Awards & Oscars

The 2010 Golden Globe nominations are here… and it’s an odd bunch. And by “odd,” we mean there are some noticeable snubs and surprises that only the Hollywood Foreign Press Association – which has always strained to prove that it understands anything about movies – could deliver.

Read the full article »

The 30th Annual Raspberry Awards (the Razzies) have been announced, declaring the worst movies and performances of the year. Sandra Bullock, who is expected to win Best Actress at tonight’s Oscars ceremony, attended the anti-awards show to accept trophies for her performance in the critically panned All About Steve – which she also produced – and for worst couple (with Bradley Cooper, who didn’t attend), which also stemmed from the same movie. If she wins the Oscar tonight, she will become the first person to win both the Best and Worst awards int he same year.

Read the full article »

The Academy Awards are next Saturday, March 7, and here are FilmJabber’s Oscar predictions. The expansion from five to ten nominations for the coveted prize really hasn’t done much to make things more competitive, as it appears that it’s going to be a battle between Kathryn Bigelow and her former husband James Cameron for a variety of awards. Up in the Air may play spoiler, but the race is clearly between The Hurt Locker and Avatar.

Read the full article »

In The Blind Side, Sandra Bullock pulls off her second box office feat of the year and writer/director John Lee Hancock exceeds expectations with one of the most satisfying drama-comedies of the year. The movie, about the story of NFL football player Michael Oher, is one the entire family can enjoy, even if none are fans of the sport.

Bullock stars as – no, not Michael Oher – Leigh Anne Tuohy, a platinum blonde who cares a little too much about people. When she sees “Big Mike” (Quinton Aaron) walking outside in a T-shirt in sub-freezing temperatures with no place to go, she feels obliged to take him in and give him some food. But what starts out as one night of compassion turns into a much longer stay, to where Michael becomes a part of the family. Aided by his new family, Michael learns how to play football and goes on to become one of the most sought-after players by colleges and, eventually, the NFL.

View this The Blind Side movie review at its original location – FilmJabber!

The 2009 Academy Awards debut next Sunday, and with it awards for all those short movies that no one has ever seen or heard about. One such live-action short nominated for an Oscar is New Boy, Ireland’s 11-minute entry written and directed by Steph Green.

I normally don’t review short films, yet at the same time, they are nice to review. Why? Because they’re short. On the flip side, having not seen a ton of short films in my life, it’s challenging to determine what benchmark to compare them to.

New Boy is a well made, sharp-looking drama about a nine-year old African boy who has just moved to Ireland and is undergoing his first day at class. He is immediately picked on by a couple of boys for no particular reason, and while it looks like he can hold his own, he knows that violence won’t solve the issue in the long run. As he deals with these bullies, he remembers his father back home.

New Boy is a fun little movie that works well both on a comedic and dramatic level. The actors involved, most of them kids, are quite good, including Olutunji Ebun-Cole in the lead role. To establish character bonds in a matter of a few minutes is most likely the most challenging part for a director, yet Green takes advantage of every second his reel is running. While the underlying theme is serious, Green entertains the audience with some rowdy children and a frustrated teacher (played brilliantly by Norma Sheahan) who is at her wit’s end to keep everyone in line. The little girl is also pretty funny.

Still, like I said before, I don’t have much of a benchmark to compare it to. The flashbacks to Joseph’s time in Africa are well done but don’t add a lot of value to the story. There’s clearly something there in terms of what happens to his father, but the current events and those flashbacks don’t sync as well as Green thinks they do. While Ebun-Cole does a good job, there’s not much to latch onto with his character, other than that he’s the new kid and something really bad happened back home. He is more of a vehicle to introduce us to all of the other characters, and yet this wasn’t the intention: both his past and present are meant to be the focus.

Is this too much to ask for in a short film? I don’t know. The movie looks great, is well written and is thoroughly entertaining. Asking for a more developed story may be too tall of an order, but another minute or two could have tied the flashbacks more appropriately into the story at hand.

