PREDICTION:
Curtis: Chicago -- Because every year the winner is the movie I have the least interest in seeing out of the five nominations. The trend continues here.
Dan: Chicago -- This one seems to have the momentum, and Gangs' Best Picture win is not already wrapped up in a pink ribbon like it's Director's win is, so this is a free for all in my opinion.
Warren: Chicago -- Probably the most overrated film of 2002, but it's well-made entertainment guaranteed not to offend (or challenge) a soul.
Ryan: Chicago -- The day that I walked out of my first showing, I knew that it would make 200 million dollars and that it would win Best Picture. I'm sticking with my second prediction. This is a true crowd-pleaser that brings the musical back in a rousing way and the Academy has and will continue to go gaga over it.
PERSONAL VOTE:
Curtis: The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers -- The scale of this movie was so grand and epic that it simply deserves it. Amazing to watch, like it or not.
Dan: The Pianist --- This powerful look at a true Holocaust survivor story is by far the most moving and important film of the bunch, but sadly it doesn't have a chance against the Miramax machine.
Warren: Gangs of New York -- Another great achievement by one of the most important and influential filmmakers in cinema history. No, I'm not too concerned that your Uncle Freddie didn't like it.
Ryan: Gangs of New York -- This is not only the best of the five nominated films, but it was my favorite film of 2002. This is a grand epic and deserves to take home the gold more than any of the others (though if Chicago, The Pianist or The Hours were to win, I'd be just fine).
SNUBBED:
Curtis: City of God -- Hey, Academy people: maybe you should have seen this movie first before picking your nominations.
Dan: About Schmidt -- It was my favorite movie of the year, so, of course, I feel this way.
Warren: Far From Heaven -- A superlative film, and one that hit most of the buttons I thought the Academy would appreciate.
Ryan: Road to Perdition -- All five of the nominated films were released in the final two weeks of the year. Perdition wasn't.
PREDICTION:
Curtis: Martin Scorsese -- Why? Because the Academy morons of the past thought Kevin Costner dancing around a campfire was too good to pass up. So, by the way, Marty, here's the make-up call, even though Gangs is one of your worst efforts.
Dan: Martin Scorsese -- If you look up the phrase "bet the farm on it" in the Dictionary of Cliché Origins, there is actually a picture of Harvey Weinstein giving Marty a piggyback ride. Word has it, Marty has actually already received the trophy, but has assured that he will still "show up" to the show for the pageantry of it all.
Warren: Martin Scorsese -- The already swelling anti-Gangs Of New York sentiment will reach a fever pitch by Oscar night. Kleenex sales will skyrocket on the morning of March 24, 2003.
Ryan: Martin Scorsese -- After he wins this much-deserved award, many people will say that it was a lifetime achievement award and that he didn't deserve it for Gangs. To them I'll say, which of the five nominees deserves it more? Gangs is the only true "director's picture" and Scorsese succeeded triumphantly.
PERSONAL VOTE:
Curtis: Pedro Almodovar -- Because these token "minority" indie nominations finally deserve something more than just the consolation prize of being nominated.
Dan: Roman Polanski -- Sorry, Marty doesn't deserve it this year (as sick as my CinemaSpeak cohorts are of hearing me say it). Gangs may have been Scorsese's "film of destiny," but The Pianist was the true definition of that for Polanski, and he directs with perfection and purpose.
Warren: Roman Polanski -- Nearly on par with the films that built Polanski's reputation. Visually and tonally, a masterful achievement.
Ryan: Martin Scorsese -- Because Kevin Costner has one of these and Marty doesn't (which could also be a reason for my not wanting him to win).
SNUBBED:
Curtis: Peter Jackson (The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers) -- Go watch the film and tell me he didn't deserve at least a nomination. If you do, I'll slap you silly.
Dan: Spike Jonze (Adaptation) -- The screenplay gets all the attention (rightfully so) but Jonze does a masterful job here with his vision of it all.
Warren: Lynne Ramsay (Morvern Callar) -- I'm not deluded enough to think that this way-under-the-radar film actually had a chance to be recognized by the Academy, but Ramsay's expressive direction is pure poetry.
