10/23 Oscarweb Round-up

Posted by · 7:52 am · October 23rd, 2009

UnforgivenPete Hammond follows up on the Academy’s foreign screenings, plus more. [Notes on a Season]

Like me, Steven Zeitchik senses a little “Slumdog” in “Precious.” [Risky Business]

David Poland catches some intriguing similarities between the recently released “Invictus” and a number of other posters from Eastwood flicks. [The Hot Blog]

Rodrigo Perez takes the post-festival Oscar temperature. [The Playlist]

Patrick Goldstein wonders how Fox Searchlight was stuck with a “turkey” like “Amelia.” [The Big Picture]

Meanwhile, the press parade for the film takes flight across the pond, as James Mottram sits down with Hilary Swank. [The Independent]

McPaper sends Claudia Puig out to write the least insightful review of “Antichrist” imaginable.  It’ll be interesting to see if female critics respond any differently than male critics, though. [USA Today]

But then, A.O. Scott (who has the gall to find the film “dull”) may have just answered the question.  But he totally misses the point of a key line in order to make it his punchline.  Lazy.  [New York Times]

Orson Welles: the most glorious film failure of all time. [The Guardian]

Anne Thompson bends Carlos de Abreu and the Hollywood Film Festival over her knee and spanks the living daylights out of them. [Thompson on Hollywood]

→ 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

2 responses so far

  • 1 10-23-2009 at 8:45 am

    James D. said...

    I thought A.O. Scott’s review was pretty good, but dull is the last word I would use for the film. Your eyes are glued, whether it is from disgust or admiration.

  • 2 10-23-2009 at 9:11 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Jesus. I’m not the biggest Claudia Puig fan, but she’s usually a little more articulate than that.

    “The most disturbing, bleak and self-indulgent film ever made?” Ever? Perhaps she means it, but how hard did she think about that statement?

    It wasn’t even the most self-indulgent film at Cannes.