Oscars 2020

With 24 nominations (the most of any studio) Netflix is here to stay I think. How many awards they will win is questionable. I think The Irishman could be shut out and same with Marriage Story but mostly due to stronger contenders in the field not some organized boycott.

Remember it's "international film" none of that foreign stuff now lol. I think it's a bit unfair but it doesn't happen a lot so I don't think they need to change the rules.

I think Pitt is the favorite but Hanks or Hopkins could sneak in because of the older voters. Pesci and Pacino will probably split the vote from Irishman supporters.

 

Pesci and Pacino and Scorsese already got some. I think Pitt and Tarantino will get one each for acting and directing

 

Last year the Mister Rogers doc was also snubbed by the Academy but both are similar because they both use found footage that wasn't their original material. Maybe both don't fit the documentary guidelines that allow a film to be nominated.

 

I just looked at the Academy's rules for documentaries, and there is a stipulation that "(only) Ten minutes or ten percent of the running time of a film, whichever is shorter, is allowed to be shown in a nontheatrical medium prior to the film’s theatrical release." Maybe these films were tripped up on a related technicality?

Full rules here: https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/91aa_doc_features.pdf

 

Why would Apollo 11 be on the short list of 15 films if it didn't qualify? Inquiring minds want to know

 

Pitt, oscar? Sounds about right.

 

Could be right. What with BP retiring.

 

Should never be though, just like the post about Scorcese, co winning before and Pitt and Tarantino haven't.
Let it be purely about the work nominated, is it the best..
I know that is not always the case.

 

too bad...it's crazy all over these days...sad ain't it?

 

what's WOKE?

 

I always liked her from the neck down...

 

seeing is believing...; ) how ya enjoying that Left Banke song?

 

Indeed...

 

no fix just talent! : )

 

she lives in Hollywood a world all of it's own that does not like intruders...

 

Maybe she just hasn’t studied the latest scientific discoveries in the gender & diversity field? I’m also hearing she even shaves her armpits!

 

Gee, I was thinking as I saw it, "wow, I've seen very few films that showed how ugly war is, with all this mud, getting cut on barbed wire, having to slosh through giant puddles of water, going through underground tunnels, falling off cliffs, almost drowning, getting shot at, shooting other people, having to strangle a guy with your bare hands, and on and on and on." I thought it was harrowing and real as hell.

Feel free to disagree. I think there's a place for a very simple story in filmmaking, told in a very complicated way. The story is two sentences:

Two British WWI soldiers have to go behind enemy lines and get an urgent message to a battalion who's about to go into a deadly trap. One of the soldiers' brothers is with the battalion, so he has to do it in order to save his life and the lives of 1600 other men.

And that is basically it. But the complications are what make the film interesting. I thought it was a great exercise in what I think Scorsese would call "pure cinema," where the camera tells 90% of the story. And I also think the audience felt almost as wrenched and exhausted as the soldier by the very end, like we shared a PTSD experience. Any movie that can pull that off deserves at least a Best Picture nomination. Most of the critics I saw agreed:

In the two hours ahead, Mendes will follow the pair into the realm of nightmares, depicting WWI as we’ve never seen it: simultaneously horrific and beautiful, immersive and detached, immediate and impossibly far removed from our own experience. These paradoxes define the unique sensibility of “1917,” which isn’t necessarily “better” than such iconic WWI films as “War Horse” and “All Quiet on the Western Front,” but different. Mendes has found an original approach to a familiar subject, refreshing events from a century ago in a way that looks, sounds and feels absolutely cutting-edge.
‘1917’: Variety Film Review

Despite the vast complexity of the storytelling technique, the tale itself, written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns (the latter known for writing nine episodes of Penny Dreadful), is very simple, and satisfyingly so, hinging on the single matter of whether or not an otherwise inevitable slaughter will be avoided. And it all comes predictably wrapped in the inevitable humanistic lament about the tragic waste, the millions of lives lost, the needless destruction and misuse of creative and industrial initiative.
'1917': Hollywood Reporter Film Review

With meticulous attention to detail (plaudits to production designer Dennis Gassner) and astonishingly fluid cinematography by Roger Deakins that shifts from ground level to God’s-eye view, Mendes puts his audience right there in the middle of the unfolding chaos. There’s a real sense of epic scale as the action moves breathlessly from one hellish environment to the next, effectively capturing our reluctant heroes’ sense of anxiety and discovery as they stumble into each new unchartered terrain. This is nail-biting stuff, interspersed with genuine shocks and surprises. Whether it’s a tripwire moment that provokes an audible gasp, a distant dogfight segueing into up-close-and-personal horror, or a single gunshot that made me jump out of my seat during an otherwise near-silent sequence, there’s no doubting the film’s theatrical impact.
The Guardian: 1917 review – Sam Mendes’s unblinking vision of the hell of war

These reviews describe the same movie I saw.

 

no matter who wins or loses someone will be disappointed...LOL.

 

In Hollywood that means nothing...perhaps, you may be correct! : )

 

Pitt was better in his movie than Pesci is in his. It doesn't matter how many movies Pesci has left, it only matters who did the best job with the character they played.

How can people vote if they haven't seen the movies?

 

The opposite of this:

 

WOKE...

 

Happy to see Jo Jo get a best picture nod, even though it won't win.
Sam Rockwell should have been nominated too. Even though he also wouldn't have won.

 

Endgame should win something, or is it viewed as a theme park thrill ride not taken aesthetically serious?