Jump to content
Forum Cinema em Cena

Oscar 2010: Indicados e Previsões


MacGruber
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Não acredito nessa indicação da Fergie. Ela pode estar ótima, mas vai encontrar uma forte resistencia por ser quem é. E tb não acredito que ela vá merecer.

 

Agora, a Madonna não tem um terço da potencia vocal que ela tem. A diferença é gritante (com o perdão do trocadilho).
BrnoSoares2009-05-16 00:47:39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

 

Imelda Stauton como a histérica mãe russa em Taking Woodstock de Lee já começa a roubar a cena. Comentários sobre Oscar estão surgindo em todas as reviews. O filme parece que foi muito bem recebido!

 

...

 

PS: A voz que me referi em Nine é do Lewis e nunca da Fergie se ainda não entenderam.

FeCamargo2009-05-16 13:46:56

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Num filme que tem Marion Cottilard, Kate Hudson, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren, Nicole Kidman e Penélope Cruz, eles não vão inventar de indicar a Fergie (pelo menos eu espero).

 

Falando em Fergie, parece que também veremos Mariah Carey no Oscar06, é que o filme Precious que já fez sucesso em Sundance, agora foi a maior babação em Cannes. Eu vi o trailer e não vi nada.

 

Taking Woodstock foi muito bem recebido e Imelda Staunton já é citada como indicável ao Oscar de coadjuvante. Outra bem elogiada foi a australiana Abbie Cornish pelo filme da Jane Campion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A maior parte das críticas pra Woodstock foram até boas, mas acho que não o suficiente pra brigar por Best Picture ano que vem.

 

No Sense or Sensibility: Lee’s “Woodstock” Undercooked

 

With the youthful Tiber’s amiably soft-spoken persona in the foreground, “Taking Woodstock” theoretically had the potential to become a delightful coming-of-age story on the level of “Almost Famous.” Unfortunately, the pervasive superficiality of the performances and overly referential script rule that out from the very beginning. Martin’s stiff delivery might have worked if he was surrounded by an aura of credibility, but rest of the cast complicates the issue. Liev Schriever as a cross-dressing security manager? I hate to admit it, but he’s better in “Wolverine.” Imelda Staunton as a Tiber’s Yiddish-spouting mamele? Even Tovah Feldshuh would have been over the top. Paul Dano as a tripped-out hippy and Emile Hirsch as a wild Vietnam vet seem more like props than real people.

 

..........................................................

 

‘Taking Woodstock’ fizzles at Cannes

 

Ang Lee’s “Taking Woodstock” appears to have provided Cannes with its first high-profile disappointment. While it doesn’t appear to be a disaster by any means, the general consensus appears to be that it doesn’t meet the very high standard Lee set for himself with his last two features.

Allan Hunter at Screen Daily finds much to like in the film, calling it a “sweet, meandearing tribute” to the eponymous festival, he ultimately declares it inconsequential:

Taking Woodstock
is accessible but very lightweight and should enjoy moderate commercial success as a specialised domestic release. The very American, softly sentimental nature of the film will make it a harder sell internationally … While the wider themes are persuasive enough its the smaller human stories that are disappointingly banal as Woodstock becomes a form of therapy for Elliot and his parents. Enjoyable in places and merely humdrum in others,
Taking Woodstock
ultimately feels like a minor Ang Lee digression in between more memorable works.

Hunter finds the film’s ensemble an equally mixed bag:

(Demetri Martin’s) gentle, guileless manner makes him perfect casting for Elliot without settling the matter of whether he is charismatic enough to have a sustained cinema career. Liev Schreiber brings dashes of sass and style to cross-dressing Vilma but Imelda Staunton’s dowdy, embittered Sonia is overcooked and all too reminiscent of  Shelley Winters in full flow.

Jeff Wells’ take reads very similarly, if rather less gently:

It too often feels ragged and unsure of itself, and doesn’t coalesce in a way that feels truly solid or self-knowing. At best it’s a decent try, an in-and-outer. Spit it out — it’s a letdown … The big sprawling back-saga of how the festival came together — the element that audiences will be coming to see when it opens — too often feels catch-as-catch-can. It doesn’t seem to develop or intensify, and there’s no clean sense of chronology.

Taking Woodstock
was just too big an undertaking, I suppose. In the same way that Lang and his partners instigated but couldn’t control the enormity and chaos of the ‘69 festival, Lee was also overwhelmed. Tough fame, tough call, I’m sorry. Better luck next time.

The Independent’s Kaleem Aftab starts his review on a positive note, calling it “the most fun film in competition at Cannes so far” (not hard, I should think), but feels the film goes awry in its latter stages:

Alas, the fun does not last. Once the concert starts and Elliot has his inevitable LSD trip and introduction to free love, the film drops the comedy for a needless coming-of-age denouement in which Elliot breaks from his parents. It would have been better had the movie ended when the concert began.

