@notorious

chestia asta cu poporul care se implica e specifica americanilor (neamurilor celtice & derivatele ca sa fim mai exacti). E intr-adevar stupida din punctul nostru de vedere, dar are si partile ei potential bune. E mai greu sa mituiesti 16 oameni de pe strada al caror nume nu il stii decat sa te duci cu "pachetelul" la un om care si-a organizat deja o adevarata industrie in domeniu. In plus, asa cetateanul de rand are iluzia ca se implica in actul de justitie, si simte ca are puterea in mana (Justitia este totusi una din puterile dintr-un stat democratic). Faptul ca majoritatea sint complet neinstruiti si pt a fi un avocat bun intr-o astfel de situatie trebuie mai intai sa fii un excelent psiholog reprezinta inevitabilul revers al medaliei.

pentru a reveni la Oscaruri, trebuie mentionat faptul ca situatiile difera fundamental. Oamenii care isi dau cu parerea sint membrii Acaremiei Americane de Film, si se presupune ca au un dram de cultura cinematografica si sint oarecum in masura sa-si impuna punctul de vedere. Dupa cum ziceam, daca SE PRESUPUNE ca au o cultura cinematografica nu inseamna ca o si poseda, sau ca voteaza in concordanta cu ceea ce "simt"

Problema cu ceea ce ar trebui sa fie Oscarurile si ceea ce sint este destul de delicata, si avand in vedere popularitatea acestor premii este inevitabil si un subiect controversat

Eu zic ca Oscarurile tin de politica si de incasari. Cultura au sigur, dar asta nu-i impiedica sa judece in primul rand dupa cele 2 criterii de mai sus. Daca Titanicul a luat Oscar, a facut-o in primul rand pentru balotzii de dolari adusi in visteria studiourilor, deci in visteria SUA.
Sa nu-mi spuneti ca filmul a fost un act de cultura si de inovatie cinematografica....

In mod special, anul asta m-a ingretosat atitudinea unor fata de Scorsese, "saracu Marty, iar pleaca cu mana goala acasa". De parca ar fi un debutant si ratarea premiul i-ar cauza la lingurica. Pur si simplu nu merita Oscarul. Nu mai vorbesc de prim planurile alea cu looserii care par suprinsi si aplauda admirativ contracandidatii. Sa fim seriosi, stiau de acasa.

Peste 15 minute (orele 23:30) puteti viziona Ceremonia de Decernare a Oscarurilor pe postul public de televiziune PROTV.

Oscarul ramane cel mai apreciat premiu de film... that's a fact.
ca acuma nu se mai dau premiile dupa merita, ci dupa succes la public, ca nu mai are vreo importanta valoarea ci faima, ca nu mai exista mari surprize ci ca totul se stie, asta e altceva. orice cineast isi doreste oscarul, macar asa, ca ornament peste semineu.

in rest, toata festivitatea a ajuns sa fie ca o gradina zoologica... lumea vine ca sa fie vazuta, poporul se uita ca sa-i vada. gata. punct.

Robin Williams este prea tare ... nu am cuvinte.
Pentru toti rasistii pe care i-am cunoscut (din pacate) si pentru toti cei care judecati negrii si catalogati drept actori slash rapperi de mana a7a - Jamie Foxx v-a dat la muie cu galeata ...
Enjoy ...

In afara de aceste highlight-uri ale noptii decernarea a fost de toata jena...
Bring on the Mtv Movie Awards ...

Am vazut si eu rezumatul pe pro tv (stiam ca nu merita sa stau treaz sa le vad la nemti). Penibili, ca de fiecare data. Multe mame, bunici, copii, cantecele si un Banderas "solist". :sick:

stie cineva cine a luat zmeura?

catwoman, halle berry, bush, rumsfeld & b. spears. lista completa de la razzies pe http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movi...eut/index.html

evident ca nominalizati erau compozitorii, dar donshoara knowles ar fi avut numai de castigat daca se'ntampla cumva sa ia una din melodiile cantate de ea la ceremonie. si pana la urma doar cea a lui lloyd-webber era mai rasarita, dar tot 'al otro lado' si 'accidentally in love' erau my favs. apropo de 'accidentally', cred ca freza lui adam duritz poate sa treaca drept cea mai greu de privit coafura de la oscaruri :sick: .

