| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| Finding Neverland's Oscar Odds http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1069 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Anonymous [ Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Finding Neverland's Oscar Odds |
I saw Finding Neverland over the weekend and was floored. I expect Finding Neverland to get Oscar nominations for Best Picture Best Director - Marc Forster Best Actor - Johnny Depp Best Actress - Kate Winslet Best Supporting Actor - Freddie Highmore Best Supporting Actress - Julie Christie Best Cinematography - Roberto Schaefer Best Editing - Matt Chesse Best Song - Peter's Song by Elton John Best Costume - Alexandra Byrne and Mary Kelly Best Art Direction- Peter Russell |
|
| Author: | Atoddr [ Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I guess Miramax had a good reason to focus on this along with The Aviator. I really can't wait to see this. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've read the whole saga about how this film got delayed. Because of the Peter Pan film last year, the producers were told to either remove certain lines from Finding Neverland or delay the release date. It's fate that Depp got a nom for Pirates and Return of the King sweep everything during the last Oscars. Finding Neverland was not meant to be released then. It's such a sweet small yet powerful film, I usually don't predict Best Picture winners this early, but I think it will win. |
|
| Author: | andaroo1 [ Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This films screams "Big Fish" to me. The actors have a shot maybe, but what I've read of the film in the past months has been decidedly more mixed than the current crop of RT reviews. Of course, as we all know, many negative reviews are held until the movie's actual release, so I don't necessarily have any faith in the tomatometer at this point. We'll see. The Aviator (which is getting great buzz from people who have seen it) is still much more powerful of a canidate. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
andaroo wrote: This films screams "Big Fish" to me. The actors have a shot maybe, but what I've read of the film in the past months has been decidedly more mixed than the current crop of RT reviews. Of course, as we all know, many negative reviews are held until the movie's actual release, so I don't necessarily have any faith in the tomatometer at this point. We'll see. The Aviator (which is getting great buzz from people who have seen it) is still much more powerful of a canidate. It's weird, I have almost a completely different view. If anything, views have been incredible for Finding Neverland and I havent heard any buzz from The Aviator. Time will tell I guess. |
|
| Author: | Alex Y. [ Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
andaroo wrote: This films screams "Big Fish" to me. The actors have a shot maybe, but what I've read of the film in the past months has been decidedly more mixed than the current crop of RT reviews. Of course, as we all know, many negative reviews are held until the movie's actual release, so I don't necessarily have any faith in the tomatometer at this point. We'll see. The Aviator (which is getting great buzz from people who have seen it) is still much more powerful of a canidate. I have seen Finding Neverland and it is very unlike Big Fish (a superior movie). It instead has more similarities to other Oscar-nominated movies like Lost in Translation, The Hours, A Beautiful Mind, The Cider House Rules and Shakespeare in Love. Most movies that are nominated for Best Picture have greater mass appeal than critical appeal. Finding Neverland has lots of mass appeal (particularly among the older audience) and is defintely more academy-friendly than an agaiinst-type Martin Scorcese flick (whose films historically only get a best picture nomination every 10-12 years). |
|
| Author: | andaroo1 [ Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Most movies that are nominated for Best Picture have greater mass appeal than critical appeal. I wouldn't disagree with this, but saying that films like The Hours and Lost in Translation had massive audience appeal is questionable. Indeed, much smaller movies driven primarily as critics choices. And it doesn't mean that every single film that has mass-appeal and good/decent/great reviews is automatically a Best Picture lock. Quote: and is defintely more academy-friendly than an agaiinst-type Martin Scorcese flick (whose films historically only get a best picture nomination every 10-12 years). It's better, safer bet to wager on the "against type Martin Scorsese" (which, I think if you think about it hard, is not as "against type" as Kudun or The Last Temptation of Christ was) being... 1. The Academy is not above politics. 2. Miramax is not above the politics of pushing a better race-horse. They can get multiples nominated, but the question remains whether they CAN in their current state or if the bias against them with the Academy is real or not. 3. Scorsese's films may have in the past only get a picture nomination every 10-12 years but unlike Marc Foster (director of Finding Neverland) he HAS gotten a pic nominated and been nominated 5 times at various intervals (2003, 1994, 1991, 1989, 1981). That's a stat you can't cling to. In regards to Scorsese's "overdue-ness" we CAN cling to the Gangs of New York campaign which relied HEAVILY on the amount he has brought to cinema. Going from a Director's nomination to a Picture nomination isn't much of a jump. 4. Scorsese's name and the fame of the actors will automatically secure a large amount of print. I'm not saying it won't happen. Anything that brings Depp and Winslett closer to their overdue wins would make me happy. I'm just saying that there is no way on paper that Finding Neverland is an automatic lock for any awards, let alone winning them. I've read on other web sites, and supporters of this movie are clinging to A Beautiful Mind as comparison, but I think that comparison is bunk because what drove that film was Howard. |
|
| Author: | torrino [ Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just got back from Finding Neverland Press Screening... And, I'll say this. It's gonna be hella close between Johnny Depp and Jamie Foxx. Depp was wonderful. Winslet will get Best Supporting Actress. I think ESOTSM counts as a Sup. Actress award. Dustin Hoffman will be in the running for Best Supporting Actor. Not for this, but, for Meet the Fockers. Mark my words. 
|
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmmm....the buzz seems to be tremendous on the other side of the pond...yet this movie screams "Bug Fish" to me...I don t know. This won't win Best Pic, definitely not. But it might get a nom. Depp seems to be a shoe-in for a nom, but Winslet, I see her much rather getting a Best Actress nom for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. |
|
| Author: | torrino [ Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, but the more I think about it... Winslet's performance wasn't a starting role. It was supporting. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
torrino wrote: Yeah, but the more I think about it... Winslet's performance wasn't a starting role. It was supporting. It is an iffy thing...I mean I consider Anthony Hopkins' role in Silence of the Lambs more of a supporting role. Seriously, although he leaves a very lasting impression, he doesn't get too much screen-time. I think the same might happen in ESOTSM's case. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|