More of the same from EW’s Lisa Schwarzbaum (”undergroovy and overplotted”), indieWIRE’s Eric Kohn (”plays like a two-hour ‘SNL’ sketch, and not a very good one”), and so on and so forth.

Clearly this looks like one to strike from the awards contenders list, though ever since I saw the trailer, I’ve been unsure it should have been there in the first place. An “Ang Lee film” will always arrive with expectations of something special, though he’s as entitled to make an amusing divertissement as any other filmmaker. It may be that the film plays better with audiences upon its August release, with the weight of prestige removed from its shoulders. Of course, perhaps it’s simply an all-round misfire. For now, it’s lost the first round.

BrnoSoares2009-05-16 18:03:59
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mais uma vez eu devo tá no trem errado então 06, porque pelas matérias que eu li (como no InContention) Taking Woodstock foi considerado uma das maiores decepções do festival até agora. A reação foi bem mista:

 

 

----

 

Agora o filme da Jane Campion sim foi bem recebido, disseram que é uma espécie de "retorno a forma", o melhor dela desde O Piano e que deve aparecer bastante nas premiações no final do ano. Desde já a Abbie Cornish é um nome a ser considerado, a atuação dela tá sendo bem elogiada e ressaltada. Que bom, a guria é ótima, vide filmes como Candy e Sommersault

 

4569410.jpg

 

Australian actress Abbie Cornish, in a career-defining role, shoulders the story's dramatic burden. Her Fanny Brawne, grounded and forthright, is initially more interested in sewing than poetry – by Keats or anyone else. But gradually she becomes enthralled by him.

 

 

Ben Whishaw plays Keats with a welcome restraint and Abbie Cornish is excellent as Fanny, the young woman from a neighbouring family in what, in 1818, is the wild north London countryside

 

 

The two leads might well steal the top acting prizes in Cannes. The chemistry between them as they edge from simple, formal visits into a secret affair is pitch-perfect. Abbie Cornish is magnetic as the headstrong 18-year-old muse who shyly teases Keats about the quality of his verse. There is a dash of Nicole Kidman about her performance, and the way she can never quite hide the emotions raging behind her eyes.

 

 

Abbie Cornish in an outstanding performance. Beautifully made film possesses solid appeal for specialized auds in most markets, including the U.S

 

 

Ben Whishaw plays Keats with impeccable tragedy and Abbie Cornish portrays winningly the beautiful seamstress Fanny, whose passion is constrained only by the rigorous mores of the times.

 

E mais por aí...

 

Saíram algumas cenas do filme, por sinal:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Me refiro a voz falada com timbre MASCULINO... O trailer anuncia o ator/personagem e ouvimos a voz durante a cena que ele aparece deitado com Dench ao fundo' date=' em pé falando... Obviamente que não me referia a cantada... Agora se aquela voz, for como vc diz, de Fergie, ela é um gênio vocal... 06.

[/quote']

Vc se refere a fala "Directing movies is an overrated job"? Achei que fosse Dench falando...

 

Claro q de imediato tanto Dench quanto Day-Lewis(mesmo sem falar) deixaram uma boa impressão' date=' mas acredito q muitas cenas das atrizes tenha sido guardado(q bom!). [/quote']

 

Afinal, Lewis fala ou não fala no trailer?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Que vozes são essas que o FeCamargo anda ouvindo? 06

 

As falas são todas da Dench. O Day-Lewis só dá uns suspiros um pouco antes do "From Rob Marshall". Quando ele abre a boca pra falar acontece o corte.
BrnoSoares2009-05-17 02:45:57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sim, não tem voz nenhuma do Day-Lewis.

 

Sobre "Nine", é realmente possível que indiquem é a Fergie; o que sei é, se o filme emplacar, devem indicar 2 a coadjuvante e uma a leading. São 7 atrizes, ou seja, 4 ficarão de fora. O Day-Lewis parece dentro, toda vez que revejo o trailer gosto mais dele, impecável.

 

QUE NOTÍCIA ÓTIMA, eu gosto muito da Jane Campion, espero que não fique tanto tempo sem dirigir, bem recebida, ótima notícia, fiquei mais ansioso.
pantalaimon2009-05-17 15:25:47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nossa eu desisto do cinema se Fergie e Mariah Carey forem indicadas, agora a Kate Hudson é uma boa atriz sim, só que tem muito precoceito envolvendo a carreira dela por ela escolher ser uma atriz de rom coms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Até agora não vi nenhum buzz sobre Mariah Carey.

