best picture Tagged Articles at Cinematical

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is going to pull a Sir Mix-A-Lot and "Uh! Double up, uh uh!" the Best Picture category next year with ten nominees instead of the usual five. That's twice as many nominations as before, although it seems to only be limited to the Best Picture category, which is a shame because opening up at least the major categories could make things a lot more interesting.

The announcement on Variety today was extremely short, but the Academy has a press release up already stating that they're hearkening back to Oscars roots when the Best Picture category sometimes contained ten films (or more -- 12 in 1934 and 1935), although that hasn't been the case since 1943. Despite the doubling, Academy president Sid Ganis wants to remind you, "The final outcome, of course, will be the same -– one Best Picture winner."

Gee, thanks Sid. For a minute there we thought you'd really just decided to shoot for the moon and feature three Best Picture winners in a publicity stunt. Now how about you guys get to work on the show for next year and get Stephen Colbert to host? That's worth doubling up for.

Which films do you think will now make the cut? Pixar's Up is a definite contender ... what else?

When I first saw the Chicago Tribune headline "'Crash' remains top DVD rental,' I was really hoping it was referring to Cronenberg's 1996 film about car crash fetishists. Sadly, it was referring to the Oscar-winning film from 2005 about interconnected Los Angelinos and their issues with class, race, and general navel-gazing.

Even Crash's director Paul Haggis isn't sure why his movie is still top of the pops at Netflix. He told the Chicago Tribune, "I just assumed it was some sort of anomaly... I have no idea why anyone went to the movie in the first place, let alone rent it. It was a little independent film, and when people started to see it, I was amazed."

Haggis, along with many viewers, was also surprised his movie won the Oscar for best picture in 2005, beating out Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Munich. "It's certainly not a perfect movie," Haggis said. "I love the Oscars; I just think they are the best thing in the world, but if you asked me if it was the best film of the year, I'd say, 'Of course not.'" (So would a lot of people.)

It might have something to do with the Netflix recommending algorithm, which is great but definitely fallible -- it seems to think I want to see 27 Dresses and Henry Poole is Here. Or maybe people are really committed to watching all 81 best picture winners now that they're unemployed. What's your guess?

So long as there are movies, they will have endings, and so long as there are endings, we will have spoilers, and so long as there are spoilers, the Fine Brothers will be sure to cover the lot of 'em in a remarkably condensed span of time.

Yes, from the makers of "100 Movie Spoilers in 4 Minutes" comes all Best Picture winners (and this year's nominees) spoiled in 5! That's right, five glorious minutes of all the action, intrigue, romance, Crash-bashing and Milk-mocking one could possibly ask for -- and yet again, clothing is optional. (Even Meg Ryan's back in the mix!) And if you think Hitchcock didn't want late moviegoers to know the ending of his films, it's a good thing he didn't see these videos.

I admittedly went with some selective muting when watching the earlier portion (sorry if we haven't all seen How Green Was My Valley), but the provided trivia up top and take-offs later on were welcome still. Kudos, you brothers from an entirely different mother I don't hardly know myself, for keeping even the spoiler-wary entertained.

Over at MTV-land, Josh Horowitz has a rather clever short up in which he inserts himself into the nominees for the Best Picture Oscar. Horowitz gets verbally abused by Keira Knightley, finds out he got Juno pregnant, uses his hamburger phone to call Javier Bardem's serial killer to take care of his "little problem," has a chat by the fire with Daniel Plainview, and gets yelled at by George Clooney. The editing isn't seamless, but it looks quite good, and Horowitz, when he's not being annoying, can be funny.

It's pretty darn amusing (or at least, it was to me, but I've only had one cup of coffee this morning, so it's possible I'm just not awake yet), and just the kind of thing Jon Stewart might do for the Oscars. I wonder if Stewart had something similar planned, saw this online and said, "Damn that Horowitz! He stole our idea!"

What do you think about the video? Funny, or not?
[Hat tip: Hollywood Elsewhere]

Last week, the Alliance of Women Film Journalists, a diverse group of which I'm a member, voted for our end-of-year picks. One of the things I enjoy most about this critic's group is that our awards include some fun categories you don't see with a lot of other awards -- Most Egregious Age Difference Between Leading Man and Love Interest (Robin Wright Penn and Anthony Hopkins in Beowulf) and Best Depiction of Nudity or Sexuality (Viggo Mortenson in Eastern Promises -- I don't know about you, but that was one of the highlights of that film for me). Margot at the Wedding was named the "Movie You Wanted to Love But Just Couldn't."

Among the awards I'm most happy about include a triple-play for Juno for Best Original Screenplay, Best Ensemble Cast, and Best Breakthrough Performance for Ellen Page. Not surprisingly, No Country for Old Men was voted Best Picture (it seems to be that or The Diving Bell and the Butterfly for most of the critics' groups this year), and the Coen Brothers got Best Director(s). Amy Ryan's awesome performance as the bad mommy in Gone Baby Gone netted her Best Supporting Actress (and look for her to be nommed for an Oscar as well -- she'd be my pick to win gold there, too).

You can see the full list of AWFJ winners and nominees right over here ... which film do you think was the best of 2007?

If you don't already have plans for Saturday, February 24, I have the best option for what to do -- provided you live near a participating AMC theater, that is. The cinema chain is offering an amazing deal to moviegoers on the eve of the Oscars: for the price of $30, you can see all five films nominated for best picture. Of course, you have to watch them in a row, from 11am to 11:30pm (or whatever time the 9:45 showing of Little Miss Sunshine lets out). In addition to the movies, though, you also get a large popcorn, a large drink -- with unlimited refills all day long -- and a "collectible pass."

