Oscar 2006

[Fernando]

Realmente , existe  um motivo para a frieza de Viggo Mortensen e realiza muito bem o que papel exige , o que é mais difícil do que é exigido dos outros atores do filme ( Maria Bello , William Hurt e Ed Harris) .

[maximum]

Alguém viu o cartaz do Oscar 2006?

[Elessar77]

NBR continua para dia 07. 

Friedman: Eligibility Probs with NBR Picks

Fox 411's Roger Friedman with more on the NBR (what does he have a Deep Throat in there or what?) re-announced the awards will in fact be on the 7th, as we originally thought. But this is the interesting part, on eligibility:

On Friday, this grizzled group of insider fighting fans sent out a list of eligibility in four different movie categories to their 150-or-so members. The list omitted at least eight directors of award-favored films, three supporting actresses and one lead actor.

If the members go by the NBR eligibility letter as it stands now, they will not have the following directors' names in front of them: Bennett Miller ("Capote"), Duncan Taylor ("Transamerica"), James Mangold ("Walk the Line"), Richard Shepard ("The Matador"), Fernando Mereilles ("The Constant Gardener"), Craig Brewer ("Hustle and Flow"), Terrence Malick ("The New World") and Joe Wright ("Pride and Prejudice").

They will also not be thinking of Catherine Keener ("Capote"), Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener"), Judi Dench ("Pride and Prejudice"), Rosario Dawson ("Rent") and Finoula Flanagan ("Transamerica"). None of their names were listed as being eligible.

 

This, and More than You Ever Wanted to Know about the NBR! [Fox 411]

Elessar7738691.3650462963

[FeCamargo]

Eu fiquei de fora um tempão mesmo....e vou meio que continuar assim....to sem tempo....tá difícil achar hora pra postar. Não consegui nem ler oq foi escrito....só me deparei com uma aberração dita sobre Judi Dench que me fez pensar três vezes antes de voltar a postar...mas eu voltei...rsrsrsr

Hehehe ' date=' pensei na possibilidade de xingar  a nossa cara Mrs .Dench para ver se vc reagia e voltava a postar ,rsrsrs.

[/quote']

Não precisoi....o Haziell fez por merecer! Mas eu to calminho...srsr

E aí, sr...
não vai me xingar só pq dei minha opinião sobre ela né?

Xingar não, eu acho que nunca xinguei ninguém aqui...mas acho que o que disse é uma tremenda besteira, você pode não gostar dela, por algum fator pessoal, mas daí dizer oq disse é bastante equivocado.

O q eu disse sobre ela foi minha opinião, eu realmente acho ela muito fraca, como a Jessica Tandy era, mas dentre elas, acho a Dench melhor. Só acho q superestimam ela demais, mas isso é a minha opinião.

Se na SUA OPINIÃO Jessica Tandy e Judi Dench são fracas, imagino quem você acha "forte"...termo equivocado, somente para ilustrar.

[FeCamargo]

Brother' date=' Fargo é comédia, sim! Me diz uma coisa: qual é o seu conceito de comédia? Está restrito a Blake Edwards? AH. tenha dó. E quem andou dizendo q atuação de Mortensen não é estupenda deve parar de ver filmes! Cara, vc reparou nos olhos do ator durante o filme? Em cinema, atuação está mais ligada à face do que a que acontece em teatro! Vc deve ter uma concepção bem senso-comum do que é interpretação. Potanto, cuidado. Se Viggo não estivesse soberbo, jamais teria sido um dis serios cotados à palma em Cannes. Esqueceu desse detalhe?

Abração.

 [/quote'] .

Fargo, comédia? é... passei o filme inteiro rindo muito, fiquei com dor no maxiliar de tanto rir.

 Acho que os Chen colocaram como comédia para brincar com o gênero. Assim como disseram nos créditos iniciais que se tratava de uma história real, qdo na verdade era mais uma pura invenção destes gÊneos.

  é um drama com muitas doses de humor negro, num estilo bem sarcástico E se eu considerasse comédia, só as de Blake Edwards, então hoje em dia não teríamos mais este gênero. Blake foi o último a produzir a chamada comédia Palestão. Hoje em dia não se faz mais este tipo de filme. Infelizmente.... somos obrigados a aguentar as caretas de Jim Carey.

1. Na parte em negrito você acabou de confirmar que o filme é sim uma comédia. O filme inteiro é na verdade uma grande piada dos irmãos Coen.

2. Jim Carrey é genial. Não vou entrar em discussão sobre ele como já fiz muitas vezes, mas ele é um ator inegavelmente talentoso. E na minha modesta opinião o melhor ator de todos os tempos.

 

E sobre essa capa da Time Magazine: não foi anunciado há alguns dias atrás que não teria nenhuma campanha em cima de Munich?

Negrito 1 - Discordo.

Negrito 2 - Concordo.

Negrito 3 - Acho que aí você disse uma grande e sonora besteira, que eu nem vou contra argumentar para não ficar feio Christopher....mas que seria interessante ver você argumentar essa opinião, digamos excêntrica, isso seria.

FeCamargo38691.4923958333

[Administrator]

NBR continua para dia 07. 

Friedman: Eligibility Probs with NBR Picks

Fox 411's Roger Friedman with more on the NBR (what does he have a Deep Throat in there or what?) re-announced the awards will in fact be on the 7th' date=' as we originally thought. But this is the interesting part, on eligibility:

On Friday, this grizzled group of insider fighting fans sent out a list of eligibility in four different movie categories to their 150-or-so members. The list omitted at least eight directors of award-favored films, three supporting actresses and one lead actor.

If the members go by the NBR eligibility letter as it stands now, they will not have the following directors' names in front of them: Bennett Miller ("Capote"), Duncan Taylor ("Transamerica"), James Mangold ("Walk the Line"), Richard Shepard ("The Matador"), Fernando Mereilles ("The Constant Gardener"), Craig Brewer ("Hustle and Flow"), Terrence Malick ("The New World") and Joe Wright ("Pride and Prejudice").

They will also not be thinking of Catherine Keener ("Capote"), Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener"), Judi Dench ("Pride and Prejudice"), Rosario Dawson ("Rent") and Finoula Flanagan ("Transamerica"). None of their names were listed as being eligible.

 

This, and More than You Ever Wanted to Know about the NBR! [Fox 411']

 

Uai!

Então Munique já era...

 

Não entendo porque eles declararam esses nomes inelegíveis... Capote estreou faz um tempão.

