• Tom O’Neil serves some crow up to a few colleagues while failing to understand that his prize pony needed a few films to underwhelm in order to be in the position it’s in. [Gold Derby]
• David Poland crunches the “Avatar” numbers yet again. The film is still…almost…breaking records. [The Hot Blog]
• Neill Blomkamp don’t need no stinkin’ big-budget blockbusters. [Hero Complex]
• Sasha Stone runs down the original screenplay contenders. [Awards Daily]
• Strike that, I guess The Weinstein Company isn’t pulling “Nine” screens after all. [Hollywood Reporter]
• Erik Childress takes aim at “Quote Whores” in an annual critic-slamming tradition. [eFilmCritic]
• David Kronke, meanwhile, wonders whether critics drive Oscar’s outcome. [Variety]
• Peter Jackson is Kiwi-knighted. [Daily Telegraph]
Comments
One response to “12/31 Oscarweb Round-up (NEW YEAR’S EVE EDITION)”
Honestly, I’m growing a bit world-weary with the Basterds naysaying. I have strongly believed from the beginning that IB had and still has a strong chance at a BP nomination and perhaps even a longshot victory-LONG before Nine, Bones, Invictus, and The Last Station proved milquetoast.
Think about it. Every single year, a film (or sometimes two) gets into the traditionally five-slot BP category because an Oscar hopeful flopped. That doesn’t mean films like IB are poor candidates–it simply means that, because some typical oscar-wh0ring fare didn’t get in, less conventional pictures have a chance. And I’m glad.
Do I agree with Tom at this point, or find his arguments particularly compelling? No. I’m going off my own reasoning.
Basterds is a wonderful and beautifully-crafted fim worthy of much praise. It is flawed, but I challenge anyone to point out to me any film that didn’t have its dectractors this season, except perhaps for Hurt Locker (which I currently believe will pull an upset for BP, since Up in the Air isn’t–forgive me–taking off like everyone thought).
Apologies for the verbose rant, but I believe that too many people are discrediting a great film simply because it’s pulled from the Tarantino universe and is brazen enough to be the film it was meant to be—NOT the film the conservative cinephile desired to see.