criterionforum.org

James Mills wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Andrew Garfield really deserved a Supporting Actor win, let alone nomination.

I absolutely agree. His snub hurts worse than all the Blue Valentine snubs. I'm not stoked about these nominations.

I agree Garfield should've gotten a nod....but for his role in Never Let Me Go, which in light of the actual noms, I was a tad disappointed that it received no nominations.

I think that Portman is a lock, it's about 75/25 Firth over Franco in Best Actor, and Steinfeld might have a better shot than Leo for Supporting Actress.

I'm still torn between The Social Network and The King's Speech for Best Picture, but I would not be shocked if True Grit took it out from under everyone.

mfunk9786 wrote:I'm still torn between The Social Network and The King's Speech for Best Picture, but I would not be shocked if True Grit took it out from under everyone.

I hope so. It's by far the best film in that (now) typically over inflated selection.

True Grit doesn't have an editing nom, so don't hold your breath

Not a bad selection for Best Pic considering that at least three of those films with a good chance of winning are genuinely decent: a bit miffed though that we always seem to score big with Yet Another British Film About Our Aristocracy (of course Mike Leigh gets fobbed off with yet another Script nom only).

Count me among those who are thrilled with John Hawkes' nom (huge Deadwood fan).

Oh, and Best Art Direction nom for Alice? Are they insane?

With the caveat that I haven't seen True Grit yet and absolutely no interest whatsoever in the Hooper, my personal choice for Best Picture would probably come down to either Fincher's or the Coen's.

Even though everyone loves the film and he's all hot shit now I still think Finchers going to have a hard time winning because he's made so many enemies over the years.

mfunk9786 wrote:it's about 75/25 Firth over Franco

Franco doesn't have a chance. His performance was excellent, but the film never clicked with the public, whereas The King's Speech will only increase in popularity in the coming weeks. Firth's win is a lock. In fact, I'd say it's the only sure-fire guaranteed win of the night. That's Harvey Weinstein for you. Besides, this is the Oscars, and they'll only award Franco after he's been passed over multiple times.

Alan Smithee wrote:Even though everyone loves the film and he's all hot shit now I still think Finchers going to have a hard time winning because he's made so many enemies over the years.

I agree with Domino that Fincher's film won't take home Best Pic. Again, Harvey Weinstein knows what he's doing. And I'm sure Fincher pissed off a lot of people when he refused to take the stage when the film won Best Pic at the Globes. But Fincher will almost certainly win Best Director. I think a lot of it has to do with him directing The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. That film will be a smash, but it will have greater appeal outside the cult following if it's advertised as the work of an Oscar winning director, so I suspect the lobbying for Fincher is coming from multiple camps.

It's disappointing that The Ghost Writer was shut out completely, but I'm very happy that Dogtooth, I Am Love, and Animal Kingdom each managed to get a nomination. We need more of those kinds of voters in the Academy.

lacritfan wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Hm, no nomination for Black Swan's costume design? Really?

I think Swan's costumes were done by "fashion" designers so the "movie" designers probably thumbed their noses at them.

Just to chime in on this little technicality, the Rodarte ladies were ineligible to win because they only designed the Ballerina costumes, and were listed in the end credits as having done so. The designer of the film was someone else entirely (a guild member, unlike Rodarte), but since it was Rodarte's work that got the most notice, nominating the film's designer would hardly have seemed fair.

reno dakota wrote:It's disappointing that The Ghost Writer was shut out completely

Ouch, I just thought of that. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned until now. What a damn travesty.

Tribe wrote:I'm very pleased John Hawkes received a nom. His role in Winter's Bone was awesomely brooding and genuine, imho.

A much-deserved nomination. To get to the end of the film respecting a potentially violent, and dangerous character was the marrying of a fine screenplay and great performance. He's going to win - I can feel it in my winter's bone(s).

Would anyone defend the notion that The Illusionist deserves to win over Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon? Is it any good? It seemed to come out to some favorable buzz and then disappeared and I feel it doesn't have a chance against those two.

It doesn't have a chance of beating the Pixar machine, but I find it to be legitimately better. Chomet's tendencies for the grotesque are at a minimum and the story(in typical Tati fashion)is very emotional without being overly sentimental. it's not as good of a script as Playtime, but I'd say it's about on the level of Mon Oncle.

It seems to me that this is the first batch of best picture nominees in a long time that doesn't have a single terrible film in it, or at least one that I actively disliked.

domino harvey wrote:True Grit doesn't have an editing nom, so don't hold your breath

Roderick Jaynes continues to get screwed by the Academy.

essrog wrote:

domino harvey wrote:True Grit doesn't have an editing nom, so don't hold your breath

Roderick Jaynes continues to get screwed by the Academy.

They were nominated (as Jaynes) for the editing of their other two big awards contenders -- Fargo and No Country for Old Men.

Jeff wrote:

essrog wrote:

domino harvey wrote:True Grit doesn't have an editing nom, so don't hold your breath

Roderick Jaynes continues to get screwed by the Academy.

They were nominated (as Jaynes) for the editing of their other two big awards contenders -- Fargo and No Country for Old Men.

Whoops, poor phrasing on my part -- I just meant they'd go another year without winning, and I've always kind of wanted to see what would happen if they did. I was a bit surprised the Coens got a nom for directing this year -- I thought Nolan would be there instead of them.

I am continually bemused by the Academy Awards spectacle. To be nominated, a film must generally must be released in the last months of the year. Sentiment plays a smidgen of a role, but only if the nominee is very near death, and has never received acclaim for their truly best work.

Acting awards go to those who are least subtle. Sound to the loudest. And costuming to the flashiest. Exceptions are rare ...

The awards, we all know, have to do with one thing, and one thing alone, filthy lucre. Why can't we watch the damned show for what it is, a semi-entertaining evening watching men dressed in ill fitting tux, and women looking like semi-classy Las Vegas call girls?

The AA's have about as much to do with film making as our foreign policy does with democracy.

But, I rarely miss 'em, especially since the ever longer pre-show display of Hollywood's idea of "glammer" never ceases to amaze and amuse me.

Excuse you but the Academy Awards are the only thing that separates us from the animals

The Academy Awards tend to be much more glammerous than most telecasts

You never hear an ocelot be like, "It's just a thrill to be nominated," because cats don't get no Oscar nominations at all. Be grateful for your Nicole Kidmen

Kidmen, the scourge of the independent woman

Tom Hooper won the DGA award. Christ, he's going to win Best Director now?

I don't know. I still see Fincher taking this. This year seems poised for a split, with The King's Speech taking Best Picture and Fincher taking Director. I think The Social Network has been too big of a juggernaut to be completely shut out of the top two categories. Anyway, this is proving to be a more suspenseful Oscar year than it originally seemed it would be.