[FeCamargo]

Então o NBR não será um grande indicativo como vem sendo em outros anos...

[Dado]

Jim Carrey é genial. Não vou entrar em discussão sobre ele como já fiz muitas vezes' date=' mas ele é um ator inegavelmente talentoso. E na minha modesta opinião o melhor ator de todos os tempos.

[/quote']

Não acha um pouco exagerado isso Christopher? Até admito que o Jim Carrey é um cara inegavelmente talentoso como vc disse,tem alguns bons momentos na carreira,outros nem tanto,mas genial e,principalmente,o melhor ator de todos os tempos,mesmo que na sua modesta opinião,palavras suas,é duro de engolir.É o rei de ficar fazendo aquelas mesmas caretas o tempo inteiro,acho que ele pensa que é o Jerry Lewis.

Dado38691.5367476852

[Fernando]

O Christopher é fã do Jim Carrey , ele já comentou sobre isso no fórum .

[Dado]

O Christopher é fã do Jim Carrey ' date=' ele já comentou sobre isso no fórum .[/quote']

Ué,tudo bem,mas melhor ator de todos os tempos ele escreveu prá todo mundo ler,não só prá ele.Só estou discordando do exagero.

[haziell]

Também acho que o pessoal não está sabendo separar o Viggo do Aragorn. Pra mim, ele fez um trabalho fantástico, eu cheguei a jurar de pé junto que ele era mesmo um mero pai de familia, dono de uma cafeteria e cidadão pacato de uma cidadezinha nos confins de Indiana. Exatamente o que o personagem exigia: frieza.

 

Eu só esperava um "tour-de-force" (nem sei se é assim q se escreve) dele, pois ele não muda muito de aparência, isso q quis dizer...quando ele volta a ser o Joey, suas feições são quase as mesmas, e só estou comparando com as outras interpretações dele, e eu acho ele um bom ator, mas ele precisava de um pouco mais pra estar entre os 5 indicados.

 

[Elessar77]

Ano passado, o NBR foi uma grande decepção.

E pelo o que li no artigo do oscarwatch, o NBR é movido, mais do que os outros se for o caso, por politicagem das mais grotescas. 150 membros votam, mas quem faz o top 10 não é quem recebeu mais votos... Um conselho de 12 membros, maioria ligada à Sony (inclusive a presidente do conselho), tendo apenas um membro que entende algo de filmes, decide quem deve ganhar ou não. O Friedman disse que tudo indica que Memorias ou Good Night and Good Luck podem figurar em primeiro. Ele pode estar errado. Mas ele pode estar certo.

 

[haziell]

 

Realmente ' date=' existe  um motivo para a frieza de Viggo Mortensen e realiza muito bem o que papel exige , o que é mais difícil do que é exigido dos outros atores do filme ( Maria Bello , William Hurt e Ed Harris) .

[/quote']

 

SPOILER

 

tbm, o roteiro não dá tempo aos outros personagens...aparecem 5 minutos e ele já mata...

 

[haziell]

 

Eu fiquei de fora um tempão mesmo....e vou meio que continuar assim....to sem tempo....tá difícil achar hora pra postar. Não consegui nem ler oq foi escrito....só me deparei com uma aberração dita sobre Judi Dench que me fez pensar três vezes antes de voltar a postar...mas eu voltei...rsrsrsr

Hehehe ' date=' pensei na possibilidade de xingar  a nossa cara Mrs .Dench para ver se vc reagia e voltava a postar ,rsrsrs.

[/quote']

Não precisoi....o Haziell fez por merecer! Mas eu to calminho...srsr

 

E aí, sr...

não vai me xingar só pq dei minha opinião sobre ela né?

Xingar não, eu acho que nunca xinguei ninguém aqui...mas acho que o que disse é uma tremenda besteira, você pode não gostar dela, por algum fator pessoal, mas daí dizer oq disse é bastante equivocado.

O q eu disse sobre ela foi minha opinião, eu realmente acho ela muito fraca, como a Jessica Tandy era, mas dentre elas, acho a Dench melhor. Só acho q superestimam ela demais, mas isso é a minha opinião.

Se na SUA OPINIÃO Jessica Tandy e Judi Dench são fracas, imagino quem você acha "forte"...termo equivocado, somente para ilustrar.

 

só algumas:

 

Cate Blanchett

Jodie Foster

Gong Li

Catherine Deneuve

Naomi Watts

 

[Dado]

Estou cada vez mais me surpreendendo positivamente com Orgulho e Preconceito.Agora são 1.327 salas nos USA e 6º lugar na semana.Dizem até que algumas indicações como figurino,roteiro adaptado e até ator coadjuvante com o Donald Sutherland podem rolar,vamos ver.Quanto à Keira Knightley,já até estou pensando diferente.Surpresa prá mim hoje seria ela não ser indicada,até porque,à exceção da Whiterspoon e da Dench,hoje o melhor buzz é o dela.Li sobre a Charlize em uns posts anteriores e vou dar uma opinião na lata...prá mim,a Charlize Theron não será indicada este ano.Hoje,além das 3 qua já citei,eu colocaria a Felicity Huffman e a Joan Allen.

[saulomeri]

Estou cada vez mais me surpreendendo positivamente com Orgulho e Preconceito.Agora são 1.327 salas nos USA e 6º lugar na semana.Dizem até que algumas indicações como figurino' date='roteiro adaptado e até ator coadjuvante com o Donald Sutherland podem rolar,vamos ver.Quanto à Keira Knightley,já até estou pensando diferente.Surpresa prá mim hoje seria ela não ser indicada,até porque,à exceção da Whiterspoon e da Dench,hoje o melhor buzz é o dela.Li sobre a Charlize em uns posts anteriores e vou dar uma opinião na lata...prá mim,a Charlize Theron não será indicada este ano.Hoje,além das 3 qua já citei,eu colocaria a Felicity Huffman e a Joan Allen.[/quote']

Então pensamos igual!

[Fernando]

Realmente ' date=' existe  um motivo para a frieza de Viggo Mortensen e realiza muito bem o que papel exige , o que é mais difícil do que é exigido dos outros atores do filme ( Maria Bello , William Hurt e Ed Harris) .

[/quote']

SPOILER

tbm, o roteiro não dá tempo aos outros personagens...aparecem 5 minutos e ele já mata...

Pois é . É assim mesmo !

