Reviews, like the Oscars, like your own impressions, are moments in time captured. Some of that enthusiasm or hatred will last a long time. You might be surprised to find, for instance, that Chicago got more scores of 100 on Metacritic than American Beauty, The English Patient, Unforgiven, and the Silence of the Lambs. You might also find that no film ever won Best Picture since 1990 without having at least one score of 100. The lowest was Gladiator with 2. The highest was Return of the King with 26. Yes, there are more critics now, but even when you average it out, the top get is still Return of the King, which makes it the best reviewed film in twenty years. Gladiator is the worst. In the time that the awards season has exploded, post-Gladiator, the overall score and critical acclaim for Best Pictures has risen. The number of critics Metacritic counts as valid has also risen. The top ten of best scores of 100 per the amount of critics giving reviews have mostly occurred since 2000, with two exceptions: Schindler’s List and Shakespeare in Love. The two films that didn’t hit very high and hover low on the list of high scores: A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator and Crash.
But it seems safe to say that Best Picture winners, even last year included, have been very well reviewed films. There seems to be a wider and wider disconnect, though, between the public and the critics. And since many of the members of the public are now coming of age and becoming critics themselves things feel a little strange “out there.” There are always a few movies that hit with “the internet” but not so much with critics or with the public. One of those movies this year is Drive. The internet likes Harry Potter, Melancholia, Martha Marcy May Marlene, and is okay with The Artist. But if you want to see how the straight-up majority of internet users (who are young people — coming of age online, reared on the kind of mediocre entertainment mainstream Hollywood has been dishing out to them for years) you’ll see a list something like MSN’s users top ten:
MSN Movies Users’ Top 10 Poll
1. Harry Potter
2. Twilight
3. The Help
4. Bridesmaids
5. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
6. Captain America
7. X-Men: First Class
8. Fast Five
9. The Descendants
10. Moneyball
It’s sort of a miracle that three Oscar contenders — four if you count Bridesmaids — are among their ten. Specifically, though, and most notably, Tate Taylor’s The Help which would have absolutely NO PROBLEM winning Best Picture if it had a well known director at the helm. The Help is the most popular film “out there” besides The Artist. Almost everyone I know who is not keyed into critics or the Oscars loves The Help. But it is missing something that makes it feel totally like the underdog in this race. To win, it has to appeal to the snobs. Pre-Crash, it was a lot easier to sell a popular entertainment film like The Help without the major awards or reviews behind it.
But even then, The Help‘s score of 62 would make it even lower than Crash and Gladiator (though not by much). The three films with the highest scores right now that can win Best Picture would be The Artist – 87 on Metacritic with 7 scores of 100. Moneyball also with 87 and 9 scores of 100 — with almost double the number of reviews than for The Artist (which means we could see The Artist’s overall score rise as more critics put their reviews in). And Harry Potter with 87 and 9 scores of 100.
The Ebert Factor: almost all of the films in the past twenty years that won Best Picture also earned a score of 100 from Ebert. I think Gladiator is the only one that did not. Ebert didn’t give Harry Potter a good enough review, and he hasn’t yet reviewed The Artist. Moneyball DOES have the requisite 100 Ebert score.
So now we’re getting down to it.
The Descendants — 84 Metacritic score, with a whopping 16 scores of 100, including Ebert. Hugo has 83, with 11 scores of 100, including Ebert. All of these films are very much in play with critics awards, Globe nominations and SAG — all except Hugo, which does not have the SAG nod anywhere, and if it wins it will be the first film since Braveheart to win without any SAG noms — but that doesn’t make it impossible; there has never been a movie like Hugo in the Best Picture race at all.
Still, many of the films we’re talking about aren’t even open to the public so the list will definitely shift around as those movies are released, specifically a crowd-pleaser like War Horse, or even a crowd-pleaser for people who don’t have such a sweet tooth when it comes to movies, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. But both The Descendants and Moneyball are in play. Both are diminished a wee bit by having too much in common — sexiest men alive evolving into dads, suffering a loss, getting their priorities straight. Both films are among the best offerings of the year. The Artist still has a comfortable lead as the film to beat. It has a gimmick attached (silent movie, black and white) – it is charming and audience-friendly. It was made with a low budget and will profit greatly. To me, the biggest stumbling block for The Artist is that it is a French production. And after going outside the American studio system last year, are the Oscars really going to bite the hand that feeds them once again? I don’t know. If they like that movie the most it will win. They don’t overthink these things. They don’t sit there with their ballot and say, “America, fuck yeah.” They look at the movies and they respond with their hearts. For me it would be a tough call if I asked my heart what it wanted between Moneyball, The Descendants, The Artist and Hugo — It would be damned near impossible. I don’t know what the deciding factor would be for me. It is so hard to say.
What the Golden Globes will do is put George Clooney front and center where he was supposed to be when the awards race started. Clooney is a master when it comes to crowds, and television audiences. Both Pitt and Clooney are going to be such blindingly beautiful awards contenders that it’s going to be hard to choose between them and their movies. That again gives The Artist or Hugo the edge.