pe pro tv alegerea momentelor care'au intrat in rezumat a fost sub orice critica, multe dume care ar fi meritat sa intre au fost taiate [poate erau prea greu de tradus...] si multe momente neinteresate au fost aratate asa cum erau. s'a mai taiat si din discursurile de acceptare, asa ca despre swank de ex n'ai fi zis c'a intrat orchestra peste ea si era gata sa fie data afara de pe scena in orice moment. no magic johnson theater, no jeremy irons, no penelope, plenty of eastwood though. deci varza.

asta e o chestie la care nu m-am gandit. e adevarat ca filmele oscarizate au fost, in general, si succese financiare, 'titanice' (v 'titanic', 'LOTR'), sau medii (v 'the english patient', 'shakespeare in love', 'american beauty' etc etc), si-au recuperat banii, dar n-au trecut, in general, decat foarte putin peste 100 milioane.

multe filme, succese de box-office mici (ex 'memento', unul din filmele mele preferate ever made, care in 2001 ar fi trebuit sa castige oscarul pt film si nici macar n-a fost nominalizat) sau insuccese zdravene (ex fenomenalul 'fight club', alt film ce se afla in top 10-ul meu personal) au fost ignorate cu nerusinare.

totusi, n-as zice ca asta este chiar un CRITERIU. la americani, un film bun, are de obicei si succes (=incasari ok). IN GENERAL, deci ar putea fi, la o adica, si coincidente.

p.s.: vice-versa nu este valabila ! :shock:

:shock: bai, nu caut discutii in contradictoriu dar despre ce dracu' vorbesti mah?
uite, banderas si cu santana ce au de castigat acuma, pentru ca au interpretat cantecul care a castigat best original song?

cat despre discutia cealalta, nu e vb cu siguranta de bugetele filmelor. e pur si simplu vorba de asa numitul "buzz". apare filmul, si daca se vorbeste mult despre filmul ala, ba de critica (million dollar baby), ba de spectatori(piratii din caraibe anul trecut), si toti au impresia la momentul ala ca e super tare si da bine sa zica ca e super tare, o sa fie bagat in seama la premii. adica think about it. aveti membrul average al academiei.ii vin acasa toate filmele, se uita la ele. ii vine sideways si ii vine dogville. in timpul anului nu prea a auzit el prin ziare si reviste de dogville, in schimb sideways a tot fost laudat peste tot. asha ca pe formularul pe care il trimite o sa puna sideways, alaturi de alte 4. (apropo asta nu inseamna ca im bashing sideways)

am vazut si eu aseara pe protv oscarurile....mishto de tot monologul lui chris rock!!
am ramas inmarmurit la o faza....pe la vreo 1.15 vin 2 draci care prezinta "cel mai bun film"(cu toate ca nu au fost prezentate multe alte premii)...si m-am gandit: "ma, da premiul pentru cel mai bun film nu se da la sfarsitul spectacolului?..."...bun....dupa ce castiga "million..." aud: "and the other winners are: X,Y,Z...". Ce mama dracului e cu faza asta?nu a mai dat protvu restul premiilor sau asa era si live?

.au fost de tot c*iu oscaruri-le.m-am uitat la rezumat si dupa vreo 10 minute am trecut pe TCm unde erau MArxx brothers...sa vedem.cine a avut mai mult de castigat?

Citeam rezultatele Oscarurilor ästora si nu stiam ce sä zic: “nu-mi vine sä cred”, sau “ba îmi vine”?
Bine, cä între Oscar si VALOAREA cinematograficä orice legäturä a apus cam de multisor, se stie, cum spuneau si onoratii mei coforumisti olecutä mai sus. Alte sfori se trag acolo, alte patinoare cerebrale îsi pun în aplicare imobilismul... Totusi, chiar în HALUL ästa...? Nu poti sä nu te întrebi: DE CE? CUM? CE FEL? Pânä si vorba lui Nichita, “râsu-plânsu”, e prea elevatä pentru Grand-Guignolul ästa. Mai degrabä mä duc cu gândul la o remarcä de-ale noastre din armatä, la Caracal (se zice rapid si sacadat, cu o îngrosare grobianä a glasului):
"E de râsu' p***ii, bä, e de râsu' p***ii!" (frunzele de vitä asteriscoide ascund, în cazul de fatä, versiunea femininä a rusinoasei pärti anatomice).

