 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Academy
Award Winner Predictions, 1999 |
| Written by DAVID KEYES March 17, 1999 Best Picture: Who Should Win: "Elizabeth" or "Life Is Beautiful." The two best nominated films this year came from foreign directors; Shekhar Kapur’s "Elizabeth" was such a brilliant triumph in moviemaking that it deserves hundreds of Oscars. Meanwhile, the heartwarming "Life Is Beautiful" was graceful, poignant, funny, and charming while it unfolded the events of the holocaust. Both are great movies that equally deserve the award, although "Life Is Beautiful" has more chance of victory than "Elizabeth," simply because not enough people saw the historical drama. Who should not win: "The Thin Red Line." Any human would fall in love with the breathtaking cinematography found in Terrence Malick’s ‘out-of-retirement’ movie, but aside from that, it’s not really good. It offers us characters and then loses them in war. It tampers with our minds but never tells us why. Long, repetitive, and sometimes boring, it doesn’t deserve to be a nominee, much less the winner. Who will win: "Saving Private Ryan." Steven Spielberg’s ultimately powerful war epic was the #1 critical and commercial film from last year. No matter how the others try, this will ultimately be the real winner. What should have been nominated: "Beloved." Jonathan Demme’s extremely realistic tale was my favorite movie of 1998, and deserved a nomination, if for anything else, strictly for its impact. The drama, the horror, the joy, the intrigue, the sorrow--all of it is wove together so well, it stirred my mind like "The Color Purple" and "Schindler’s List." Best Actor: Who should win: Ian McKellen. The unforgettable portrayal of James Whale by Mr. McKellen was one of the most compelling performances to hit screens in 1998. Who should not win: Tom Hanks. We all love this actor, but he’s won it twice before, and doesn’t deserve it again, simply because "Saving Private Ryan" was not his finest work. That honor belongs to "Forrest Gump." Who will win: Ian McKellen. Compared to the somewhat lopsided choice of nominees, Ian McKellen has the advantage over the other front-runners Nick Nolte and Roberto Benigni. Nolte, while he has proven himself Oscar-worthy with the performance in "Affliction," doesn’t have a good chance because the role is a sad and depressing one, which the Academy seldom honors. And since Benigni, like Costner in 1990, is nominated for Actor, Picture and Director, look for the Academy to give the Italian his award for Best Director instead of Actor. Who should have been nominated: Joseph Fiennes. He gave a good performance in "Shakespeare In Love," but in "Elizabeth," he was a suave, manipulative man that not even a script about Shakespeare could have tamed. In that manner, he deserved some sort of recognition. Best Actress Who should win: Cate Blanchett. Hands down, her portrayal as Queen Elizabeth was spellbinding, magnificent, energetic, and well-spirited. In other words, the best performance of 1998 by any actor. Who should not win: Gwyneth Paltrow. While a promising actress, she was not convincing enough in "Shakespeare In Love" to deserve a nomination, let alone a statuette. She played a fine character in the movie, but she would have been ten times better if she weren’t so shallow and tedious with the scripts interpretation of her passion for theater. Who will win: Blanchett or Paltrow. While Blanchett is getting widely acclaimed for "Elizabeth," Paltrow is scooting ahead of her #1 adversary to win the hearts of audiences. Winning the recent Screen Actor’s Guild award pushes her up a notch for the Oscar, but, like most Oscar surprises, Blanchett could still make a comeback as the first choice for Academy Members. Keep your fingers crossed for Cate. Stranger things have happened! Who should have been nominated: Christina Ricci. It’s easy for older people to play teenagers, but seldom is a teenage actress given the chance to portray a character smarter than most adults. Ricci as the foul-mouthed, narrating, Dee Dee in "The Opposite Of Sex" was funny, sassy, savage, observant, and amusing. It proves that, if a popular woman like Ricci can go from an innocent child to a saucy teen in just a matter of a couple of years, their careers don’t always fade after they hit the legal age. Best Supporting
