both scenarios did indeed play out.

At the third Oscars in 1930, George Arliss, Maurice Chevalier, and Ronald Colman all received two nominations for separate roles, all for Best Actor, and Norma Shearer and Greta Garbo both received two nominations in the Best Actress category. (Arliss and Shearer won for Disraeli and The Divorcee, respectively.) Then in 1944 Barry Fitzgerald received a Best Actor nomination and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his performance in Going My Way, which led to the corresponding rule immediately after that year's ceremony.

Only found this out after some talk about Saoirse Ronan being a possible multiple nominee (in different categories of course).

Harold Russell also won two Oscars for the same role, as he wasn’t expected to win in Best Supporting Actor so they gave him a special Oscar too

The Life of Chuck has been chucked to next summer by Neon, so remove all current Oscar hopes for that one

domino harvey wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 4:12 pm The Life of Chuck has been chucked to next summer by Neon, so remove all current Oscar hopes for that one

This also ends the streak of the TIFF People's Choice Award winner being nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. The last time a film that won PCA but didn't get nominated for BP at the Oscars was back in 2011, with Nadine Labaki's Where Do We Go Now? (just starting to dawn on me that TIFF audiences love their schmaltzy films).

Never Cursed wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2024 7:05 pmMercifully, most of the GoldDerby predictions omit Wicked: Part One.

The running time for PART ONE is 2h40m. They are really doing everything they can to make sure this fails at the box office and part two goes right to streaming

domino harvey wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2024 3:36 am

Never Cursed wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2024 7:05 pmMercifully, most of the GoldDerby predictions omit Wicked: Part One.

The running time for PART ONE is 2h40m. They are really doing everything they can to make sure this fails at the box office and part two goes right to streaming

That's hilarious. That's the full runtime of the stage show with intermission. Having seen it, I have no idea where you would load an extra 80 minutes of stuff IN ACT 1. Insert 1000000 AW clapping emojis here

Blitz is now but the latest Oscar hopeful to fizzle out once screened. Every year always has a couple would be misses, but I have never seen such a high degree of high profile award failures in the decades that I’ve been following this kind of thing. Incredible. I have no clue what the top ten for Best Picture will look like, but my guess is it will closely resemble that first year when things like District 9 made it in, because no top ten I can come up with seems plausible right now

I would expect Dune Part 2 and Challengers to have awards pushes, and possibly a Best Picture nomination for Inside Out 2. Pretty miserable year.

Dune 2 is a safe bet. I think a broadly liked genre film could break in too. Maybe the Substance? What if Eastwood saves the day and Juror #2 is another Million Dollar Baby?

domino harvey wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 8:52 pmBlitz is now but the latest Oscar hopeful to fizzle out once screened. Every year always has a couple would be misses, but I have never seen such a high degree of high profile award failures in the decades that I’ve been following this kind of thing. Incredible. I have no clue what the top ten for Best Picture will look like, but my guess is it will closely resemble that first year when things like District 9 made it in, because no top ten I can come up with seems plausible right now

The problems with Blitz started even before its premiere screenings (which I'll be able to judge, as I see it tomorrow) - Apple never figured out a coherent release strategy for it beyond "show it in a few theaters and then dump it on streaming for Thanksgiving." But I think your formulation might be a little harsh - barring the complete rejection of one of their movies by audiences, A24, Amazon, Focus, the embers of Fox, Netflix, Paramount, and Warners all have "fine" contenders in spite of several very high-profile duds. Honestly, I think we're in a world now where the District 9s are passé (since it seems like at least the Dune sequel and maybe the Gladiator sequel would have gotten in no matter what) and the wacko tenth slot fillers are gonna go more to things like The Room Next Door or that insane-looking Munich Olympics movie that Paramount will release Thanksgiving.

EDIT: The Substance is too gross to be a serious player (and just as well, since it's a misogynistic piece of shit). But the Clint Eastwood might break through.

I can see Demi Moore getting a Best Actress nomination. Hollywood loves a comeback. Maybe a screenplay nomination, but I don’t know about anything else.

I can see the same happening for Nicole Kidman and Babygirl, plus Supporting Actor for Harris Dickinson. Also for Queer, Daniel Craig’s return to “serious” work and an up-and-coming Supporting Actor in Drew Starkey.

Mike Leigh’s Hard Truths is being inexplicably held until January, so nuts to him and Marianne Jean-Baptiste I guess.

I can’t see Nosferatu going anywhere. Maybe Conclave gets some attention? No idea about Wicked, which could be this year’s The Color Purple, or Gladiator 2. The Academy typically ignores Ridley Scott these days.

I don’t think it will get in for anything but makeup (and maaaaybe Moore if the lineup stays this dire), I just couldn’t think of another plausible genre movie with previous award consideration to make it acceptable to Academy members to nom it. Everything I’ve read about it makes it sound like exactly the kind of unsubtle cudgel audiences today think is insightful because they can “get it” without engaging in it in any meaningful or deep way— but I can’t say for sure!

I think Conclave is an easy top five contender

EDIT: Actually, maybe Nosferatu could be the genre contender if it’s any good

It's such a left-field curio, but I'm wondering if the Academy is gaga enough over Yorgos to let Kinds of Kindness in

The only way Moore has a shot is if she goes Supporting, I think? There are two obvious spots (Jolie and Kidman), two obvious spots that would have sounded insane until six months ago (Gascon and Madison, who will probably win the whole thing), and either Ronan or Amy Adams has the last spot sewn up anyway.

For genre films, I Saw the TV Glow haas enough good marketing to gain traction with Oscar voters and it was a huge critical hit so I don’t see why it wouldn’t get an Oscar campaign.