Nevertheless, if you can spare 11 minutes, New Boy is a worthy picture.

I didn’t bother watching the Golden Globes on Sunday, generally because I don’t watch the Golden Globes ever. I remember tuning in a few years ago and thinking that it was one of the most boring award shows I’ve watched (then again, I generally only watch the Oscars). That being said, I was actually planning on watching the Golden Globes this year, but then it donned on me:

1. For some insane reason, the Golden Globes were not being shown live on the west coast – why watch when I can just get the results online before the show even starts?
2. 24 started at the same time. And yes, I do have DVR.

So, now that everyone else has written about the Golden Globes, I figured I’d finally get around to commenting on them. After all, I like to be fashionably late. Here are my random thoughts:

•  Slumdog Millionaire won Best Drama. Even though I liked The Curious Case of Benjamin Button more, Slumdog Millionaire is the most ambitious of the nominated pictures and perhaps most deserving. Still, the movie is a bit overrated and in other years would be considered an outside chance at best. If you look at the nominees for Best Picture, it’s a rather sorry bunch: all good, but none amazing.
• Kate Winslet won acting awards for both The Reader and Revolutionary Road. Good for her. She’s a great actress and deserving of recognition. Still, I’d probably say Anne Hathaway had a more breakout role in Rachel Getting Married and Meryl Streep was more commanding in Doubt, but Winslet was probably most overdue.
• Mickey Rourke won for Best Actor in a Drama. Good for him, and what a comeback. I’m still 50/50 between Rourke and Penn, and generally lean toward Penn – but then again, we expect greatness from Penn. I must note that having watched Revolutionary Road, Leonardo DiCaprio has once again turned in an amazing performance.
• Vicky Cristina Barcelona won for Best Comedy/Musical. This once again shows the prestige that Woody Allen still carries among foreign critics and Hollywood in general. I just received the film on DVD and have yet to see it, but I’ve heard very mixed things about it. Then again, Allen should be awarded just for getting Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Cruz to make out. In Bruges is by far the best comedy on the list, though I never expected that one to win.
• Sally Hawkins won for Happy Go-Lucky. I haven’t seen it, so I can’t comment. All that I can say is that there should only be one acting category – not separate ones for drama and comedy. Whereas I understand the reason to split comedies and dramas into two awards, a good performance is a good performance, regardless of the genre. It’s good to see Colin Farrell actually win for something.
• Heath Ledger won for The Dark Knight. Of course. Would the venue had been burned down if he hadn’t won, and would the winner have had the balls to go on stage?
• Wall-E won for Best Animated Picture. Of course.
• Despite my reservations for Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle deservedly won for Best Director. I still don’t understand why Ron Howard was nominated in this category.
• I won’t comment on the TV awards as much, other than that I am currently watching John Adams (HBO) and can understand why it raked in the dough. The series isn’t perfect, but for a TV mini-series it is quite impressive. The actors who won certainly deserved it (though I haven’t seen many of the competing shows).

We’ve known it for years. We even talk about it: The Golden Globes are stupid. They’re like an elementary version of the Oscars, a way for lesser films to earn awards that would never win Oscars. Yes, the Golden Globes are considered a precursor to the Oscars, and often help in predicting what will be nominated in the future.

But I sure as hell hope Oscar voters go a different direction. The Golden Globes all but snubbed The Dark Knight. It’s understandable if it’s left out of the Best Drama race, but doesn’t Christopher Nolan deserve a nod for Best Director? And Best Score? There is no film with a better score this year.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona for Best Comedy? This one definitely shows how the Foreign Press think differently than those in America. I didn’t see it, but I didn’t hear it was all that good. And, frankly, there were much better comedies than such a film. Hell, it doesn’t really matter, though: Mamma Mia! will probably win, even though it doesn’t deserve it.

Another real surprise is Tom Cruise for Tropic Thunder. He was great in it, but Best Supporting Actor? For what is officially billed as an extended, over-the-top cameo? Really?

