MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Early Globe Reaction

It’s too early to actually think too much about the Globes nominations, except to say… “some old, same old.”

Every surprise on the list is an homage to star power and/or Miramax.  Nicole, Uma, Renee and Meryl… David Carradine… only Kevin and Ashley feel like a reach for something they really liked of pure heart. 

But really, not very surprising. 

They went to 11 Best Picture titles, which oddly enough, I had somehow channeled.  (Not really intentionally.)  Beyond The Sea couldn’t even make it to Best Musical/Comedy, replaced by The Incredibles, though Spacey did make it, as expected.

Jamie Foxx double dipped with Collateral and Ray, but they left out Cruise and Michael Mann.

The closest thing to edgy was going Best Picture and Actor with Hotel Rwanda… though they came up short on Sophie Okonedo. But never mind that, they missed Shoreh Aghdashloo last year.

And while I still expect the positions to reverse with The Academy, I’m pleased that Liam Neeson took Clint Eastwood’s acting slot and that Kinsey made the List o’ Eleven.

More in a bit on THB… 

Be Sociable, Share!

33 Responses to “Early Globe Reaction”

  1. Nathaniel R says:

    I don’t know –the “pure heart” nominations could apply to Miramax films once in a while –you never know. For instance, it’s not like Miramax has been campaigning hard for David and Uma. But there they are anyway. And Uma was there last year. Maybe they just really love her work as “The Bride” A lot of people do.
    And I’m just curious how much longer before there’s a revolt against the faulty categorizations that have been so rampant lately in the era of excessively politicized Oscar campaigns. I mean Jamie Foxx is supporting in Collateral? Puh-leeze. That’s even more fraudulent than Scarlet Johansson’s “supporting” campaign for Lost in Translation.

  2. bicycle bob says:

    i always think the globes is bought off. it stinks of sell outs.

  3. randy says:

    While there is a lot of predictable nominations, there are some that correct previous oversights, specifically the nominations of Deadwood for Dramatic Series, and Ian McShane, overlooked in the Emmy category for Actor in a Dramatic Series. His nomination in the similiar GG category should be a lock. Well, maybe… And am I alone in lamenting the absence of Christian Bale for The Machinist?

  4. teambanzai says:

    With all we know about the Hollywood foriegn press now, plus the fact that the Oscars are a month earlier now so that the voting takes place before the globes air do the hold any relevance? They certainly can’t influence the oscars.

  5. Gizmo says:

    Where’s Jeff Bridges on this list?

  6. Phoenixxx says:

    Wasn’t it unexpected not to see a single nod to Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”? Being eligible in the Foreign Language category, I thought they would have gone for it

  7. knockoutned says:

    Kudos to the Hollywood Foreign Press for once having some taste. Carradine and Thurman merit more recognition for their performances, or do we have to wait ten years for people to see that?

  8. Steve says:

    Foxx was also nominated in the Best Actor in TV Movie category. The HFP love Jamie (this year at least). I’m really happy that Ian Mcshane is nominated. Stupid Emmys forgot him. He should win…why?…because I said so…

  9. That Dude says:

    I cannot believe they left off Collateral for Picture, Cruise for Actor and Mann for Director. This is just unacceptable, especially since they nominated Foxx.

  10. Stella's Boy says:

    Collateral desserved more nominations and Closer didn’t deserve any, save for Owen. And Carradine was awful in Kill Bill(s). A laughably bad performance. But it’s just so cool to love the has been that Quentin has resurrected. I’ll pass. Can’t hold a candle to Forster’s great work in Jackie Brown.

  11. Mark says:

    Can’t believe Cruise and Mann didn’t get rewarded. The Globes is more about tv now anyway.

  12. LifeAndDeathBrigade says:

    Collateral has to be one of the worst films I
    have seen all year. It’s dripping in pretention
    and the look of the film incomparison to a night
    time episode of 24 is enough to make me very happy
    that Mann did not a director nom. Absolutely
    pathetic film on all levels, but people with the
    ‘adult attitudes’ seemingly love a film with about
    as much forward action as the Mexican.
    Closer, I cannot really defend, but look at the
    talents in it. The Golden Globes love those four
    people, and there you go. Not like Closer works
    for me either, but some people just seem to enjoy
    a really poorly written episode of Dawson’s Creek
    from season 3 extrapolated into a bad play, then
    a bad movie.
    And David Carradine gave a solid performance in
    Kill Bill v2. He got the nom just for the Superman
    monologue alone, not to mention how he plays Bill
    as the nicest sociopath whomever existed. It takes
    some skill to balance between creepy and honest.
    Give the man his due.
    Sideways got nominations? I guess we all know
    who gets the Pia Ziadora nom this year!

  13. Stella's Boy says:

    Could not disagree with you more about Collateral. It looks absolutely stunning and the cinematography is astounding. I could not take my eyes off of the movie. The only weakness is a somewhat predictable conclusion. Other than that, a kick ass movie. Mann’s direction is superb. And Carradine is not creepy or honest in Volume 2, just bad.

  14. oldman says:

    Does Annette Bening’s nom in comedy/musical kill her oscar chances?

  15. joe says:

    COLLATERAL, as THE TERMINAL, has one of the best american directors (not that that it is a great thing.. just kidding, I am mexican) and good actors,but if it has a pretentious, tedious, stupid story it can only hope to be what both, COLLATERAL and THE TERMINAL, are..
    mierda (shit)

  16. Stella's Boy says:

    Collateral is shit? Give me a break. First of all, it is infinitely superior to The Terminal (which isn’t all that bad either). Second, it’s better than about 99% of American movies released this year. That number leaps to about 99.5% when you count only big budget studio efforts.