Now, I can see if this is a little too much movie for most people to handle, but I can't express enough how good a deal it is. Plus, you could always leave before Sunshine (I would; I hate it), if you fear a numb butt (try to imagine 24 hours!). Considering I still need to see two of the nominees, it would be worth it for me to attend the whole marathon since at the participating megaplex in Manhattan two movies and concessions would run me about $30 anyway (unless I theater-hopped).

The New York Times went and spent 1,543 words on an article which attempted to uncover the real reason(s) behind Dreamgirls' snubbing in Oscar's best picture category, only to come up with a bunch of "yeah, maybe that's what happened" excuses. Perhaps not enough academy members caught a screening, or maybe Clint Eastwood's Letters of Iwo Jima sliding in there at the last minute, moving up its release date so that it would qualify, ultimately knocked Dreamgirls out of the running. Then you have my personal favorite: Could it be that no one actually liked it? In the end, though, do you really care?

Well, you probably don't, but a lot of people do -- hence the article and the fact that this topic won't be hittin' the road anytime soon. See, Dreamgirls was the front-runner early on -- all the big online pundits picked it as a shoe-in for best picture -- and Paramount went crazy promoting it, setting up $25 pre-screenings of the film as a way to initiate the big buzz. And early on, the buzz was there, yet it was competing against some very strong films. Yes, say all you want about the state of movies, 2006 was a good year. A very good year. Still, there's a reason why -- with all of its other nominations -- Dreamgirls did not walk away with a nod for best picture.

So, I ask you: What is that reason?

Phillip Seymour Hoffman is up to present something. He looks kind of bizarre with a mustache. Best Actress Movie Drama now. The Golden Globe goes to Helen Mirren in The Queen. Looks like her Oscar chances just went up to about 115 percent. It's not even possible that she could lose it now. She must have been cut off in mid-speech. One second she was speaking, and then I turned around and it was a commercial. Nope - my friend says she just got off very quickly.

The Back to the Future commercial again! I demand to know why Robert Zemeckis would allow something like this to be made. I want a full investigation, immediately! Felicity Huffman now....Best Actor...Leo for Blood Diamond....Leo for The Departed...Will Smith for Happyness....Forrest Whittaker for Scotland...Peter O'Toole for Venus. Will Leo cancel himself out? Yep. Forrest Whittaker wins for some movie I never saw, and that everyone told me was mediocre. Whoopee.

Arnold is going to give the award for best picture. The honorable Arnold, I mean. No way he's on crutches for real. This is a gag. Barbell? I think he means Babel. The Golden Globe goes to Babel. Not a bad film. Are they going to let Brad Pitt speak or are they going to make everyone turn off their TVs early? Did the director just make a joke about illegal immigration? That's appropriate for an awards ceremony. He's going on a little long -- yep, he just got the music. Well, looks like that ends a completely boring, uneventful evening. Thank God it's over. Does anyone actually watch this show? I mean, really -- what kind of numbers are we talking about?

On the night of September 11, 2001, I got online and shared a few conversations with pals from around the world. I'm sure those discussions were a lot like the ones you had with your friends and family: The shock, the fury, the overwhelming helplessness, the heart-wrenching sympathy for the victims and their families. But since I'll often use humor as a defense mechanism (yes, even in the very bleakest moments), I remember asking a few of my film critic colleagues: "Hey, how long do you think it'll be before Hollywood decides to make a few biopics about what happened today?"

And now here we are, just over five years later, and 2006 has yielded not one but two rather distinctive takes on what went down during the blackest day in our nation's history. Universal's United 93 was the first one out of the gate, focusing on the final hours of some stunningly heroic "average Joes" who chose to fight back -- even as they knew it was probably the last thing they'd ever do. Fortunately, it was every bit the sobering and respectful film we all hoped it would be. A few months later came Paramount's World Trade Center, which told the tale from the perspective of two NYC Port Authority police officers who became trapped under tons of concrete rubble. Again, the filmmakers took a heartfelt and admirably sincere approach to the story, giving us a look at a massive tragedy through the eyes of two normal American families.

Aside from the events that inspired their creation, the two films couldn't possibly be more different -- and now that Oscar season has rolled around yet again, the experts are extra-busy handicapping which movie should win what and which movie doesn't deserve squat. So I thought it might be interesting to do a little "compare & contrast" on the films, focusing mainly on which sections might be considered most Oscar-worthy ...

You know how, once upon a time, you were mad and wanted to write a letter? And someone who liked you said you should, like, not mail it for 24 hours? Well, it seems nobody ever told that to Annie Proulx. In a piece for The Guardian, Proulx -- the author of the short story "Brokeback Mountain" -- shares her recollections of Oscar night in a piece that's scathing, coarse and wrathful, not the usual 'honor to be nominated' platitudes.

Proulx's honesty is refreshing, and a little scary -- and at the same time, it's worth noting that the piece didn't run in a U.S. paper. Already stirring up discussion over at The Hot Button, Proulx's rant may -- just may -- be the worst case of sour grapes captured in ink (and she admits as such). I can't think of the last time a person associated with a film lashed out like this -- but, with academic and financial acclaim, I also can't think of what, if anything, Proulx has to lose. (And read The Rocchi Report for more on the Crash-vs-Brokeback fight ... and how it's bad news for everyone involved.)