Oscars 2011

[DML1991]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Hmm, you think so? I loved the film personally and certainly wouldn't complain if it was nominated for some of the bigger awards...but it seems like Shutter Island wasn't enough of a hit with critics and then on top of that it's early release date did not help it's chances.

The majority of Scorsese's films recieved the exact same reactions when they were first released and still got nominated for a ton of awards, Raging Bull and Goodfellas are prime examples. Initial reactions don't mean much, and if anything, with the early release date, it's been given more room for the film community to turn around on it. Heck, they've already turned mightily in favor for it. Gangs of New York also had a massive delay and it still garnered 10 nominations, as well as getting reviews that were barely stronger.

And Shutter Island was released on the same weekend as Silence of the Lambs, which also had a delay. And it won.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by DML1991

The majority of Scorsese's films recieved the exact same reactions when they were first released and still got nominated for a ton of awards, Raging Bull and Goodfellas are prime examples. Initial reactions don't mean much, and if anything, with the early release date, it's been given more room for the film community to turn around on it. Heck, they've already turned mightily in favor for it. Gangs of New York also had a massive delay and it still garnered 10 nominations, as well as getting reviews that were barely stronger.

And Shutter Island was released on the same weekend as Silence of the Lambs, which also had a delay. And it won.

Interesting, but it's one of only a few possible contenders that has already been released and yet I haven't noticed ANY articles that place it in the running for Best Picture anymore. They mention Best Actor and Best Cinematography and perhaps a few other technical awards but that's about it. Also, isn't the reason it hasn't been well received due to it being too different from Scorcese's other work? Will a homage film or experimental film or or branching out film or whatever you wanna call it really be recognized for much more? Wasn't this pretty much Scorcese just having fun with something new? I guess the expansion to 10 slots might help its chances, but I wouldn't bet on it...

[DML1991]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Interesting, but it's one of only a few possible contenders that has already been released and yet I haven't noticed ANY articles that place it in the running for Best Picture anymore. They mention Best Actor and Best Cinematography and perhaps a few other technical awards but that's about it. Also, isn't the reason it hasn't been well received due to it being too different from Scorcese's other work? Could a homage film or experimental film or or branching out film or whatever you wanna call it really be recognized for much more? Wasn't this pretty much Scorcese just having fun with something new? I guess the expansion to 10 slots might help its chances, but I wouldn't bet on it...

No, Shutter Island is indeed something new (as a film-noir infused, 50's horror-film style picture... but there's also Cape Fear), but the concept of his 'comfort zone' or 'what he usually directs' being crime films is wrong. Between Mean Streets and Goodfellas, he hadn't directed a gangster film, then there was Casino, and The Departed? That's about 4 gangster films, and Gangs of New York is about a complete different period.

The Aviator was different too, and was believed to be the film he'd get his oscar for. So that wouldn't be the case.

[Rastaban43]

Originally Posted by Hes

Clooney got his oscar for Syriana. So althought he might have somewhat of a pretty boy persona for some people he has his moments. He also got a director and writing nod for Good night and good luck, which qualifies for me as being noticed.

Yeah, I was going to say. Clooney has been getting plenty of recognition from the Academy lately. I wouldn't be surprised if he's looked at closely for his role in The American.

Morgan Freeman is a great actor, or at least he is really serious about his craft, but he seems to be cast into a bunch of cookie cutter roles. Tom Hanks? He's a good actor, not a great one. He wins the award for being better than Kevin Costner most of the time.

Originally Posted by DML1991

also, Leo's performance is far better in The Departed... much more nuanced, anxious and fitting to the character

I definitely agree with you on this one. I really don't like DiCaprio that much, but when I saw The Departed the first thing I said when I got out of the film (because I was watching it with a couple of hardcore Scorsese/DiCapri-ites) was an admission that he did a really fantastic job in that film and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if he got a HUGE nomination for it. I was really thrown off when he got it for Blood Diamond, which I thought was contrived, manipulative and boring.

As for Shutter Island? I thought it was all right, but I'm not sure how much Oscar power it will have. It was a good film, to be sure, but the highlights were the cinematography and art direction, not the acting or directing. The script was just not good enough to give the film its much-needed umph, but clearly I'm alone in this opinion. I don't think the fact it was released so early in the year would hold back a director such as Scorsese from getting the nominations when they're deserved, but I doubt he'll get much out of this one apart from a few more fans.

