And to classify these films as popcorn-munching, mind-numbing action flicks is to group them in with the muscle bound, all-action-no-plot films of Jean Claude Van Damme, Terminator and the like.
Describe jean Claude Van Damme films as whatever you like but please don't group the Terminator films in with him. I think that the first two Terminator films were absolutely brilliant.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Well, like The Little Train That Could, CR is certainly chugging along. I've had the strongest hunch for nearly half a year that CR would earn at least two nominations: Best Picture and Best Actor. With three viewings now behind me, I'm even more convinced. Now, I do agree that the odds of its winning one, let alone two, Oscars are almost insanely steep. But for nearly half a century the franchise toed the bottom line. This time it risked all and shot for the stars. We can't rule out the possibility that the Academy will warm to that. The nominations in themselves would bestow a mantle of legitimacy that's been richly earned this time. And Academy members would show good sense and tolerance in acknowledging that ripsnorting tales of adventure can also be fine works of art. Anyway, we'll know in a couple of months. And, win or lose on the Oscar issue, serious film lovers are starting to line up for Bond. Ain't that grand?
All awards ceremonies for actors are absolutely pointless, and that's the Oscars included - I don't think awards should be given out for performances - just the technical achievements because, when it comes down to it - the strength of an actor's performance is in the strength of the material he has been given, and just as much in the eye of the viewer - you can't put it in a set of criteria.
More on topic - Casino Royale will not win any performance Oscars - a nomination however is possible, although a very long shot.
I think it will be the first Bond film for many years, however, to pick up nominations or wins for some of its technical achievements. It has a strong case here.
I really think he would merit a nomination at the very least, he did a wonderful job of bringing Ian Fleming's James Bond to life.
Any opinions?
Craig was awesome, but OSCAR? That takes it too far.
My thoughts (and they are non confrontational ones P_B in case they look any other way{[] )
But what does it take too far?? The notion that DC was good enough as JB to win an Oscar for his performance or that the JB films just aren't perceived as credible enough to win Oscars??
If you take a look at the list of Best Actor winners/nominees for the last few years then there are some questionable nominations and winners IMHO including: Russell Crowe for anything (a true 'blunt instrument'), Leonardo Di Caprio - please 8-) and Denzel Washington (for Training Day).
I am not saying that these are not popular actors/characters/films etc but I just don't see how DC getting even nominated can seem so far fetched compared to some of the drivel that has made it to the shortlist and the winners in recent years.
The other question is would DC want to win his first Oscar for CR considering some of the other roles he has taken that have been more highbrow and stereotypically fitting of the Oscars scene ?:)
I remember when RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was nominated for Best Picture, and there was a lot of talk like, it's just a silly genre flick, it's action/adventure not drama, etc. It's still a damn fine piece of cinema, and deserving of its nomination IMO.
CR has some things in common with that great film: revisioning a played-out character/genre, twisty love story, riveting action scenes that focus on human-sized action, a main character that goes through an emotional arc, a leading man coming into his own. I don't think it's quite on a level that ROTLA is, but I can see where it's kinda in the next neighborhood over maybe...and that it does do things the Acadamy generally likes (the drama, the character arc, the very well done humor).
I don't think I'd expect CR to get a Best Picture or Best Actor nomination, but I do agree it certainly deserves both (I also don't put a lot of stock in awards, but the recognition does go a long ways). The other thing to consider is, industry folk vote for these things, other actors, directors, writers, etc., and the whole CNB site may feed CR/Craig some sympathy among the voters...crazier things have happened with ol' Oscar, nothing would surprise me these days.
As cool as it would be to see happen, there's something about Oscar that puts a funny taste on everything it touches. I always get half-nervous about watching The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King because of the level of esteem it has over it's previous two installments.
Would Oscar change the way I see CR from then on knowing that millions more people feel they have to see it now that it's garnered a statuette or two? I hate bandwagoneers. For me, Bond is about the whole series, not just the guys that were Bond when I was growing up or the guy that started the series off.
