Following Nikki Finke’s report that pre-production on Halloween 3-D has been halted and therefore the film has been delayed, much of the discussion focused on whether or not it had something to do with The Weinstein Co.’s money troubles and/or possibility of a takeover by Summit Entertainment.
All I could think of, though, was maybe the 3-D threequel can now actually be appropriately released around the time of its namesake holiday rather than in a summer month. The report did after all note that TWC/Dimension is properly re-releasing Halloween II, which underperformed when it opened late last month, on the weekend of October 31st — at least for midnight shows, anyway.
It was actually a bad summer for wrongly released holiday-titled films, as Nia Vardalos’ I Hate Valentine’s Day did poor business in a few theaters when IFC debuted the romantic comedy in July. So what if it has a title that’s anti Valentine’s Day? It should still have been released in February.
And movies in the Halloween franchise should be released in October. I don’t care if horror is supposed to do well in August or if all four installments since Dimension acquired the rights to the series have come out earlier than October. Thankfully I’m not the only person who thinks it’s been stupid of them to put these films out in the summer.
Check out what other film blogs think of the Halloween 3-D delay after the jump:
…Read more
Here’s a story that broke yesterday but has continued to pick up steam through the movie blogs today: The Weinstein Co. is planning to release box office champ Inglourious Basterds on DVD by the end of the year in order to use the discs for a cheap but aggressive Oscar campaign. This isn’t surprising news considering Harvey Weinstein’s Oscar addiction, but it has suddenly made me aware that Basterds is both deserving of and sure to receive a nod for Best Picture, which would be Quentin Tarantino’s first such nominee since Pulp Fiction 15 years ago.
Seriously, if we can be talking about District 9, Star Trek and other genre movies for the top category now that it will include ten contenders, how couldn’t Basterds be seen as a likely nominee? People have celebrated Christoph Waltz’s performance since Cannes, and he’s sure to garner a Best Supporting Actor nod, but few have noted how the film itself is a lock, too. Certainly if Weinstein can get The Reader a surprise Best Picture nomination with only five available slots, he can get this film onto a ballot double the size.
Don’t forget the Holocaust rule; how could the Academy ignore a movie that features vengeful Jews assassinating Hitler and 300 other Nazis all at once in a blaze of glory? Never mind that they didn’t get some of the worst offenders involved in the genocide.
Could Basterds garner more than the two obvious nominations? I doubt Tarantino will receive recognition for either directing or screenwriting, but who knows? Any other performances worthy? Any tech fields? Variety has an interesting article today on the costume design by Anna B. Sheppard. She’s been twice nominated for, interestingly enough, Holocaust films (Schindler’s List and The Pianist), but this time she was presented with more of a challenge. I have a feeling this third Holocaust-related project could be the one to get her the Oscar.
Check out what the other film blogs are saying about Basterds‘ Oscar chances after the jump:
…Read more
In a turn of events that recalls an infamous Sundance story of yore, Harvey Weinstein is insisting that The Weinstein Co. locked down rights to Push (not that one, the Sundance one) before Lionsgate made its deal. Fortunately for everyone in Park City, this fight waited until after the film festival ended and ol’ Harv was nowhere near making a scene in a restaurant. Instead, the rights tug-of-war is going to the courts (on both coasts), making everyone think this is the indie version of the Watchmen battle and giving the blogs something more interesting than actors’ rants and masquerades to comment on:
…Read more
Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.”
Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin.
The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. …Read more
