And the nominees are...

Academy Award nominations were announced early this morning.  Since I will obviously be losing Brendan's annual Academy Awards pool (a little history on the curse here), this information is pretty useless to me, but some of you might be interested. ;)

Best Motion Picture:

Atonement (2007)  

Juno (2007) 

Michael Clayton (2007) 

No Country for Old Men (2007) 

There Will Be Blood (2007) 

Best Actress/Actor nominations after the jump.

Best Actress:

Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie for Away from Her

Marion Cotillard for Môme, La (US Title: La Vie en Rose)

Laura Linney for The Savages

Ellen Page for Juno

Best Actor:

George Clooney for Michael Clayton

Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood

Johnny Depp for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Tommy Lee Jones for In the Valley of Elah

  Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises

For a full list of nominees you can go to Oscar.com or the Internet Movie Database

Comments

[4-7]

I recommend Juno. I thought it was good.

[dcl]

let us all pray that There Will be Blood does not win... anything... lest directors will think that they really don't need to hire editors in the future.

[Vicki from NJ]

I've actually seen all of the nominees already (I think it's the first time I've managed to do that before the nominations). They are all good movies, but Juno and Michael Clayton were my least favorite. In fact, I really don't get how Michael Clayton has managed to get so much awards buzz in a relatively strong year for film, but hey, I can't complain when No Country for Old Men AND There Will Be Blood are so well represented. Those movies are AMAZING.

[Vicki from NJ]

dcl, WHAT?!? I thought that movie was pretty damn close to perfection, with my main issue being that Eli Sunday never felt threatening enough... what should have been edited out, in your opinion?

[bree]

dcl, you apparently have no taste in movies. There Will Be Blood was an EXCELLENT film.

[dcl]

There Will be Blood was a brilliant film in desperate need of editing. Anyone semi competent could have easily taken an hour out of that sprawling pice of crap--what they brought to screen barley qualifies as a rough cut. Doing so would have made it a far better picture as I will grant you the film had some very good parts. Some excellent scenes, some brilliant cinematography, some truly fantastic acting and wonderful locations. Hell, it even had a decent screen play. But the editing was shit. Just flat out shit. I'm sorry, but you do NOT need 16 establishing shots of the same damn thing. Sure it tells a story, but this thing is so slow it makes Gone With the Wind look down right snappy. It did not need to be 2 hours 40. Sorry, it just didn't. If you are going to make a movie that is over two hours you better make damn sure you need that time to tell your story. Sorry, but The Godfather (any of the three) this thing is not. Seriously, if you are even thinking about crossing the hour and 40 mark you better make damn sure I'm not going to look at my watch before you get to the one hour mark. Why? because if I do, your editing is shit. Simple. Now, I will grant you this thing is not Lawrence of Arabia slow... But an hour of staring at the sun on film is hard to beat as a bench mark for painfully slow editing.

[dcl]

I would have edited out all the parts where I was drumming my fingers on the cup holder waiting for them to get on with it already.

Did dcl seriously say that Godfather III was better than There Will Be Blood? Wow is the only way to describe that statement.

[dcl]

What have you got against Francis Ford Coppola?

[dcl]

But yes, I'd take a hole in the head over having to watch There Will Be Blood again. Of course if the studio would like to reales a Studio cut, I'd be happy to watch that. But what do you expect from the guy that brought us Magnolia -- a film with many of the same short comings of There Will Be Blood... Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go watch The departed -- now there is a film that justifies it's two and a half hour run time.

[David K.]

Is it just me or are the Best Picture nominees becoming increasingly less watched films? Whatever happened to making a film that appealed to more than an arthouse crowd? Whatever happened to NOMINATING a film that appealed to more than an arthouse crowd. Granted some of these are more mainstream than that, but still more and more there is a disconnect between the average person and the Oscars (and they wonder why ratings are doing so poorly).

[dcl]

what do ratings have to do with movies?

[dcl]

Oh, and these are not art house pictures... you want art house pictures I'll show you art house pictures...

HAHAHA dcl. you're such a child. Go watch that steaming turd called "The Departed". Or, just jingle some keys in front of your face for a couple hours.

HAHAHA dcl. you're such a child. Go watch that steaming turd called "The Departed". Or, just jingle some keys in front of your face for a couple hours.

[Vicki from NJ]

I couldn't disagree with you more, dcl. I loved the pacing of the movie. I can admit that it moves slowly, but I can't find a reason to believe that is bad. If I wanted to watch a breezy hour and 15 minute movie, I could just go see Cloverfield (again). This movie was all about character development and I think it succeeded in that respect. I, for one, was willing to spend all the time in the world with Daniel Day Lewis's Daniel Plainview.