[lcbaseball22]

No offense, but I basically disagree with your entire post except the part about Shutter's chances However, what do you mean by this?

The following doesn't even make sense...

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

Tom Hanks? He's a good actor, not a great one. He wins the award for being better than Kevin Costner most of the time.

Kevin Costner has never been nominated in the same year and while I like a lot of Costner's movies, Tom Hanks is in a whole 'nother league. He's amongst the very best actors of today but unfortunately he keeps doing the Dan Brown novel adaptations as of late.

Don't get me wrong, I like those movies well enough...but they don't really push him as an actor. It's a shame, we know he's capable of so much more. If he continues to do that sort of movies I don't think we'll see him receive another Oscar win or nomination for a long time.

[Rastaban43]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Kevin Costner has never been nominated in the same year and while I like a lot of Costner's movies, Tom Hanks is in a whole 'nother league. He's amongst the very best actors of today but unfortunately he keeps doing the Dan Brown novel adaptations as of late.

That's the nice thing about opinions. You don't have to agree with me. It really doesn't matter if the two have been nominated in the same year; they can still be compared to one another. Let's just look at some of their most watchable films (obviously, these are subjective lists).

Kevin Costner:

Swing Vote (2008) - boring
Mr. Brooks (2007) - interesting, decent acting
The Guardian (2006) - boring
For Love of the Game (1999) - boring
Message in a Bottle (1999) - really boring
The Postman (1997) - interesting
Tin Cup (1996) - decent film
Waterworld (1995) - personal favourite
The Bodyguard (1992) - pretty bad
JFK (1991) - pretty good
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) - good film, bad acting
Dances with Wolves (1990) - good film, passable acting
Field of Dreams (1989) - not my favourite, but good sports film
Bull Durham (1988) - good story
The Untouchables (1987) - good story

Tom Hanks:

Angels & Demons (2009) - boring
The Da Vinci Code (2006) - boring
Catch Me If You Can (2002) - good film, passable acting
Cast Away (2000) - boring, melodramatic
The Green Mile (1999) - long film, boring acting
You've Got Mail (1998) - boring
Saving Private Ryan (1998) - good film, good acting
Apollo 13 (1995) - over-dramatic
Forrest Gump (1994) - decent film, good but tired acting
Philadelphia (1993) - good film, good acting
Sleepless in Seattle (1993) - cute but boring
A League of Their Own (1992) - good film, passable acting
Joe Versus the Volcano (1990) - personal favourite
The 'burbs (1989) - good story, good acting
Big (1988) - cute but boring

The fact Hanks has been more recognised by the Academy doesn't really mean much to me. For the purposes of this thread, it makes it easier to say he's more likely to win an Oscar, if he decides to do something outside of boring, but looking through those lists, I don't see much that sets them apart from each other. They both lean toward dramatic roles. They both take themselves too seriously. They've both been in some really excellent films and in some really boring ones. They were born one year apart. They started their careers around the same time in tiny irrelevant roles and eventually made a splash with their looks more than their acting. They both have about the same amount of big star power despite being the same amount of boring.

The only real difference between them is that Costner has sort of turned into an anecdote for all bad acting (he's not actually the worst actor in the world) and Hanks has better public relations.

I said Hanks was a better actor than Costner most of the time. The reason I used Costner as a benchmark was because he has become an anecdote. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. It's my opinion. You can disagree but saying it doesn't make sense doesn't make sense. How can I be more clear about it? He is a good actor, not a great one. I don't apologise for that sentiment. I appreciate that you disagree, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who would join you. But for me, they're in exactly the same league.

[moogirl]

Originally Posted by Hes

Clooney got his oscar for Syriana. So althought he might have somewhat of a pretty boy persona for some people he has his moments. He also got a director and writing nod for Good night and good luck, which qualifies for me as being noticed.

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

Yeah, I was going to say. Clooney has been getting plenty of recognition from the Academy lately. I wouldn't be surprised if he's looked at closely for his role in The American.

Yeah, he gets nominated, but he never wins despite often being picked to by the general critical populace. I'm more annoyed at the Academy for the consistent snubbing of Depp than of Clooney though, in terms of lots of nominations but no wins.

