New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Michael Lynderey: While I like all of the actors in the Supporting category (it's nice to see a John Hawkes type get a nomination), it's really too bad about Andrew Garfield. Having an Oscar-nominated Spider-Man (nominated as he's filming it, no less) would have been awesome, even if the odds of winning have been ka-powed by Batman's turn in The Fighter. Plus, Garfield gave a really good performance. Otherwise, the Oscars, especially after last night's SAG results, appear to be headed into an achingly predictable route.

Kim Hollis: I, too, am pleased about the John Hawkes nomination (his portrayal of Teardrop is remarkable) but at the same time I'm a little bummed that it came at the cost of Andrew Garfield. I'd choose Hawkes over him too, admittedly. I'm not so sure this awards ceremony is going to be all so predictable as everyone seems to think, though. Yes, the acting awards seem sewn up, but I feel like Best Picture is far from over. It's a two or three movie race, but it might just surprise us.

I think Statham could take Hopkins

Kim Hollis: Which practice bothers you more, Jason Statham doing the same movie over and over again, or Academy Award winner Anthony Hopkins taking projects that would make even Michael Caine blush?

Josh Spiegel: Now, now. Sir Michael Caine is about to appear, in vocal form, in Gnomeo and Juliet. Gnomeo and Juliet, a computer animated movie about gnomes by way of Romeo and Juliet. Did I mention that Patrick Stewart will be in the film as William Shakespeare? I'm pretty sure that this is going to be one of the great bad movies of all time, but to answer your question, it's the Hopkins laziness. Jason Statham does his job very well; Anthony Hopkins used to try, and he's long since given up.

Brett Beach: If Jason Statham ever gave an Oscar worthy performance, and then went back solely to fare such as Crank 3: The Heart that Wouldn't Die, The Transporter 4 and The Expendables 2, there might be something to gripe about. As it is, he knows what side of the bread his butter goes on and applies that butter liberally and often. Anthony Hopkins has had a career spanning six different decades, one filled with highs (The Lion in Winter, The Remains of the Day) and lows (Freejack, Bad Company), but as a four-time Oscar nominee and one-time winner, the onus is on him to choose worthy projects, even the commercial ones. As with DeNiro, Pacino, and others. I do wish he would make those choices, or have someone do so in his stead.

Matthew Huntley: I think the Statham redundancies bother me more, because at least when Hopkins takes on lesser quality projects, there's an off chance we'll see something we haven't seen before. Statham typically generates a "been there, done that"-type of reaction; whereas Hopkins' choices are more anger-inducing, which make them more fun to talk about. Talking mild crap about Crank or The Mechanic isn't as fun as lashing out against Bad Company or The Wolfman. Think about this: with a group of friends, would you rather see a dull action movie or a potential Razzie Award winner?

Continued:       1       2       3