And where is Milk in the Best Picture category? I just got back from it and thought it deserves a chance. I haven’t seen four of the films on that list, but I have to say it edges out Slumdog Millionaire, and I can’t imagine Frost/Nixon is better (I’ll be seeing that one soon enough).

When I look at the list, I guess it isn’t that bad, but there are just a few really weird choices here. On the flip side, I give them props for giving major kudos to In Bruges, which is certainly one of the best comedies of the year despite the fact that no one saw it.

Do you agree with the nominations? What got screwed? What was a surprise?

Unfortunately, The Dark Knight is not going to get the chance it deserves come next year’s Oscars. Apparently, according to Variety, the executive committee of the Academy Awards has ruled that the score for the A-rated Batman film is ineligible for competition because… it has too many composers.

To me, this seems like just the latest odd rule to be revealed by the Oscars over the last several years. Who cares how many composers a score has? Shouldn’t the determination be made about the final product, not the number of people who contributed? The Dark Knight has a pretty amazing score when you think about it (recall the low rumbling that develops as Harvey Dent is taken by police escort through the streets of Gotham), and it’s a shame it won’t be up for a nomination (assuming it were to be nominated). Warner Brothers must be in a tizzy.

Way to go, Academy. Way to go.

On January 25, 2008, shortly after Heath Ledger’s death, I conjectured on whether the actor would win an Oscar posthumously for his portrayal of the Joker in the upcoming movie The Dark Knight. The Heath Ledger Oscar post is here, and examines the chances of actors winning awards after their deaths. It’s a rare feat indeed.

Now, six months later, on the eve of the release of The Dark Knight, critics are echoing what fans have only guessed based on 20 seconds worth of footage, that Heath Ledger should and will receive an Oscar nomination for his role as the Joker. In this article, AP writer David Germain drills into the what-if’s, James Dean and the cautious marketing approach Warner Brothers is taking to tout Ledger’s performance and get him a nomination.

The Dark Knight movie reviews I’ve seen so far for have been just short of heavenly, and Ledger is getting immense praise. At this point, it’s almost certain that Ledger will receive an Oscar nomination. The bigger question is whether he can defy the odds and actually win an Oscar more than a year after his death?

The Oscars are over, and it was a pretty good show. No Country for Old Men was the clear victor, taking Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Motion Picture. I would have liked to see things spread around a bit more as the competition was fierce (and, thanks to the lack of an ending for the Coen Brothers’ film, better, more deserving films), but am not surprised.

Javier Bardem deserved his Oscar, as did Marion Cotillard for her amazing performance in La Vie En Rose. Not only was she most deserving of her award, but she was also a bit of a surprise victory, and the most emotional winner. Surprisingly, the winners that the audience connected with the most were Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, the lead actors and singers of the Oscar-winning song “Falling Slowly”, from Once. There actually would have been a riot had this movie not won for Best Original Song, and the Oscar crew recognized this to the point where they actually let Irglova back onto the stage after a commercial break to allow her to finish her acceptance speech. Classy.

Daniel Day-Lewis, of course, won for Best Actor. Has anyone else noticed that on screen, he always look so tough and powerful, yet off screen, he always looks like he’s on the verge of death? Anyway, I was happy to see him win, and seriously would have murdered my neighbors if someone stole Oscar gold from him.

Thank God Atonement won for Best Original Score. Any film that can incorporate a typewriter into its score deserves an award… Why wasn’t There Will Be Blood nominated in this category, though?

There were only two awards that really shocked me:

• Tilda Swinton, for Best Supporting Actress. She was great, but I was almost certain Cate Blanchett would win for I’m Not There. That was a career-best performance for the actress, and I have to wonder whether her dual nominations split her own votes. Still, I was disappointed to see her not fully recognized for such a groundbreaking performance.
• The Golden Compass, for Best Visual Effects. Are you kidding me? This was the weakest film of the three, and Transformers should have won handily. I was disappointed that 300 wasn’t nominated in the category; I’m even more disappointed that The Golden Compass somehow won. I didn’t even know enough people even saw that film.