I generally get a bit irritated when the Academy chooses not to award an Oscar for an obviously Oscar-winning performance or otherwise, and then doubling back later and giving them one for something that wasn't as deserving because they feel guilty, a la lifetime achievement awards and Kate Winslet's Oscar for The Reader instead of for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. So yeah, I'm a bit afraid of them doing something like this with a lot of these actors, like DiCaprio, Depp and Clooney, just for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Hmm, I suppose so.

You don't like Tom Hank's and Morgan Freeman though?! To me they would fall under the definition of "super fantastic". They are certainly 2 of my favorite actors and very deserving of all the recognition if you ask me. But I like Leo Depp, Pitt, and Clooney quite a lot too and it would be nice to see them win sometime soon. BTW, forgot to list it in the OP but Depp has a movie coming out called The Rum Diary.

Don't get me wrong, I love Hanks and Freeman, but they, to me, fall into the ordinary-looking-and-totally-serious dramatic actor category. They don't do much left-of-centre and thus I think the Academy enjoys showering them with accolades, as they represent the kind of acting and films 'serious' actors do. I also basically agree with what Rastaban said - they tend to do "cookie-cutter" roles, or Oscar-bait performance-driven ones. There's not a lot of experimentation or variation in their films, except perhaps for Hanks' wonderful role in Philadelphia.

Plus, I don't see either of them popping up on 'Sexiest Men Alive' lists any time soon.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Ah, ok. See I don't much about either of them outside of their awards recognition so that's why I asked. On paper they seem somewhat equals but maybe Delbonnel is held in a lot higher regard. And yes, that's right...Robert Richardson worked on Shutter Island. His 2 wins were for JFK and The Aviator and other noms for Inglorious Basterds, Snow Falling on Ceders, Born on the Fourth of July, and Platoon.

Richardson. And go watch some Jeunet and tell me the visuals aren't magical.

Originally Posted by DML1991

With ten nominations, despite the delay, like Gangs of New York, Shutter Island will likely garner more nominations than just on the technical side. Scorsese may not win a best Director nom again for this one (though had it came out last year, considering it would have been one of the best directed films, a nom would have been plausible and it still is this year, but Paramount still messed it's rightful chances up). Of course, we haven't seen Inception, but based off what we have seen, Leo's performance does not look as complex or textured as his in Shutter Island. He could get nominated for Inception instead (though this will likely cause a stink amongst bloggers seeing as his performance in Shutter Island is a favorite and pick for a deserved nom), like he did with Blood Diamond (also, Leo's performance is far better in The Departed... much more nuanced, anxious and fitting to the character).

You've seen Blood Diamond? I didn't know that. But yeah, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I personally loved Leo's scene in it when he was explaining to Jennifer Connelly's character how his parents died - it just seemed so much more real in it's lack of sentiment, and to me sets this performance in a different class to his one in The Departed.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Also, isn't the reason it hasn't been well received due to it being too different from Scorcese's other work? Will a homage film or experimental film or or branching out film or whatever you wanna call it really be recognized for much more? Wasn't this pretty much Scorcese just having fun with something new?

What? Scorsese always does something new. If you want difference in his filmography and how it's been treated by the Academy, look at the praise for The Age of Innocence - a period drama that's rated G.

[Lamester]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Hmm, you think so? I loved the film personally and certainly wouldn't complain if it was nominated for some of the bigger awards...but it seems like Shutter Island wasn't enough of a hit with critics and then on top of that it's early release date did not help it's chances.

The Hurt Locker was released in August, good films win no matter what the release date.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Interesting, but it's one of only a few possible contenders that has already been released and yet I haven't noticed ANY articles that place it in the running for Best Picture anymore. They mention Best Actor and Best Cinematography and perhaps a few other technical awards but that's about it. Also, isn't the reason it hasn't been well received due to it being too different from Scorcese's other work? Will a homage film or experimental film or or branching out film or whatever you wanna call it really be recognized for much more? Wasn't this pretty much Scorcese just having fun with something new? I guess the expansion to 10 slots might help its chances, but I wouldn't bet on it...

All three of Scorcese's 00's films were noms with 5 slots, I'm very certain he'd make a 10 noms list on name recognition alone (Not to discredit his film, it's very good.)

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

I said Hanks was a better actor than Costner most of the time. The reason I used Costner as a benchmark was because he has become an anecdote. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. It's my opinion. You can disagree but saying it doesn't make sense doesn't make sense. How can I be more clear about it? He is a good actor, not a great one. I don't apologise for that sentiment. I appreciate that you disagree, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who would join you. But for me, they're in exactly the same league.

