The Hot Blog

Please note: The acting choices do not reflect at least what I sent into Dave. I have notified him of the glitch.

Yeah right, Michael Clayton is going to win the Oscar. Seriously, D-Po? The Oscars this season is even more boring than the Brokeback/Crash year. At least that year had something controversial like Brokeback. They should nominate Bourne Ultimatum and Ratatouille to get me interested.

I'm going to predict "Sweeney Todd" is going to flop. The fact that there are now two trailers without one minute of singing either point to a nervous studio or an oblivious marketing department. If they don't get the word out there to the non-Sondheim crowd that this is indeed a musical, there are going to be a lot of disappointed people coming out of the theaters.

And WB is absolutely wrong to be dumping "The Assassination Of Jesse James". Saw it last night and it could easily be a contendor for acting (Affleck), cinematography (Deakins), direction (Dominik) and music (Nick Cave) awards. This going to be a film they regret not nurturing.

I think DP is going on what has the most heat. And anyway, it's too soon to tell what will win. Every single person, well, I should say male person, they all say when I ask them what they like, their answer is Michael Clayton. Leonard Maltin, however, has been overheard saying he thought Into the Wild was the best film of the year.

It ain't over yet and in fact it hasn't begun. If the movies coming out don't hit the right notes (and you can't tell from early festival reaction and blogger "reviews") they will certainly fall back on earlier in the year.

One BP vote for "Lars." Hmmmmm. Whoever could it be?

One Gosling vote in the Best Actor chart? Hmmmmm. Whoever could it be?

It might be time to retire that "Lars" torch, DP. The movie is not heating up. And how can actors like Gosling and Hirsch be both "Unexpected Nominees" AND "Expected Nominees Snubbed" at the same time?

Do most of you really think Michael Clayton is a big enough film to win Best Picture? It was incredibly well made but certainly not a film I'll be exploring again. As Ebert has mentioned, it's a flawless excercise in genre but does that excite the public? My expectations going in were very high and like me, I think most of the academy will feel a little let down once they see it.

Which chart is the latest? This one is different than Gurus 2.0? But I'm probably missing something.

David has yet to add the latest Guru:

http://asp.usatoday.com/_common/_scripts/big_picture.aspx?width=490&height=326&storyURL=/life/movies/news/2007-10-23-myers-guru_N.htm&imageURL=http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2007/10/24/love-gurux-large.jpg

Very Smart move (who's ever it was) to move Javier Bardem from Best Actor to Best Supporting Actor. If it's as good as the trailer lets on, could be a lock.

There was a time last year when Jennifer Hudson was on Best Actress category which would have been a tough pick between her and Helen Mirren. In Best Supporting, though, no contest.

I liked Michael Clayton, sensationally well-made. Tom Wilkinson has the best performance of the year as far as i'm concerned.

Is it me or is Dave going out of his way to be dismissive of There Will Be Blood? I mean, his point that the audience at Fantastic Fest was mostly geeks is valid, but he's laying it on a bit thick.

DP gave it a 10. Whatever problems he had with the FF screening, he still recognizes a sure thing when he sees one.

Yes, it is barely hanging on in the top five. But what did you expect? It's an arthouse geek picture and they rarely win the big prize.

Wait, nevermind. I misconstrued the number count.

Hunter, it depends on what your personal definition of 'arthouse geek picture'. And we're not talking about the big prize, we're talking about nominations. There Will Be Blood certainly seems to have similarities to such serious period dramas as Munich, The Aviator, The Pianist, etc etc.

Also it appears that you are using your terminology in order to be disparaging.

For what it's worth, aren't the early reviews to "There Will Be Blood" glowing ... as in "There Will Be Nominations?"

That's not the problem, Jonj. Clearly there are people who like it a lot. My question is why David Poland and Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly have each given it 10 points, their lowest marks? I fear it's because it is only an arthouse picture with no hope of winning the big prize. I hope not, because I can't stand that sort of movie. Oh well. I liked the trailer, so I shall hope for the best!

Here'a a lock for a minor nomination. If they can decide which song to submit, Eddie Vedder surely can't miss picking up a nom for what he did for "Into the Wild." Good, sometimes understated songs that actually enhance the movie. And Phil Collins is nowhere in sight. Thank God.

Mistress, if you're hoping for the best, why aren't you relentlessly hyping it as you have with Elizabeth and Beowulf?

Aren't those Ian Sinclair's babies, Jeff, darling? The Mistress is rather more partial to "Atonement." And she is, believe it or not, looking forward to "There Will Be Blood," being rather fond of the stuff.

Are you really under the delusion that you're fooling people, Hunter?

It rather seems to me that you are the one with that particular delusion, Jeff, sweetie.

Okay, you asked for it:

http://www.thebackstage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2729&start=0&sid=109df10b8750ed4d72ce3234699dab5e

"Hi Backstagers

There seems little point in maintaining a facade that quite frankly lost its sell-by date quite some time ago.

