They seem to be out of the big race, just like I suspected. And yes, Apocalypto should dominate the technical oscars over these two with these kind of raves from major publications (Rolling Stone, Variety, ...)

Looks like apocalypto has a good shot at getting nominated for the foreign golden globe.

http://goldderby.latimes.com/

Golden Globe voters like 'Apocalypto'
While one online Yankee journo is bashing "Apocalypto" as a violent "two-and-a-half hour torture-fest" (see Roger Friedman's review at FoxNews.com— CLICK HERE ), members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association apparently disagree. Clearly, they enjoyed their private screening on Thursday.


The consensus view of kudos-watchers is that Mel Gibson's controversial action flick about the, literally, dying days of the Mayan empire in the 16th century will probably be nominated at the Golden Globes for best foreign-language film (actors speak a native dialect) along with "Letters from Iwo Jima," "Volver," "Lives of Others" and "Pan's Labyrinth." Several other pix in the running deserve a bid, too, but the category's already run out of room. Three of the five seem pretty solid: "Iwo Jima," "Volver" and "Apocalypto." Perhaps "Lives" and "Pan's" are vulnerable, but they've been received so enthusiastically by HFPA viewers that it's hard to imagine how they could be bumped.


I have seen "Apocalypto." It's an excellent action movie. Violent, yes, but so well made on the tech side that it should do well in the Oscar crafts categories. But the Globes don't have those races, so the foreign-language film race is the one that may give us the best indication of its potential at the Oscars.

If "Apocalypto" does well with the academy's tech branches, it might ultimately be the pic that brings sound mixer Kevin O'Connell — Oscar's biggest loser with 18 past defeats — his long-overdue award. How curious that he could win for an infamous pic, given the Mel connection.

Photo: Mel's savages behave rather savagely in "Apocalypto," which may be an issue with the academy's notoriously squeamish electorate.

Does anyone know if they release "In my father's den" limited in 2006, they pushed it officially to next year. It's really a small masterpiece, getting marvellous reviews over here in Germany and has awesome performances. I'd love to see them push for some awards.

Dave Poland is hinting in his blog that he's just seen something that could seriously penetrate the BP race. One assumes he's probably referring to Letters From Iwo Jima or The Good Shepherd. Probably the former.

Doesn't mean he's right. But let's face it, we thrive on baseless speculation, regardless of where it comes from.

http://www.incontention.com/blog/2006/1 ... ct_le.html

Yeah, looks like it might be Letters. Which means something, considering he gave Flags a really bad review.

Yeah, Letters is going to be a contender itself instead of reviving Flags' chance. Considering how high Flags' COTC and MC scores are even though it's generally regarded as one of Clint's lesser efforts, and how Letters is supposedly to be much better, its scores are going to be sky high. I think few will give Letters a lower grade.

Strange, and yet on metacritic it says HR gave it an 80.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/apocalypto

Well now we know for sure it's Letters that Poland was talking about. This is a REALLY good sign for Letters as long as the people who loved Flags, love Letters it seems like this could end up being one of the best reviewed films of the year. Guess will just have to wait and see now.

Edward Douglas ( another person who disliked Flags ) really enjoyed Letters. Though Devin from Chud, who didnt like Flags, didnt like Letters either.

Back to Best Actor.

Now that multiple outlets are reporting exactly what sane people have been expecting (namely that next week's release of Blood Diamond is going to result with howls from much of the critical community and box office to match) is Warner Bros. going to wisen up and push DiCaprio HARD and FAST for Best Actor in The Departed?

He's got an outside chance of winning; the crix awards won't be going to Will Smith, and Peter O'Toole's losing some buzz. DiCaprio's performance won the best in the film and it would not surprise me to see multiple wins for him from the critics. But WB needs to get off its ass NOW.

Children Of Men definitely deserves a nomination, after seeing it. Will it get one, though? Hmm...it needs to branch out beyond critics and movie nerds, which I think it could, it's not nearly as cerebral as, say, The Fountain.

It's a potentially good sign for Flags as well since watching both films together may actually correct what were thought by some to be weaknesses in FooF. When the serious critics start weighing in it'll be interesting to see what they have to say about that. Certainly these comments confirm the earlier hints that with Letters Eastwood has delivered a socko movie. It also confirms my own suspicions about what WB obviously felt upon seeing The Good German and The Blood Diamond, namely, 'Gee, Letters is so much better than either of these, let's push that instead!'



As if their opinions count with the Academy.