 

E acho que, assim como Fergie, Hudson tambem é uma das que tem mais chances de se destacar no filme. Talvez justamente por não se esperar tanto delas, acabem surpreendendo e chamando a atenção mesmo em meio a uma dúzia de atrizes oscarizadas. E o Oscar gosta disso.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Tudo bem que a Academia já premiou "coisas" como Zellweger e Jennifer Hudson (e na mesma década!), mas acho que não precisamos nos preocupar com Mariah Carey, já que existe uma barreira invisível (parecida com a que sentimos) que deve aniquilar quaisquer chances de ser lembrada. Já a Fergie, só se for um caso como Queen Latifah ou Mikhail Baryshnkov, uma vaguinha na categoria coadjuvante, indicada com outras pessoas do elenco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

19/05/2009

-

16h06

Festival de Cannes aplaude "Los Abrazos Rotos" de Almodóvar

 

 

da France Presse, em Cannes

 

 

 

O filme "Los Abrazos Rotos", do diretor espanhol Pedro Almodóvar,

estrelado por Penélope Cruz, foi recebido nesta terça-feira com

aplausos no Festival de Cannes, embora sem o entusiasmo provocado por

suas duas outras obras candidatas à Palma de Ouro.

 

 

Dividindo-se entre o melodrama e o film noir com interseções de

comédia, alternando situações entre o passado e o presente, entre o

filme que ele conta e os filmes feitos no interior de sua história,

Almodóvar constrói uma ousada arquitetura cinematográfica que não

impede a fluidez da narração.

 

 

Harry Kane (Lluis Homar) é um roteirista cego. Seu nome na verdade é

um pseudônimo de Mateo Blanco, diretor de cinema que perdeu a visão e a

mulher que amava, Lena (Penélope Cruz) em um acidente de automóvel.

Desde então, para ele, cineasta que não pode fazer cinema, Mateo morreu

e só aceita ser chamado de Harry.

 

 

Quatorze anos depois do drama, a reaparição do filho do empresário

Ernesto Martel (José Luis Gómez), produtor de seu último filme e amante

que Lena abandonou por ele, obrigam Mateo a confrontar o passado.

 

 

Lena era sua atriz na comédia que rodava na época, "Chicas y

Maletas", uma adaptação de "Mulheres à Beira de um Ataque de Nervos",

que encanta os admiradores de Almodóvar e oferece a Penélope Cruz um

brilhante papel duplo.

 

 

Em "Los Abrazos Rotos", a espanhola se sai bem tanto com os rasgos

dramáticos do film noir, à la Gene Tierney, quanto com a elegante

leveza das comédias, a la Audrey Hepburn.

 

 

Blanca Portillo, Carmen Machi, Rubén Ochandiano e Tamar Novas

completam o elenco, que também é integrado por Lola Dueñas e Rossy de

Palma, em dois papéis pequenos.

 

 

Afirmando que seu filme é "uma metáfora" do que acontece na Espanha,

onde depois do franquismo os espanhóis decidiram esquecer, Almodóvar

disse ser "indispensável recuperar a memória do passado", para que este

não se transforme em uma ferida que nunca fecha.

 

 

O cineasta, que já havia concorrido à Palma de Ouro com "Tudo sobre

Minha Mãe" (1999) e "Volver" (2006), recebeu nos dois casos prêmios

menores (melhor direção para a primeira, melhor roteiro e prêmio

coletivo de atuação feminina para a segunda) após ter sido elogiado

unanimemente pela crítica e considerado favorito durante todo o

Festival.

 

 

 

Preferências

 

 

Na presente edição, até esta terça-feira, antes da projeção de "Los

Abrazos Rotos", as preferências nos prognósticos divulgados diariamente

em Cannes pelas revistas especializadas apostavam em "Um Profeta", do

francês Jacques Audiard.

 

 

 

Mas "ser favorito em Cannes é uma maldição", como declarou em 2006 o próprio Almodóvar.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Parece que na exibição oficial, que é aquela para o Juri e convidados, o filme do Almodóvar teve recepção calorosa, mas nas exibições para imprensa saiu meio dividido. Já vi algumas opniões que o taxavam como o pior filme dele. Não que eu esteja ligando para isso.

 

Hoje o novo Resnais teve ótima recepção nos críticos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A verdade é que se trata do tipo de reação típica a Tarantino, um diretor que alcançou um nível monstruoso logo no inicio de carreira e por isso passou a ser muito cobrado. Sempre exigem o seu máximo. JACKIE BROWN e KILL BILL sofreram do mesmo tipo de reação, mas das críticas que li para INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, nenhuma o apontou como um desastre ou coisa parecida, só o já esperado "não está à altura do melhor Tarantino". No entanto, tem gente afirmando que se trata do melhor Tarantino desde J. BROWN. Críticas não muito entusiasticas e outras apaixonadas.

O que eu acho disso? Aposto que se trata de um filmaço.

