Sunday, January 14, 2007

The Pursuit of Linkyness

For the Oscar fanatics
Oscar Survey have you sent yours to Eddie? You only have a few more days.
The Hot Button Get your ice skates out devils ... David Poland and I are totally together on this point.
Defamer Sienna Miller's last minute Oscar play. This is desperate even by Harvey Weinstein's standards.
Film Otaku wonders what it will take to win Winslet an Oscar?

For the rest of you
The Gilded Moose this question will seem redundant in so many ways but: what the hell is wrong with Paula Abdul? Seriously watch this video. What is wrong with her? What isn't wrong with her?
Nicks Flick Picks with brief but incisive notes on Letters From Iwo Jima, Children of Men, and Dreamgirls
Watts With Words I love mean reviews if the person deserves them. Watts eviscerates the latest from Mel Gibson. Only problem is this: evisceration will surely turn Mel on.
Cinemathematics defends the maligned unseen Tideland while taking Pan's Labyrinth to task while Cutting Room defends Manderlay and disses Tideland.
Ah the joys of divisive films...


Glenn Dunks said...

It's funny reading Children of Men naysayers. They all seem to think the only reason others like it is because of "camera porn" (aka, nifty camera work and production design stuff).

(this wasn't really in relation to anything, I just though I'd mention it...)

adam k. said...

It is indeed sad that Winslet has not yet won an oscar. I don't know what it'll take either. She's done the biopic thing. She deglammed to some extent in Little Children. She just needs it to be her year, i.e. no other stampeding frontrunner, the way there is most of the time she's nominated, and possibly some good press hook about it being "her time"... a pairing with Leo DiCaprio or maybe with Sam Mendes directing her in something... that could work.

The Leo thing is actually a really good idea. If they co-starred again in some kind of epic romance thing with an oscar director and good script, they'd both totally win.

Anyway, it'll happen some time in her mid-thirties. With any luck, Moore will get one next year for Savage Grace, Streep will get one the following year for playing The President or Martha Mitchell, and then Kate will get it in '09. What a marvelous run that would be.

The thing to remember is that hardly ever wins an oscar before age 30 anyway. It's just that Kate's already lost so many times that it's ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Goo call about the shortened season. Last year, when it was in March, no one I talked to knew who was nominated or if the oscars had taken place or not. They need to be close to the year they award or no one cares. The studios should learn/know to release movies a few weeks earlier or just drum up more fake buzz (dreamgirls...cough)

adam k. said...

That last part should ready "hardly anyone ever wins..." obviously.

Anyway, that Kate article was totally my favorite of the links you posted.

Beau said...

1) Winslet will get her Oscar. She's brilliant in everything she does, and she's quite magnificent in 'Little Children', (even though I have a sneaky feeling that Gyllenhall is going to get that nod).

2) 'Apocolypto' could only have been done that well by a true director. Sure, if you want to look at him that way, he could be considered a sadist. But I'd rather watch any film of Mel Gibson's than have to endure two hours of Tom Cruise moping around onscreen... I'm just saying, the guy was at his best in Magnolia. He needs something of that caliber again if he ever wants people take him seriously.

3) 'Manderlay' was the best film in an otherwise weak 2005. Yes, I saw 'Brokeback' and 'History of Violence' and 'Good Night, and Good Luck' and yes, all were very well done motion pictures. But for me? They paled in comparison to the wonders of Joe Wright (who directed one of the best adaptations I've ever seen in 'Pride and Prejudice', Woody kicking ass, Malick making a poem out of celluloid and Von Trier being controversial, divisive, but always uniformally brilliant.

Anonymous said...

"But I'd rather watch any film of Mel Gibson's than have to endure two hours of Tom Cruise moping around onscreen..."

If those are my only options, I think I'm gonna read more.

Beau said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Finally a PRADA review I can sympathise with (@ The Cutting Room). This was the ultimate 44 minute idea stretched to feature length at all costs... And the thing is - how easy was it for Meryl to give that performance? Hard to believe she's being lauded for what someone rightly labelled a 'Cruella Devil' reading.

But Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci were worth it. And I only wish the film was actually about one of them. Now that film - with a fully unreliable narrator - would have bitten harder and been funnier as a result.

evermoon said...

Thanks Adam, I'm glad you liked the article.