I even get irritated when random celebrities start touting claim to roles in the franchise when I have heavy suspicions they've never even been asked. They seem to carry on a nasty tradition of continuing the belief that any Bond film is just the same as the one that came out before it.
So to butcher a well known catchphrase, "We don't need no stinking Oscars!" X-(
If any action/adventure movie this year deserves an Oscar nod, it's CR. It would also have a positive effect on who will want to work in a Bond movie, particularely in the part of leading lady. It would have a very interesting effect on CnB.com too....
And to classify these films as popcorn-munching, mind-numbing action flicks is to group them in with the muscle bound, all-action-no-plot films of Jean Claude Van Damme, Terminator and the like.
Describe jean Claude Van Damme films as whatever you like but please don't group the Terminator films in with him. I think that the first two Terminator films were absolutely brilliant.
Especially the first Terminator is a classic. I am not a particular fan of arnie, but they definately can't be compared to Van Dammes films.
I thin he should win an oscar for Casino Royale.he's a brilliant actor there isn't many brilliant british actors
Maybe you think that because so many American characters are played by British actors?
Its a good point HB but I think the problem over here is more about public perception than the reality of it.
I think in the UK a lot more emphasis is placed on TV and theatre acting and a lot of people would be hard pressed to construct a list of 10 great male British actors from the last 10 years who were known mainly for their roles on the big screen, especially those who would be in the Bond bracket in terms of age/look etc.
This is part of the frenzy about DC. We Brits love an underdog usually but hate any changes to the status quo. DC has now dealt with all this in an absolute way because he is bloody good as Bond and a tremendously convincing actor in the respect of both the action and dialogue scenes.
As all the blockbusters are seen to be Hollywood productions a lot of British people seem to detach themselves from the notion that Brits ever succeed in the movie world. I think there are lots of good British actors and to me it doesn't matter what or who they play as long as they do a good job of it.
I thin he should win an oscar for Casino Royale.he's a brilliant actor there isn't many brilliant british actors
Yikes...don't tell that to Sir Anthony Hopkins, Daniel Day-Lewis, Jeremy Irons, Ian McKellan, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Caine, or Kenneth Branaugh..just to name a few!
The Academy should just give Michael and Babs an award for James Bond's unique contribution to the history of motion pictures and for Eon's achievements with the series.
The Academy should just give Michael and Babs an award for James Bond's unique contribution to the history of motion pictures and for Eon's achievements with the series.
Well, Cubby Broccoli received the Irving Thalberg award--presented at the Oscar ceremonies in 1982--for just those reasons. It might seem kind of redundant now.
Anyone who wants to know what CR's Oscar chances are can refer to the recently announced American Film Institute list and New York Film Critics awards. As you can find out on Hollywood.com, the AFI has named as its ten best films of the year Dreamgirls, United 93, Borat, Babel, The Devil Wears Prada (Really?), Half Nelson, Inside Man, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, and--no doubt to the joy of a certain group of people we all know and loathe--Happy Feet.
Meanwhile, over on Reuters, you can see that the N.Y. Film Critics have given their awards, and there's not a shadow of Casino Royale anywhere. Their Best Picture is United 93, Best Actor is Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland, Best Actress is Helen Mirren in The Queen, Martin Scorsese took Best Director for The Departed, and Peter Morgan won Best Screenplay for The Queen. Not that it matters, but Happy Feet won Best Animated Feature.
Now, why does any of this matter, you ask? Really, none of it does; but awards such as this are often thought of as bellweathers for the Academy Awards. Yep, when it comes to Oscar, Bond need not apply!
At the risk of personal injury, I'd also add that there was nothing Oscar-caliber about "Casino Royale." It was a very good film -- and a triumph as a modern Bond movie -- but not a particularly important one nor one that required performers to rise above a solid (but not necessarily outstanding) level of performance. Now, we do live in an age where mediocre performances and mediocre films have garnered academy awards . . . and I won't belabor the point by naming them here. Let's just say that gone are the days of films like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "To Kill a Mockingbird" that seem to hit every hallmark of being Oscar-worthy. So, perhaps it's hard to tell the difference between, say, competent acting, writing, and directing, and superb acting, writing, and directing. But in the end, "Casino Royale" exhibits a better-than-average level of everything.