  17. LifeAndDeathBrigade says:

    If you couldnt take your eyes off of that movie, then
    I am glad you are not a director. Since that movie
    looked worse than most episodes of 24, shot, at,
    night. Go look at them. That show looks
    marvelous next to Collateral. All I want from
    Mann right now is that Heat SPECIAL EDITION
    DVD that puts back in all of the scenes of Pacino
    being a cokehead. Heck. He even shot his
    Robbery Homicide show better than Collateral.
    Oy to the vey with that movie.

  18. Sandy says:

    Dave, you said that the NBR’s list of top 10 films didn’t really count for much. Now the Globes noms seem to confirm the NBR list. I don’t think the NBR is that irrelevant at all.

  19. KamikazeCamel says:

    But… the look of Collateral was entirely intentional. And it looked brilliant. I have NEVER seen Los Angeles look like that before? It helped make a great movie into a fantastic movie. Those shots of LA’s night sky looking an all-too-ominous shade of grey were very eerie.
    David Carradine was excellent in KBV2, i don’t know where you’re getting the bad performance vibe from.
    And, Oldman, how could it hurt Annette Bening to be nominated in musical/comedy. “Being Julia” IS a comedy. Infact, if anything, it helps her because she wont have to compete with Hilary Swank again!

  20. Reure says:

    Where´s the score for The Incredibles??!! Well, as Polland commented, maybe the guy is too new in business… a shame.

  21. Clay says:

    I’ll take both sides here. Collateral looked amazing and was beautifully directed and shot (great acting, too).
    But the script was horse$hit. A truly lame story. It’s a shame that group of talent didn’t have something worthwhile to work with.

  22. Graeme says:

    The people slagging off “Collateral”‘s look by comparing it to “24” are missing the point. 24 is filmed on Panavision Cameras in 35 mm film. It is lit for night like any other movie you have ever seen. Very complex lighting set-ups are involved because 35 mm is not sensitive to normal “night-time” light. However, Collateral is mostly filmed on Sony HDW- CineAlta & Thomson VIPER FilmStream Cameras in HDTV video (and then converted to film for exhibition (in most theatres))–as a result, those night-time scenes are lit completely differently than any other movie. The scene where SPOILER Cruise is stalking the lawyer through the office building, with the only light being LA coming in through the window is IMPOSSIBLE with 35 mm film. That is why this picture is a lock for Best Cinematography nomination at least…

  23. Clay says:

    I agree, and I wouldn’t mind it winning that award either.
    But can anyone explain to me WHY he’s trying to kill the lawyer in the first place?
    He’s just killed off all the witnesses… the case is finished. What good could it possibly do him to kill the lawyer? You can always get a new lawyer. Oh, I know… it allows Jamie Foxx’s character to have a personal stake in the last victim, so we can get some nifty chase scenes. Fun!

  24. Stella's Boy says:

    LifeandDeathBrigade, I have looked at both of them. And I’ll take Collateral any day over an episode of 24. No comparison in my book. Others like Clay, KamizakeCamel and Graeme have already done an excellent job of explaining why it looks the way it does as well as how exceptional it looks, so I won’t repeat them.

  25. bicycle bob says:

    24 is pretty unreal but so is collateral. two great pieces of work. ones tv, ones a film by one of the top 5 directors we have. can’t really compare it.

  26. bicycle bob says:

    i’ll answer that. whys cruise trying to off the attorney? because thats what hes getting paid to do. its the contract. he doesn’t care who he kills as long as its for money. why are the drug lords out to kill her? thats another question all together. maybe shes the best lawyer there is. maybe they think they can scare off any top lawyer. maybe to make a statement. who knows

  27. Mark says:

    The Wire is the best show on tv. It is not even a ballgame when comparing that.

  28. Martin says:

    Collateral was overrated but it did look great. It had a unique, painterly look that I doubt they could have gotten if it was shot on 35. Also, 24 looks great too, but as someone above said it looks fairly conventional. Collateral broke alot of ground in the HD department. The technology isn’t quite there yet, probably another 3-5 years before most studio films are shot on it, but Mann and his DP did some amazing work on that film. Most HD work in the next few years will be for major effects films, so it’s nice to see it being used for a gritty thriller.

  29. Filipe says:

    Since some mention 24, it’s worthy noticing on the Globes tendency of always giving nods to their favorites that 24 and Jennifer Ganner got nods for the fourth year in a row even tough their 4th seasons only starts in a couple of weeks; I know that both shows must have had enough episodes after last year’s globe to qualify, but it still feels weird (and it’s very doubtful they would being there had they’ve being cancelled). I would never bring this up to a film board, but this says plenty about the globes, Thurman’s nod could’ve be a factor but since she already got one last year, it will probably be seen as a Globes eccentricity.

  30. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Golden Globes this year? Fixed for Miramax. Golden Globes last year? Fixed for Miramax. Golden Globes the year before? Fixed for Miramax.
    Now that there truly is a negative review of “The Aviator” (Village Voice) let’s see what the hacks and quote-whores think of that movie.

  31. bicycle bob says:

    i don’t know if i can take anyone seriously when they say collateral is “overrated”. who rated it? has it won 3 oscars? did it make 1 bill? its a small movie with only two main characters and great supporting roles. a director who is on top of his game. i think we’re underrating it.

  32. Stella's Boy says:

    bob, we’ve had our differences, but we’re in 100% agreement on Collateral.

  33. Rodney E. Carter says:

    Why is everyone crying category fraud about Jamie Foxx’s supporting actor nomination for Collateral? Let’s not forget the 16 minute “lead” actor performance that Anthony Hopkins gave for his work in Silince of the Lambs. Let us also not forget that he won the Oscar for that role. For all the years that african americans have been overlooked for nominations and wins, we should be rejoicing for the recognition, finally.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon