1/29 Oscarweb Round-up

Posted by · 6:03 am · January 29th, 2009

Joaquin PhoenixLooks like Mickey Rourke isn’t going to get into the ring after all. [Associated Press]

Perhaps in response to snarky items like this? [Vulture]

Kim Voynar deconstructs the Oscar nominations a week later. [Movie City News]

In case it wasn’t obvious from the start, Joaquin Phoenix has been punkin’ y’all. [Entertainment Weekly]

Anne Thompson wonders if “Milk” is coming up on the outside.  I’ve heard some people here in Santa Barbara call it the #2 film in the mix, which it certainly might be.  Very interesting… [Thompson on Hollywood]

An opportune time for a story like this.  (If we really, REALLY want to get all conspiracy theorist about it, The Times is the Telegraph’s conservative competition.  And who owns The Times?) [Daily Telegraph]

Rather than post the emailed producers’ statement myself, I’ll just point you to Sasha Stone’s post with the full release. [Awards Daily]

Following that awesome Newsweek actors round table, Patrick Goldstein worships at the altar of Frank Langella (who, I just discovered today, is friggin’ 71 — now THAT’s aging well). [The Big Pucture]

→ 8 Comments Tags: , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

8 responses so far

  • 1 1-29-2009 at 7:58 am

    Trent said...

    I’m very confused by Kim Voynar’s reading of Rev Road, the film. I agree that the book is ” a thoughtful exploration of flawed individuals blaming marriage and the suburbs for all their problems.” But I would argue that the movie does a brilliant job at the same thing, and it has made it clearer to me than ever before that Yates was NOT blaming the suburbs for the Wheelers’ unhappiness, but rather suggesting that the Wheelers’ fatal flaw is that they see themselves as superior to the suburbs, when really they are anything but.

    That’s why I don’t get Voynar’s claim that the movie is “a dissection of a bad marriage as such (which the novel is not) and a slam of suburban life (which the novel also is not, however much many of those ecstatic about the movie seem driven to try to make it so).” I too am annoyed by people who claim that the book/movie is a slam of the suburbs. But I see the book and movie as taking the same perspective, and I get the sense that many who love the movie feel the same way.

    So basically, I couldn’t disagree more with the claim that the film “Almost completely skews and misreads the source material.” I’m not surprised that many film-goers are not moved by this sort of picture. But I am completely baffled by the very popular view that the film is a bad adaptation of Yates’s masterwork.

  • 2 1-29-2009 at 8:32 am

    Ash said...

    Who wants to bet Harvey Weinstein paid the parents of the Slumdog kids some serious cash? I’m only half-joking.

  • 3 1-29-2009 at 9:25 am

    Speaking English said...

    I’ve been hearing more than ever people, especially critics (Denby, Phillips, Scott, Ebert) calling “Milk” the best of the Best Picture nominees, and I’m really sincerely hoping it will have a surge and be able to take Best Picture at the Oscars, as it deserves.

  • 4 1-29-2009 at 11:02 am

    Jackass said...

    *a week before Wrestlemania*

    *Rouke phones up WWE using nearest payphone*

    Rouke: Listen I wanna do it, I want back in Wrestlemania

  • 5 1-29-2009 at 12:55 pm

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    Told’ya Rourke wasn’t going to do it. Heh and Phoenix’s publicist already stated that it is NOT a hoax and that it is real. Sure as hell is confusing, but who cares.

    And if Milk wins I’ll be okay with it, but I didn’t think it was a special film. Just a very good one.

  • 6 1-29-2009 at 1:57 pm

    James D. said...

    I have said it before. Milk could very easily win as a sort of apology to the Brokeback Mountain travesty. Especially in light of Proposition 8.

  • 7 1-29-2009 at 9:59 pm

    Michael Rogers said...

    Im not saying Rourke will definitely wrestle at Wrestlemania but remember this is wrestling, where everyone tries to blur the lines between reality and fiction. Just because a representative of Rourke says he isnt doesnt mean he isnt. If you catch what Im throwing.

  • 8 1-29-2009 at 10:24 pm

    Patrick F. said...

    Another fun fact about Frank Langalla. He’s a new years baby.

    The things you learn from watching Channel 924 on Music Choice during the holidays