Sorry, I mis-understood. Your statement read to me as if Tom Hanks had won his awards because he was better then Kevin Costner.

So if say Tom Hanks had won for Forrest Gump in the same year that Kevin Costner was nominated for Dancing with Wolves then I could perhaps make sense of your statement...but he wasn't so that's why I was confused. Oh, and I find it interesting how you think so many of Tom Hank's films boring (Cast Away is boring, I'll agree with you on that one...the others no) yet not a film like There Will Be Blood (you've praised this before, right?) which I find truly dry and un-interesting. It's kinda fascinating how incredibly different opinions can be...

And how is Blood Diamond boring? Nah, I'm with moo on that one.

Anyways, while we're on actors I'll throw some names out for who might be ones to watch this year...

Johnny Depp- The Rum Diary
George Clooney- The American/The Descendents
Kevin Spacey- Casino Jack
Robert Duvall- Get Low
Matt Damon- Hereafter/The Adjustment Bureau
Colin Firth- The King's Speech
Colin Farrell- London Boulevard/The Way Back
Jake Gyllenhall- Love and other Drugs
Russell Crowe- The Next Three Days
Brad Pitt- The Tree of Life
Leonardo DiCaprio- Shutter Island/Inception

And does anyone know just exactly who the lead actor of True Grit is? Is it Jeff Bridges? Might he make it back to back wins?

I'd like to see either Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, or Matt Damon win myself but there are quite a few there who are due for a Best Actor win in my mind. If I'm not mistaken Depp and DiCaprio are the ones most due just going by award history...they've each got 3 noms without a win. Oh, and George Clooney hasn't won for a lead actor award yet...seems like he should have long ago. And I certainly wouldn't complain if Russell Crowe or Kevin Spacey picked up another win but I'd prefer to see the wealth shared a bit. I think acting categories might be one of the hardest to predict cause you could have a film where the only bright spot is the acting and it's just too hard to ignore. For instance, Cast Away would be a good example Have these sorts ever won though? I guess not. They get nominated but don't typically win, right?

BTW, AwardsDaily currently has the following actors listed for their contender tracker- Javier Bardem for Buitiful and Ryan Gosling for Blue Valentine. Some interesting choices I think. Gosling was great in The Notebook, but I never really considered him an Oscar contender.

Bardem has won before though hasn't he? Just not for a leading role?

[Rastaban43]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

It's kinda fascinating how incredibly different opinions can be.

Haha, indeed. If everything were so cut and dry, we wouldn't need to speculate about who would win the Oscars. We'd just know. It gives the awards a certain amount of variation without being too inconsistent. My only real problem with the Academy is they have a tendency to give awards to people for lesser projects when they got snubbed for better projects in previous years.

I always cross my fingers it'll be Johnny Depp's year. There are very few times he doesn't completely embody the role he is playing, and he has never been afraid to take on some rather strange characters and projects. Even in the more blockbuster films such as Pirates, he really just excels as an actor. Maybe with Rum Diaries, this will be his year, but we'll just have to wait and see. It certainly looks like that role has the most potential Oscar power.

[lcbaseball22]

Ok, now for the actresses and then I'm gonna switch gears to something else...

Emily Blunt- The Adjustment Bureau
Natalie Portman- Black Swan
Helen Mirren- The Debt/Love Ranch/The Tempest/Brighton Rock
Julianne Moore-The Kids Are Alright/Chloe
Robin Wright Penn- The Conspirator
Julia Roberts- Eat, Pray, Love
Megan Fox- Jonah Hex (kidding! )
Naomi Watts- You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger/Mother and Child/Fair Game
Amy Adams- The Fighter
Rachael Weisz- The Whistleblower
Nicole Kidman-Rabbit Hole
Hilary Swank- Betty Anne Waters/The Resident
Ann Hathaway- Love and Other Drugs
Keira Knightley-London Blvd./Never Let Me Go/Last Night

Personally I'd like to see Keira Knightley or her twin look-alike finally get recognized. (I thought Natalie won for her childhood performance in Leon, but I guess I was mistaken) I'd say by virtue of the amount of films she's in this year though, Helen Mirren is perhaps the favorite to win. And then Keira and Naomi who look to each have 3 films that might yield contenders. Now one I didn't list up there was Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine and this segues into my gear shift...