I'm curious to know if you've seen The Assassination of Jesse James... It's another movie I loved, but I can only imagine that if you thought There Will Be Blood was slow you would have similar issues with it.

ps- see Infernal Affairs, if you haven't already. The Departed is great, but the original is even better...

[David K.]

I realize art house is a little more than these, but in general these are much less mainstream movies, they are watched by people who are more towards the film elitist crowd in general, and there is an increasing trend towards that. Its the same problem you have with film critics in general where more and more unless a film has 12 layers of meaning and is deep and angsty its not even considered "good". I think there are past winners that are acknowledged great films that would never have been nominated with the mindset of the current film aristocracy.

[Vicki from NJ]

David, I agree with you to a point, but the problem is that "mainstream" movies (and I only use mainstream to mean "more watched" because dcl is 100% right that really these aren't art house films) are pretty awful. I would love to know what "mainstream" movies you think deserve to be nominated before these films.

Top Ten Highest Grossing Films of '07 (according to Yahoo!);
-Spiderman 3
-Shrek the Third
-Transformers
-Pirates of the Carribbean: At World's End
-Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
-The Bourne Ultimatum
-300
-Ratatouille
-The Simpsons Movie
-Wild Hogs

except for Bourne Ultimatum, I couldn't justify nominating any of those movies. Awards should be for great movies/performances and if they happen to be in movies that aren't blockbusters then that sucks, but I can't blame the Academy for that...

[Jay Johnson]

I'll readily admit that I haven't seen any of the nominated films yet, but I do know that I'm quite likely to be biased to one movie in particular.

The only movie that I wanted to see of that group was No Country for Old Men, because I'm a very big Coen brothers fan and there's a distinct Tennessee tie since the novel was written by Cormac McCarthy.

I had heard that there are some serious issues with the length of There will be blood.

[Vicki from NJ]

No Country for Old Men is fantastic. When I saw it, there were a lot of people who hated the ending, but if you've read (and liked) the book, you shouldn't have an issue with it.

There Will Be Blood is LONG. If you don't like long movies, stay away, but I really think you'll be missing one of the best character driven films in years.

[dcl]

Vicky, I don't really have a problem with slow. Godfather two (if we are going to get all pissy about three, and certainly there is an argument to be made there) is not exactly a fast paced film. Nor is Citizen Kane, Casablanca is pretty darn slow not to mention Harold and Maude which is positively plodding in places. Anyway I actually liked the ending of there will be blood. Thought it was one of the best put together sequences. The ending was fine. Somewhat irrational but it was fine. Good even. That's the thing, the movie is not bad per se, it's just poorly edited and felt more like a rough cut than a finished pice. I felt like there was no one that said why are we keeping this shot fight for why we need it to tell the story. Casablanca is slow in parts because it uses the slowness to tell the story of waiting. Harold and Maude is slow to savor life. Blood is just slow, and I never got the feeling that the director really knew why it was slow, it just was. Perhaps he thought slow = good or something I don't know or as david put it arty... Who knows. I just know that the film would have been more effective if it was tighter. And it easily could have been a lot tighter. Now I might be willing to handicap a little on the basses of the I suffered through the film in (certainly not the most comfortable). But that doesn't handicap all of it. There was a lot of what can I leave in. There wasn't enough what can I take out. Art, design, movie editing, to a certain extent all have the same sort of rule of thumb, it's done when you look at it and go, if I took anything else out it would fall apart completely. It doesn't always work (certainly there are some flourishes for the sake flourishes that embellish a story but aren't really necessary per se... or are they?

Look, blood isn't bad, it is better than a lot of movies. But it certainly could have been better in my opinion.

As for popular cinema. David will think I am being arrogant to say, most people have no taste and don't understand art, I'd imagine. But the reality is Art is not easy. And film at the highest levels is art. A particular kind of very expensive art. But art. Not all art is easy to engage with and understand. That is reality. Likewise most of the time when you sit down on your couch after a long day at the office you don't want something that is hard to understand. That is also reality. And that's not a bad thing but you can't confuse what you are watching with art -- it's junk food, and that's fine. Nor does it's being easy to consume make it better than those things that are difficult and challenging and force us to look at the world in a new different or critical way. Simply put, most people tend not to want to take the time to really appreciate a pice of art because doing so is hard, and we are, after all, rather busy in this country. Likewise most people do not have any real desire to do so, again for the reasons stated above. Most people just don't care. Now If you don't really care about it, it's rather difficult to say what's good and what's bad because you are not willing to engage the pice of art. If you can't tell what's good or bad and are not willing to engage the pice, well then by definition you don't understand it and you don't have taste. That's not bad, it just is and it is why there is a difference between what makes a bajillion dollars at the box office and what people who really care about movies nominate for awards. There is a difference. And unfortunately as we get busier and busier and life gets faster and faster paced, the disconnect between the two ways of consuming media gets wider and wider. It's not bad per se... It just is.