Mai e si un banc, îl stiu de câtiva ani:
INTREBARE: Care-s cele mai importante särbätori evreiesti?
RASPUNS: Yom Kippur, Hannuka, Purim si Oscar!

Si, în acelasi spirit, si context lärgit:
"N-ar mai trebui sä le zicä S.U.A., ci S.U.I." (Statele Unite ale Israelului).

Plus o prospäturä de idee care mi-a venit astä searä, comentând cu fi-miu tot circul:
"Propun sä scriem cu 2 S: U.S.S.A." (Nu se referä la SS, ci înseamnä "Uniunea Statelor Sovietice Americane".)

Vorbeati ceva mai sus, apropo de “nondisputandismul gustibusurilor” si de felul cum se hotäräste în plenara lärgitä a märetei Academy cine sä-si punä Unchiuletul de aur pe semineu, despre diverse variante si formule “democratice”, care, vezi-Doamne, sunt alte gâste-n alte traiste. Dragi feti-logofeti, mai scutiti-mä cu asa-zisa "democratie americanä", cä mäcäne! Cum zicea C.T.P.-ul acu' vreo doi ani, la Tucä: "Americanii n-au abandonat democratia. Americanii au abandonat SIMULAREA democratiei."

Uite, spre exemplificare:

Stiati cä, dacä de 9/11 stie, evident, tot leatul american (cä altfel, cum?), de 3/11 (2003, Madrid), boborul lui Uncle Sam N-ARE HABAR? Nu le-a spus nimeni... Nu i-a interesat. "Sä-si vazä de trebile ei, Europa!"

Stiati cä, la ultimele Jocuri Olimpice, toate transmisiunile lor (si live, si înregistrate), au inclus NUMAI atleti americani? La gimnasticä, de pildä, ajunseserä chiar "de râsu'..." cui ziceam mai sus: numai echipele americane, chit cä fäceau bine, chit cä mai cädeau în cur (tot mereu, "our gurl, way to go!" si la sfârsit: "...oh, and the medal went to the Romanian athlete" (da' pe Romanian athlete n-o arätau neam - nici la treabä, nici pe podium!)
Si-ar mai fi multe de spus, da' pe scurt acuma: de când cu New World Orderu' ästa, se practicä acolo o spälare pe creiere, ceva ce nu se poate! Bush Jong-il nu se-ncurcä! In curând vor ajunge fix ca-n "The Handmaid's Tale", de Margaret Atwood (ecranizatä de Schlöndorff) - ca sä nu zic ca-n "1984" de stim noi cine (ecranizatä de Radford), ori ca-n "Hello America", de J.G. Ballard (încä neecranizatä). Pânä nu demult, îmi cäinam soarta cä m-a fäcut mama färä noroc si n-am reusit si eu sä trec gârla. Acum zic: "Doamne-ti multumesc cä nu m-ai läsat!"

Vi se pare off-topic? (Cä s-a pus problema asta, apropo de varianta anterioarä a interventiei mele.) N-as pre-as crede – pentru cäci cele de mai sus sunt locu’ unde-i BUBA! De-aia, pentru unii ca ästia, “cele mai bune filme ale anului” sunt niste clisme, si cä valorile s-au rästurnat cu susu-n jos, de “se face praf lumea”. (Mä rog, la Chilian contextul e altul, dar sentimentul rimeazä!)
Si vä mai mirati de Clintuletzu c-a luat statua, si cä dago-ul äla de Scorsese (dago = italian, în sens similar cu "nigger", "cioroi", "jidan", "bozgor", etc.) a luat-o-n barbä? "Da' ce vä mirati...?" cum spunea Toma Caragiu, Dumnezeu sä-l ierte. "Eu sunt Mefisto...! Mefisto... adicä DRACUL... (...) Si sä mai zici cä e dracul chiar atât de negru!" (Parafrazä: Ei, cum o sä fie dracu' negru? Condy Rice e neagrä!)