So, I see the Cannes Film Festival is just finishing up and from what I've read there looks to be three notable films out of that- Another Year, Blue Valentine, and Biutiful. Historically how much a role have these film festivals played in Oscar selections? Also, what sort of films are previewed at these? I didn't think it was any really high profile and/or blockbuster films but it looks like Robin Hood was screened so I guess not? And Woody Allen's latest film was also screen apparently. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he a really high profile director?

Anyways, so if we look at those three films a bit more closely...

Blue Valentine-

starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams (both are one time Oscar nominees)

Plot:
The film centers on a contempo married couple, charting their evolution over a span of years by cross-cutting between time periods

Sounds to me like a more modern Revolutionary Road. It also sounds like these two put on an acting clinic from what I've read...I'm curious how they compare to Leo and Kate. But I think the real question is, come next year will this film just be recognized for it's acting or what? I notice some sites now have it listed as a Best Picture contender as well. Oh, and I'm not sure how much this play in but I've also read that it's very very very depressing. If it's more depressing then the aforementioned I'm not sure I'd be able to handle it...

Biutiful-

directed and written by Alejandro González Iñárritu (Oscar nominee for Babel and director of Amorres Perros- #164 on the IMDB Top 250)

starring Javier Bardem

Plot:
A man involved in illegal dealing is confronted by his childhood friend, who is now a policeman

I'm looking at this director's filmography and he seems to be like a Mexican Chris Nolan. What I mean is it looks like he also hasn't really made a "bad" film yet, but like Nolan his body of work is limited. I dunno, if he remained consistent and Javier Bardem put forth another great performance as he did in No Country...then this could be force to be reckoned with I suppose. The plot sounds interesting enough. But is this a "foreign film"? I can't really tell. The title obviously makes it seems that way unless it's just a creatively artistic mispelling of beautiful...but then it says that the film is in both English and Spanish and it looks like the director's last few films were not foreign perse.


Another Year-

directed and written by Mike Leigh (6 time Oscar nominee)

starring Jim Broadbent and Imelda Staunton (2 Potter actors! Also Broadbent is a 1 time winner, Staunton a 1 time nominee)

And I have no idea what the story for this is...IMDB doesn't have any info on it yet.

[Rastaban43]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Historically how much a role have these film festivals played in Oscar selections? Also, what sort of films are previewed at these? I didn't think it was any really high profile and/or blockbuster films but it looks like Robin Hood was screened so I guess not? And Woody Allen's latest film was also screen apparently.

Cannes is typically the most reliable "preview" of good films for the next year or two, but that doesn't mean it's a very big preview. Cannes will have a few more mainstream films than a festival such as Sundance which typically focuses on independent films. However, there's a difference between a selection film and a premiere film. I'm pretty sure Robin Hood was just opening as a premiere, though there are probably a few other film categories that don't qualify as an official selection.

Also, just because a film is an official selection still doesn't mean a whole lot. It might the the most reliable previews of the film festivals, but they still screen a lot of films that just wouldn't make it with large audiences, American or otherwise. It's always worth looking at the lists and the winners and the reviews, and they're definitely good for making predictions, but no one should be surprised that a Cannes film doesn't do really well at the Oscars.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

Cannes is typically the most reliable "preview" of good films for the next year or two, but that doesn't mean it's a very big preview. Cannes will have a few more mainstream films than a festival such as Sundance which typically focuses on independent films. However, there's a difference between a selection film and a premiere film. I'm pretty sure Robin Hood was just opening as a premiere, though there are probably a few other film categories that don't qualify as an official selection.

Also, just because a film is an official selection still doesn't mean a whole lot. It might the the most reliable previews of the film festivals, but they still screen a lot of films that just wouldn't make it with large audiences, American or otherwise. It's always worth looking at the lists and the winners and the reviews, and they're definitely good for making predictions, but no one should be surprised that a Cannes film doesn't do really well at the Oscars.

Ah, ok. So how have Cannes films done at the Oscars in the past? Any idea how many have broken though with nominations or even wins...or have some specific examples of films that have done well with the Academy?Also, I see Blue Valentine is not listed under the competition category but rather one called "Un Certain Regard"...what is that, what does it mean in the context of the festival?

http://www.imdb.com/features/cannes/2010/mini-guide/

EDIT: This is an interesting article- http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_...ntenders-.html

So Inglorious Basterds debuted at the Cannes festival last year? Oh, and UP as well...interesting.

