Friday, October 13, 2006

The Ninth Circle of Link (+ Oscar Talk)

All bloggers are going to hell! That's the latest stupidity oozing out of yet another repressed hatemonger who masquerades as a Jesus lover. So today's (nine) links are coming at you in this train of thought form, as we circle down into the inferno. I discovered that article through Badtux the Snarky Penguin, one of my fav political blogs and the penguin's take is, true to form, priceless.

It's really cold outside today so I don't even mind imagining the devil's flames consuming me. It's so cold that I'm planning to stay in this weekend and watch some new shows I like, get ahead of important things rather than play catch up, and dream about seeing Marie-Antoinette next week. I will however venture out to see The Departed with Marty, Jack, Leo, and Matt (hmmmm, Matt).

And because Oscar obsessions are as consuming as damnations flames, I thought I'd check in with the competition to see what people are goin' on about. Wells thinks that 2006 will stay a weak year (my personal feeling is lots of good but no great. But lots of good is enjoyable). I agree with Poland that Flags of Our Fathers is not a winner and could easily come up short of a nomination (but I've said that the whole year). I don't see why people are so surprised that the film isn't a slam dunk --who gets nominated every single time they make a movie let alone leads the race each time? I saw the movie last night and unless the audience turns out in droves or the other movies are equally shaky, I think it's in trouble. Tapley liked it better than I, but he's lukewarm, too. I'm personally more confident in The Queen as a major player at this point.

Before I wrap this post up, I have to address one clip from Poland's article:
Movies that happen in the now are rare commodities. The Departed, Little Children, Babel, Little Miss Sunshine and Stranger Than Fiction make up most of the list.
I'm not exactly sure what he means... but either way I disagree. Some of you may recall that I covered the "contemporary picture" in Oscar MythBusting. Contemporary features (The Queen should also be considered here --that's very recent history) are more frequent Oscar players than perception indicates and they're probably on their way back to dominance, all things being cyclical ... or circular, like our eternal homes.

Oh, you're going to hell, too! Don't think that reading blogs isn't also inviting Satan into your home. To quote Shortbus, "Voyeurism is participation."

9 comments:

adam k. said...

I actually don't find Matt Damon that attractive, despite the acting skills and chiseled body. Eh.

Kris said...

I dislike Flags more and more each day. I still think the battle sequence is engaging and interesting, if confusing at times. But just the visual style of it all was intriguing.

But I'm not making excuses for a shitty script...

Arkaan said...

Flags sounds like it'll be this year's Munich, in by virtue of being thought of as in for an entire year. That said, both Variety and the Hollywood Reporter have given it raves, so I don't think it's smart to completely dismiss it's chances.

And maybe Dreamgirls will be like Memoirs of a Geisha.

Marcelo said...

And if Dreamgirls is this year's Chicago and Flags of Our Fathers is Road to Perdition?

NATHANIEL R said...

There will be some raves for it, sure. that is built in when you do a sober WWII piece or when you're someone like Eastwood. Certain genres and filmmakers will never get universal shrugs, however shrugworthy their film is.

but FooF is not going to win over the people who aren't automatically won over by its genre. it's just not. it's very slow and creaky and structurally a mess ... and i hate to rag on ryan phillipe because i think people are just generally too hard on him. but he's just not that expressive of an actor and he's basically the lead.

Arkaan said...

The academy does like the war film, though. They nominated The Thin Red Line, and it's about as un-oscar bait as major nominees go. I haven't seen it, so saying this is majorly premature, but I still expect it to figure in the nominations in a big way.

Kris said...

I wouldn't say the Academy overly likes the war film. It seems it takes a relatively outstanding example from the genre for a war film to get a nod. After all, Black Hawk Down and Three Kings missed, both greatly received films.

That said, I still think Flags is in. Just barely.

adam k. said...

Well, war films do generally still have to be critically acclaimed, and at least sort of aiming for the prestige realm, in order to get nommed. Pearl Harbor and others like it were of course not even in the running.

It is hard to dismiss the Eastwood + Haggis + Spielberg + WWII factor... it does seem to be like this year's Munich. But Munich was still well-recieved. If Flag gets a really mixed critical reaction and doesn't hit with the public, I think it's in trouble. At least we know it's not winning.

Kamikaze Camel said...

Munich opened really late though.

But I suppose, with screeners Academy voters probably watched it before everyone else. But, still, I thought of Munich too. I even mentioned it on Dave Poland's blog.

The other week I put The Queen into my BP predictions. It is killing at the arthouses and seems to be generally really well-liked.