« Watchmen Review Battle Royale | Main | Gilmore Goes Tribeca »

February 16, 2009

The Final Gurus Charts

The charts are just going up and to no one's surprise, the two tight "big" races are Actor and Supporting Actress.

What's different about this week's charts is that we are ranking our best guess at who will win, but then doing a 1- 10 that explains how strongly we feel. So the top candidate in that regard is Heath Ledger with an average 9.27 rank, followed by Slumdog for Best Picture with 9.2. Least sure are the 2 Sound categories with ranks in the 5s with the tightest top category being Actor with 5.87 and 8 votes for Penn and 5.28 and 7 votes for Rourke.

Here are the most tight votes amonsgt top contenders, by the Gurus' estimate.

guruactorfinal.jpg

gurusuppact.jpg

And here is the link to the who chart, Page 1 and Page 2.

Posted by dpoland at February 16, 2009 10:38 PM

Comments

May I suggest you establish a crazy OSCAR pool post on Friday? It would be something to do for the Oscar, let everyone compete against one another, and maybe get some fun out of a PERFUNCTORY Oscar show. It's just a suggestion, but THB could use an Oscar Pool.

Posted by: IOIOIOI [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 16, 2009 10:57 PM

are we there yet?!...are we there yet?!...are we there yet?!...are we there yet?!...are we there yet?!...are we there yet?!...i gotta pee...are we there yet?!...are we there yet?!...

i will be so glad when this particular road trip is over.......

Posted by: scooterzz [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2009 02:10 AM

Question: Have two previous winners ever won best actor two years in a row? If Penn wins that would make a Day-Lewis/Penn double for each.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2009 02:22 AM

At this point (it's been this way all along), there's no denying Best Actor is essentially a two-man race, and far as the bloggers and Hollywood hype men are concerned, Langella, Pitt and Jenkins might as well watch the show in their sweats at some food court Sbarro's. Because to hear everyone tell it, their chances are literally 0%, 0% and, er, 0%.

Kind of a bummer for Langella, though, I think. I'm 100% Team Rourke, but Langella would be my runner-up. Everyone's in this huge hurry to crown Penn again, and he's terrific, but it's not like the role is the final culmination of a brilliant career-- He's certainly not wanting for past nominations, he'll all but surely be nominated time and again for years to come. Not saying it should be "career capper" night, but if a big part of the Rourke appeal is the comeback story, then Langella deserves some similar props just for being an awesome old warhorse who's done and seen it all coming out and owning a plum role like this.

Kinda devil's advocating here, because I like Milk and love Penn... but I don't even know that his Milk is as searing and intense as his work in Bad Boys or At Close Range or Falcon and the Snowman or 21 Grams.

Maybe that's my preference for moody histrionics and dark crime films talking-- I'll cop to being one who sometimes mistakes swearing, shouting and fuming for the best acting-- but his sunny, charming, endearing Harvey Milk, despite the urgency of the film around him, stays more of an idealized, loveable, angelic guy from scene one to fade out. He disappears into the character about as well as big star can, and there's no rule that Best Actor has to be Most Tormented Character... I don't know, I just wonder if some of the rabid enthusiasm for the performance isn't just that he's playing a beloved figure who everyone would wanna hang out with and be charmed by in real life.

Posted by: LexG [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2009 02:40 AM

I actually think Milk is an excellent time to reward Penn again since his work in it is so uncommon these days and it's (almost) a complete 180 from his Mystic River performance. If people are going to have two Oscars they should be for performances that are at least different in some ways (I'm looking at you Hilary Swank). Penn hasn't been that charismatic on screen since... Sweet and Lowdown? I don't remember that movie well at all, but I think he was a bit more relaxed there than he has been in the last decade.

But, then again, I'm not that taken by Rourke's big comeback since I wasn't around to see him when he was here to begin with. That and I didn't think The Wrestler was all that and I think it would be a shame if Aronofsky took the success of this film to mean he should dump the crazy balls-to-the-wall style of his first three films.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2009 03:25 AM

Kami: Without looking anything up, Brando in '72 and Lemmon in '73 had both won previously, albeit Lemmon's first win was for Supporting Actor.

Posted by: yancyskancy [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2009 03:46 AM

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm completely with Lex on the whole Langella thing. He's pretty much committed himself to Broadway now, so this could well be his last shot at the gold guy. (And it's not like his film work hasn't been exemplary prior to this, either.) I know he won't win, but shucks, a guy can dream, can't he?

Posted by: Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2009 06:28 PM

Post a comment

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.)


Remember me?