And I looked up a bit of history-

The Lost Weekend (1945) - the first of only two films to win both Best Picture and the Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or

Marty (1955) - the second of only two films to win both Best Picture and the Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or

Read more: http://www.listafterlist.com/tabid/5...#ixzz0ohurDCu5

I wonder though how many Best Picture winners debuted at Cannes but didn't win the latter

[Rastaban43]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

I wonder though how many Best Picture winners debuted at Cannes but didn't win the latter

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough because I had to run out earlier. Only official selections can win the Palme d'Or. Robin Hood and Inglorious Basterds (not 100-percent sure about this) probably were only Premiere films, not official selections, therefore, they couldn't qualify for the Palme d'Or in the first place. I'd really have to look through a lists of Cannes films and Oscar films, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some crossover. The important thing to remember, however, is Cannes is a renowned international film festival with much less interest in the commercial value of film and much more interest a broad spectrum of high-quality world cinema than the Oscars.

[moogirl]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

And does anyone know just exactly who the lead actor of True Grit is? Is it Jeff Bridges? Might he make it back to back wins?

Ha, the Oscars never allow back-to-back wins no matter how good the actor/actress is. Please see: Russell Crowe winning for Gladiator but not for A Beautiful Mind the year after.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

BTW, AwardsDaily currently has the following actors listed for their contender tracker- Javier Bardem for Buitiful and Ryan Gosling for Blue Valentine. Some interesting choices I think. Gosling was great in The Notebook, but I never really considered him an Oscar contender.

Bardem has won before though hasn't he? Just not for a leading role?

Yes, Bardem won for his role in No Country For Old Men. But I would like to see him winning the big one - he's a fantastic actor, but doesn't get a lot of recognition because, like Penelope Cruz, the majority of his good roles are in Spanish.

By the way, Gosling has gotten an Oscar nomination before for Half Nelson. He's pretty much regarded as a good actor.

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

My only real problem with the Academy is they have a tendency to give awards to people for lesser projects when they got snubbed for better projects in previous years.

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

I always cross my fingers it'll be Johnny Depp's year. There are very few times he doesn't completely embody the role he is playing, and he has never been afraid to take on some rather strange characters and projects. Even in the more blockbuster films such as Pirates, he really just excels as an actor. Maybe with Rum Diaries, this will be his year, but we'll just have to wait and see. It certainly looks like that role has the most potential Oscar power.

I do that every year. Hasn't happened yet. I hope, once again, he'll win it this time.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Another Year-

directed and written by Mike Leigh (6 time Oscar nominee)

starring Jim Broadbent and Imelda Staunton (2 Potter actors! Also Broadbent is a 1 time winner, Staunton a 1 time nominee)

And I have no idea what the story for this is...IMDB doesn't have any info on it yet.

It's Mike Leigh. You know it's going to be drool worthy.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Ah, ok. So how have Cannes films done at the Oscars in the past? Any idea how many have broken though with nominations or even wins...or have some specific examples of films that have done well with the Academy?Also, I see Blue Valentine is not listed under the competition category but rather one called "Un Certain Regard"...what is that, what does it mean in the context of the festival?

Cannes films are generally too high-brow/artsy/foreign for the Academy. It doesn't really have a lot of bearing on anything but the foreign film category. What does or does not premiere there doesn't matter either - it's the awards that count. And the Un Certain Regard is just a separate section/prize/competition to the Palm d'Or. It's more focused at younger directors or more innovative ones.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

I'd really have to look through a lists of Cannes films and Oscar films, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some crossover. The important thing to remember, however, is Cannes is a renowned international film festival with much less interest in the commercial value of film and much more interest a broad spectrum of high-quality world cinema than the Oscars.

I found an archive link on the Cannes Festival site and looking back through the selections for the past 20 years there actually isn't as many as I would have thought. These are the only titles that I recognized, though I don't believe all of them were up for awards...

Inglorious Basterds
Precious
Up
The Pianist
No Country For Old Men
Babel
Sin City
Mystic River
About Schmidt
Cidade de Deus
Moulin Rouge
Mullholland Dr.
O Brother Where Art Thou
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
Requiem for a Dream
La vita è bella
LA Confidential
Crash
Fargo
The Usual Suspects
Pulp Fiction
The Piano
Beauty and the Beast
Reservoir Dogs
Thelma and Louise
The Little Mermaid

Originally Posted by moogirl

...and haven't seen JT in anything so am yet to judge.