Actor: Who should win: Billy Bob Thornton. In "A Simple Plan," this guy gave the performance of his life. After already convincing audiences of his talent in "Sling Blade," and later "Primary Colors," "A Simple Plan" allowed him to shine the way every actor wants to shine. It’s a magnificent achievement for an actor. Who should not win: Ed Harris. "The Truman Show" was a wonderful movie, but Mr. Harris was only plausible. There was hardly a moment in the movie when he wasn’t being cruel, or selfish, or misguided by the main star of the picture. Take all those characteristics away, and what else do you have besides a styrofoam role? Who will win: Billy Bob Thornton. Even though Robert Duvall, James Coburn and Geoffrey Rush were great in their nominated roles, I still think that Billy Bob has the advantage. Why? First off, Robert Duvall and Geoffrey Rush have already won Oscars. James Coburn, while I’m unsure of his Oscar past, doesn’t have much of a chance, because his role in "Affliction" was too depressing, too dark, and sometimes too crazy. Who should have been nominated: Brendan Frasier. Ian McKellen wasn’t the only tour de force in "Gods And Monsters." Best Supporting
Actress: Who should win: Kathy Bates. Hearing her name is all that needs to be said. Who should not win: Brenda Blethyn. "Little Voice" wasn’t a very good movie, and Brenda’s role wasn’t that well written. Even the Academy should be smart enough to know that. Who will win: Kathy Bates. When it comes down to it, she’s the only one who stands a chance. Judi Dench, who is the second choice, won’t have much of a chance, because she didn’t have much screen time in "Shakespeare In Love," and her performance as Queen Elizabeth was not as memorable as Ms. Blanchett’s. The Academy doesn’t usually hand out awards to actresses who have as much screen time as the closing credits. Who should have been nominated: Joan Allen. "Pleasantville" was a fascinating movie, but it was all the more ‘pleasant’ with Joan Allen on screen. Best Director: Who should win: Roberto Benigni. He’s won acclaim from the entire world over for his masterful "Life Is Beautiful," and it’s more deserving that he carry away the Oscar for director rather than actor. After all, it’s the director’s vision that created this great movie. Who should not win: Terrence Malick. This guy should have stayed in retirement, especially if the only purpose of coming out of it was to make "The Thin Red Line," a disappointing and overlong picture that merely influences audience members to check their watches every ten minutes to see how close the movie is to ending. Who will win: Benigni or Steven Spielberg. While I still think that Academy will have sympathy for Roberto in this category, Spielberg has a strong chance as well, because he recently won the Director’s Guild Award, and almost every year, that winner usually gets the Oscar as well. Who should have been nominated: Shekhar Kapur. If it weren’t for this guy’s fresh imagination, we wouldn’t have "Elizabeth." It’s only fair to nominate the director if the picture is nominated as well. Forgetting Kapur is the Academy’s biggest mistake this year. Best Original
Screenplay: Who should win: "Shakespeare In Love." The witty and poignant script developed by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, two outstanding writers, is the most influential and original screenplay that has been created in years. Not even "The Truman Show" has as much fun with it’s concept as "Shakespeare In Love." Who should not win: "Bulworth." This was not only a surprise nominee, but a surprise stinker. It made my runners-up list of the worst films of 1998 for being offensive, filthy, and reprehensible to political behavior. If it wins, the Academy might as well just flush the Oscar down the toilet. Who will win: "Shakespeare In Love." There’s no other competition, really. The closest contender is "The Truman Show," but it came out last summer, which is essentially a little earlier in the year for Academy voters to take notice. Who should have been nominated: "Dark City." Amazing. Fun. Exciting. Involving. And YES, original. "Dark City" had all the makings of an instant classic. It’s a travesty that it didn’t get this nomination, which it, of course, deserved in every respect. Best Adapted Screenplay: Who should win: "Gods And Monsters." Bill Condon’s screenplay, which was based on a famous book about James Whale and his "Frankenstein" movies, transformed very faithfully to the screen. Every second of it was convincing. Who should not win: "Out Of Sight." Though it was praised by many critics, the film is an overrated bore that, yes, has a good story, but contains poor dialogue and typical plot situations. Not much of it is that original as it is. Who will win: "Gods And Monsters." Although "Primary Colors" has its fans, it was a poor box office success, and came out too early in 1998. The only other obvious front-runner is "A Simple Plan," but not enough people saw it. That leaves the last front-runner, which is "Gods And Monsters." It’ll win. Who should have been nominated: "Beloved." The best film of