1/20 Oscarweb Round-up

Posted by · 9:33 am · January 20th, 2010

Helen Mirren in The Last StationMelena Ryzik chats with “The Last Station” star Helen Mirren. [The Carpetbagger]

On the breakthrough performances of 2009. [The Playlist]

Dave Karger tries to suss out the three slots that seem u[ for grabs at the bottom of Oscar’s 10. [Oscar Watch]

Are you read for Hustler’s “This Ain’t Avatar XXX?” [JoBlo]

A month after presenting an off-the-cuff top 10 list (that “Star Trek” topped at the time), Quentin Tarantino says Cameron’s film is the year’s best. [Daily Mail]

Bemoaning the lack of a proper awards season presence for Carey Mulligan’s performance in “An Education.” [Movieline]

Another lament along similar lines, for films like “Humpday” and “Moon.” [Little Gold Men]

Lining up the 2010 Oscar season: the Coens’ “True Grit” set to bow Christmas Day. [Variety]




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

8 responses so far

  • 1 1-20-2010 at 10:16 am

    red_wine said...

    Great mentions of Blanca Potillo & the Tetro dude in Playlist’s list. But my heart goes out to Charles Berling who probably gave the most moving performance I’ve seen thus far from 2009. Hard to believe that the Cesars past him over. Though Portillo & Berling are veterans and calling them break-out is a tad out of place.

    Here are 2 articles from Guardian critics tearing apart Avatar and its Golden Globes win.
    Listen Academy members listen!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/jan/18/golden-globes-avatar-precious
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/15/yasujiro-ozu-world-cinema

  • 2 1-20-2010 at 11:06 am

    Megan said...

    Red Wine:

    I’m not going to say overtly that Avatar was utter shit; it wasn’t. Not at all.

    However, I can’t help but lean toward your line of thinking. Avatar is certainly worthy of a nod, but it is simply too one-dimensional in its final product, that it would just be gravely unsatisfying for it to win.

    It is almost solely a technological achievement. I see scarcely anything in Cameron’s direction that warrants the film the bloated praise it’s been getting.

    So, again, good film, but in no way worth all the falderah.

  • 3 1-20-2010 at 11:07 am

    Megan said...

    Oh.

    And Quentin. WTF, man.

  • 4 1-20-2010 at 11:15 am

    Liz said...

    “It is almost solely a technological achievement.”

    I completely agree, Megan. Once a director uses the special effects to serve the movie (not the other way around), “Avatar” is going to seem rather emperor’s-new-clothes.

  • 5 1-20-2010 at 11:48 am

    red_wine said...

    Megan I appreciate your sentiment but Avatar does not even deserve a Best Picture nod with 10 nominees. I can think of 30 movies better than Avatar and I’ve probably only seen 40 movies from 2009.

  • 6 1-20-2010 at 11:55 am

    Maxim said...

    True Grit.

    You can’t stop what’s coming.

  • 7 1-20-2010 at 11:59 am

    SHAAAARK said...

    It just irritates me when someone says “I’m fine with Avatar winning Picture, but just please give Bigelow Director” and then someone else says “BUT AVATAR IS SUCH A DIRECTORIAL ACHIEVEMENT. IF YOU GIVE IT PICTURE, YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT DIRECTOR”. Avatar detractors were willing to make peace. Let Bigelow have Director, and Avatar get Picture. I mean, Cameron HAS a director Oscar, while this may be Bigelow’s only shot. But the extreme fans, “Avatards” for lack of a better word, want a war. Isn’t it ironic that fans of Avatar are acting more like the villains of the film?
    Another point, this idea that Avatar is such a huge production that that it deserves Picture/Director/EVERYTHING ELSE POSSIBLE INCLUDING FOR THE BORDERLINE HATEFUL LEONA LEWIS SONG, well, it’s ridiculous. In this economic climate, it’s far bolder to film an Iraq war picture in the Middle East than a massive sci-fi epic. Studios are willing to take risks on mega-productions. Bigelow deserves recognition for even being able to get funding for The Hurt Locker, if that’s the kind of thing you think should even be part of the Oscar conversation.
    Third. Avatar’s success will allow 3-D to be the big cash cow for the studios for at least the next 5-8 years, but it’s in the end still a fad, unless it can lose the necessity of wearing glasses. And the visual effects? The mo-cap? Who will have the money to use any of the technology? Jackson, Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, maybe Zemeckis, Jerry Bruckheimer and whoever his favored directors are, maybe Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich? So, no, not really a gamechanger. The gamechanger will be whatever filmmaker can do this for cheap. And it won’t be heralded like Avatar. We may not know about it until ten years after the fact. Because the gamechangers are determined in retrospect.
    Also, Avatar fans shouldn’t be cheering for it to win, because it if does, there will be a reckoning. Many of the critics who previously loved it will inexplicably re-evaluate, and perhaps apologize for overrating it. Winning Best Picture is a legacy tarnisher, now. It’s nice to have for a few years, but then what?

  • 8 1-20-2010 at 5:52 pm

    Jake said...

    For anyone who’s willing to answer:

    I’m curious as to why Where the Wild Things Are never received any Best Picture buzz. Sure, it was a polarizing film for the public, but it played incredibly well with critics. And Warner Bros. seems to think it’s worth a shot — I’m seeing “For Your Consideration” ads everywhere.

    What caused Wild Things to be so far off the map that it isn’t even on Dave Karger’s LONG list for the BOTTOM three slots, and hardly makes anyone’s predictions for the screenwriting/technical categories?