I wanted to go back and comment on this. I just remembered that I actually saw Justin Timberlake in a movie from a few years back called Alpha Dog and his acting was surprisingly good. So he may not end up being such a bad choice afterall and I guess Fincher would have him in his movie if he didn't think he was a good actor.


EDIT:

So I just came across a comment that caught my attention and I don't know a whole lot about the Oscar selection process so I thought I'd see if anyone here knew...

Can this actually happen?

I felt that he was excellent in Shutter Island (possibly his best and certainly Oscar-worthy); however, if "Inception" turns out to be a great film and he does well in it (which I don't doubt either), then he may in fact split his own votes come Oscar time

That doesn't seem fair. Potentially having 2 great performances could lessen his chances of winning for either? I thought it was the other way around, the more films the better the chances. So for the actresses then, Helen Mirren could potentially split her votes FOUR ways?

[Noldus]

I didn’t put extremely much effort into this, but here are my predictions for Best Picture Nominees:

• Rabbit Hole (starring Nicole Kidman, apparently based on a praised play)
• Hereafter (directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Matt Damon in a thriller with supernatural elements)
• Inception (looks mind-blowing, but may be a letdown)
• The Tree of Life (I guess it's a strong and deep film)
• The Way Back (directed by six-time Academy Award Nominee Peter Weir)
• The King’s Speech (based on a true story, features an impressive cast)
• The Adjustment Bureau (starring Matt Damon, promising trailer)
• The Fighter (based on a true story)
• Never Let Me Go (I'm basically just gambling on this one, I mean even more than the others )
• Betty Anne Waters (based on a true story, about the bond between a sister and brother)

Ten Contenders:
My Own Love Song, Miral, Another Year, Black Swan, Love and other Drugs, Somewhere, True Grit, Biutiful, All Good Things, The Next Three Days.

These might have a chance too: The Kids Are All Right, Winter's Bone, 127 hours, The Social Network, The American, The Conspirator, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Blue Valentine, Shutter Island (personal favourite), Toy Story 3, How to Train Your Dragon, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (wishful thinking).

[lcbaseball22]

So perhaps this is pre-mature and I should ask this after Inception has been released...but does the Academy have a rule against multiple nominations for the same actor? Someone on the IMDB boards mentioned this and I guess I didn't realize this wasn't possible. In that case, I shall re-ask the question from above that nobody has yet answered

So I just came across a comment that caught my attention and I don't know a whole lot about the Oscar selection process so I thought I'd see if anyone here knew...

Can this actually happen?

That doesn't seem fair. Potentially having 2 great performances could lessen his chances of winning for either? I thought it was the other way around, the more films the better the chances. So for the actresses then, Helen Mirren could potentially split her votes FOUR ways?

[Rastaban43]

His performance in Shutter Island was standard at best, but it's an interesting question. I would imagine it is allowed for an actor to be nominated twice, but I doubt they would do it for the actor's sake (and don't worry, it won't happen with Leo, at least this year).

I remember a few years ago, I was really mad he was nominated in Blood Diamond when his performance in The Departed was much more praiseworthy.

[lcbaseball22]

Watched the trailers for Love and Other Drugs, The American, and The Next Three Days earlier...all look great. However, I'm now doubting whether they will be Oscar films. The first looks much more rom-com then I think people were expecting and the other two might be too action oriented. If an action film is in the mix it's gotta be Inception, though if the year remains weak I suppose it isn't inconceivable with 10 slots perhaps at least one of the following makes it as well- The Adjustment Bureau, The Town, The Next 3 Days, and/or The American

At this point the general consensus seems to be that Inception and Toy Story 3 are ensured a BP nom, and perhaps one for that indie film The Kids Are Alright. I think Shutter Island might still have a chance, but let's see what the end of the year brings. Looking forward to...

The Adjustment Bureau
The American (Sept. 3rd)
Deathly Hallows: Part One (Nov. 19th)
Love and Other Drugs (Nov. 24th)
The Next Three Days (Nov. 19th- woah, that's the same day DH releases!)
The Town (Sept. 10th)

And no trailers have yet been released for the following...

Black Swan (Dec. 1st)
Hereafter (Oct. 22nd)
The Way Back (no release date announced)
The Tree of Life (no release date announced)
True Grit (Dec. 25th)


EDIT: Apparently The Adjustment Bureau has been pushed back to 2011