Friday, October 21, 2005

Pushed to 2006

I detailed my feelings about the upcoming remake of All The Kings Menback in August and I've had it camped in my Oscar predictions for awhile now. Word came today at Movie City News that the film is moving to 2006. Around about this time every year this happens, some seemingly major contender vanishes. It doesn't always mean the film is is trouble though that is always the first rumor to spread when a film is delayed. Recent best picture nominees like Gangs of New York, The Hours, and Finding Neverlandwere all delayed a year in their arrivals. This means that since I've just barely updated my Oscar predictions, i will be shifting them again right away rather than waiting till the scheduled changes next month.

8 comments:

Aaron said...

Oh but All the King's Men is most DEFINITELY in trouble. I've actually seen it and I can vouch for the fact. It's an absolute mess. It's edited very poorly and the book is too big and sprawling for the movie for some reason (I mean, they did it in 1949, right? How hard could it be?) Frankly, I think the problem is mostly direction. The material just sort of languishes up there on the screen. Patricia Clarkson is used solely as comic fodder in an otherwise very somber tale and her scenes seem out of place and mostly unwanted in such a serious piece. Jude Law is good, but I have to confess that Kate Winslet, though fine in the role, plays an underwritten, difficult-to-understand character. It's almost impossible to relate to her or to comprehend any of her motives throughout. Ditto Mark Ruffalo. I say it's a mess. Really. I've been looking at those predictions on your site for weeks and expecting no good news.

Anonymous said...

This is what I just posted at In Contention:

"yay! I'm so happy! This movie just was not exciting me AT ALL. As much as I love the cast, it just screamed LOOK AT ME. And I'm glad that Sean Penn will be out of the Best Actor race. Hopefully that will tighten the possibility for someone like Heath Ledger or even Cillian Murphy to solidify a spot.

But all along I have been saying that I wasn't feeling this movie wasn't going to eventuate into much (especially Sean Penn for Best Actor) so I feel slightly justified."

And while it may indeed go on to a BP nod next year, still doesn't mean it's not troubled. only The Hours out of those three you listed was actually any good.

-Glenn

Anonymous said...

Oh, and also, have you seen Brokeback Mountain's FYC ad? I could possibly see it doing a Moulin Rouge! by being nominated for Ensemble but nothing else (at the SAGs, which is what the FYC ad is for).

Are SAG nice to people like Heath Ledger who have never been great but suddenly are (when they're still young)

-Glenn

david m said...

Thanks for posting this info here. I never go to "the site" you linked to because David Poland is a homophobe and a lousy writer. (please don't let that remark spark any feedback... the guy deserves to be ignored)

I'm disappointed Clarkson and Winslet won't be in the Best Supporting Actress race. That category is looking fairly thin now.

darkcypherlad said...

I think I commented on this before but this version of "All the King's Men" seems to have contracted "The Crucible" curse. Remember that film? Great cast, directed by a young, promsing director, from decades-old source material that should have been foolproof to film? Everyone on "buzzing" (I hate that word--I sound like Dave Poland or something) that it would sweep the awards, with nominations in every major category, blach blah blah. Then the film opened and everyone realized it was (gasp!) pretty bad. Only Joan Allen survived the critical massacre (Paul Scofield lay in a coma, while Day-Lewis and Ryder were as dead as Anna Wintour's winter furs).

Even from the casting stage, I've had a bad feeling about ATKM. There's just too MANY stars here, all crowding around in a star which doesn't NEED star power. The original worked so well because the characters were played by actors who hadn't yet made it big. And isn't it a strange cast to begin with? Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, Patricia Clarkson, James Gandolfini, Mark Ruffalo...I love these actors alot, but should they be in the same movie that isn't directed by Robert Altman or Woddy Allen? The starpower is literally overwhelming and I think it will kill the film's story and message.

Also, do we really need an updated version? The original works just fine for me. It's STILL relevant, even if some people think black and white movies are inherently archaic (shame on them!).

If it had been released this year, it would have been gobbled up by the other pics. It never did have the traction of, say, The Family Stone, Narnia, or even King Kong. I hope the movie IS good, but I won't hold my breath.

Jason

dusty said...

Hmm...despite my reluctance about this film's Oscar possibilities, I'm disappointed to see it disappear. Even more disappointed to hear from you who've seen it that it's awful.

But perhaps this'll clear the way for Rent or Memoirs of a Geisha?

Anonymous said...

Jason, that's sort of what I was turned off by. Like, Nat and other Oscar guessers constantly talk about movies with Oscar pedigree that are just expecting awards and so forth (Memoirs this year for starters) but I thought All The King's Men was a much worse case.

I mean, at least Memoirs hasn't been on the screen before. And it's actually sort of a risky venture (not to make western audiences sound racist but haven't there only been, like, 2 all-asian films to gross more than $50mil - Crouching Tiger and Hero). All THe King's Men is a remake of a Best Picture winner with that cast that just screams FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION!

I mean, I'll end up seeing it and i'm sure it'll do good with the Oscars when it is released but it smells fishy to me.

-Glenn

Anonymous said...

Very nice site! spyware spam popup blocker Early convertible car navigation map download John emmetsberger accounting wheelchair upholstery