the year translates into the best screenplay of the year. Why wasn’t it nominated? Best Cinematography: Who should win: "The Thin Red Line." Even though the movie was sour, the photography of the war was breathtaking. Cameras peered out from the tall blades of grass and then leaped into the battle sequences just as the soldiers did. It was absolutely stunning. Who should not win: "A Civil Action." I don’t call lawyers sitting in courtrooms great cinematography. Who will win: "Saving Private Ryan." Even though "The Thin Red Line" had a better use with the camera, "Saving Private Ryan" will admittedly receive the Oscar because of its extensive use of hand-held cameras to create a feeling of reality. Who should have been nominated: "The Mask Of Zorro." This was the 1998 movie with some of the greatest shots ever. The cinematographers followed the swashbuckler with amazing triumph; even in scenes which Zorro is in heated battle, it’s never overcrowded or confusing. And in that one shot at the beginning, where the masked hero rides his horse to the top of the stairs and his shadow is highlighted by the sun, I was stunned. It deserved the nod very much. Best Art Direction: Who should win: "Elizabeth" or "What Dreams May Come." I loved both, and it’s simply impossible to decide which one has the better of it. "Elizabeth" used the deep halls and shadows of England’s dark golden age to bring a history to magnificent life. Meanwhile, in "What Dreams May Come," Eugene Zanetti and Cindy Carr envisioned a heaven filled with bright fluorescent colors, and a hell saturated in dark tones of earth, as mountains reached up from the lively hills and extended into the horizon, or as far as their imaginations could take them. Who should not win: "Shakespeare In Love." Sad as it is, John Madden’s movie had the weakest art direction, which is not an insult, since it was still very good. But comparing it to the others, it just doesn’t have what it takes to compete. Who will win: "Elizabeth." Since "Pleasantville" and "What Dreams May Come" have both faded in the minds of audiences and probably Academy members, they will give the award to "Elizabeth" for its breathtaking hallways and throne rooms decorated by the shadows of characters and the lights of candlesticks. Who should have been nominated: "Dark City." The underground laboratories of The Strangers in Alex Proyas’ movie contained numerous layers of depth and design. The textures reached from the floors and high into the air, holding together a breathtaking glass clock lighted in deep tones of blue ivy. The city itself is another marvel, too complicated to get into detail about. Best Costume Design: Who should win: "Elizabeth." Alexandra Byrne decorated the characters of Kapur’s movie with richly embroidered cloths of silk and satin, using the colors of medieval India to add a refreshing feeling to the genre of historical movies. They were absolutely gorgeous. Who should not win: "Velvet Goldmine." Bad costumes, bad movie. ‘Nuff said. Who will win: "Shakespeare In Love." Once again, the Academy is ‘in love’ with this movie, and will hand the award over to Sandy Powell for her work in Shakespearean theater costume design. Who should have been nominated: "Wilde." One of the most underrated movies of 1998, the portrait of playwright Oscar Wilde used dresses and suits worn in colonial times to emerge the viewer back into the writer’s days as a famous poet. Best Sound: Who should win: "Saving Private Ryan." One of the best things about Spielberg’s war epic was its audio illusion that war was being waged in front of your eyes. You heard the explosions, the screams of innocent bystanders, the shouts of soldiers, the gunshots--everything and more that exists within battle. It really deserves this Oscar. Who should not win: "Armageddon." If this movie hadn’t been so loud and deafening, I might have given the movie more than just a measly half star. And if there’s one award it does not deserve, it’s the award for sound. Who will win: "Saving Private Ryan." It’s the only obvious choice. The other contender, "The Thin Red Line," failed in the sound department because most of it was background sound effects, and not as compelling as "Saving Private Ryan"s. Who should have been nominated: "Dark City." The compelling sound effects found here were realistic and creepy, adding to the excitement of the movie. Best Film Editing: Who should win: "Saving Private Ryan." The battle scenes were compelling, but they were all the more effective in the way Michael Kahn edited the shots of war together to capture the most elusive events of the heated battles. Who should not win: "Out Of Sight." Don’t ask me why. Who will win: "Saving Private Ryan." When it comes down to