[Fernando]

Estou cada vez mais me surpreendendo positivamente com Orgulho e Preconceito.Agora são 1.327 salas nos USA e 6º lugar na semana.Dizem até que algumas indicações como figurino' date='roteiro adaptado e até ator coadjuvante com o Donald Sutherland podem rolar,vamos ver.Quanto à Keira Knightley,já até estou pensando diferente.Surpresa prá mim hoje seria ela não ser indicada,até porque,à exceção da Whiterspoon e da Dench,hoje o melhor buzz é o dela.Li sobre a Charlize em uns posts anteriores e vou dar uma opinião na lata...prá mim,a Charlize Theron não será indicada este ano.Hoje,além das 3 qua já citei,eu colocaria a Felicity Huffman e a Joan Allen.[/quote']

Então pensamos igual!

Eu também ! E estou torcendo pela Keira ! 

Fernando38691.7566319444

[crawford]

Scott Feinberg's Early Projections

Scott Feinberg Projects…
*Debut OscarWatch Column*

Dear Readers,

Before we get down to business, allow me to introduce myself and tell you how happy I am to be the newest member of the OscarWatch team. I have admired this site for several years, since it always seems to offer better, more insightful information about the Oscar race than any other place on the Internet… and, more often than not, it gets the story first.

I have been involved in the Oscar game since I was fifteen years old. At the time, the New Haven Register did a story on my work in which they called me “a teenage Roger Ebert, a one-man encyclopedia of top-shelf cinema.” While I was flattered by the compliment, what I knew even then was that not even The Great Ebert himself has a great track record at predicting the Academy Awards. That’s because doing so requires not only recognizing the best movies of a given year from the rest of the pack, but also understanding the immense history, trends, politics, and other factors that influence the race each year.

For the past five years, I have served as the on-air Academy Awards “expert analyst” for the New Haven television affiliate of ABC News, WTNH-8. It has been a real thrill for me to have a forum through which I can share the product of months of watching and researching movies with people who share my love for movies, and want to know what movies to see before awards season (at which point it often is too late to catch them in theaters). I also have been a top finisher in the annual Variety “Award Oracle” contest, hosted screenings of classics in my hometown, and am now engaged in helping to organize the SunDeis Film Festival at Brandeis University near Boston. (If you’re in the neighborhood on April 1-2, you must stop by!)

So, whether or not “You like me, you really like me!” (as one Oscar winner famously proclaimed), you got me. I hope you’ll read what I have to say, and share your thoughts and reactions with me. I can’t promise I’ll always get it right—nobody can. But I’ll put myself out there with my thoughts and predictions. And I look forward to sharing the ride with you as we near the best day of the year… that is, whichever day the Oscars fall on, with stops along the way at the National Board of Review, Golden Globes, SAG Awards, and much, much more. All aboard!

How I See Things on… December 4, 2005 (13 Sundays to Go)

PICTURE
Projected Winner: Munich
Projected Nominees: Brokeback Mountain, Memoirs of a Geisha, The Producers, and Mrs. Henderson Presents

Look, nobody has seen Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the film about the Israeli secret agents assigned by Golda Meir to settle scores with the Palestinian terrorists who murdered Israeli nation’s athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. So is it unfair that it has been—for almost the entire year—and remains most critics’ pick to win the biggie? Not really. It has a prime-time release date, it’s about a serious and historical subject, and it’s director brings to the table virtually unprecedented credibility when it comes to dealing with big issues like the Holocaust and World War II. Most tellingly to me, Kathleen Kennedy, who has been Spielberg’s executive producer for years on films including Schindler’s List (and is on the Academy’s Board of Governors), recently broke the code of silence that has seems to have enshrouded Munich by telling a reporter that it “could be his best” film yet. He’ll be on the cover of Time magazine this week, which will be only the start of some major hype for the film, none of which, incidentally, will come from the film’s makers. Spielberg and Co. have said they will not actively promote the film for Oscar consideration, since they feel it should stand on its own (an interesting marketing strategy). In anticipation of the controversy that arises over anything involving the Arab-Israeli conflict, Spielberg enlisted his close person friend, former president Bill Clinton, to review the screenplay and offer his blessing—Clinton apparently read the script and passed it on to his former press secretary Mike McCurry and his former Middle East Ambassador Dennis Ross, who are both advisors on the film. (Ross, incidentally, also happens to be my professor in a class called, relevantly enough, “The Arab-Israeli Conflict,” and I see him each Tuesday.) They all have apparently endorsed the film and promoted it to leaders in the region, whose approval would lend it great credibility around the world. Spielberg also plans to donate 250 cameras—125 to young Arabs and 125 to young Israelis—so they can document their lives. He will then have them exchange videos with each other in an effort to foster understanding. Spielberg is, without a doubt, positioning himself as someone who is tackling a major world issue, and Oscar voters love nothing more than movie’s that ‘have something to say’ and are ‘important’ (or appear to be). Bottom line? It’s a film made by winners, featuring an all-star cast ( Troy’s redeeming element Eric Bana, the new 007 Daniel Craig, past Oscar-winner Geoffrey Rush, etc.), written by an acclaimed screenwriter (Angels in America’s Tony Kushner), and a legendary director. Until I see the film, naturally I have some reservations, but not many. I don’t like that Kushner called it a “thriller” in an interview and Spielberg was quick to disagree—thrillers don’t win Oscars. Dramas do. And, in the end, the film will have to stand on its own.

