Who could ever forget moments such as Keisha Castle-Hughes name being announced on nomination morning for a Best Actress nomination for "Whale Rider" in 2004? Tommy Lee Jones for "In the Valley of Elah"? Mark Wahlberg in "The Departed"? Edward Norton in "American History X"? All shock-worthy, and in many estimates, dark horse nominees.

This year, we can expect names such as Streep, Mulligan, Clooney, and Waltz being safe bets. But who are we underestimating?? Anyone care to add names? Here are my selections...Feel free to add and to discuss

--------------------------------------------
BEST PICTURE?

Star Trek
Where the Wild Things Are
500 Days of Summer
Public Enemies
A Single Man
Coraline
Inglorious Basterds

BEST ACTRESS

Zooey Deschanel, "500 Days of Summer"
Michelle Pfeiffer, "Cheri"
Maya Rudolph, "Away We Go"
Natalie Portman, "Brothers"
Tilda Swinton, "Julia"

BEST ACTOR

Sam Rockwell, "Moon"
Joseph Gordon Levitt, "500 Days of Summer"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Melanie Laurent, "Inglorious Basterds"
Diane Kruger, "Inglorious Basterds"
Sigourney Weaver, "Avatar"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Billy Crudup, "Public Enemies"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Russ_Shigekuni,

Having just seen Precious in NY, I think we're underestimating Mariah Carey. She is in some of the most compelling scenes of the film, and she's actually unrecognizable and great. Mo'nique seems like a definite win for Best Supporting Actress (unless Streep goes supporting for J&J), and I think Carey will get her nominaton.

I do not see any acting nominations at all for Inglorious Basterds or Public Enemies. I think that those are two films that Hollywood will forget come nomination time, mercifully.

quote:

Originally posted by Addison DeWitt:
Having just seen Precious in NY, I think we're underestimating Mariah Carey. She is in some of the most compelling scenes of the film, and she's actually unrecognizable and great. Mo'nique seems like a definite win for Best Supporting Actress (unless Streep goes supporting for J&J), and I think Carey will get her nominaton.

I do not see any acting nominations at all for Inglorious Basterds or Public Enemies. I think that those are two films that Hollywood will forget come nomination time, mercifully.

A-hem, Christopher Waltz seems like a sure thing...

So far, nominations for Sam Rockwell for Moon, Ben Whishaw for Bright Star, Sharlto Copley for District 9, would be nice 'shocks' to me.

An original screenplay nom for Whatever Works would also be a nice surprise, for starters. There are lots of other possibilities I wouldnt mind seeing, that would surprise me.

I wonder.... unless Waltz wins a critic's prize, he'll be forgotten. Despite the success of Inglorious Basterds at the box office, I don't know anyone that loves anything about the film. Quentin Tarantino is capable of much, much greater work, and to reward him at all for a film that is so lazy and childish is unthinkable.

I think Inglourious Basterds has a good shot at making the top ten for Best Picture.
I really liked this film, so count me in as part of that unthinkable group of lazy and childish viewers.

Really? I hated it. And I LOVE Tarantino. You didn't cringe when you heard him use the exact same soundtrack he's used in some of his past films? Now that's lazy.

quote:

Originally posted by Addison DeWitt:
Really? I hated it. And I LOVE Tarantino. You didn't cringe when you heard him use the exact same soundtrack he's used in some of his past films? Now that's lazy.

The movie is a mash-up of of classical European film-making and drive-in/grindhouse cinema... with a little "The Dirty Dozen"/grungy WWII thriller thrown in. As such the trashy, 70s score is part of the design of the film.

Also, Christoph Waltz is likely to sweep or near sweep the critics' awards for best supporting actor. He may even win some for best actor. He already won best actor at Cannes. He is not only a shoo-in for the nomination but the one to beat even if he is an obscure actor.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,

I only mention it because it is appropriate to the thread, not because I am predicting it, but Warner Bros and Joel Silver made Sherlock Holmes and set it to go Xmas day in part because they expect it to be a Oscar film, particularly Robert Downey Jr.

Again, its absence from any speculation is stunning.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
I only mention it because it is appropriate to the thread, not because I am predicting it, but Warner Bros and Joel Silver made Sherlock Holmes and set it to go Xmas day in part because they expect it to be a Oscar film, particularly Robert Downey Jr.

Again, its absence from any speculation is stunning.

Did you see the trailer?

I know, we're not supposed to judge from a two minute trailer, but there will always be exceptions hanging way off the end of rule as to be extremely noticeable. Dreadful doesn't even begin to describe it. It's a debasement. I thought of that joke in the movie "The Tall Man": why didn't they just call it "Holmes!" with an exclamation point at the end of it?