it, it’s obvious that Spielberg’s movie will walk away with the award, because it was difficult, complicated, fast-paced, and emotionally devastating. It’s hard for moviemakers to edit all of those things into one movie and still allow it to emerge effective. Kahn deserves the award for his superior treatment. The Academy already knows that. Who should have been nominated: "What Dreams May Come." The way the movie transcends from paintings to real-life landscapes is visually enchanting. The ‘heaven’ that Robin Williams belongs to is a portrait made by his wife, and even after he dies, she continues to add to it. As she does, these new additions (like a weeping purple tree) construct themselves in heaven right in front of us, using the techniques of great visual style. They are edited together clearly and wonderfully. Best Visual Effects: Who should win: "What Dreams May Come." The story was okay, but due to the magnificent landscapes of the afterlife built upon the imaginations of the visual effects artist, it was more enchanting and more interesting. What starts out as a landscape of real oil paint slowly turns into a marvelous world of light, color, feeling, and ambition. Looking at two seconds of it will likely win the hearts of any audience member. Who should not win: "Armageddon." I don’t care what anyone says, the special effects in this Michael Bay nightmare were ugly, boring, routine, and worst of all, stupid. Half of the space effects looked like they were dipped in a vat of blue dye, while the ones on Earth began good but are sliced in the middle like scenes from a television trailer. How are we supposed to enjoy that? Who will win: "What Dreams May Come." DUH! Who should have been nominated: "Babe: Pig In The City." Imaginative cities, like the ones in "Dark City" and "Metropolis," are visually brilliant, as was the one that the filmmakers created for the sequel to "Babe." Using famous landmarks from all the world’s most notorious cities, here was a skyline that was not only beautiful, but incredibly unique. Why it didn’t get the nomination, I dunno. Best Song: Who should win: None of them. When it comes down to the lackluster nominations, the Academy might as well keep the award for themselves and call it a night. Aerosmith, of course, has the strongest song, but it was overplayed and unmemorable. Nonetheless, it received fan praise and shot up to #1 on Billboard. Who should not win: "When You Believe" (The Prince Of Egypt). I DID NOT LIKE THE SONG! Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey have fine voices, but mixing them together sounds like a bull being castrated. Imagine that poor animal’s cry climbing an octive. Yuck! Who will win: "When You Believe" (The Prince Of Egypt). The Academy loves songs from animated movies. Meanwhile "The Prayer" from "The Quest For Camelot" won’t get it because Celine got her Oscar nod last year for "Titanic." We don’t need a repeating history, here. Who should have been nominated: "Reflection" (Mulan). The uplifting song from another Disney animated classic was elegant and well-spirited, contrary to popular belief that the whole soundtrack ‘sucks.’ Best Original
Musical or Comedy Score Who should win: "Mulan." The score was incredible. That’s all that needs to be said. Who should not win: "Patch Adams." I hated that movie with a purple passion, and listening to any part of the soundtrack will bring back memories of the movie, therefore influencing countless nightmares. Who will win: "Shakespeare In Love." Once again, the Academy loves this movie. Who should have been nominated: Can’t think of any. Best Dramatic
Score Who should win: "Elizabeth." The score of the dramatic historical epic had the stylized sounds of the medieval period for music. It went splendidly into the movie, and at times heightened the tension of the script. Who should not win: "The Thin Red Line." The score was okay, but the other movies had great scores as well, and I’d pick them over this one any day. Who will win: "Elizabeth." Why? Medieval music is seldom seen in the movies. I don’t think that the Academy will pass up this opportunity to honor it, even though the compelling score of "Life Is Beautiful" is also nominated. Who should have been nominated: "Beloved." The score in ways reflected the feelings of the film’s characters. It was observant, frightening, and at points, even uplifting. © 1999, David Keyes, Cinemaphile.org. Please e-mail the author here if the above review contains any spelling or grammar mistakes. |
All published materials contained herein are owned by their respective authors and cannot be reprinted, either in their entirety or in selection, without the expressed written consent of the writers.
© 2007 Cinemaphile.org.