As for the other possibilities, we already are hearing enough of an early reaction to Brokeback Mountain to fairly safely proclaim that the adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize winning story about gay cowboys will be the (or close to the) best-reviewed film of 2005. But critics, more often than not, are not members of the Academy. And a story this controversial, even in this day and age and with a presumably liberal Academy, may not be embraced by everyone. Memoirs of a Geisha, another literary adaptation, seems to be the ideal studio picture, according to reports I’m getting—exquisite costumes, visually beautiful cinematography, strong acting, compelling storyline. But sometimes that can backfire if the statement the movie is trying to make is entertaining but not especially profound, as another Far Western film, The Last Samurai, found out in 2003. It also faces the tall task of pleasing the many lovers of the book (which I incidentally read in 1999 while in Kyoto, Japan for the summer, and, I’m sorry to say, had a hard time getting into). It’s possible it could… the trailers look marvelous to me, I’m dying to see it, and I’m not the target demographic. I do know, however, that it’s only a matter of time before one controversial aspect of the filmmaking shows up on 60 Minutes or the like—Chinese actors playing Japanese characters? We’ll see who indignantly (and not wrongly), flips out first. I think The Producers probably will make the cut for the final five, but will fall short of Chicago’s heights—the 1968 film version set the bar so high, yet won only a screenplay Oscar. Also, like Rent (which was bad folks), the film will inevitably draw comparisons to the popular Broadway version also starring Lane and Broderick, and even if it is as good, will be faulted for being a filmed version of stage play that has been rehearsed and fine-tuned in front of audiences for years already. Perhaps above all, anyone voting for the film is going to have to live with the fact that they are putting ‘Best Picture’ and ‘Will Ferrell’ in the same sentence! I’m slotting in for the fifth spot Mrs. Henderson Presents, at least for the moment, because I think Dame Judi Dench could vomit on film and probably earn a standing ovation and a nomination from the Academy (it took only eight minutes of preening in Shakespeare in Love to do it last time). In this case, it looks like she does a lot more than that. Each year seems to have at least one smaller, non-studio film with atypical protagonists—sort of an The Cider House Rules, In the Bedroom, or Lost in Translation, if you will—and I think this laugh-out-loud, British indie (distributed by the new Weinstein Company and with their all-out backing, you can be sure) will resonate particularly well with the decreasing, but still present, older faction of the Academy.

I’m currently projecting that this summer’s Cinderella Man will just miss the cut, though it is by no means totally dead, as many seem to believe, in large part because of it’s crash-and-burn box-office showing this summer and the ensuing events surrounding “Mr. Telephone Man” himself, Russell Crowe. (I attended two advance screenings for this film, one of them with Crowe and Giamatti in attendance just two days before Crowe exploded… these guys were getting shuffled around town shamelessly, and while I’m not meaning to justify his behavior, I think that the way these films are marketed is unfair to these guys, even if they do earn $25 million a pop.) The problem, if you ask me, is that women didn’t want to go to a film that, in promotions, appeared to be about boxing. And men, who typically don’t pay attention to promotions, generally don’t want to see a movie with the name “Cinderella” in it. Plus, it was summer, and kids take over the movie theaters where studio movies are shown… adults don’t want to compete with long lines, obnoxious kids, etc. As the head counselor at a tennis camp, I conveniently assign myself the job of “Movie Night” each Tuesday, and I can tell you first-hand that most of the hundreds of kids we brought to the movies each week were none too pumped about a Depression-era love story. Hopefully people old enough to vote have discovered this worthy film on DVD (promotionally repackaged to downplay its boxing elements) will give it the credit it is due. I’m not yet convinced.

Syriana is a timely picture about the power and impact of the oil industry, at a time when many will argue we’re at war over that very subject. Regardless of politics, which I will try to keep out of this column whenever possible, one has to admit it stars a dream cast, and that for a movie about a gritty subject like this, it probably found the right writer-director in Stephen Gaghan, who made the war on drugs real to us in 2000’s Traffic. But, I hear Syriana is somewhat hard to follow, which means it could go either way. We come now to a movie that everyone saw, most respected, and few loved—Good Night, and Good Luck. Nobody disagrees with its message, or that its actors did an impressive job in their parts. But the movie ends awkwardly and may have come out a bit too early in the season for its own good. I can’t get too excited about it, especially compared with the other potential contenders, though it will almost surely do well with some of the smaller critics groups. I think that success will only give it false hope. The polar opposite situation arises with Crash, which the public loves, but high-brow critics claim is cliché-ridden and unworthy of their affection. If Crash makes the cut, it will reveal a lot about the composition of the Academy… I regret it may have to settle for SAG appreciation, at most. Walk the Line is an immensely enjoyable, very good film, but when all is said and done, I don’t see it being considered one of the five best of the year. The Family Stone, despite being promoted through some of the most horrendously unfunny previews I have ever seen for a comedy, has received glowing responses from people who have caught a sneak peak at it, and with its cast I’m not going to bet against it until I do. (It could be this year’s Something’s Gotta Give, a comedy most enjoyed by the over-40 crowd… then again, that missed a Best Pic nod.) And, with little more to go on at this point than the outstanding cast and a fascinating plot-line, I’m going to go out on a limb and say The White Countess may be a sleeper in this field.

As for the films being heavily touted by others, I have my doubts about: The New World, the film by Terence Malick about the discovery of America. The man is very talented, but you can’t make only four movies every thirty years and expect to be a hit each time out. And my understanding is that, while visually beautiful, it lacks good dialogue or an enthralling plot, which doesn’t help when your star has also yet to prove his serious acting chops, and the last film he was associated with—Alexander—went down the toilet faster than Enron. Woody Allen also hasn’t done anything in years, but not for lack of trying. According to Cannes-goers, Match Point breaks that trend, but I don’t know if it will fly with American audiences… it’s a thriller, I’m told… what are we going to have, car chases under a jazz soundtrack? My gut is it may be a fun, entertaining movie with strong performances, but not the stuff of Best Pic. King Kong is just too hard to get a feel for at this point—I’ve learned never to bet against Peter Jackson, but it just seems very hard to me to believe, despite the magnificent early reviews, that a third remake of this film was necessary, especially at three hours long. Even if it is good, is it the kind of movie we give Best Picture to? (The first one didn’t get any nominations, and its effects were virtually unprecedented at the time.) The critic’s darling A History of Violence will be DOA at the Oscars, though it may fare better with smaller groups, as will North Country, simply because it was overhyped and not that good. The Constant Gardener was very good, simply but I think it came out too early.

DIRECTOR
Projected Winner: Steven Spielberg ( Munich)
Projected Nominees: Rob Marshall (Memoirs of a Geisha), Ang Lee ( Brokeback Mountain), George Clooney (Good Night, and Good Luck), Stephen Gaghan (Syriana)

Okay, let’s get the locks out of the way first. Barring a Cold Mountain sort of earth-shattering disappointment, Munich will earn its two-time Oscar winning director Steven Spielberg another nomination, at least, and I’m guessing a third piece for the mantelpiece. John Ford is the only director to have won four, and Frank Capra and William Wyler the only three-timers. Some say Spielberg doesn’t deserve to be in that company of three-time winners. I say (a) that’s BS, and ( you give the award to the most deserving candidate, not to spread the wealth around… that’s why I was pleased when Eastwood beat Scorsese last year. (The Oscars aren’t the Oprah show… if you want sympathy, go somewhere else.) As Spielberg has matured and taken up important issues in many of his films, he has won the respect of many former doubters, so I think he will win again if the film is as good as most suspect it will be.