. . .the "Important" movies are all being released just in time to qualify for Oscar nominations. These are the political, message-oriented films, such as Bobby and Blood Diamonds; and the performance-dominated movies, such as The Last King of Scotland with Forrest Whittaker as Idi Amin, are going into wide release. These are the kinds of movies Oscar voters feel they should vote for, whether or not people saw them or liked them. Ironic--the Oscars began as a way to reward the public's tastes, and now they're seen as the Nobel Prize for Film.
OK, Bobby has vanished without a trace; otherwise, I stand by what I wrote!
Anyone who wants to know what CR's Oscar chances are can refer to the recently announced American Film Institute list and New York Film Critics awards. As you can find out on Hollywood.com, the AFI has named as its ten best films of the year Dreamgirls, United 93, Borat, Babel, The Devil Wears Prada (Really?), Half Nelson, Inside Man, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, and--no doubt to the joy of a certain group of people we all know and loathe--Happy Feet.
Meanwhile, over on Reuters, you can see that the N.Y. Film Critics have given their awards, and there's not a shadow of Casino Royale anywhere. Their Best Picture is United 93, Best Actor is Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland, Best Actress is Helen Mirren in The Queen, Martin Scorsese took Best Director for The Departed, and Peter Morgan won Best Screenplay for The Queen. Not that it matters, but Happy Feet won Best Animated Feature.
Now, why does any of this matter, you ask? Really, none of it does; but awards such as this are often thought of as bellweathers for the Academy Awards. Yep, when it comes to Oscar, Bond need not apply!
This really shouldn't be a surprise.Casino Royale is probably just another one of those "silly James Bond films" to most of the AFI listmakers.As a rule,the AFI always looks for balance,historical significance and PC qualities when compliing their lists.The NYC Critics generally look for significance and often names and their big "Important" films.
Maybe if Martin Scorsese had directed it CRmight've had a chance at getting on those lists--although if that happened the critics would never forgive him for leaving Little Italy and organized crime behind.And then there'd be no talk of an Oscar in his future.
Even if Casino Royale's internationally popular and receiving considerable critical praise--at the end of the day it's still a James Bond movie and they never get any awards beyond those for technical achievement.The Bond films are probably too commercially successful for their own good--at least where the prestigious awards are concerned.
EON has the Irving Thalberg Award The Motion Picture Academy bestowed upon Cubby for the high quality of the James Bond movies.And that's a very important one.
I always thought there should be some category for stuntwork...it's only a small part of the film, but so often, well done action can really be an artform...they could call it something fancy like "Best Physical Choreography" or something silly like that if it makes them feel any better. Maybe if there was some respect for the stunt work, we'd see less CGI drivel like what was in DAD.
. . .the "Important" movies are all being released just in time to qualify for Oscar nominations. These are the political, message-oriented films, such as Bobby and Blood Diamonds; and the performance-dominated movies, such as The Last King of Scotland with Forrest Whittaker as Idi Amin, are going into wide release. These are the kinds of movies Oscar voters feel they should vote for, whether or not people saw them or liked them. Ironic--the Oscars began as a way to reward the public's tastes, and now they're seen as the Nobel Prize for Film.
OK, Bobby has vanished without a trace; otherwise, I stand by what I wrote!
Oh, I know, Hardy. Truth be told, the Oscars are less a way to recognize great film any more than to generate buzz for movies that probably won't do as well at the box office without the nominations. Movies like "Casino Royale" will do fine and really don't need that extra push. I read somewhere that for every Oscar a film gets, that translates into another $10 million in revenue.
I went through similar disappointment last year when Batman Begins, really just one of the finest action films ever made, had only one nomination in - surprise - a technical category. The Academy, these days, is only concerned about topical movies and sweeping scores, nothing that is innovative.
This could be the closest CR comes to getting an Oscar. Comingsoon.net reports that CR is being considered for a Visual Effects award. Here's the story:
Seven Vie for Visual Effects Oscar
Source: A.M.P.A.S. December 15, 2006
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today announced that seven films are in consideration for achievement in Visual Effects for the 79th Academy Awards®.