So, overall, it was a great, streamlined presentation. Jon Stewart didn’t have a great opening, but he threw in enough quality jokes to get by. The joke about Jack getting more women pregnant before the end of the night was a good one. The montages were also quite good and not time killers, and the production only ran 20 minutes overboard. The binoculars montage was probably the highlight of the evening.

Here are all my Oscar predictions for the 2008 Academy Awards (some categories are left blank because I don’t feel I can make an intelligent guess, i.e. for Best Sound Mixing, etc.): FilmJabber’s Oscar predictions.

And here are some Academy Award nominations from other websites that I read quite often:

• Box Office Prophets
• Crave Online

While there are several highly competitive categories at this year’s Academy Awards, Joel and Ethan Coen will win the Oscar for Best Director. If you look at the competitive, there is just no question.

Paul Thomas Anderson would be my pick if I were to select the winner, as There Will Be Blood was the boldest, most unique film of the group. Unfortunately, this is not his award to win, and I won’t be disappointed. The Coen Brothers did a spectacular job with No Country for Old Men, despite forgetting to add an ending to the film.

And that’s my Oscar analysis for Best Director, as I’m sick of writing these things…

The day is almost here: the 2008 Academy Awards. For a while, there was fear that this show wouldn’t even exist, but, as one could have predicted, the writer’s strike ended far enough in advance for that not to happen.

It’s an incredibly competitive bunch this year, and all films are deserving in some way or another. Here is my Oscar predictions for Best Picture:

• No Country for Old Men will win, even though I think it’s only the third best movie of the group. One of the earliest films to be released wide, the movie faced the challenging of losing steam over the months, and at times, it appeared to be doing so. But the Coen Brothers’ movie has been resilient and proven to be a powerhouse at many major award shows, and it will be a shocker if No Country for Old Men doesn’t win. If the Coens had bothered to stamp a real ending on the film, I would be voting for this film look no other – after all, it is one of the best thrillers ever made – but the ending sucked. To me, an Oscar winner should be a complete film… and endings are an essential part for any film.
• Atonement was my favorite film of the year. It is my most mainstream choice in years, though I have several friends who have told me the movie sucks. I honestly don’t know what they watched; Atonement is an engaging, emotional, interesting and unique war drama, with great direction (how did Joe Wright not get nominated?) and a great score. I would be happy if this movie wins, if not just to prove to my friends that other people feel the same way I do, but this movie doesn’t have much of a chance. Despite winning many major awards, including Best Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, analysts have counted this one out of the running. I don’t know why, exactly, but I’d be very surprised if this movie won.
• Despite my decimal-point favoring to Atonement, There Will Be Blood is my pick (not my prediction) to win Best Picture. The movie is phenomenal and unique, and I want it to win because it is so bold and different from the other films nominated. Unfortunately, the movie will have to be satisfied by a win for Daniel Day-Lewis as Best Actor.
• The final two films are lesser entries, and I will be highly disappointed if they win. Michael Clayton was great, but not that great – especially compared to the other contenders – and Juno… well, it’s a great movie, but it’s a simpler film that doesn’t deserve the title of Best Movie of the Year. Juno will win for Best Original Screenplay, and it will deserve it: after all, the screenplay is what makes the film. I’m not a big fan of comedies winning major awards, and will be upset if Juno steals the award from other, greater films.

More than likely, No Country for Old Men will win. An upset isn’t out of the question, however. No Country and Blood could split votes, leaving an opening for Atonement or, more likely, Juno. I hope that doesn’t happen, but it could. Either way, expect Michael Clayton at the bottom of the pile.

View the Oscar nominations and my picks, or visit my Oscar analysis section of the blog.

Who will win the Oscar for Best Actor at 2008′s Academy Awards? Normally, I would go into an analysis of each actor’s chances and strengths, such as my articles on Best Supporting Actress and Best Supporting Actor, but that really isn’t necessary.

I haven’t seen In the Valley of Elah, but I’m sure Tommy Lee Jones is good – but has anyone seen that movie? It’s not in theaters and it’s not out on DVD.