 

Mixed early reviews for ‘Basterds’

Posted by Guy Lodge · 7:18 am · May 20th' date=' 2009

Inglourious%20Basterds

UPDATE: Variety’s Todd McCarthy bucks the trend with a decidedly enthusiastic review. He cites some problems, including first-half tonal inconsistencies, but otherwise finds himself swept up in Tarantino’s self-reflexive games:

By turns surprising, nutty, windy, audacious and a bit caught up in its own cleverness, the picture is a completely distinctive piece of American pop art with a strong Euro flavor that’s new for the director.

The best characters are non-Yanks, all of whom speak their own languages and one or two others to boot. But this commendable gesture toward linguistic accuracy is virtually the only realistic aspect of the picture, which otherwise soars on its flights of fancy and deliberate anachronisms — the use of David Bowie’s “Putting Out the Fire” at a crucial point is particularly inispired — and flattens out only when Tarantino gets too carried away with over-elaborated dialogue scenes, a problem that could easily be addressed with some slight trimming between now and the skedded August opening … (It’s) never less than enjoyable and more than that in the second half.

EARLIER: Blogger reactions to “Inglourious Basterds” may be scattered, but the first two trade reviews (we’re still waiting for  Variety to chip in) read fairly similarly, and not very positively at that.

The critics agree that there are tasty morsels in the stew — rapid consensus seems to be emerging that Austrian star Christoph Waltz spectacularly outshines the rest of the ensemble — but accusations of overlength, indulgence and narrative inconsistency are to be found.

Are we talking another “Death Proof,” a specialized item that will have its critical and public champions but doesn’t return its maker to the world-beating crossover status of this earlier work? It’s early days in terms of gauging critical response, but with the Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw crucifying the film (a “colossal armour-plated turkey from hell”), and the Telegraph indifferent (”not so much inglorious as undistinguished”), it seems the detractors will be plentiful.

Kirk Honeycutt at the Hollywood Reporter reassures the devotees that the film is “by no means terrible,” but  otherwise finds it a long, dramatically sluggish haul:

Reportedly, Tarantino has been having a go at this script for over a decade, 
and it looks like he never licked the dramatic problems. The “Basterds” are 
formed in 1941, then suddenly it’s 1944 and they have firmly established
 their reputation. But only one scene gives the flavor of what they do to
 deserve it.

Unlike Tarantino’s previous films, “Inglourious Basterds” does not build to 
a climax through a series of ingenuous episodes, each one upping the stakes
 and the tension, but rather it rolls the dice on one major operation.

The film lacks not only tension but those juicy sequences where
 actors deliver lines loaded with subtext and characters drip menace with icy
 wit. Tarantino never finds a way to introduce his vivid sense of pulp 
fiction within the context of a war movie. He is not kidding B-movies as he
 was with “Grindhouse” nor riffing on cinema as with “Pulp Fiction” and the
 “Kill Bill” films.

ScreenDaily’s Mike Goodridge finds more to like in the film, citing stretches of “brilliance” and Tarantino’s  dialogue as redeeming factors, but finds the narrative too choppy to sustain the whole. Beware of spoilers in his review:

Inglourious Basterds is composed of a series of long-running vignettes strung together by a slender story thread. The problem is that no one character or set of characters runs through the entire two-and-a-half hour running time, and, with some of the scenes running up to half an hour each, the thread of the drama is left disjointed and the focus ever-changing.

And while much of the camerawork is tighter and more restrained than usual in a Tarantino opus, as befits the period, he still can’t resist imposing a myriad of ostentatious references to other films on his original story … Some film lovers might appreciate his homages, others might view it as an obtrusive demonstration of a dearth of original ideas.

Why do I have a hunch I might be one of the “others?”

It’s not great. It’s a Quentin chit-chat personality film in World War II dress-up. It’s arch and very confidently rendered from QT’s end, but it’s basically talk, talk, talk. Tension appears in a couple of scenes (especially the first — an interrogation of a French farmer by a German officer looking for hidden Jews) but overall story tension is fairly low. A couple of shootings occur but there’s no real action in the Michael Mann sense of the term except for the finale. No characters are subjected to tests of characters by having to make hard choices and stand up for what they believe — they all just talk their heads off, is what it comes down to.

EARLIER: Total Film’s two men on the spot are split on the film. Sam Ashurst finds his expectations happily exceeded, and seconds the good word for Christoph Watz:

This is Quentin’s best film since Jackie Brown. It might even be his best film since Pulp Fiction … QT’s magpie eye has never been sharper, swooping down on Italian cinema and plucking the very best shots, framing and music to create a deserving homage to the spaghetti westerns of my youth.

Make no mistake, this is Landa’s (Watz’s) film. He is the Blonde Jules of the movie; the stand-out character that will be on everyone’s lips when they’re walking out of the screen.[/quote']

Ronny2009-05-20 16:41:50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...