But yes, it would very much be a "dark horse".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: stevie,

Yes, the film is so dreadful that before the release of the film they are in the final stages of approving a sequel and looking to get Brad Pitt to play Moriarty.

That for me is the strongest indication that they are very pleased with the film (and research screening results). It doesn't make it an Oscar picture by itself, but so far it sounds like they are more than satisfied with the film.

Oh, I'm sure it'll separate a lot of people from their money...

But the cast is not a mass audience one - Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are an older audience, not blockbuster cast.

Nor is the subject - how many moviegoers under 30 know who Sherlock Holmes is, much less care?

So unless it is a good film/gets good reviews/has Oscar potential, it likely flops - thus WB's interest in a sequel indicates they consider it critic/Oscar bait, irrespective of the reaction here to the trailer.

Again, I have no brief for the film - it could be the biggest recent flop until Robin Hood opens. But since its studio is totally behind it, seem pleased with it, made it with Oscars in mind, it shouldn't be considered a dark horse - it should be elevated to a higher level, as a real potential contender, at least until anyone hears a report on screenings or sees a review that indicates to the contrary.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:
I think Inglourious Basterds has a good shot at making the top ten for Best Picture.
I really liked this film, so count me in as part of that unthinkable group of lazy and childish viewers.

I didn't even think this was a dark horse. I thought this was in.

From the movies that you have selected I only see "Where The Wild Things Are" (if the reviews are great and if the box office is decent), "Inglorious Basterds" and "A Single Man" (if Weinstein put everything he has in a campaign). As for Best Actor I don't see any of your guys making it. As for Best Actress only Tilda Swinton has a chance (and only if she gets some big critics wins). Supporting Actor - no Billy Crudup, sorry. As for Supporting Actress it would be wonderful if Melanie Laurent woudl make it, but we already have an unknown with a buzz - Anna Kendrick. The only one from your list that could make it is Sigourney Weaver. She's a long overdue for a win, but for her to make it in "Avatar" needs to become one of the biggest blockbusters ever.

My shot in the dark prediction on Avatar - James Cameron decides that no screeners will be sent out - the film is meant to be seen in 3D, thus Academy members (and other guilds) need to see it that way or not at all.

It would be a go for broke strategy, but if the film delivers as he wants it to, it would make sense.

This is going to be a real issue in future years as more live action Oscar contenders are made in 3D, at least until we have 3D TV.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
But the cast is not a mass audience one - Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are an older audience, not blockbuster cast.

Nor is the subject - how many moviegoers under 30 know who Sherlock Holmes is, much less care?

So unless it is a good film/gets good reviews/has Oscar potential, it likely flops - thus WB's interest in a sequel indicates they consider it critic/Oscar bait, irrespective of the reaction here to the trailer.

Again, I have no brief for the film - it could be the biggest recent flop until Robin Hood opens. But since its studio is totally behind it, seem pleased with it, made it with Oscars in mind, it shouldn't be considered a dark horse - it should be elevated to a higher level, as a real potential contender, at least until anyone hears a report on screenings or sees a review that indicates to the contrary.

Young audiences may see it just based on it being an action movie with Robert Downey Jr. (I believe it is hard to claim Downey Jr. is for older audiences with "Iron Man" and "Tropic Thunder" recently to his name). I do not think it particularly matters that young people have not read any Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Who would have thought young people cared about pirates except at Halloween when "Pirates of the Caribbean" came out? When did the last successful pirate movie come out before then? The 1950s maybe? It was Johnny Depp who brought the young audiences. They keep making films of somewhat obscure comic books and yet people see them who are likely only familiar with big names like Superman and Batman.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,

That's one hell of a gamble to risk $200 million + on (the production & marketing costs for two separate films).

Their intent was to make an Oscar contending film. Sorry, but that seems obvious to me. And the total disregard of the film here, based on the trailer (which I actually liked), continues to stun me.

We don't know how many of the Xmas studio releases if any will be contenders. There are 10 best picture nominees now. Any combination of decent reviews/box office success would like make a real contender for a BP nomination and Downey, as well as quite a few technical positions, possibly other acting.

All I am saying is the total disregard for it is a real blind spot here.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
That's one hell of a gamble to risk $200 million + on (the production & marketing costs for two separate films).

Their intent was to make an Oscar contending film. Sorry, but that seems obvious to me. And the total disregard of the film here, based on the trailer (which I actually liked), continues to stun me.

I liked the trailer but with its emphasis on action and jokes, and hints of a supernatural plot, it does not seem anything like a film made with major Oscar nominations in mind.

Which is why, IF it gets good to better reviews, it will be terrifically positioned by being a surprise.

Obviously Raiders had Spielberg and was a huge hit, but it got nominated as a jokey film as a summer release with only five slots. Would the first Pirates have been nominated with 10 positions? I might have been.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,