As some of you worked out a long time ago, the Mistress was, in actuality, a US-based British novelist and screenwriter called Hunter Tremayne.

In the summer I wrote my first play, that ran off-off broadway succesfully for a week called VERMILION WINE, a film noir murder mystery set in the New York of 1948..."

I guess I don't need to add that one of the characters in "Vermilion Wine" is "Ian Sinclair".

Now, was all that necessary?

Well, you certainly seem to think it was, darling, and I do very much admire your terrier-like tenacity and stalker-like snoopery, but you are still, sadly, rather missing the point, which is that if you are not in on the joke then you are part of the joke. In fact, if you continue, you will be in danger of becoming the joke itself, which I hardly think is your intention. Now, blow me a kiss.

Sigh. Whatever you say, Hunter. You forgot to call me a cretin.

Let me just add that I don't want to be 'in on the joke' I want to have a normal discussion about movies or whatever, not participate in a attitudinal costume party.

Oh, no, not when I was so worried about your blood pressure! But no more of this "Hunter" nonsense; there is no-one by that name in this particular Theater of the Absurd, and I shall not answer to it.

(swish) GONG!!!!

That's the spirit!

It was a sarcastic swish GONG.

Ah. Best not to put the swish in parenthesis next time, then.

That was to indicate that it was just barely audible, as you threw your cape over your shoulder and strode off into the night.

A grace note! The Mistress approves. She heads to the door and turns -

"May flocks of angels sweep thee to thy rest"

- and she is gone.

Good night, Mistress Misquote. Oh, and since it was all for laughs, anytime that's convenient for you to apologize for spreading lies about me, just let me know.

The Mistress has no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps someone else can help you with that. Drop a line to the Mistress

mistressmalevolent@www.mistressmalevolent.com

I think it would be gentlemanly for you to apologize...for all the times you lied...?

But I'm not surprised that you'd rather be glib and play games instead.

The Mistress has never told a lie about you. You are misinformed.

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised when a liar continues to lie.

Have you been drinking? "Lying" about what exactly?

This is absurd. This is supposed to be a forum for talking about films. Hunter, Ian, Mistress, whatever your name is, this is cyberspace and you can be whoever you want to be; but let's at least talk about the subject we come here for.

As for this latest Gurus of Gold, I wonder how much will change now that studios are really ramping up their "For Your Consideration" ads and are releasing their screeners. Is it possible that any film that was presumed dead could make a miraculous recovery with the help of screeners and ads?

You mean "Zodiac" of course. No: not a hope in hell. It made no money.

I was actually thinking of Things We Lost in the Fire and Once. But yeah, Zodiac too. I wonder how much money actually matters to voters when they sit down and pop a DVD in. I think money might matter a bit more in terms of a Best Picture nomination, but not usually with acting or directing.

I think Once is more likely to be helped than Zodiac, since it'll probably play better on DVD and has a warmer emotional tone to it so the entire family can enjoy it. Zodiac, being cold and kind of intellectual/conceptual, has more of an uphill battle.

Actually, I think Zodiac might get a director nod, but that's a busy dancecard this year with Ridley Scott the 300lb gorilla in the room. I see screenplay a better option; Downey Jr. a slight chance, but that's an ecen more crowded card. The problem with Zodiac is that the director's cut is superior but it's a thriller with a let-down ending (through no fault of its own) and they are very hard to sit through again, so you need to hit the people who never saw it. If you can do that, then you are in frame. Maybe.

I think Once has a stronger shot for song than Things We Lost In the Fire has for Actor. But the movie I think will surprise will be 3:10 To Yuma, which is looking strong all over the board. I can see it getting nods for Picture, Director, Supporting (Foster), maybe Fonda, too, and even Crowe and Bale if they love it enough. You seem with all of the contenders, so many DVDs flying around, so many worthy pictures, I think "screw it - let's watch that Western again!" is going to be happening a lot.

Perhaps Dave doesn't think Michael Clayton is #1 for the win, but for the nomination. Perhaps.

"Here'a a lock for a minor nomination. If they can decide which song to submit, Eddie Vedder surely can't miss picking up a nom for what he did for "Into the Wild." Good, sometimes understated songs that actually enhance the movie. And Phil Collins is nowhere in sight. Thank God."

The original song category this year is quite interesting. We have Hairspray that has three original songs two of which are actually in the movie being performed (which is why I think Dreamgirls got three noms last year - they were utilised in the film), we have Once with a collection of songs, Into the Wild with a soundtrack full, and then movies like Enchanted which is sure to have an original. Not to mention all the "credits sequence" songs and the like.

I think Waitress can recover especially for Actress and Supporting Actor (Andy Griffith) along with a good shot at original screenplay. I think it should be up for Supporting Actress as well, for Adrienne Shelley. That film, like Once, gets a lot of goodwill that only builds as people see it. I wish it would get editing consideration, so well done.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: