I really hope so. I really liked The Hurt Locker
Same with Moon, which was fantastic, at least Sam Rockwell for Best Actor because he was phenomenal.
Up is a lock now because of the change to 10 nominees. I wonder if Public Enemies and Inglourious Basterds (neither of which I have seen yet btw) are going to have a positive reaction to the the 10 nominee system. Or even 500 Days of Summer which I have heard good buzz about even though the trailer looked like crap.
Nine looks like it has a lot of elements the Academy would like, but 9 has some serious buzz about it.
Expect The Informant in Best Picture and Matt Damon in Best Actor at least at this point of its "hype lead-up"
Neither of them are locks. Especially not The Hurt Locker.I think its pretty obvious that The Hurt Locker and Up is a lock to be in the top 10
from what I've seen so far this year (and I have not seen Up, I know, I suck), the only definite Oscar movie I have seen is Public Enemies. It will be up for Best Picture and Best Actor (Johnny Depp).
Star Trek was a great movie, but it was this year's Iron Man, not The Dark Knight. A fun movie, but not Oscar caliber.
I'm expecting 'Where The Wild Things Are' to be a big surprise this Oscar season. But, I'm also expecting 'The Road' to get something from the Oscars, as well, since they've held the movie back for Oscar season.
The Dark Knight > Star Trek > Iron ManStar Trek was a great movie, but it was this year's Iron Man, not The Dark Knight. A fun movie, but not Oscar caliber.
Im actually starting to like the idea more and more when I think about it. Im willing to give it a chance and see how it does for 2010.I hate this Top 10 best picture idea. I usually see all 5 best picture nominees every year, but now it's going to be virtually impossible.
I think that Bale would've definitely had a chance to be up for a nod if he had a larger role in the film itself. However, they really did underutilize his talent in the film. I thought that he was great. But, too much of the film was focused on making Depp's character feel like the Robin Hood of that era. When really, that's not truthful at all. Everyone in the cast did great with their roles, but Mann just didn't give them enough.I would be incredibly surprised if Depp didn't snag a Best Actor nom for Public Enemies.
And I'm probably one of the few people who felt Bale's performance was of equal calibre, and would hope against hope that he would snag a Supporting Actor nom. But that's most likely not going to happen.
Yeah. But, honestly, I wish they would've given Bale a larger role in the film. In this film, his talent really was underutilized. Johnny Depp overshadowed everyone in this film, and I didn't like the film for that very reason. I see your point on Depp's character, John Dillinger. However, I don't think this film was structured, or writen well, at all. There's too much focus on Depp's character, and it makes the entire supporting cast of characters seem irrelevant. As if they're just there because they were there in history. Technically, I think that this film certainly is Oscar-worthy. Hands down. But, on the film's end, I wouldn't say so. Depp may be choice for an Oscar nod. However, I really could care less about him. In my opinion, he was rewarded with his earnings on the film. He doesn't need an Oscar to go along with it.They didn't make him out to be Robin Hood at all. He was cold and business minded, and all but admitted to the "Robin Hood" image as being a tool to keep the public in his favor. If anything it confirmed that John Dillinger was a bad person. And I liked that with Bale they didn't make Purvis your typical do gooder lawman. He hunted down criminals because it was his job, not due to any self righteousness or cliche heroic ambitions.
They didn't make him out to be Robin Hood at all. He was cold and business minded, and all but admitted to the "Robin Hood" image as being a tool to keep the public in his favor. If anything it confirmed that John Dillinger was a bad person. And I liked that with Bale they didn't make Purvis your typical do gooder lawman. He hunted down criminals because it was his job, not due to any self righteousness or cliche heroic ambitions.
I dont believe in it as much anymore after the mixed reaction on the film. Im not predicting any nominations in the major categories anymore.I would be incredibly surprised if Depp didn't snag a Best Actor nom for Public Enemies.
And I'm probably one of the few people who felt Bale's performance was of equal calibre, and would hope against hope that he would snag a Supporting Actor nom. But that's most likely not going to happen.
I dont believe in it as much anymore after the mixed reaction on the film. Im not predicting any nominations in the major categories anymore.