The films are listed below in alphabetical order:
Casino Royale
Eragon
Night at the Museum
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Poseidon
Superman Returns
X-Men: The Last Stand
On Wednesday, January 17, the Academy's Visual Effects Award nominating committee will view 15-minute film excerpts from each of the seven shortlisted films. Following the screenings, members will vote to nominate three films for Oscar consideration.
Nominations for the 79th Academy Awards will be announced on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, at 5:30 a.m. PST in the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn Theater.
Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2006 will be presented on Sunday, February 25, 2007, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network at 5 p.m. PST, beginning with a half-hour arrivals segment.
Great for CR, but as it isn't much of an "effects" picture, I'm sure the Academy will go for one of the others.
I can see Craig picking up awards at some point for other stuff, but sadly action films tend not to win Oscars. The academy prefers films with a high sense of their own importance, Paul Haggis's 'Crash,' being a perfectly awful example. I saw Craig in 'Fateless,' a WWII drama about a boy surviving the holocaust and he was mesmerising. He only appears in three scenes, as an American soldier trying to persuade the lead character not to return to his home city of Budapest, but Craig has undeniable presence. I really think he's one of the best actors around and it's going to be interesting following his work in the next few years, both Bond films and other projects.
As a movie fan who's going to have to wade through hours of Oscar speculation and as a TV critic who'll have to watch the winners (and nominees) in the years ahead on television, I have to get this off my chest. Why isn't there a chorus of support for the actor who had the most difficult role this year, finessed the challenge, silenced his severest critics and revived a whole movie franchise?
When it comes to delivering, Daniel Craig was the real deal as James Bond in "Casino Royale." A star was born. He had to deal with the memory of Sean Connery and all the other Bonds. In the end, Craig came through, brilliantly.
But he wasn't mentioned in the Golden Globe nominations. And I fear he's going to be forgotten at Oscar time. Other actors are adopting accents and shedding tears, and they'll probably be recognized for their ACTING.
That style of ACTING announces itself and demands prizes. But that acting doesn't age very well, either.
Craig reminds me of Cary Grant, who never won a competitive Oscar. Compare Craig's Bond with Grant's performance in Alfred Hitchcock's "Notorious."
As Bond, Craig was subtle, sexy, surprising. He's probably be penalized for making it all look too easy. But he shouldn't be forgotten.
Bond, Oscar Bond
Mark Caro
Pop Machine
A Chicago Tribune Web log
Originally posted: December 21, 2006
There’s one performance that hasn't been recognized by any movie critics group or awards organization despite being one of the year’s most widely praised.
Where’s the year-end love for Daniel Craig, a.k.a. Agent 007 in “Casino Royale”?
Here’s a guy who was widely dismissed and even ridiculed upon being cast in this iconic role, yet the consensus is he’s the best James Bond since Sean Connery and perhaps the closest one to author Ian Fleming’s original vision.
Craig’s performance is emotional, physical and charismatic as hell; you can't ask much more of an actor. His burning presence has helped the movie earn 95 percent positive reviews (according to RottenTomatoes.com) while grossing more than $400 million worldwide and reviving a stale series.
Who could you imagine doing better? Oscar winners Sean Penn or Russell Crowe? Right.
Just because Craig isn’t in a self-serious film doesn’t mean he hasn’t done a slam-bang acting job. Give the guy some kudos.
Comments
More on topic - Casino Royale will not win any performance Oscars - a nomination however is possible, although a very long shot.
I think it will be the first Bond film for many years, however, to pick up nominations or wins for some of its technical achievements. It has a strong case here.
Craig was awesome, but OSCAR? That takes it too far.
My thoughts (and they are non confrontational ones P_B in case they look any other way{[] )
But what does it take too far?? The notion that DC was good enough as JB to win an Oscar for his performance or that the JB films just aren't perceived as credible enough to win Oscars??