A bunch of movies just debuted on Metacritic:

Dreamgirls - 92 (4 w/1 100 from Newsweek)
Apocalypto - 90 (4 reviews with 1 100 from Variety)
Blood Diamond - 82 (5 w/1 100 from The New Yorker)
The Good German - 84 (4)

I know it's early, but WOW @ Apocalypto & Dreamgirls.

Hmmm, looks like RT and Metacritic are disagreeing again when it comes to positive/negative reviews.RT has the HR and now newsweek review for apocalypto as rotten and metacritic has them as positive.Same thing like this i think happened with Babel.

Why anybody's opinion has to count with Academy? Why couldn't academy members think for themselves? I'm getting quite annoyed with people who argue major critics somehow have more influence on the academy than web bloggers. There is a guy at OW who said the similar thing, "as if any voters care what bloggers and internet critics think." Of course they don't have to or should care, but they shouldn't care what Variety or Hollywood Reporter thinks either. Sure, they probably read print reviews more regularly than browsing websites, but why should we assume they form their opinions based on what they read? I continue to assert that the opinions from all circles REFLECT instead of DICTATE what academy might think in general. Not all members align their tastes with COTC's; at least I don't see the evidence.

Same thing is happening with THR on Dreamgirls, which I'd say a score of 80 is a little high, but it isn't a negative review either, more like 7 out of 10.

The point is that if you're setting yourself up as a self-proclaimed expert predicting the Oscars then it kind of helps to know as much as possible about how the Academy think. That ought to be the bedrock underlying any Oscar discussion otherwise what's the point? Having the discipline to seperate one's personal faves from the Academy's likes and dislikes is also essential but most bloggers I read seem wholly incapable of that, frequently peddling ludicrous out of context 'evidence' about the Academy's behaviour in order to support their personal faves. With a few exceptions the whole thing's a joke.



But major critics do have more influence. Why should the Academy take the word of a 25 yr old kid like Kris Tapley over that of A.O. Scott of The New York Times? Or Edward Douglas's opinion (of comingsoon.net) over that of Roger Ebert? If you can't work the answer out for yourself then there's no point in me explaining it to you. I think your attitude expresses what the likes of Sasha Stone, Poland and the other bloggers are in this for. They actually believe they can make a difference to the race. But it's crazy, frankly. The Academy is an exclusive club and never, never, not in a million years, will they be told how to vote by a bunch of bloggers. The best the blogs can do is get together and set up their own awards and hope that one day it evolves into an alternative awards ceremony that attracts as much media coverage and money as the Golden Globes do.



They don't but by the same token they like the movies they do pick to have a certain level of critical approval. But that doesn't mean the critics tell the Academy how to vote. I mean it didn't exactly help BBM did it?



Look, at the end of the day the only opinions that matter are those of the 6, 000 members of AMPAS.

Wow at everything... but of course, it's all downhill from here I see Blood Diamond and The Good German finishing in the high 60's and Dreamgirls and Apocalypto in the mid 70's


EDIT: just noticed that Good German is a 64, not a 84... in that case it should keep that range, I think

I wish the Blood Diamond was still in the race. What a powerful motion picture. The best of the year, above even Babel and The Departed.

Anywho, the first screening of The Good Shepherd's tonight. I'm very excited to see the first word!

For some reason I picture Wormtongue whenever the limey posts. It's weird, usually I associate huge fanboys with their respective franchise.

Ah, loyal. Always a pleasure to hear from KJ's resident poof. Btw, about that 'Eastwood can't direct battle scenes' schtick - how's that going for you?

More Globes Wackiness?



It doesn't mean a damn thing for Griffiths who, IMO, is not really in any race. But for Sheen, this could be troubling.

Which would be terrible. He was superb! Hopefully this is just Tom O'Neil doing what he does best...being wrong.

Kris Tapley said he is under embargo for The Good Shepherd, but from the fact that he didn't move the film into the top 10 of any categories, I don't think he liked it much.

BFCA scores:

Apocalypto - 85
Blood Diamond - 82
Holiday, The - 78
Inland Empire - 71

Not high enough to be a major contender for any of the films in this group.

NSFC:

Children of Men - 85 (4 reviews)
Dreamgirls - 81 (4 reviews)

Not only did he not add it anywhere new, he knocked it down to tenth in Screenplay. So he's definitely a no. And I suspect that will be the majority opinion.

Upon closer inspection of Tapley's updated predictions, it appears he now has Letter From Iwo Jima pegged for nine nominations. Must have left an impression.

I don't see how Flags/Letters vote splitting is not a problem though. Flags, as much as I didn't care for it, had passionate support. This whole Eastwood situation unsettles me.