In this morning’s roundup of Oscar news ‘n’ notes from around the web, “Love” isn’t the drug for some critics, but “Animal Kingdom” is king in Australia.
It might be a longshot on these shores, but “Animal Kingdom” is the leader of the pack Down Under, where it dominated the Australian Film Institute Awards nominations with 18, at least one in every category in which it was eligible. The war film “Beneath Hill 60” trailed with 12, followed by “Bright Star” (an Oscar contender last year) with 11. Michael Bodey has a summary, and the Australian also offers a complete list of the nominations, which also include television categories. “Animal Kingdom” particularly dominated the acting categories, with two nominations for Best Lead Actor, one for Best Lead Actress, three (out of four) for Best Supporting Actor and one for Best Supporting Actress. (The Australian)
Ed Zwick’s “Love and Other Drugs” screened for some Los Angeles press on Monday. And while the first wave of reviews are mixed, they don’t exactly boost the case that the film will be a strong awards contender – though, to be fair, film critics and Oscar voters are two very different beasts. Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Reporter: “a smart movie that could have been smarter.” Justin Chang, Variety: “snappy, saucy and, like any overzealous product-pusher, rather too eager to please.” Anne Thompson, indieWIRE: “The movie is very commercial and should please young audiences more than critics … [an] enjoyably shallow movie.” Kris Tapley, In Contention: “There are too many ingredients in the soup, many of them tasty. But they clash in the mixture.” Todd McCarthy, indieWIRE: “an enormously contrived and cloying romantic drama without a moment of believable reality to it.”
Jeff Wells, who’s already taken people to task for underestimating Anne Hathaway’s awards potential in “Love and Other Drugs,” and who saw the film last week, promptly defends it from naysayers like Tapley. “I think Zwick has put together a different type of concoction that some aren't going to ‘like’ because it doesn't quite follow the form they're looking for,” he writes. “I only know that when a film gives off that special feeling of assurance with everything clicking, you can smell it like tasty food in a nearby kitchen.” Not having been to this particular diner, I can’t vouch for either Wells or the movie’s detractors. (Hollywood Elsewhere)
I forgot to mention this one yesterday: the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is now on Twitter. Its account (@TheAcademy) kicked off Monday evening with “I’m ready for my close-up!” and since then has linked to a couple of AMPAS press releases; it remains to be seen whether they’ll use it to break news, the way Oscar show producer Adam Shankman did last year. As of Tuesday night, TheAcademy had about 250 followers, of which I’m the seventh. But at least three of the first six work for the Academy – including number one, “joshuawesome,” who looks to me as if he’s probably running the account. (Twitter)
Scott Feinberg was on Jennifer Lawrence’s hectic, whirlwind Oscar-campaign weekend schedule, and his conversation with the “Winter’s Bone” actressbegins with the news that the first movie she saw over and over in theaters was Disney’s “Pocahontas.” Midway through the conversation, they both learn that you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet. (ScottFeinberg.com)
Back at Hollywood Elsewhere, Jeff Wells convenes an impromptu panel of Oscar-watchersto consider the question of why Tilda Swinton isn’t getting more awards buzz for her role in “I Am Love.” He concludes that the film “is not universally admired” and her performance “just isn’t punching through” to Oscar watchers and prospective voters. Among the colleagues who offer opinions, Anne Thompson offers one possible route to a nomination for Swinton: critics have “to make a fuss over her in their year-end wraps and 10-best lists,” turning the screener into a must-see for Oscar voters. (Hollywood Elsewhere)