If you take a look at the list of Best Actor winners/nominees for the last few years then there are some questionable nominations and winners IMHO including: Russell Crowe for anything (a true 'blunt instrument'), Leonardo Di Caprio - please 8-) and Denzel Washington (for Training Day).
I am not saying that these are not popular actors/characters/films etc but I just don't see how DC getting even nominated can seem so far fetched compared to some of the drivel that has made it to the shortlist and the winners in recent years.
The other question is would DC want to win his first Oscar for CR considering some of the other roles he has taken that have been more highbrow and stereotypically fitting of the Oscars scene ?:)
CR has some things in common with that great film: revisioning a played-out character/genre, twisty love story, riveting action scenes that focus on human-sized action, a main character that goes through an emotional arc, a leading man coming into his own. I don't think it's quite on a level that ROTLA is, but I can see where it's kinda in the next neighborhood over maybe...and that it does do things the Acadamy generally likes (the drama, the character arc, the very well done humor).
I don't think I'd expect CR to get a Best Picture or Best Actor nomination, but I do agree it certainly deserves both (I also don't put a lot of stock in awards, but the recognition does go a long ways). The other thing to consider is, industry folk vote for these things, other actors, directors, writers, etc., and the whole CNB site may feed CR/Craig some sympathy among the voters...crazier things have happened with ol' Oscar, nothing would surprise me these days.
Would Oscar change the way I see CR from then on knowing that millions more people feel they have to see it now that it's garnered a statuette or two? I hate bandwagoneers. For me, Bond is about the whole series, not just the guys that were Bond when I was growing up or the guy that started the series off.
I even get irritated when random celebrities start touting claim to roles in the franchise when I have heavy suspicions they've never even been asked. They seem to carry on a nasty tradition of continuing the belief that any Bond film is just the same as the one that came out before it.
So to butcher a well known catchphrase, "We don't need no stinking Oscars!" X-(
Especially the first Terminator is a classic. I am not a particular fan of arnie, but they definately can't be compared to Van Dammes films.
Maybe you think that because so many American characters are played by British actors?
Its a good point HB but I think the problem over here is more about public perception than the reality of it.
I think in the UK a lot more emphasis is placed on TV and theatre acting and a lot of people would be hard pressed to construct a list of 10 great male British actors from the last 10 years who were known mainly for their roles on the big screen, especially those who would be in the Bond bracket in terms of age/look etc.
This is part of the frenzy about DC. We Brits love an underdog usually but hate any changes to the status quo. DC has now dealt with all this in an absolute way because he is bloody good as Bond and a tremendously convincing actor in the respect of both the action and dialogue scenes.
As all the blockbusters are seen to be Hollywood productions a lot of British people seem to detach themselves from the notion that Brits ever succeed in the movie world. I think there are lots of good British actors and to me it doesn't matter what or who they play as long as they do a good job of it.
Yikes...don't tell that to Sir Anthony Hopkins, Daniel Day-Lewis, Jeremy Irons, Ian McKellan, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Caine, or Kenneth Branaugh..just to name a few!
Well, Cubby Broccoli received the Irving Thalberg award--presented at the Oscar ceremonies in 1982--for just those reasons. It might seem kind of redundant now.
Yes but that all depends on box office, if CR makes $600m which i think it will be very close to. They will after his contracted 3
"Better make that two."
Meanwhile, over on Reuters, you can see that the N.Y. Film Critics have given their awards, and there's not a shadow of Casino Royale anywhere. Their Best Picture is United 93, Best Actor is Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland, Best Actress is Helen Mirren in The Queen, Martin Scorsese took Best Director for The Departed, and Peter Morgan won Best Screenplay for The Queen. Not that it matters, but Happy Feet won Best Animated Feature.
Now, why does any of this matter, you ask? Really, none of it does; but awards such as this are often thought of as bellweathers for the Academy Awards. Yep, when it comes to Oscar, Bond need not apply!
But yes I can see how something like Borat would win over CR.
"Better make that two."
OK, Bobby has vanished without a trace; otherwise, I stand by what I wrote!