Bäga-mi-as... ACTELE, se zicea pe vremea lu’ Ceascä. Dac-as fi acum acolo, mi-as bäga actele sä cer azil cultural în Mauritius. Pe ei i-as läsa cu azilul lor mintal cu tot, sä-si dea cu peria de rädäcini pe cortex într-o veselie continuä! :sick:

mai jos, unul din cele mai bune comentarii la oscarurile 2005.
dupa el, o cronica excelenta la 'aviatorul'...
enjoy!


Oscar Without Glamour
by Scott Holleran
March 1, 2005


Show business glamour is gone, long gone. That was
clear from the moment crude Chris Rock stepped on
stage to host the 77th annual Academy Awards and
received a standing ovationЧfor just being there. By
contrast, one of the show's classiest hosts, the late
Johnny Carson, received a polite round of applause
after a taped tribute. Thirty years of a top-rated
show and several Oscar telecasts, no ovationЧone
minute of one show hosted by a foul-mouthed cable
comedian, instant ovation. Is it any wonder more
people don't watch?

Not that it matters; Hollywood's elite is too busy
inflating their own importance, that is, among those
who attended (and most starsЧHanks, Cruise, GibsonЧdid
not). Sunday's awards were dominated by a gaggle of
shrill, red carpet mongers, twittering about something
called swag (free stuff), bling (flashy clothes and
jewelry) and the Academy's stupid new rules.
Presenters were relegated to the aisles and nominees
were herded on stage as if they were being lined up
for a firing squad, not an Academy Award.

At times, the show reflected the drift from director
Martin Scorsese's HollywoodЧwhere ability can be
measured by how deeply one cares about making
moviesЧto actor and director Clint Eastwood's
Hollywood, where you get noticed with a slew of
squints, sneers and gimmicks in pictures that are
typically tragic and really about nothing at all.


Best actor winner
Jamie Foxx
Photo credit: AMPAS

Yet another promising actor reminded us that, in the
new Hollywood, one's value is based, at least partly,
on one's raceЧnot solely on one's ability to act. Best
Actor winner Jamie Foxx, like Halle Berry before him
(and many before her), transformed an award granted
for an individual's performance into a statement of
allegiance to his race, which is racism. This attitude
is exacerbated by people like Oprah Winfrey, whose
quasi-Black Panther salute from the audience is rock
bottom for a guilt-ridden billionaire with more power
than practically everyone in Hollywood. What a fraud.
Cheering a winner for a characteristic beyond his
controlЧrace, sex, nationalityЧis among the ceremony's
worst traditionsЧit is an insult to every actor.

Racism's corollary, multiculturalismЧthe idea that all
cultures are equalЧhad time in Oscar's spotlight, too,
with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz and Antonio Banderas
celebrating a folk song sung in Spanish that was
awarded Oscar's Best Song over superior work by Andrew
Lloyd Webber and Glen Ballard among others. Million
Dollar Baby's toothy Hilary Swank chimed in, citing
her own subcultureЧtrailer trashЧas a claim on the
Best Actress award. Someday, sometime, some lone actor
will have the self-confidence to rise and say, simply,
"thank you." And walk away.

Of course, there were the movies. Mr. Scorsese's The
Aviator, whatever its flaws, was lavish, grand
moviemaking about a larger than life subjectЧand that,
apparently, was its downfall. Too little death, gloom
and doom and not nearly unremarkable enoughЧthe new
Hollywood regards high aspirations, Mr. Scorsese's
trademark, as showy and arrogant. There is no place
for the exaltedЧonly the downtrodden, preferably done
with mediocrity.


Mr. Eastwood, like other conservatives, appeared
content to have gained the approval of others,
especially liberals. His Best Picture winner, Million
Dollar Baby, seems to have dragged even producer
Albert S. RuddyЧwho produced Mario Puzo's The
Godfather and once sought to make Ayn Rand's Atlas
ShruggedЧinto what Miss Rand called "the cult of moral
grayness," which in Mr. Eastwood's case means a bleak
world drained of color, purpose and life.

