Nominations for the 83rd Academy Awards were announced this morning
in Los Angeles.
The King’s Speech, True Grit and The Social
Network were amongst the ten films nominated.
The only film amongst those nominated that I have seen is
Toy Story 3. Since the Academy resumed nominating ten
films rather than five it seems they will include one animated
film in the mix. Last year, they nominated Up (and
yes I saw that one as well).
I’m not sure having seen only one of the ten films nominated
says more about me or the films. Although I could probably be
persuaded to see The Black
Swan to observe the delicate interaction between Natalie
Portman and Mila Kunis.
bfwebster | 1.25.11 @ 11:54AM
Aaron:
My wife and I just barely saw "The King's Speech" last week -- and it really is outstanding and well-deserving of all its nominations. If there is any political subtext, it is small-c 'conservative' -- Prince Albert (Colin Firth) is willing to set aside his royal prerogatives and to risk humiliation in order to become the leader his country needs. Highly recommended. ..bruce..
Aaron Goldstein| 1.25.11 @ 1:20PM
Bruce,
I appreciate the recommendation.
solidground| 1.25.11 @ 12:48PM
Don't bother with the Black Swan. Filmic psychobabble supreme.
Occam's Tool| 1.25.11 @ 1:59PM
I'm waiting for The King's Speech to come out on Netflix. It seems a small, intimate film.
JmsA| 1.25.11 @ 6:22PM
It is a small, intimate, and very good film.
Oldefarte| 1.25.11 @ 3:40PM
It's ludicrous to waste good money on the trash/garbage now being produced by the radical-extremists Hollywood producers. In comparison to yesterday's truely gifted ACTORS, the group of liberal ars-kissers disrobing and bang-bang-shootem-uping before cameras are simply stoned misfits barely able to read, much less act. If parents of movie attending children had any common sense, they'd simply not provide the allowance money to be thrown down the Hollywood rat hole in support of their excrement!!!!!!
Seek| 1.25.11 @ 3:52PM
Rarely have I read a more ludicrous, ill-informed and hateful post. If you actually saw any recent movies, much less the 10 currently under consideration for Best Picture, I would be amazed.
JmsA| 1.25.11 @ 6:23PM
Not that I disagree with you, Oldfarte, but why don't you tell us how you really feel.
astorian| 1.26.11 @ 12:49AM
It's pretty obvious that, today, the Oscars are indistinguishable from the Indie Spirit Awards.
The ratings for the Oscars have been horrible the past few years, and keep dropping. Now, it would be fun to blame that on lame host Jon Stewart, but the reality is, the host can't bring viewers to the Oscar telecast. People will tune in ONLY when movies they liked stand a strong chance of winning. But for some time now, the voters have nominated mostly arthouse flicks that virtually nobody saw.
That's why the rules were changed to allow ten nominees for Best Picture. In 2008, NOBODY watched the Oscars because the nominees were "Slumdog Millionaire," "Milk," "Frost/Nixon," "The Reader" and "Benjamin Button," which were seen almost exclusively by critics.
"The Dark Knight," the biggest hit of the year, wasn't nominated. Ratings would have been vastly improved if it had been.
So, the Academy allowed for ten nominees, in hopes that maybe a handful of POPULAR movies would get nominated. Instead, they got EIGHT arthouse flicks combined with two hits: "Toy Story 3" and "Inception."
NEITHER of those htis has a prayer of winning anything but technical awards. Which means the ratings will suck again. And they'll have to start allowing TWENTY nominations.