[Vicki from NJ]

dcl, I hear what you're saying, but I don't agree at all (to the first part). ;)

[Vicki from NJ]

BTW, just because I've finally taken a close look at all the nominations, I'd like to let you know that my head has exploded. Norbit IS Academy Award nominated (for Best Make-up). That is so disgusting to me... Maybe it'll win a Razzie AND an Oscar! Can't imagine that's ever happened before. :(

[Mike]

As usual, I've seen basically nothing that got nominated for anything. The Bourne Ultimatum and The Golden Compass both got a couple of nominations...and that's it for films I saw this year.

[Vicki from NJ]

You should watch better movies! :)

[dcl]

Vivki, I have no comment on the make up in Norbit as I didn't see the movie. I intend to keep it that way. Oh, and lest David think I'm being too elitist in things, I like watching junk food movies as much as the next person. There are some great action films that are just absolute train wrecks in terms of the quality of the movie making... But they are fun to watch. Likewise there is something endearing about a truly terrible and predictable romantic comedy... The reason it is enjoyable to watch is entirely unintentional of course, but it is enjoyable just the same. Unfortunately, reality TV is just rather painful to watch and I think American Idol really takes the cake for worst TV program ever (oddly enough though, when I was subjected to it by an ex-girlfriend I discovered that I agreed with Simon every time and that I was indeed disliking the show for cause--I'm actually not sure how Simon manages to suffer through watching all that crap, but then he does get paid for it and I don't so we'll leave it to him and now I know my opinion is covered.)

[Brendan Loy]

Write in Megan Fox for Best Actress!!!

;)

[Doc]

I'm going to go with Dane on this one. Blood was long enough for me to wander over to my computer* and find out that it was a Paul Thomas Anderson movie, which made everything make a lot more sense... or at least explained to me why it was dragging. PTA can't, or won't, cut his films to tighten them up. Magnolia could have been Crash.

*watching a pirate copy, due to a lack of local cinemas, and because I can get the DVD for about a buck.

[dcl]

Well, at least I'm not out on the limb all by my self anymore. Trouble is I don't think producers challenge directors enough anymore. Sure there are cases where producers have ruined perfectly good films. But the opposite is also true producers falling down on the job have also destroyed a lot of films because most of the time the Director's cut isn't any better than the studio cut and a lot of times worse (with some very rare but high profile exceptions). But then not everyone can be like Hitchcock and know exactly how the finished movie will look before they start shooting.

[Becky]

Vicki, come on! Ratatouille totally deserves a nod for best animated feature. It was way better than Surf's Up. :P

[David K.]

I certainly don't think that JUST because its popular a movie should be up for best picture, as you pointed out some of the top films don't even deserve to be considered (except Transformers, its just that awesome), but i also think that just because a film is artsy doesn't make it best either. And I think its possible to make great cinema that appeals to a wider audience, i'm sorry but i think if all the supposedly best film makers can do is appeal to a very small segment with a specific film approach then they aren't as good as they are supposed to be. A truly great film maker can do both.

Look at the winners from the earlier part of this decade, Gladiator, Beautiful Mind, Chicago, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Those weren't just good movies they were movies that both film enthusiasts AND regular movie goers could enjoy.

Or what about Forrest Gump, Silence of the Lambs, Dances with Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy and Rain Man?

Going back further you have The Sting, Sound of Music, West Side Story, Ben-Hur, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind.

There are more examples, and looking back its not that some films were nominated in recent years, but this year especially it doesn't seem the case.

[dcl]

Correction, Lord of the Rings was pretty. but it was also crap.

[Brendan Loy]

Lord of the Rings was ... crap.

Note to self, never pay attention to dcl's movie reviews. :)

[David K.]

Note to self, never pay attention to dcl's movie reviews. :)

Well DUH, he's a movie snob ;-)

[Junior]

Seriously, Vicki, we thought you were dead or something. Please get in touch.