We watch the Oscars for a sight of Hollywood at its
best. While it hasn't been pretty for years, we keep
looking, hungry for a glimpse of someone who sparkles
with the confidence of having achieved
somethingЧsomething good. We look for our favorite
movie stars, we root for our favorite movie, we wait
to be moved, touched, humoredЧand, in that rare
instance, enlightened. But, year after year, it does
not happen. That's why Hollywood is losing its luster,
in television ratings, in theatrical attendance and in
general.

The glow of Hollywood's Golden Age stems from splendor
on the screen, and that was replaced by unending
assaults on both sense and sensibility long ago. Real
glamour is gone. Increasingly, and encouragingly, so
is the audience, which may cause Hollywood to give
them a reason to return.


THE AVIATOR (2004)
**** (out of four)

About a third of the way into Martin Scorsese's
fabulous The Aviator, a young Howard Hughes (Leonardo
DiCaprio), with ingщnue Jean Harlow (Gwen Stefani) on
his arm, attends the premiere of Hughes' lavish WWI
epic Hell's Angels (1930)--a picture that burned a
significant portion of Hughes' millions before
becoming a smash, and one that still contains some of
the most daring, astonishing aerial sequences ever
shot for a motion picture. As paparazzi throng,
smothering Hughes with flashbulbs and red carpet
questions, he looks dazzled, confused: a consequence
of his deafness in some part, sure, but also, I'd
suggest, a clue into this idea of Scorsese's--which
he's had since at least Taxi Driver--that film is a
waking dream, a kind of bad yet thrilling
hallucinogenic dope trip, and this Howard Hughes is a
sleepwalker who is, at this moment, struggling to stay
asleep. Later, Hughes takes his lover Katharine
Hepburn (Cate Blanchett) up in his airplane where they
cruise the sky above the Hollywood hills and share a
(gulp) bottle of milk. (No small step for the
pathologically germ-phobic Hughes.) The source for
Hughes' mental illness is traced to a haunted opening
scene where as a child he is bathed by his mother
(comparable in repressed eroticism to the notorious
bathtub sequence in Jonathan Glazer's Birth) and
warned that the world outside can only hold for him
the promise of abandonment and mortal contamination.

Lost in the clamour to excoriate Scorsese as a
sell-out for finally helming a broadly appealing piece
is the idea that The Aviator is actually
extraordinarily subversive in its success, made as it
was in the middle of enemy territory and essaying as
it does another of Scorsese's hopeful loners striving
against his own insanity for a place in the madness of
the public eye. This Hughes is Rupert Pupkin and
Travis Bickle, Henry Hill and Paul Hackett, and, by
the end, more than a little Jake LaMotta in his
isolation and steadily bottoming self-delusion.
Scorsese's take on the legend is the culmination of a
career of holy misfits, infiltrating the promised land
of Tinsel Town with an outsider's mentality and
ultimately being swallowed whole like a Billy Wilder
antihero--left a shell for all his success in molding
himself into the image of his gilded gods. The Aviator
is a success story that ends with the hero sitting on
a pyrrhic throne, naked in a screening room watching
an endless loop of The Outlaw and Hell's Angels and
collecting his urine in jars. Scorsese the Hollywood
outsider wins with The Aviator, and he comments on the
cost of that victory in the same breath.

DiCaprio is perfect as Hughes. There's a carefully
disguised desperation to his performance that mirrors
Hughes' own struggle against the demons that would
eventually consume him. DiCaprio does the impossible:
he makes the image of a mad recluse shuffling around
in his sealed hotel room with a pair of tissue boxes
on his feet one that's tragic instead of comfortably
derided. He plays mental illness well (What's Eating
Gilbert Grape?, The Basketball Diaries), well enough
that when he looks at the lip of the milk bottle
Hepburn has just touched, pauses, then takes a drink
himself, you develop a sense of hopeless melancholy
for wanting Hepburn to be his salvation even though
you know that it was not to be. As his illness
progresses--despite the firm hand of business manager
Noah Dietrich (John C. Reilly) and the ministrations
of one-time lover Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale, no Ava
Gardner)--and pressure from rival airline Pan Am's
ruthless boss Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin) as well as
corrupt Senator Ralph Owen Brewster (Alan Alda) mounts
to a well-publicized congressional hearing concerning
Pan Am's attempt to monopolize international air
travel, DiCaprio performs a breathless tightrope
between competence and incoherence. Although I
couldn't see how he would live up to the challenge
before, he impressed the hell out of me here. Step for
step is Blanchett: saddled with the thankless task of
impersonating the imitable Hepburn, she starts out
rough but ends like a dream.