Matt wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:33 pmMike Leigh’s Hard Truths is being inexplicably held until January, so nuts to him and Marianne Jean-Baptiste I guess.

It'll have a qualifying run in NYC in December.

Never Cursed wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:54 pm The only way Moore has a shot is if she goes Supporting, I think? There are two obvious spots (Jolie and Kidman), two obvious spots that would have sounded insane until six months ago (Gascon and Madison, who will probably win the whole thing), and either Ronan or Amy Adams has the last spot sewn up anyway.

I think this is mostly right. I don't think Jolie is locked in yet though. Madison, Gascon, and Kidman are the only locks imo. Everyone else is fighting for the last 2 spots.

Moore is just not on screen enough to get into Best Actress even if it was a regular movie. The fact that the movies so wacky is the final nail. Even more than that though, as laid out above, there are already too many normal Best Actress candidates before we even get to Moore. If anyone is getting in for a weird movie, it's Amy Adams for Nightbitch.

Speaking of the acting awards, I don't see the same number of failures there. Those categories already feel pretty tight with 6 or 7 real options each (notably not supporting actor though) without factoring in potential stuff that hasn't come out yet. Even director feels like it has 4 locks already. The only issue seems to be Picture, because I also cannot get to 10 without silly stuff.

Never Cursed wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:54 pm The only way Moore has a shot is if she goes Supporting, I think? There are two obvious spots (Jolie and Kidman), two obvious spots that would have sounded insane until six months ago (Gascon and Madison, who will probably win the whole thing), and either Ronan or Amy Adams has the last spot sewn up anyway.

It would be hilarious if Qualley got in like Mare Winningham for Georgia as the coattail nom for a Best Actress nom that never happened. But there’s precedent for Oscar voters liking glamorous actresses presenting themselves unflatteringly/“bravely” (Jan Sterling, Patricia Arquette, Claire Trevor), so I think Moore is far more likely than you. I don’t think Adams gets in, and I don’t think Jolie is a lock for a movie no one even likes, so it seems plausible to me

domino harvey wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 10:05 pm

Never Cursed wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:54 pm The only way Moore has a shot is if she goes Supporting, I think? There are two obvious spots (Jolie and Kidman), two obvious spots that would have sounded insane until six months ago (Gascon and Madison, who will probably win the whole thing), and either Ronan or Amy Adams has the last spot sewn up anyway.

It would be hilarious if Qualley got in like Mare Winningham for Georgia as the coattail nom for a Best Actress nom that never happened. But there’s precedent for Oscar voters liking glamorous actresses presenting themselves unflatteringly/“bravely” (Jan Sterling, Patricia Arquette, Claire Trevor), so I think Moore is far more likely than you. I don’t think Adams gets in, and I don’t think Jolie is a lock for a movie no one even likes, so it seems plausible to me

Regardless of the film's quality, I think the median Oscar voter would be completely repulsed by what Moore is asked to do in the film - it's not so much playing an asshole or an icky old woman as a Cronenbergian monster that loses most sympathy by film's end. It'd be like if Goldblum got nominated for The Fly (which, admittedly, people seemed to think would happen at the time). As much as Maria is itself a colossal dud, it's one of a genre that has been rewarded by voters over and over again (remember how this approach was enough to carry Ana de Armas to a nomination and Renee Zellweger to a win).

Yes, it was widely believed at the time that Goldblum was going to be nominated, but I’m also sure you’re right as someone who’s seen this film. I’m just coming to this like a lot of actual Oscar voters: I haven’t seen any of these yet, I’m just responding to narratives and vibes from those who have. And to me she passes the vibe check of “Heard of her before and heard great things about her in this”. I mean, anything can happen this year, wasn’t Pamela Anderson being sincerely praised for a lead performance just weeks ago? Do we no longer dare to dream?

domino harvey wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 10:33 pm Yes, it was widely believed at the time that Goldblum was going to be nominated, but I’m also sure you’re right as someone who’s seen this film. I’m just coming to this like a lot of actual Oscar voters: I haven’t seen any of these yet, I’m just responding to narratives and vibes from those who have. And to me she passes the vibe check of “Heard of her before and heard great things about her in this”. I mean, anything can happen this year, wasn’t Pamela Anderson being sincerely praised for a lead performance just weeks ago? Do we no longer dare to dream?

Was Sigourney Weaver being nominated for Aliens a big shock that year? You still don’t see actors getting nominated for action films, and certainly not female performers in them.

I’m calling it now for Nicolas Cage in Longlegs

She received other high profile noms that year and the film itself was well-represented at the Oscars, so I don’t think it was too unexpected. It wasn’t a strong year of contenders for the category either, which prob helped (to fill the spots, the Globes had to nominate Farrah Fawcett in Extremities, which has to be up there with their infamous Pia Zadora acclaim)

domino harvey wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:28 am She received other high profile noms that year and the film itself was well-represented at the Oscars, so I don’t think it was too unexpected. It wasn’t a strong year of contenders for the category either, which prob helped (to fill the spots, the Globes had to nominate Farrah Fawcett in Extremities, which has to be up there with their infamous Pia Zadora acclaim)

I suppose Fawcett's career still had momentum from her "not bad for a Charlie's Angel" performance in the TV movie The Burning Bed and Extremities dealt with similar subject matter. It's not as if 1986 was lacking in great female performances. Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet, Helen Shaver in Desert Hearts, Annabeth Gish in Desert Bloom, Cathy Tyson in Mona Lisa, Geena Davis in The Fly and Ellen Greene in Little Shop of Horrors would all have been worthy nominees in critically acclaimed films.