Otherwise, I think the Academy may make Rob Marshall’s second trip a more memorable one. You may recall he was the perceived leader (for Chicago) in a tight race with Martin Scorsese back in 2002, when Roman Polanski came out of nowhere, due to a probable split, to beat them both. This year, a split could actually benefit the Memoirs of a Geisha helmer, especially if past winner Ang Lee, the third likely lock, loses some votes for Brokeback Mountain due to its controversial subject matter.

The final two slots are fairly open, I think. It is not unusual that one or two directorial nominees fail to correlate with the five Best Pic nominees, and I think this probably will prove true this year. I think the Academy, which is predominately composed of actors, will throw a bone to the largely-liked George Clooney, who is known to chat with bit players and even defend them against oppressive directors like David O. Russell, and who did an admirable job directing Good Night, and Good Luck. For nominee #5, I’m going with Syriana’s Stephen Gaghan, who wrote Traffic and this film, and now has taken the directorial reigns, as well. It is a complex, fast-paced, intelligent film that his fingerprints are all over.

As for the two directors of the films I projected to get a Best Pic nod but who I am not including in the final five here… Stephen Frears, nominated fifteen years ago for directing The Grifters but more recently acclaimed (though not nominated) for Dirty Pretty Things, could well prove me wrong, but I think he still is not a widely known entity, and the disadvantage of directing a Judi Dench-Bob Hoskins picture is that they’d be great with anyone directing. Susan Stroman faces a similar predicament for The Producers, which everyone credits Mel Brooks for. The film version came out when she was fourteen years old, though she is largely responsible for adapting it into a Broadway hit. So whether or not she deserves credit for the quality of the film, I have a feeling enough people will turn to more undeniably auteur-ish options to cost her a nod.

Performance-driven films often lead to good directors paying a price, as James Mangold (Walk the Line), Paul Haggis (Crash), and James Ivory (The White Countess) are all likely to find this out the hard way. If we are to see a Fernando Meirelles (City of God) or Mike Leigh (Vera Drake) type jaw-dropped this year, it could come in the form of Ron Howard (Cinderella Man), actor turned actor-director Tommy Lee Jones (The Three Burials), or even that old hobbity rascal himself, Peter Jackson (King Kong), if he really blows people away with another grand-scale achievement. As for some other names being bantered about everywhere, I’m not getting good vibes for Terence Malick (The New World), Woody Allen (Match Point), or David Cronenberg (A History of Violence), though each may do better with critics groups.

ACTOR
Projected Winner: Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line)
Projected Nominees: Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote), Heath Ledger ( Brokeback Mountain), Eric Bana ( Munich), Tommy Lee Jones (The Three Burials)

I don’t mean to be unfair to Joaquin Phoenix, who does a marvelous job as Johnny Cash in Walk the Line. But despite projecting him at the moment, I have a gut feeling he’s just filling that slot for me until something better comes along. I just don’t think the Academy is going to go for another bio-pic performance about a singer who had to overcome adversity in his childhood and later with substance abuse before finding personal happiness and public adoration, only to die shortly after the film project embarked but before it was released… one year after Ray. I’ll grant them that they have put a good PR spin on Phoenix’s performance—his intensity, his inclination to quit acting soon due to the toll getting into a part takes on him, the parallels between Cash’s brother’s premature death and Joaquin’s brother River’s, and the substance abuse issues that both Cash and Phoenix have had to confront. And, at the moment, the only obvious competition for Phoenix is Philip Seymour Hoffman for his striking portrayal of writer Truman Capote in Capote, a great performance in a very good movie. But, it came out too early and was not seen by many people. Hoffman’s been waiting to break through for years, and break through he has. But I don’t know that either of these two performances deserve the Oscar.

I think the eventual winner may emerge from a pack of three performances we have not yet seen: Heath Ledger as an introspective gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain being perhaps the most likely, with Eric Bana for Munich or Cannes winner Tommy Lee Jones for The Three Burials close behind. I am also very, very excited to see Ralph Fiennes, a highly underrated actor who I am a fan of, in The White Countess, in which he plays a blind American diplomat, a role around which I expect him to wrap his arms and run. I just hope the movie is worthy of his talent, which has already been displayed this year in the very good The Constant Gardener.

Critics have embraced David Strathairn for Good Night, and Good Luck, but I don’t think he has the necessary widespread name recognition—even after the performance—to carry him to a nomination. Despite giving an excellent portrayal of TV newsman Edward R. Murrow, the small film has had to be promoted on Clooney’s name, to Strathairn’s disadvantage. His best hope, however unlikely, is for a revival of interest in him at the Golden Globes or SAG. I am equally disinclined to project Nathan Lane for The Producers, not because I doubt the quality of his performance, but because if you think about it, men in comedies, musicals, or comedy-musicals rarely make the cut, going back to the days of Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire. Plus, people feel he’s had years to perfect this role on the stage, so he’ll be held to a higher standard than the others in the field—something that has hurt even the likes of Brando (who did not win an Oscar for A Streetcar Named Desire, for which he was a hit on Broadway) over the years.

Russell Crowe, on the merits, deserves to be nominated for Cinderella Man. Setting aside the distraction of his telephone incident, he gave a magnificent dual-portrait of a Depression-era boxer and a noble man. Had the film been released this week, he would be the clear favorite for Best Actor. That it was not was the studio’s mistake, not Crowe’s, and I think more people than we realize feel that way. Speaking of deserving, how about the perennially underappreciated Jeff Daniels, who was as good as he’s ever been in my favorite movie of the year so far, The Squid and Whale? Also, Terence Dashon Howard, who was so good as part of the Crash ensemble, was even better in Hustle and Flow, for which he might be a sleeper. And Cillian Murphy, who is a weird looking guy to begin with, takes things to new, probably too weird heights for most voters as a transvestite cabaret singer in Breakfast on Pluto, after drawing our interest over the course of this year in Batman Begins and Red Eye.