The Aviator is about ambition as it manifests itself
in the pursuit of immortality through the phallic
pastimes of pointing cameras and producing fast
machines. It's a story of the American Dream of being
fast and having someone capture it on film; like the
American Dream, the courting of it ends, and often, in
the wreckage of surreal expectations. It's that sense
of artificial inflation that lends the picture a
strained, burnished lustre: The Aviator is itself as
interested in image creation as Hughes, conflating the
billionaire with Scorsese (as all of this year's
biopics have done with their auteurs: Oliver Stone and
Alexander; Kevin Spacey and Beyond the Sea; Mel Gibson
and The Passion of the Christ), and in so doing crafts
a film that feels like a millionaire's Xanadu.

The Aviator is Scorsese's love and knowledge of the
mystique of Old Hollywood presented through the prism
of an obsessive eccentric haunted by the dream of
being loved by phantoms of his own desire. William
Blake's idea of gods created in the breast of man is
transmuted in the picture into the cult of personality
and the patina of nostalgia for the titans of the
silver screen's golden age. This is a shrine to
individualism and a critique of the dreadful cost of
individuality, an ambiguous and ambitious picture
that, for its epic scope and towering craft, never for
a moment feels anything but intensely personal. A
great film and great filmmaking, The Aviator plays
like an ode to needing to make movies, and to needing
to watch them.

-Walter Chaw

http://imdb.com/features/rto/2005/ga...r05-parties/14

wow

lasa frate ca daca te mai plimbi pe acolo dai si de tipa aia care a luat oscarul pt documentar. zana briski, parca. sa vezi la aia aparitie.

cronica acestui domn scott holleran mi se pare prea pesimista. de la oscaruri a extrapolat la intreaga lume a hollywood-ului, care ne-a oferit, anul trecut, cateva filme fantastice ('lost in translation', '21 grams', 'kill bill' :P,'eternal sunshine of the spotless mind' si inca). ignorate la oscaruri, ce-i drept. dar, de ce-ar trebui sa ne mai doara ? castigul lui eastwood in fata lui scorsese nu mi s-a parut, totusi, o aberatie mai mare decat castigarea, de anul trecut, a 11 oscaruri de catre LOTR !

eu n-am vazut inca 'million dollar baby', hence, ma abtin sa dau 'verdicte anticipate'. :) si nici nu am un asemenea hobby de a-l uri pe eastwood - adica, nu ma ispiteste ca lvt, par example, dar nici chiar asa... gorzo, cel putin, mi-a mai temperat pornirea (vreau sa zic, dupa ce-am discutat acea unica data, i mean before being dumped).

Mai încape vorbä?
Si, nota bene, îti dau dreptate de pe pozitia mea de fan LOTR (cartea, nici pe departe filmul!) si fantasy în general!

Un articol interesant gasit pe CNN.com... Nu, nu este inca o cronica a OSCAR-urilor de anul acesta (care au fost asa cum sunt descrise in articolul postat de ALS), ci o anticipare a celor de anul viitor. Iata principalele candidate:



"Million Dollar Baby?" Old news. Jamie Foxx? Ancient history.

It's time to set odds on which films will dominate next year's Academy Awards, based on what's visible in Hollywood's ever-changeable lineup for 2005.

Granted, no one's seen these movies, and some haven't even started shooting, so who knows which might have that touch of Oscar gold, or which won't manage to be ready in time to qualify? But there are keys to early Oscar handicapping. Does it have Gwyneth Paltrow in it? Does it feature a woman pretending to be a man? Does it have Gwyneth Paltrow pretending to be a man?