Ryan: Peter
Jackson (The Lord of the Rings:
The Two Towers) -- I don't really think that this deserves
Best Picture attention, but since it was nominated, it was an
absolute travesty that the mastermind behind it all wasn't. No
worries, Jackson and his final chapter will both win next year
(guaranteed).
PREDICTION:
Curtis: Adrien Brody -- The Academy loves Holocaust movies (Schindler's List, Life is Beautiful). Plus, after giving Denzel and Halle the awards last year, I feel they'll be in the politically correct mood again.
Dan: Daniel Day-Lewis -- Not the best lead performance of the year, but at least one of the best. But this is a tough category, because I think frontrunners Nicholson and Day-Lewis might end up splitting their votes, and Adrien Brody could sneak in here. Hey, it happened in 1991 when Morgan Freeman and Tom Cruise were such strong frontrunners, and Day-Lewis came away with the surprise win. But circle Day-Lewis in your Oscar pool anyone, because no one will pick Brody.
Warren: Jack Nicholson -- A part of me is really tempted to go with Adrien Brody, but I doubt the Academy will pass up a chance to make history.
Ryan: Jack Nicholson -- Nicholson gave an inspired performance (one of his best), but it was only my fourth favorite from this list. Still, he has the momentum and will carry it all the way to victory.
PERSONAL VOTE:
Curtis: Adrien Brody -- He deserves it for his performance rather than the reasons he'll win it.
Dan: Jack Nicholson -- Shame on the Academy for pigeon-holing themselves by giving Jack an Oscar four years ago for As Good As It Gets, in which he did nothing more than play Jack Nicholson for two hours. Now, in his moment of career glory, he will be denied. It's just sad, but this is an example of the "back-end effect" that these inappropriate "lifetime" awards have on the whole affair. Peter O'Toole and I are the only ones that care.
Warren: Daniel Day Lewis -- A performance for the ages.
Ryan: Daniel Day-Lewis -- One of the most commanding, impressive and memorable performances of the last decade. If this isn't an award-caliber performance, then what is?
SNUBBED:
Curtis: Sam Rockwell (Confessions of A Dangerous Mind; Welcome To Collinwood) -- I love this guy.
Dan: Robin Williams (One Hour Photo) and Sam Rockwell (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) -- I really hate to have a tie here, but I honestly couldn't decide between these two. Williams was amazingly unrecognizable and great as his creepy photo nut. And Rockwell was dead-on and Oscar worthy as Chuck Barris (and that's the kind of statement that makes you think anything is possible in Hollywood).
Warren: Nobody -- Every single nominee in this category is magnificent.
Ryan: Ralph Fiennes (Spider) -- I loved this movie and will never forget the character of Spider. There's no way in hell that Fiennes ever had a chance for a nomination for his disturbing work, but in a perfect world…
PREDICTION:
Curtis: Nicole Kidman -- Her time has come.
Dan: Nicole Kidman -- The Academy loves two things: handicaps and prosthetics. Kidman wins here by a nose.
Warren: Julianne Moore -- Although I grow less confident about this pick every day…
Ryan: Nicole Kidman -- Kidman was strong, but does a performance (in an ensemble film no less) that only accounts for thirty-minutes of screentime really deserve an award in a leading category? Again, she has the momentum and she's the freshest in the minds of the voters. Plus, the award at the Golden Globes probably didn't hurt her shot.
PERSONAL VOTE:
Curtis: Julianne Moore -- Really showed her range. I still think she should change her real name to Amber Waves after her character in Boogie Nights.
Dan: Julianne Moore -- Not only the best performance by an actress this year, but of many a year. What Moore does here, within the constraints placed upon her character, is nothing short of breathtaking.
Warren: Julianne Moore -- The life she breathes into this confined character is extraordinary and simply beautiful to watch.
Ryan: Julianne Moore -- If I was a betting man, I would have laid everything I had on a win for Moore the second that I walked out of Far From Heaven a few months ago. In fact, up until recently I thought that her win was the only sure thing on Oscar night. Like Perdition, Heaven was released way back when (a couple of months ago) and the buzz (both for the performance and the film) died a quick death. It's just too damned bad that one of the great female performances will go unrewarded.
