• Jeffrey Wells reminds of the forthcoming TCM airing of the restored “Metropolis” and one hour documentary “Metropolis Refound.” I’ll…be…there. [Hollywood Elsewhere]
• Steve Pond conveys positive word on Christian Bale and (as reported for months here) Melissa Leo’s performances in “The Fighter” from ShoEast. [The Odds]
• Naomi Watts on “Fair Game,” Valerie Plame and politics in Hollywood. [HitFix]
• Peter Knegt reports from a Mike Leigh Q&A vis a vis “Another Year” at London fest. [The Lost Boy]
• Patrick McDonald talks to “Hereafter” star Cecil De France. [Hollywood Chicago]
• David Poland sits down with the film’s writer Peter Morgan. [The Hot Blog]
• James Cameron on “Avatar,” “Titanic,” Cleopatra and the future of 3D. [Arts Beat]
• Get a load of this… [Gold Derby]
[Photo: Universum Film]
Comments
25 responses to “10/20 OSCARWEB ROUND-UP: ‘Complete Metropolis’ coming to TCM, buzz for Leo, Cameron on the usual talking points”
Hahahahahaha; I saw that Alice in Wonderland article and I had a feeling that would make you cringe.
I lose all faith in the Oscars if that movie gets any nominations outside of craft noms.
I find Tom O’Neil perplexing. Is he serious about Depp, or is he being paid by Disney? The guy honestly has the best Emmy Awards coverage on the web, but his Oscar coverage continues to be… perplexing. I still don’t understand why he was so angry at Mo’Nique last year.
Haha, thanks so much for the Gold Derby link, for some reason my instincts told me that it’d lead to them but never could I have imagined what the actual article was about. Perfection. Move over Christian Bale and Geoffrey Rush, here comes Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter…
Haha that is nuts…
In all honesty, on my part … while I know most people found Depp’s Mad Hatter portrayal to be completely misjudged and a miss, I actually thought it was bang on.
I think he nailed what he and Burton set-out to do; creating an odd, cooky, off, out-of-left-field caricature. And I also thought he brought some degree of emotion/gravity to Alice by the end.
I don’t think a nom will come close to happening. But I do think Depp nailed it.
This is just the Oscarologist version of a Joaquin Phoenix-style prank, right? Because if so, kudos. Brilliant joke.
Seriously, this is one of the most baffling things I’ve seen in the Oscar season. Leaving aside my personal opinion (Depp’s performance is average, until his climactic dance, which made me cringe with embarrassment), why is anyone taking this campaign so seriously? Every year, so many movies that clearly have no chance of getting nominated get even a minor Best Picture push–is Disney forcing these guys by gunpoint to write such idiotic articles?
And, I’m off my soapbox.
This is kind of a nitpick, but re: Pond’s article, where he refers to Bale in “The Fighter” as a meth addict; everything I’ve read about Dickie Ecklund says he was a crackhead. Anyone know whether they changed it for the movie or if that’s just a minor error on Pond’s part?
SPC couldn’t find a softer, more subtle image of Jacki Weaver? Her FYC ads are scaring me.
Not sure that “soft” and “subtle” speak to the performance.
Gold Derby, back when it was an independent site, was my gateway into the online Oscar world. It make me sad that I stopped going there regularly a few years back and out right ditched it last year because Tom O’Neil seems to have gone insane.
@ Nicolas: He was angry at Mo’Nique because he’s a no-class, petty, racist asshole.
@ /3rtful11: I think “scaring you” is sort of the point. I finally got a chance to see Animal Kingdom and she was far more understated than I expected. Very deserving of at least a nod.
The film’s damn good, too.
Dying to see Animal Kingdom, and the Weaver FYC ads are brilliant. She looks horrifying.
“thanks so much for the Gold Derby link, for some reason my instincts told me that it’d lead to them”
Your instincts, or the fact that the link is clearly labelled “Gold Derby?” ;)
I was just about to ask why you feel the need to bash O’Neil. Then I read his article…….
