You can head over to the Hollywood Film Festival’s YouTube channel and check out a slew of acceptance speeches from the show. Here’s Gabourey Sidibe accepting the New Hollywood Award, presented by Taraji P. Henson:
Jeremy Renner accepting the Hollywood Breakthrough Actor award (presented by Charlize Theron) after the jump.
From the moment it was commissioned, this was intended STRICTLY as a “defined the decade” list, regardless of qualitative considerations. Go back and re-read it in that light, recover from the horror of “Saw” and “Mamma Mia!”’s inclusion (Guy’s right to single these out, but they aren’t the only ones: I personally loathe “Slumdog”, for instance) and I hope it then makes a little more sense.
Though I’d much rather have been allowed to submit a list of personal favourites (and will probably follow up with one, on my blog, which will include all of about ten films from the current list), this Telegraph one was put together purely with an emphasis on importance/cultural impact, not critical preference.
Regular reader and Telegraph critic Tim Robey clarifies the intent of that surprising ‘Top 100 films of the decade’ list that got some of you fired up earlier this week.
I’m not sure why the British broadsheets are all falling over themselves to publish their ‘best of the 2000s’ lists in early November, but mere days after The Telegraph critics declared Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” the film of the decade, The Times has weighed in with their own Top 100.
In their list, a different Michael comes out on top: Haneke’s cryptic and rather brilliant 2005 thriller “Caché” (or “Hidden,” if you prefer), which only came in at #44 on the Telegraph list, is their pick of the last 10 years. (Has that threat of a Ron Howard remake gone away yet?) I must say, I’m happier with that choice than the Moore film, which doesn’t even feature on The Times list.
That said, the lists’ objectives are different: The Telegraph aimed to gather the most significant films of the decade, disregarding aesthetic worth in some cases, while The Times has gone for a blunter ‘best films’ claim. Both lists are equally contentious and sometimes silly, as such group-think collectives tend to be. (“Team America” in the top 10 is an obvious attention-seeking ploy, but what of the British bias that places “Casino Royale” and “The Queen” similarly high?)
(More, and the Times Top 20, after the cut.)
*All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.
The first weekend in November is considered the official kick-off of the Holiday season at the box office and so it’s appropriate that Robert Zemeckis’s yuletide digital experiment, “A Christmas Carol,” is the film leading the way. The film grossed $31 million for the weekend to easily claim the top spot and set itself up very nicely for a strong, two-month run.
Sure, it’s nowhere near the $63.1 million that “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa” claimed on this weekend last year, but “The Polar Express” started with $27 million in November 2004 before chugging along through the new year and maxing out at $187.7 million, and I expect “A Christmas Carol” to come very close to, if not match, that figure.
Zemeckis has directed 15 features in his phenomenally successful career and only three of them have failed to reach the $100 million mark (his first two and “Beowulf”). An amazing seven of them have grossed the equivalent of over $200 million in today’s dollars. To use that success and single-handedly try and pioneer a new medium of filmmaking is admirable, even if it means millions of children will have nightmares involving Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey and their dead, soulless eyes.
“Michael Jackson’s This is It” fell a respectable 40% to $14 million and a running total of $57.9 million. Anything under 50% was going to be a huge win for Sony and will undoubtedly cause the studio to back off the “two weeks only” promise and let this one coast to around $75 million domestic and $200 million+ worldwide.
Well, they may have buggered up the poster, but they knew better than to mess with the gorgeous trailer we saw back in September. The Weinsteins’ first official trailer for Tom Ford’s startling debut replays the lush, wordless montage of the original, with a couple of Oscar-chasing quotes inserted for effect. (And not subtly, either: “There is already Oscar buzz for Julianne Moore” isn’t a critical endorsement, it’s a non-statement.)
Regardless, it’s still neck-and-neck with “A Serious Man” (don’t tell me you’re still hazy on those titles) for the ‘trailer of the year’ distinction.
1999 was a strange year. And it’s hard to believe a full decade has slipped past since. There were some great award-winning performances, to be sure, but there seemed to be just as many not nominated that certainly should have been.
Ten years later, I remain stunned that Reese Witherspoon was not nominated for her brilliant work in “Election” as a pathologically ambitious, grasping social climber student doing anything it takes to head up the student council in Alexander Payne’s astute and black comedy.
Witherspoon won the National Society of Film Critics award for Best Actress, besting eventual Oscar, LAFCA and NYFCC champ Hilary Swank in “Boys Don’t Cry.” What made Witherspoon’s work so incredible was that we all must have known a Tracy Flick during our high school days, and the actress created such an accurate depiction.
Swank was a most deserving winner for her superb performance, winning over nominees, Annette Bening in “American Beauty,” Janet McTeer in “Tumbleweeds,” Julianne Moore in “The End of the Affiar” and Meryl Streep in “Music of the Heart” (perhaps the perennial Oscar favorite’s least accomplished nominated performance).
Bening’s performance was brilliant, she won the Screen Actors Guild award for it, and though there seemed to be a swell of support for her as Oscar night approached, there was no denying Swank for her career-altering work.
Christopher Plummer was feted at AFI Fest Tuesday evening and I popped in for the brief toast before heading over to an unrelated Gala screening. LA Weekly’s Scott Foundas was the moderator for an all-too-brief back and forth with the actor, who comes off as someone with whom you’d like to have a drink or 10.
Some of the discussion was dedicated to Plummer’s memoir, “In Spite of Myself,” and a little bit of “The Last Station” thrown in here and there as well.