SNUBBED:
Curtis: Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man) -- She looks really good in a t-shirt when it happens to be raining. Me likey.
Dan: Maggie Gyllenhaal (Secretary) -- Come on, she deserved it more than Salma Hayek and Diane Lane, anyway (No offense, Diane…I still love you).
Warren: Miranda Richardson (Spider) -- Think Nicholas Cage's dual role performance in Adaptation is a triumph (and it is)? Richardson takes on 3 very different roles here and displays incredible diversity and range.
Ryan: Jennifer Aniston (The Good Girl) -- When this opened, Aniston received the reviews of her life. Maybe the film was too small and too dark. I don't know, but I strongly believe that she deserves to be in the final five a lot more than a couple of the others.
PREDICTION:
Curtis: Chris Cooper -- He seems to be the one that comes up the most when talking about Adaptation. So if the Academy is going to reward this movie, he'll be it.
Dan: Paul Newman -- He has only won a single Oscar in his legendary career. That isn't enough. At least not to the voters. Newman was fine in Road To Perdition, but not award worthy. Therefore, he will win.
Warren: Paul Newman -- Along with the beautiful cinematography, Newman's performance is the highlight of this strong film.
Ryan: Chris Cooper -- Cooper has won every other best supporting actor award for this performance and will win the big one as well.
PERSONAL VOTE:
Curtis: Chris Cooper -- He's the best of the five. It's that simple.
Dan: Chris Cooper -- Cooper has always been a great character actor, but was always so subtle that few people even noticed him. Adaptation allows the wild man to come out, and it's as satisfying a supporting turn as I have ever seen.
Warren: Paul Newman -- Haven't seen Catch Me If You Can, but none of the other performances are especially memorable.
Ryan: Chris Cooper -- Cooper rocked the hizzy and easily dominates this particularly weak group of actors (surprising, given that this is usually the strongest category). Just from watching the trailer, I knew that he had created a truly original character.
SNUBBED:
Curtis: Leandro Firmino da Hora (City of God) -- There are many great things about City of God, but his performance as the gang leader, Lil' Ze, is about as real and raw as it gets.
Dan: Cedric The Entertainer (Barbershop) -- Sure it was a silly comedy, sure it was controversial, and sure it came out early in the year. But poor Cedric committed one of the cardinal sins of the Academy, dooming him to snubs-ville. He was very, very funny.
Warren: Alan Arkin (13 Conversations About One Thing) -- With all due respect to the nominees, I am completely underwhelmed by the selections in this category. How Arkin didn't receive a nomination for this humorous and intense performance is a mystery. Then again, we're talking about a tiny film that was released in May -- mystery solved.
Ryan: Ray Liotta (Narc) -- Liotta (who I've never much cared for) gave the performance of his life in this painfully neglected cop drama.
PREDICTION:
Curtis: Catherine Zeta-Jones -- Not only do Michael Douglas and America adore her, but so will the Academy.
Dan: Queen Latifah -- This is the category that screws me every year in my Oscar pool, and I have finally gotten a handle on it.
Warren: Catherine Zeta-Jones -- While I might think the film is overrated, Zeta-Jones' sparkling performance certainly is not.
Ryan: Catherine Zeta-Jones -- The Academy needs to give one of the Chicago actors a prize and they sure as hell ain't going to give one to Zellweger, Reilly or Latifah. Plus, Zeta-Jones dominated every scene that she was in (and had the singing and dancing chops to back her up) and proved to be a major movie star.
PERSONAL VOTE:
Curtis: Meryl Streep -- Even after this many years, she's still one of the best actresses around.
Dan: Kathy Bates -- There is a lot of talk about her brave nude scene, but take that out, and Bates is still brilliant in this one.
Warren: Kathy Bates -- I thought About Schmidt was pretty average until Bates' character was introduced; from there, the film hits its stride and Bates' wonderfully comedic performance is an essential reason why.
Ryan: Catherine Zeta-Jones -- Now if only she could have swapped roles with Kathy Bates in About Schmidt.
SNUBBED:
Curtis: Emily Watson (Punch-Drunk Love) -- She and Adam Sandler had great chemistry. Did I really just say that?