ACTRESS
Projected Winner: Judi Dench (Mrs. Henderson Presents)
Projected Nominees: Ziyi Zhang (Memoirs of a Geisha), Felicity Huffman (Transamerica), Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line), Keira Knightley (Pride and Prejudice)

A relatively weak year for actresses will likely be salvaged in the last few weeks of eligibility for the 2005 season. Judi Dench, who has mastered playing primarily character parts over the last decade (winning her acclaim for Shakespeare in Love and Iris), is finally playing a serious lead and title part, and I can’t wait to see it. The trailer for and early response to Mrs. Henderson Presents have both been astronomically good, which doesn’t surprise me. The aging actress is so likable, so chameleonic, and so British that the Academy is bound to embrace her again, especially for a role like this that few would have expected her to take on—it’s not Lady Macbeth—let alone triumph in. I see only one other candidate giving her a serious run for her money, and that is Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fame, who plays a Japanese geisha in Memoirs of a Geisha, which tells the story of her character. Zhang, who is nearly 45 years Dench’s junior, represents the future—the Chinese film market, since Crouching Tiger, has soared to previously unmatched heights, as last year’s House of Flying Daggers, also starring Zhang, continued to demonstrate. The question the Academy will face is whether to honor a previous winner again, or whether to honor an up-and-comer whose best work, which they will want to honor, is probably still ahead of her. It’s a very close call right now.

Leading the other contenders is likely to be one of television’s nouveau-famous Desperate Housewives, Felicity Huffman, who in Transamerica plays a male-to-female transsexual who finds out “she” has a son shortly before undergoing her sex-change operation, as best I follow. It’s a meaty role for which she has been duly lauded. The incomprehensibly cute also Reese Witherspoon appears on track to snag her first nomination for her role as singer June Carter Cash in Walk the Line—she should have been nominated for Election six years ago, and arguably even Legally Blonde two years after that, but we’ll let bygones be bygones. As for the fifth nominee, there remains no clear favorite. I’m going to go out on a big limb and project Keira Knightley, who in Pride and Prejudice was surprisingly effective in the part of Elizabeth Bennett, which has been played many times before and by better-known actresses. The fact that she is young, gorgeous (in an unthreateningly cute and innocent sort of way), and British will certainly not hurt her chances either.

Many refuse to come to terms with the fact that Charlize Theron was simply not that good in North Country, or in anything other than 2003’s Monster, for that matter. The question is whether Oscar voters are equally deluded—I think not. I’m not saying she’s not talented, but this was a cliché-riddled film and a role for which she was totally wrong. Setting her aside, I’m anxious to see whether Natasha Richardson is in her usual fine form in The White Countess, in which case she’d be hard to bet against. Two very good performances by former nominees that outdid the films of which they were a part (which, incidentally, also were released too early in the season to help them much) are Gwyneth Paltrow in Proof and Joan Allen in The Upside of Anger. Claire Danes in Shopgirl also will probably suffer from too small an audience and a role that doesn’t appear to have demanded much of her. The big wild card in this category is fifteen-year-old Q’Orianka Kilcher, who plays Pocahontas in, and has an on-screen romance (and had a rumored brief off-screen fling) with Colin Farrell, who plays John Smith, in The New World.

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Projected Winner: George Clooney (Syriana)
Projected Nominees: Bob Hoskins (Mrs. Henderson Presents), Geoffrey Rush (Munich), Craig T. Nelson (The Family Stone), Jake Gyllenhaal ( Brokeback Mountain)

Every year has it’s weakest category, and this year it’s looking like Supporting Actor. That’s not to say the options are bad… just not tremendously good. When this happens in a supporting category, the eventual winner often is someone who arguably should be in the lead category, but decides they have a better shot at actually winning in the supporting. The fact that they have discretion really should be looked at. (The same situation applies to Diane Keaton in Supporting Actress this year.) Hence the promotion of George Clooney in this category, rather than lead, for Syriana… He is popular, did a very Oscar-y thing by putting on 30 pounds and growing a bushy beard (aka deglamorizing himself, a la Theron, Kidman, Berry, Swank, etc.), and will get extra credit for also directing and appearing in support in Good Night, and Good Luck. And he’ll have much easier competition in this field than anywhere else.

Right behind him will be a pack of potential spoilers, led by Bob Hoskins, who in 1986 (a lifetime ago in Hollywood) came close to a win for Mona Lisa. He has since adopted character parts, and plays Judi Dench’s foil in Mrs. Henderson Presents. (“Why, Mr. Damm, you are Jewish!” she exclaims after seeing him in the flesh.) Geoffrey Rush, who has a win under his belt for Shine nine years ago, is back in a serious part in Munich. Charismatic veteran actor Craig T. Nelson is one of the more amusing members of a whack-job family in The Family Stone. And Jake Gyllenhaal is Heath Ledger’s secret lover in Brokeback Mountain, in a year in which he has also made strong impressions in Proof and Jarhead.

Any one of those four could be booted, however, by a variety of other candidates. Up-and-comer Barry Pepper, who at the moment is best known for playing Roger Maris in Billy Crystal’s HBO film 61*, is a key component of The Three Burials. Ken Watanabe, who was nominated for The Last Samurai two years ago, courts Zhang Ziyi in Memoirs of a Geisha. Matthew Broderick reprises his famous Broadway role in The Producers. Veteran Christopher Plummer is a senior presence among those discovering The New World. And Paul Giamatti, who was criminally snubbed last year for Sideways, made another strong impression as boxer James Braddock’s trainer in this summer’s Cinderella Man.

It is unfortunate that a plethora of candidates from Crash, all worthy, are likely to cancel each other out. Of particular note are Matt Dillon, who would have my vote for a nomination for playing a corrupt cop with redeeming features, as well as Don Cheadle as a detective and Terence Dashon Howard as a television director who faces racism both on and off the set. Jarhead’s Peter Sarsgaard and Jamie Foxx also probably will eliminate each other’s prospects.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Projected Winner: Gong Li (Memoirs of a Geisha)
Projected Nominees: Diane Keaton (The Family Stone), Scarlett Johansson (Match Point), Uma Thurman (The Producers), Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardener)

The nominees here appear fairly set, but the winner is anything but certain. I’m going to bet on Gong Li, who plays the plum role of head geisha in Memoirs of a Geisha and nearly steals the show. Diane Keaton, the 1977 Best Actress winner (for Annie Hall), obviously is making another gold rush this year by relegating herself to the supporting category from lead, but I sense that her film lacks the weight and gravitas possessed by her closest competitors, among whom I’ll also include that ever impressive youngster Scarlett Johansson (Woody Allen’s latest muse, in Match Point), who blew me away in Lost in Translation and has impressed me ever since, and who I suspect I should not bet against.