Viggo Mortensen was good in Eastern Promises, but was it an Award-winning performance? No.

Johnny Depp for Sweeney Todd? Puh-lease. The only reason he was nominated was because people love Johnny Depp. There were better performances out there in 2007.

George Clooney was spectacular in Michael Clayton, but…

Daniel Day Lewis is just phenomenal. The man wins praise for nearly every performance he does, but his performance in There Will Be Blood is the best of his career. Even people who didn’t like the movie recognize just how amazing he is in the film. If he doesn’t win, I will be shocked and utterly disappointed.

Who will win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor at this year’s Academy Awards? All I can say is… Holy shit, what a battle!

Here are some excerpts from my movie reviews in 2007:

“While there are several actors who turn in Oscar worthy performances in the film, it is Javier Bardem who blows everyone else away.” – No Country for Old Men review

“Come Oscar time, though, it is unlikely we’ll be hearing Clooney’s name, but I pray to God that the talk of the town will be about Tom Wilkinson. Wilkinson has found the dream role here, and I will be shocked if a supporting actor nod doesn’t come his way.” – Michael Clayton review

“The show stealer, however, is Hoffman. Hoffman, who plays CIA agent Gust Avrakotos, is absolutely incredible, and one of my picks for Best Supporting Actor.” – Charlie Wilson’s War review

“Sadly, due to the box office performance of the movie, I would be a bit surprised to see either of these men [Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck] nominated, but both truly deliver Oscar-worthy performances.” – The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford review

The only actor I didn’t give props to in my reviews was Hal Holbrook, but even he did a stellar job in a rather small and understated role. Compared to the other actors, however, the only thing going for him is his age. Simply put:

• Javier Bardem will win, and he’s my choice to win. Why? Bardem plays an absolute bad ass, seriously one of the most disturbing and psychotic characters in cinema history. Beyond that, he is the one actor who’s coming out of a successful movie: both audiences and critics alike have given the film praise, and it has the box office dollars to back that praise up. It also doesn’t help that No Country for Old Men is one of the front runners to win it all. I’m not as confident about this victory as I am with other categories as the competition is so fierce, but I’m betting low odds that Bardem will win Best Supporting Actor at 2008′s Academy Awards.
• Tom Wilkinson is phenomenal in Michael Clayton, but there is one big problem: the movie tanked at the box office because no one saw it. His performance is truly Oscar worthy, but I just haven’t heard his name discussed. The acting has taken a back seat to the overall delivery of the film, and Wilkinson is an unfortunate victim of a variety of circumstances.
• Philip Seymour Hoffman is the best part about Charlie Wilson’s War, but unfortunately the movie received only so-so kudos from critics and audiences largely ignored the comedy-drama. I just never pictured Charlie Wilson’s War to be a major contender, and it also hurts Hoffman that he recently won an Oscar for Best Actor just a little while back. His character is also supplied more for comic relief, and that won’t go over as well with voters.
• Casey Affleck probably delivered the best performance in 2007 that no one saw. I mean, most people haven’t even heard of Assassination… Ford (I get sick of writing the title out), let alone seen it. Both Affleck and Pitt are great in the movie, though their performances are rather subtle. I think this movie showed that Affleck is truly capable of great performances when given the right material, but voters will look at his age and assume he’ll have more chances on down the line. Oh, and Affleck is the main character in the movie… but I won’t go on about how he shouldn’t be allowed in the Best Supporting Actor category.
• The only way that this award will disappoint me is if Hal Holbrook wins. He is very good in his role, but his role is neither as big or as grand as his competitors. What he does have going for him – and this worries me – is that he is old, so voters may suspect he may die before he turns in another great performance, and that voters may try to make up for the fact that Into the Wild was largely ignored at the Oscars by giving him a medal.

The Best Supporting Actor Oscar category is an extremely competitive category and every actor involved deserves recognition, but No Country for Old Men will rightfully carry Javier Bardem to the podium.