I grabbed a couple of quick videos of the event. iPhone vids, mind you, so no 1080p detail going on here, but decent audio. Here’s Plummer discussing his work developing and performing the “character” of Mike Wallace in Michael Mann’s “The Insider,” which leads to discussion of his role in Michael Hoffman’s Tolstoy biopic, which will likely land the actor his first ever Oscar nomination, for Best Supporting Actor.
Two more quick vids after the jump.
I don’t think I need to explain why I love this. Props to graphic designer Sam Smith (and Jeff Wells for bringing it to light).
Is “A Prophet” gradually stealing awards-season momentum from “The White Ribbon?” (It’s the superior film, if you ask me.) Too soon to say, of course, but it certainly came out on top in this morning’s European Film Award nominations.
Jacques Audiard’s searing chronicle of French prison gangs leads the field with six nominations, to four for Michael Haneke’s German Palme d’Or winner. The two films, seen by many pundits as the chief contenders for the foreign-language Oscar, also appear to be the frontrunners here, continuing a rivalry that started way back in May at Cannes.
Also beating “Ribbon”‘s total, with five nods (six, if you include the People’s Choice Award), is “Slumdog Millionaire,” which didn’t make last year’s cut-off date. The film’s popularity clearly still lingers (to the point that it even eked out a Best Actor nod for Dev Patel, ahead of, say, Michael Fassbender), though I sense its moment has passed.
(More discussion, and a full list of nominees, after the cut.)
Henry Fonda. Alan Arkin. Jack Palance. And, strictly hypothetically, Jeff Bridges.
What am I listing here? Bragging rights and an imaginary cookie for the first correct answer.
• Oscar season ramped up this week, with the popular selection of Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin as this year’s Oscar emcees.
• This week’s Off the Carpet column surveyed the runners and riders for Best Actor …
• … only to be immediately outdated as Jeff Bridges and “Crazy Heart” arrived to turn that race on its head.
• Big news in the Best Animated Feature race, as last-minute entry “A Town Called Panic” ensured we’ll have five nominees.
It’s a little difficult to argue with the nostalgia that Disney’s “The Princess and the Frog” conjures. As effective as Pixar has been for over a decade and as exciting as the computer-generated leaps have been in animation, there is something to be said about a well-crafted, traditional piece of animated feature filmmaking.
Filmmakers Ron Clements and Jon Musker stretch back to the “Black Cauldron” days of the studio after all, and they were largely responsible for two of the biggest Disney animated hits of the pre-Pixar era, “The Little Mermaid” and “Aladdin.” “The Princess and the Frog” isn’t in that league, however. It’s an effective story and a clever twist on a classic tale, a twist that works quite well, in fact.
That having been said, the vibrant animation and striking color palette the film’s animators are working with make “The Princess and the Frog” a truly beautiful fixture in this year’s healthy slate of animated feature films. Working with the bayou particulars of New Orleans goes a long way toward servicing those visuals, of course, but the sheer energy of the piece, an organic extension of those particulars, is what makes it feel so comfortably familiar.
It feels a bit strange to be discussing the release of a Christmas film less than a week removed from Halloween, but here we are. I spoke up with my thoughts on Robert Zemeckis’s “A Christmas Carol” yesterday, but with the film hitting theaters today, it’s time for you to sound off. Head on back and let us know your thoughts once you see the film.
Welcome to the latest installment of Oscar Talk, a weekly kudocast between yours truly and Anne Thompson of indieWIRE’s Thompson on Hollywood.
On the docket this afternoon:
• Anne and I discuss the week’s biggest Oscar news, the tapping of Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin as this year’s Oscar telecast hosts.
• Another substantial news item this week was the revelation that Scott Cooper’s “Crazy Heart” would get a last minute 2009 release from Fox Searchlight. Anne and I talk up the film and actor Jeff Bridges’s wonderful, certainly Oscar-worthy performance.
• “A Christmas Carol” releases today, so we use that as an opportunity to revisit the animated feature contenders.
• As mentioned earlier this morning, the latest Gurus o’ Gold chart has gone up. Anne and I talk about a number of the contenders, placements, etc.
Have a listen to this week’s podcast below, leading in with one of the original tracks from “Crazy Heart.” And as always, you can subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.
[display_podcast]
I’ve lately been immersed in a marathon of DVD viewing and re-viewings, catching up on films that slipped through the cracks and reassessing former favorites — all in preparation for my own year-end “Best of the 2000s” list.
It’s a process that has resulted in some unexpected fringe challengers (“Longing,” an underexposed work of New German Cinema, won’t leave me alone), as well as some shifted perspectives (Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s “Distant,” which I adored on first viewing six years ago, burned a little less brightly second time around). Nat Rogers is currently doing similar homework at the Film Experience, on a year-by-year basis.
At this stage, I have only a faint idea of what my list will eventually look like, but I’m already fairly sure that it will have little in common with the Top 100 of the decade that has just been unveiled at The Telegraph. Compiled by the British paper’s three critics, including IC friend Tim Robey, it’s an interesting and occasionally perplexing list.
They state upfront that their aim is to represent the decade’s “pick ‘n mix” culture, though the headline promises the decade’s “Top 100 movie masterpieces.” “Mamma Mia!” and “Saw,” both in the top 20, may fit the former description, but “masterpieces” they ain’t. Then again, popularity or influence aren’t the principal criteria either, as the list includes such obscurities as “Los Angeles Plays Itself.”
Whatever the system of selection, the result, you may or may not be thrilled to hear, is that Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” is the film of the 2000s.
(More, including the Telegraph’s Top 20 films, after the cut.)