@Zack: I would assume it is an error by Pond. The synopsis on the relitivity media page for the film says crack addiction. It wouldn’t make sense to change something like that.
Alice in Wonderland may not be Burton’s best film, but I think, aside from locked tech noms, Depp, especially Bonham-Carter did a very well job in their roles as Mad Hatter and the Red Queen… A BP nomination though is impossible.. But who knows? The Blind Side made the list last year…
/3rtfu11, in context of the film, that shot IS from one of her more subtle moments.
Weaver’s direct stare coupled with the Madame Tussaud airbrushing – the whole thing plastered around the site – yes I find that scary.
Don’t you see, though? If they play up Weaver’s character as monstrous, she’s more likely to be nominated.
“the whole thing plastered around the site”
So, Sony’s going all out to make folks aware of one of the littlest contenders in the race. Good for them. The fact that the ads have inspired an unprompted thread of comments here suggest they’re working more than they would have if a bland, smiley head-shot had been used instead.
Agreed ^
What a bunch of insecure lunatics you all are. So a guy has an opinion that a prominent actor can/should be nominated for an Oscar. So what?
Clearly, the man has to be, and I quote, “insane”.
God forbid, that an oscar movie coverage guy states something like that. What nerve.
Especially after Depp has been nominated for “quirky” perfromances in Pirates and “Sweeny Todd” (and really, is Depp’s performance THAT much different caliberwise from his work there?) so clearly another shot at a nomination is impossible. It is laughable/crazy to suggest that a suprise nomination may happening. Or to even imply that, subjectively speaking, the man was the best thing about the film and was, in fact, quite decent?
What’s worse that this is the same site/people that for the most part greated that teaser image of Depp as Mad Hatter so positively.
Lastly, few things sound more pretentious and irritating then the word “Oscarologist”, especially when uttered by nonbloggers.
Pete,
This Depp prediction is not the reason I called O’Neil “insane,” and that’s likely not the best word choice, I will admit. The point is, his blog has been steadily going of the tracks for years. I frankly got sick of going over there to see him posting about some crap movie that made a bunch of money that had no chance at the Oscars. (Seriously, multiple Twilight posts? Really?) I’m guessing it was some sort of populist move, but it was pointless. Just about as pointless as his habit of reposting what people were saying in the forums. If I cared what was going on in the Envelope forums, I’d read it. His coverage has just turned into mostly crap with only occasional reminders of why I used to read him religiously years ago.
And I’m pretty sure “Oscarologist” is a technical term. What would you prefer we write?
Hero, thank you for your response. The backstory you gave really helped me understand your attitudes towards O’Neil. Fair enough.
The reason I held on to your use of “insane” (again that was very much limited to the context of my previous message) is because it seemed to exemplify the extremity of people’s attitudes towards something that they don’t want to see happen. I find a hard time believe that the notion that O’Neil brought up is that ridiculous. Unlkely, granted but hardly worth as much attention as its been given. Just to assure that I have a certain amount of common sense I will point out that had this been due to the afforementioned Twilight, I would likely join the chorus of O’Neil’s detractors. The proverbial line is drawn.
All of this to say that I think that this is more of an issue of people not wanting something to happen rather than thinking that they won’t. I’m talking comments like “Move over Christian Bale and Geoffrey Rush, here comes Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter”. (That considering no one has seen Bale’s peformance yet).
I won’t argue that O’Neil has not made absurd remarks before. He has and he had done so frequently. But this is not of his worse moments.
And as for “Oscarologist”, if you must get technical, I am pretty sure the term (I wouldn’t call it a word) historically referred to someone who studied Oscar history and not to one who predicted future awards. Sure there is overlap, but the meaning is different. And the context, as used here is different too.
Pete,
No problem! And I see where you’re coming from with the “Oscarologist” distinction. We sometimes get a bit sloppy with language, especially online, don’t we?