This really shouldn't be a surprise.Casino Royale is probably just another one of those "silly James Bond films" to most of the AFI listmakers.As a rule,the AFI always looks for balance,historical significance and PC qualities when compliing their lists.The NYC Critics generally look for significance and often names and their big "Important" films.
Maybe if Martin Scorsese had directed it CR might've had a chance at getting on those lists--although if that happened the critics would never forgive him for leaving Little Italy and organized crime behind.And then there'd be no talk of an Oscar in his future.
Even if Casino Royale's internationally popular and receiving considerable critical praise--at the end of the day it's still a James Bond movie and they never get any awards beyond those for technical achievement.The Bond films are probably too commercially successful for their own good--at least where the prestigious awards are concerned.
EON has the Irving Thalberg Award The Motion Picture Academy bestowed upon Cubby for the high quality of the James Bond movies.And that's a very important one.
Seven Vie for Visual Effects Oscar
Source: A.M.P.A.S. December 15, 2006
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today announced that seven films are in consideration for achievement in Visual Effects for the 79th Academy Awards®.
The films are listed below in alphabetical order:
Casino Royale
Eragon
Night at the Museum
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Poseidon
Superman Returns
X-Men: The Last Stand
On Wednesday, January 17, the Academy's Visual Effects Award nominating committee will view 15-minute film excerpts from each of the seven shortlisted films. Following the screenings, members will vote to nominate three films for Oscar consideration.
Nominations for the 79th Academy Awards will be announced on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, at 5:30 a.m. PST in the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn Theater.
Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2006 will be presented on Sunday, February 25, 2007, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network at 5 p.m. PST, beginning with a half-hour arrivals segment.
Great for CR, but as it isn't much of an "effects" picture, I'm sure the Academy will go for one of the others.
Hey, Oscar, have you met James Bond?
Posted on Dec 28, 2006 9:03:16 AM
Hal Boedeker
Orlando Sentinel
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2006/12/updates_on_hero.html
As a movie fan who's going to have to wade through hours of Oscar speculation and as a TV critic who'll have to watch the winners (and nominees) in the years ahead on television, I have to get this off my chest. Why isn't there a chorus of support for the actor who had the most difficult role this year, finessed the challenge, silenced his severest critics and revived a whole movie franchise?
When it comes to delivering, Daniel Craig was the real deal as James Bond in "Casino Royale." A star was born. He had to deal with the memory of Sean Connery and all the other Bonds. In the end, Craig came through, brilliantly.
But he wasn't mentioned in the Golden Globe nominations. And I fear he's going to be forgotten at Oscar time. Other actors are adopting accents and shedding tears, and they'll probably be recognized for their ACTING.
That style of ACTING announces itself and demands prizes. But that acting doesn't age very well, either.
Craig reminds me of Cary Grant, who never won a competitive Oscar. Compare Craig's Bond with Grant's performance in Alfred Hitchcock's "Notorious."
As Bond, Craig was subtle, sexy, surprising. He's probably be penalized for making it all look too easy. But he shouldn't be forgotten.
Bond, Oscar Bond
Mark Caro
Pop Machine
A Chicago Tribune Web log
Originally posted: December 21, 2006
There’s one performance that hasn't been recognized by any movie critics group or awards organization despite being one of the year’s most widely praised.
Where’s the year-end love for Daniel Craig, a.k.a. Agent 007 in “Casino Royale”?
Here’s a guy who was widely dismissed and even ridiculed upon being cast in this iconic role, yet the consensus is he’s the best James Bond since Sean Connery and perhaps the closest one to author Ian Fleming’s original vision.
Craig’s performance is emotional, physical and charismatic as hell; you can't ask much more of an actor. His burning presence has helped the movie earn 95 percent positive reviews (according to RottenTomatoes.com) while grossing more than $400 million worldwide and reviving a stale series.
Who could you imagine doing better? Oscar winners Sean Penn or Russell Crowe? Right.
Just because Craig isn’t in a self-serious film doesn’t mean he hasn’t done a slam-bang acting job. Give the guy some kudos.
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_popmachine/2006/12/bond_oscar_bond.html