The best supporting performance that I’ve seen so far this year is Rachel Weisz in The Constant Gardener, and I’m pleased that her studio has—after waffling—decided to promote her in the supporting category, for which she is more likely to get recognized. Her character brings so much life to the film, and whether or not she is recognized for it, this will not be the last we’ll hear of her. Uma Thurman, a nominee in this category eleven years ago for Pulp Fiction, has apparently triumphed in taking on a demanding role in The Producers (singing and dancing required, though her athleticism will come as no surprise to anyone who saw the Kill Bills films) that originally was offered to Nicole Kidman, who may be regretting her “scheduling conflict” now.

One never can count out that wily old controversial British broad, Vanessa Redgrave, who is back in The White Countess. Nor should we forget Maria Bello, who is often the one redeeming aspect of many movies, including this year’s A History of Violence. Also worthy of mention, though unlikely to mount much of a threat, is Catherine Keener as writer Harper Lee in Capote, aging but still feisty past winner Shirley MacLaine for In Her Shoes, and Thandie Newton as a racially-humiliated and -conflicted wife in Crash. It is also not smart to ever bet against performers who could ride their film’s expected wave of nominations to surprise recognition (see Alan Alda last year for The Aviator)—this year, the potential coattail beneficiaries includes the otherwise unlikely Michelle Williams, formerly on TV’s Dawson’s Creek and now playing the wife of a gay man in Brokeback Mountain, and Michelle Yeoh from Memoirs of a Geisha.

[Pedro Cinéfilo]

 

   é... parece que a Charlize está perdendo buzz, o que é uma pena, pois sou um grande fã dela, baseado principalmente em seu exmplar e inesquecível trabalho em Monster. Bom, mas continuo não torcendo pela Keira, não gosto dela e do jeito exagerado que ela fala e não gostei dela no filme, já a atriz que faz a sua mão me parece estar ótima, será que rola uma indicação pra ela?

[Fernando]

05/12/2005 - 12h17 - Spielberg diz que seu filme "Munique" é "uma oração pela paz"

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - O diretor Steven Spielberg disse que seu novo filme "Munique", que conta como Israel se vingou pelo assassinato de seus atletas, cometido por guerrilheiros palestinos nas Olimpíadas de 1972, é "uma oração pela paz", segundo a revista Time publicou no domingo.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Líderes de grupos judeus e muçulmanos, assim como diplomatas e especialistas em política externa, assistirão ao filme antes de seu lançamento nos EUA, no dia 23 de dezembro, mas Spielberg se afastou da mídia e das custosas campanhas promocionais que costumam preceder o lançamento de um filme de grande estúdio.

A revista disse que sua entrevista era a única que o cineasta pretendia dar antes do lançamento do filme, que mostra a resposta do Estado judaico depois que um grupo de palestinos fez refém uma equipe olímpica israelense nos Jogos de Munique. Onze atletas israelenses, cinco sequestradores e um policial alemão morreram na ação.

"Em algum lugar dentro dessa intransigência tem que haver uma oração pela paz", disse Spielberg à Time, "porque os maiores inimigos não são os palestinos nem os israelenses. O maior inimigo na região é a intransigência".

O diretor também falou de outro projeto que começará em fevereiro, no qual ele está comprando 250 câmeras de vídeo para dar a crianças israelenses e palestinas, para que elas possam fazer filmes por conta própria.

"Não dramas", disse Spielberg, "apenas pequenos documentários sobre quem elas são e no que acreditam, quem são seus pais, a que escola vão, o que têm para comer, que filmes elas assistem, que discos ouvem."

Spielberg disse que depois as crianças vão trocar os vídeos entre elas.

"Esse é o tipo de coisa que pode ser efetiva, acho, em simplesmente fazer as pessoas entenderem que não existem muitas diferenças que dividem israelenses e palestinos. Não como seres humanos, de qualquer forma", disse.

O diretor disse à revista estar muito orgulhoso que o filme "Munique" não tenha demonizado nem o lado israelense nem o lado palestino. O elenco do filme conta com Eric Bana, Daniel Craig e Geoffrey Rush, ator que recebeu um Oscar por "Shine - Brilhante".

 

 

[Fernando]

06/12/2005 - 01h27
King Kong se apodera outra vez de Nova York, 70 anos depois

Nova York, 5 dez (EFE).- O gigantesco King Kong, que atemorizou o mundo no filme estreado em 1933, retorna a Nova York 72 anos depois na nova versão do diretor neozelandês Peter Jackson, que tem sua estréia hoje em Nova York.

Mais de 8.000 pessoas foram convidadas a presenciar, em um cinema da Times Square, como o gigante escala de novo o mítico arranha-céus Empire State, em um filme que reúne a última tecnologia em animação e efeitos especiais.

A fita, que tem uma duração de pouco mais de três horas, custou mais do que o previsto, U$207 milhões, o que inclui o milionário salário do laureado diretor da saga de "O Senhor dos Anéis", que cobrará U$20 milhões.

Entre os presentes à estréia estarão os protagonistas, como Adrien Brody, Jack Black, Naomi Watts, Jamie Bell e Andy Serkis.

O filme original estreou em 1933, com Fay Wray no papel principal, mas foi feita uma versão em 1976 com Jessica Lange, embora nessa ocasião o cenário tenha sido as Torres Gêmeas.

[Fernando]

03/12/2005 -Atores engordam e emagrecem para levar Oscar
Celebridades de Hollywood mudam imagem corporal pelo prêmio

Scott Bowles*
Em Los Angeles

Devemos estar na temporada de prêmios da Academia, já que os atores estão engordando. E emagrecendo. E se tornando sexualmente ambíguos.

O incentivo representado pelo Oscar estimula invariavelmente os astros do cinema a absterem-se de suas obsessões com o charme e a beleza. E esta temporada já registra uma série de transformações dramáticas:

George Clooney engordou 16 quilos para fazer o papel de um agente veterano da CIA em "Syriana", que será exibido nos cinemas a partir de 9 de dezembro.

Philip Seymour Hoffman perdeu mais de 18 quilos para representar o atormentado autor em "Capote", que já está em exibição em cinemas selecionados.

Felicity Huffman usou um pênis falso para interpretar um homem transexual que está prestes a se submeter a uma operação para mudança de sexo em "Transamerica", que estréia agora em Nova York e Los Angeles.

Cillian Murphy fez depilação com cera em todo o corpo e removeu os cílios para interpretar um travesti cantor de cabaré em "Breakfast on Pluto", que também estréia nesta semana em cinemas selecionados.