It was a film about John freaking Dillinger. Just because you're disgruntled about the fact that Bale wasn't in it as much as you would've liked doesn't mean you should shortchange Depp. And people are exaggerating about Bale's lack of screentime. I think they were just expecting the film to be pure Bale vs. Depp and have it divided among the two when that wasn't historically accurate.Yeah. But, honestly, I wish they would've given Bale a larger role in the film. In this film, his talent really was underutilized. Johnny Depp overshadowed everyone in this film, and I didn't like the film for that very reason. I see your point on Depp's character, John Dillinger. However, I don't think this film was structured, or writen well, at all. There's too much focus on Depp's character, and it makes the entire supporting cast of characters seem irrelevant. As if they're just there because they were there in history. Technically, I think that this film certainly is Oscar-worthy. Hands down. But, on the film's end, I wouldn't say so. Depp may be choice for an Oscar nod. However, I really could care less about him. In my opinion, he was rewarded with his earnings on the film. He doesn't need an Oscar to go along with it.
And they portrayed him as being all those things, but still basically a bad person.No, I kind of see what Jon is talking about. Maybe not "Robin Hood" but he was a outlaw the public liked. He was a bad guy in terms of the law but the movie's portrayal of him was that he was popular, non-chalant and charming.
That stuff happened after the death of John Dillinger. He showed concern about the fact that his partners were dying, but why waste time on pointless emotional interludes that would have romanticized a film that essentially presented itself as a docudrama? Purvis was all business, especially during the hunt for Dillinger. Having him undergo a breakdown or emotional distress would be trite and would just distract from the film.Which in no way is incorrect. Now for Pervis, I was disappointed at the lack of emotion. I hated how he didn't show much nerve when J. Edgar Hoover assigned him to the "war on crime". I read a few times that from what he had done and what he had seen - partners dying, killing people - it drove him to depression and he was nervous that his career stood on the shoulders of J. Edgar Hoover in who was under much scrutiny in the press and from congress.
Pervis, I have read was stone cold in appearance and in public, but it would have been nice to see a side of him when he was solely alone have a break down from pressure and blood shed. In all the performances were not the actors fault and for the most part were great for what they were told to do but I stress that I was very unhappy with how the film was edited and made into a summer movie.
Pretty Boy Floyd had nothing to do with John Dillinger. In fact he wasn't killed by Purvis until after Dillinger was killed. He was put in the film to establish Purvis as being a no nonsense, tough as nails lawman.I was really unhappy with the lack of screen time of Pretty Boy Floyd and J. Edgar Hoover's push for the war on crime. I liked the cast and wished there would have been more about Pervis, Floyd and Hoover.
Depp's performance garnered almost unanimous praise in spite of the mixed reaction to the film overall. I don't see his chances as being hurt.I dont believe in it as much anymore after the mixed reaction on the film. Im not predicting any nominations in the major categories anymore.
Who said that they had to change history to give Bale a greater role in the film. Both Dillinger and Pervis are interesting characters. They both have such a powerful history. My problem is that the film doesn't delve into that enough. You're sitting here whining about how I'm undermining Depp's role. When really, all I'm trying to say is that it would've been better if we had enough of everyone from this huge supporting cast of characters. And, no. This film is not about John Dillinger alone. Why? It's called 'Public Enemies'. Not 'Public Enemy'. The film is too busy focused on Dillinger's character that it makes the audience care less about the others. 80% of the film (I would say) is all about John Dillinger. What if we don't like John Dillinger? What if we care more about Pervis than Dillinger? I know that I care much more about Pervis than Dillinger because Pervis was never given his rightful due before.It was a film about John freaking Dillinger. Just because you're disgruntled about the fact that Bale wasn't in it as much as you would've liked doesn't mean you should shortchange Depp. And people are exaggerating about Bale's lack of screentime. I think they were just expecting the film to be pure Bale vs. Depp and have it divided among the two when that wasn't historically accurate.
The fact that you bring such a one-sided, flat-ass question to the table is astounding.Who gives a S about Pervis?