Beyond that, the best signposts are a film's heavyweight-drama quotient and pedigree of talent. How many past Oscar winners are involved? Does a cover-girl performer efface her looks for a stark and sober story? Is it a "master" filmmaker tackling a "momentous" subject? These are subjective criteria, but as a studio mogul noted in "Barton Fink": "I guess we all have that Barton Fink feeling. But since you're Barton Fink, I'm assuming you have it in spades."

For this crystal-ball exercise, we're looking for that Oscar feeling, and we figure people such as these -- Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Ron Howard, Roman Polanski -- must have it in spades. And the Oscar could go to:

"Cinderella Man" -- Oscar winners Russell Crowe and Renee Zellweger star in the story of Depression-era boxer Jim Braddock, who gets a second chance in the ring. The academy loves underdog stories, Ron Howard ("A Beautiful Mind") directs and Crowe punches people out.

"Memoirs of a Geisha" -- Rob Marshall ("Chicago") directs this adaptation of the novel about an orphan girl (Zhang Ziyi) who becomes a queen-bee madame kept in style by powerful men. Sex, sumptuous sets, exotic locales, a beautiful leading lady poised for a breakout role. Sex.

"Kingdom of Heaven" -- Ridley Scott ("Gladiator") directs the saga of a battling knight (Orlando Bloom) in Jerusalem during the Crusades. Scott revived the moribund Roman epic. If anyone can make a Crusades story palatable in this politically correct age, he's the man.

"War of the Worlds" -- Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise spin the spectacle of sci-fi spectacles, a new take on H.G. Wells' invaders-from-Mars classic. Everyone secretly loves to see the world toasted, and it co-stars that adorable Dakota Fanning.

"All the King's Men" -- Sean Penn stars in this update of Robert Penn Warren's novel loosely based on political kingfish Huey Long. Penn in the meatiest role since his Oscar win for "Mystic River," backed by Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, Patricia Clarkson, Jude Law and James Gandolfini. Can you say dream cast?

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" -- Johnny Depp has scored Oscar nominations as a sashaying pirate and a repressed Edwardian playwright. Can he earn another as Willy Wonka? Tim Burton's remake offers endless visual possibilities, and the story of candyman Willy playing tour guide to children is a beloved one for academy boomers.

"Jarhead" -- Sam Mendes ("American Beauty") aims for another mix of drama and macabre humor with this tale of an elite sniper unit in the Gulf War. British theater vet Mendes has a keen outsider's eye for stories about Americans. And enlisting Jamie Foxx to co-star doesn't hurt.

"King Kong" -- "Lord of the Rings" maestro Peter Jackson directs a remake of the great ape biopic, with Naomi Watts as the new Fay Wray. After elevating the fantasy genre to Oscar glory by treating hobbits with dead earnestness, Jackson's madman enough to do the same for a giant gorilla.

"The New World" -- Colin Farrell tries to put "Alexander" behind him in this colonial tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, from director Terrence Malick ("The Thin Red Line"). Malick hardly ever makes movies, but when he does, they're awesome.

"Oliver Twist" -- For his first film since winning the best-director Oscar for "The Pianist," Roman Polanski has a go at Charles Dickens' classic of an orphan among pickpockets. Oscar winner Ben Kingsley as the nefarious Fagin. Doesn't everyone prefer Sir Ben in "Sexy Beast" demeanor rather than "Gandhi" mode?

"The Producers" -- Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick reunite for a movie based on a stage hit based on a movie, about con men bilking investors on a Nazi musical. A best-picture trophy for producer Mel Brooks would make a nice companion bookend for his screenplay Oscar on the 1968 original.

"Walk the Line" -- Joaquin Phoenix is the man in black, Johnny Cash, with Reese Witherspoon as wife June Carter. In the same way people went, "Huh? Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles? ... Oh, yeah. I see it," Phoenix bears a curious resemblance to Cash. But can he lip-synch?

"Untitled Steven Spielberg Project" -- The director goes for another twofer in one year, this one featuring Eric Bana in a drama chronicling events at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, when 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were killed by Palestinian militants. It's his most "important" film since "Saving Private Ryan."


-------------------------------------





Eu raman la parerea ca acest Untitled Steven Spielberg Project va lua ce e important, dar cateva dintre cele de mai sus o sa prinda si ele cate ceva (mai putin Malick, care probabil va avea o serie de nominalizari nefructificate...)