Há um bom motivo para um retoque na imagem. Robert De Niro engordou 23 quilos e ganhou o Oscar de melhor ator pela sua atuação em "Raging Bull" ("Touro Indomável", EUA, 1980). Charlize Theron ganhou 14 quilos e levou o Oscar de melhor atriz pelo seu trabalho em "Monster" ("Monster - Desejo Assassino", EUA, 2003).

Hilary Swank levou o prêmio de melhor atriz duas vezes com uma nova imagem: a de uma boxeadora em "Million Dollar Baby" ("Menina de Ouro", EUA, 2004), e a de uma jovem lésbica vítima do preconceito em "Boys Don't Cry" ("Meninos Não Choram", EUA, 1999).

"É uma forma de os atores tentarem se destacar em meio à multidão", diz Anne Thompson, colunista especializada em Oscar que escreve para a revista "The Hollywood Reporter". "Neste período do ano, eles buscam qualquer fator que lhes possa conferir uma vantagem, e as mudanças físicas estão na moda".

A tática é especialmente efetiva no caso de atrizes, afirma Thompson. "A norma é ser magra e bonita. Portanto, tornar-se gorda e feia é tido como uma tática que aumenta as chances de se conseguir um prêmio".

Às vezes, os atores realmente se arriscam. Clooney engordou cerca de meio quilo por dia para interpretar o agente da CIA Robert Barnes em "Syriana", e ele culpa o excesso de peso por uma lesão na coluna que fez com que se submetesse a uma cirurgia para corrigir um problema de vazamento de líquido da espinha.

"Cometi um erro", confessa Clooney. Para ganhar peso, ele chegou a fazer até seis refeições por dia. "Sentado no hospital, fico pensando se não teria sido melhor usar um terno acolchoado, que fizesse com que eu parecesse mais gordo".

Hoffman diz que não perdeu peso para chamar atenção e aumentar as suas chances de conseguir um prêmio. "Mas se você vai se transformar em um personagem, especialmente em se tratando de uma pessoal real, é bom fazer certas coisas que o ajudem a encarnar aquela pessoa", explica ele.

Mas Damien Bona, autor do livro "Inside Oscar" ("Dentro do Oscar"), questiona se as mudanças estéticas não estariam se transformando em substitutos para o talento artístico.

"Cary Grant nunca mudou realmente de aparência, mas é um dos maiores atores da história de Hollywood", diz Bona. "Geralmente os grandes atores são capazes de encarnar os seus personagens por meio de fatores sutis, como sotaque e expressões faciais, sem precisar recorrer à alteração física. Mas, ultimamente, o Oscar não tem sido algo marcado particularmente pela sutileza".

Senhoras e senhores, comecem a avaliar os candidatos

Faltando menos de um mês para o início do processo de escolha dos principais filmes aos prêmios da Academia, somente um candidato a melhor filme começou a ser submetido à avaliação dos eleitores do Oscar e da mídia.

Assim, naturalmente, o filme ainda não visto é aquele que, neste momento, mais habita a mente de todos. "Munich", a obra de Steven Spielberg sobre as Olimpíadas de 1972, que estréia com exibição limitada em 23 de dezembro, só será avaliado pela primeira vez na semana que vem.

"Mas, quando temos Spielberg e um tema sério, é necessário que se preste atenção", diz Sasha Stone, do website Oscarwatch.com. Ela diz que "Munich" é o principal concorrente ao Oscar de melhor filme. "Ele é o candidato mais forte. É o filme que dita o ritmo da competição". Mesmo assim, segundo os analistas, há vários filmes que são concorrentes à altura do trabalho de Spielberg.

"Brokeback Mountain", o filme de Ang Lee sobre caubóis gays, lidera o grupo, segundo o moviecitynews.com, que avalia 13 cineastas por semana. O filme estréia em exibição de caráter limitado em 9 de dezembro.

"Ele está atingindo um nicho demográfico poderoso da Academia: as mulheres e os homossexuais", afirma David Poland, que gerencia o moviecitynews.com.

Outros filmes que estão chamando atenção dos críticos:

"Walk the Line"

A biografia de Johnny Cash foi bem recebida pelos críticos e pela audiência, já tendo gerado US$ 56 milhões nas bilheterias na sua terceira semana de exibição. "É um filme biográfico musical, um gênero adorado pela Academia", afirma Tom O'Neil, do site theenvelope.com, do "The Los Angeles Times".

"King Kong", de Peter Jackson

Rob Alarcon, do Cinema Confidential (www.cinecom.com), assistiu ao filme na noite da última quarta-feira. "Cheguei aqui achando que fosse ver uma bobagem, mas saí realmente impressionado com a qualidade do filme. Ele contém tudo aquilo que o expectador espera ver - emoção, história, bom desempenho dos atores e ação".

"Memoirs of a Geisha"

Estréia em 9 de dezembro, e foi bem recebido nas pré-estréias, diz O'Neil. "É um épico, adaptado de um livro adorável, e é uma história de amor. Para que não fosse premiado, ele teria que realmente fracassar nas bilheterias".

"The New World"

A história de Terrence Malick sobre Pocahontas, que estréia em 25 de dezembro, provocou elogios do "Los Angeles Times", mas está dividindo outros críticos. "Os seus filmes têm sempre uma natureza bastante meditativa", diz Jeffrey Wells, do site Hollywood-elsewhere.com. "Pode ser difícil se chegar a um consenso".

"Good Night, Good Luck", "Capote" e "Match Point"

Esses filmes menores estão lutando para conseguir um lugar no grupo dos candidatos ao melhor filme. "Night" e "Capote" tiveram um desempenho comercial relativamente bom, enquanto que o drama de Woody Allen, que estréia em 28 de dezembro, "está sendo bem recebido", afirma Poland. "A questão é saber para quantos filmes menores há espaço na corrida pelo Oscar".

*Colaboraram Susan Wloszczyna e William Keck.

Tradução: Danilo Fonseca

Visite o site do USA Today

[Administrator]

Eles deveriam baixar a bola em relação a Memórias de uma Gueixa. É uma flagrante decepção de crítica. Nem bilheteria salva.

[Dado]

 

   é... parece que a Charlize está perdendo buzz' date=' o que é uma pena, pois sou um grande fã dela, baseado principalmente em seu exmplar e inesquecível trabalho em Monster. Bom, mas continuo não torcendo pela Keira, não gosto dela e do jeito exagerado que ela fala e não gostei dela no filme, já a atriz que faz a sua mão me parece estar ótima, será que rola uma indicação pra ela?

[/quote']

Voce assitiu Orgulho e Preconceito?