Dan: I think the Academy actually nailed this one pretty good, so no real snubs for me. I'll just go with Jaye P. Morgan from Confessions of A Dangerous Mind.
Warren: Toni Collette (The Hours) -- Sure, Collette is only in one scene, but it is arguably the single best-acted scene of the year.
Ryan: Emily Mortimer (Lovely & Amazing) -- This was the first time that I had seen Mortimer on-screen and she stood out the most in an outstanding ensemble of actresses. The "infamous" scene where she stands naked while Dermot Mulroney evaluates her ranks as one of the very best of the year (and not just because she's naked).
PREDICTION:
Curtis: Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman -- Everyone says how brilliant and clever this screenplay is. So the Academy wants people to think they are brilliant, therefore Adaptation wins.
Dan: Bill Condon -- I dunno.
Warren: Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman -- I hear that Donald's a pretty handsome guy. Can't wait to see him on Oscar night.
Ryan: Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman -- This will win because it's the most original and well-respected screenplay of the year. And because the screenplay for About Schmidt is mysteriously absent.
PERSONAL VOTE:
Curtis: Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman -- It's a brilliant and clever screenplay… Do you think I'm brilliant now?
Dan: Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman -- Too inside Hollywood to be mass appeal, and certainly weird, but Charlie Kaufman definitely deserves it up against this bunch. But really, shouldn't this be in the Original Screenplay category????
Warren: Peter Hedges, Chris Weitz & Paul Weitz -- The Weitz Bros. and Peter Hedges took a mildly entertaining book and turned it into a memorable film that touches upon a wide variety of emotions.
Ryan: Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman -- This is my favorite screenplay of the group, and I'd love to see both Charlie and Donald accept.
SNUBBED:
Curtis: Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Stephen Sinclair & Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers): I may be too stupid to understand the book, but I'm not too stupid to know it deserved to be nominated.
Dan: Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor (About Schmidt): This was the most shocking snub of the entire list. Without it in competition, this category might as well be sponsored by Eukanuba.
Warren: Patrick McGrath (Spider) -- Able to express so much, even though the protagonist doesn't utter a single intelligible word.
Ryan: Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor (About Schmidt) -- This has got to be the single biggest snub of the year and a real travesty.
PREDICTION:
Curtis: Jay Cocks and Steve Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan -- I just can't imagine the other four nominees winning.
Dan: Jay Cocks and Steve Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan -- And the red-red-Weinstein keeps bob-bob-bobbing along…
Warren: Pedro Almodovar -- If this would've been Spain's Best Foreign Picture submission, a nomination and, quite possibly, an Oscar victory would have been guarantees. As it stands, Almodovar probably won't get the director nod, so this is the consolation prize.
Ryan: Pedro Almodovar - The Academy loves him, wants to reward him (because his own country won't) and won't give him Best Director.
PERSONAL VOTE:
Curtis: Carlos Cuarón, Alfonso Cuarón -- Any of them but Gangs.
Dan: Carlos Cuarón, Alfonso Cuarón -- This thoughtful mix of teen sex, politics, travel and mortality is simply beautiful.
Warren: Todd Haynes -- If you couldn't have already guessed, I'm a big fan of this film.
Ryan: Carlos Cuaron and Alfonso Cuaron -- I love everything about Y Tu Mama Tambien and would also love it if it took home the one and only award that it's up for.
SNUBBED:
Curtis: Paul Thomas Anderson (Punch-Drunk Love) -- Pound for pound, P.T.A. can write the best dialogue in the business.
Dan: Paul Thomas Anderson (Punch-Drunk Love) -- Anyone remember a little thing called Punch-Drunk Love? No? Didn't think so.
Warren: Brent Hanley (Frailty) -- A clever, dark and ultimately fun script; imagine if Jim Thompson had a taste for the supernatural.
Ryan:
Brent Hanley (Frailty) -- A brilliant and original
screenplay (the best thriller since Memento) by an exciting
new writer.
The 75th
Annual Academy Awards air March 23, 2003 at 8:30 PM(EST) on
ABC.
Let us have it on the MESSAGE BOARDS.
|
|
|
|
|