So you’ll say, why are we even talking about this – we all know The Artist is going to Slumdog Millionaire it all the way home. And that might happen. But my job is still to talk about the Oscars. And to me, there is always room to talk about them. Needless to say, a masterpiece like Hugo just might float by unnoticed, only to be dredged up years from now and marveled at. At this point, I’m happy to concede — if those big industry clubs want to award the kinds of films they like to award? So be it. I will still look for greatness in what the filmmakers bring this year. For me that’s David Fincher’s exceptional standout, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo — a genre movie made into one of the most exciting two hours at the theater this year. The Rise of the Planet of the Apes a genre B-movie but again, one of the year’s absolute best films. Moneyball, the beauty of baseball, the beauty of life; The Descendants — a film about our collective future. And Hugo – the one Scorsese movie that made me cry. Scorsese made probably the best film of 2011. And yet, and yet — the Oscars are about temporary but all-consuming flings. And this year, those French beauties are going to be hard to resist.
The Charts
By Year:
1990 | Dances with Wolves | 72 | 4 | 20 |
1991 | Silence of the Lambs | 84 | 6 | 17 |
1992 | Unforgiven | 82 | 7 | 21 |
1993 | Schindler’s List | 93 | 15 | 23 |
1994 | Forrest Gump | 82 | 3 | 19 |
1995 | Braveheart | 68 | 3 | 20 |
1996 | The English Patient | 87 | 11 | 31 |
1997 | Titanic | 74 | 11 | 34 |
1998 | Shakespeare in Love | 87 | 13 | 33 |
1999 | American Beauty | 86 | 11 | 33 |
2000 | Gladiator | 64 | 2 | 37 |
2001 | Chicago | 82 | 12 | 37 |
2002 | A Beautiful Mind | 72 | 3 | 33 |
2003 | Return of the King | 94 | 26 | 41 |
2004 | Million Dollar Baby | 86 | 22 | 39 |
2005 | Crash | 69 | 6 | 36 |
2006 | The Departed | 86 | 13 | 39 |
2007 | No Country for Old Men | 91 | 20 | 37 |
2008 | Slumdog Millionaire | 86 | 10 | 36 |
2009 | The Hurt Locker | 94 | 18 | 35 |
2010 | The King’s Speech | 88 | 16 | 41 |
By MC Score:
2000 | Gladiator | 64 | 2 | 37 |
1995 | Braveheart | 68 | 3 | 20 |
2005 | Crash | 69 | 6 | 36 |
1990 | Dances with Wolves | 72 | 4 | 20 |
2002 | A Beautiful Mind | 72 | 3 | 33 |
1997 | Titanic | 74 | 11 | 34 |
1992 | Unforgiven | 82 | 7 | 21 |
1994 | Forrest Gump | 82 | 3 | 19 |
2001 | Chicago | 82 | 12 | 37 |
1991 | Silence of the Lambs | 84 | 6 | 17 |
1999 | American Beauty | 86 | 11 | 33 |
2004 | Million Dollar Baby | 86 | 22 | 39 |
2006 | The Departed | 86 | 13 | 39 |
2008 | Slumdog Millionaire | 86 | 10 | 36 |
1996 | The English Patient | 87 | 11 | 31 |
1998 | Shakespeare in Love | 87 | 13 | 33 |
2010 | The King’s Speech | 88 | 16 | 41 |
2007 | No Country for Old Men | 91 | 20 | 37 |
1993 | Schindler’s List | 93 | 15 | 23 |
2009 | The Hurt Locker | 94 | 18 | 35 |
2003 | Return of the King | 94 | 26 | 41 |
By number of critics
1991 | Silence of the Lambs | 84 | 6 | 17 |
1994 | Forrest Gump | 82 | 3 | 19 |
1990 | Dances with Wolves | 72 | 4 | 20 |
1995 | Braveheart | 68 | 3 | 20 |
1992 | Unforgiven | 82 | 7 | 21 |
1993 | Schindler’s List | 93 | 15 | 23 |
1996 | The English Patient | 87 | 11 | 31 |
1998 | Shakespeare in Love | 87 | 13 | 33 |
1999 | American Beauty | 86 | 11 | 33 |
2002 | A Beautiful Mind | 72 | 3 | 33 |
1997 | Titanic | 74 | 11 | 34 |
2009 | The Hurt Locker | 94 | 18 | 35 |
2008 | Slumdog Millionaire | 86 | 10 | 36 |
2005 | Crash | 69 | 6 | 36 |
2007 | No Country for Old Men | 91 | 20 | 37 |
2001 | Chicago | 82 | 12 | 37 |
2000 | Gladiator | 64 | 2 | 37 |
2004 | Million Dollar Baby | 86 | 22 | 39 |
2006 | The Departed | 86 | 13 | 39 |
2003 | Return of the King | 94 | 26 | 41 |
2010 | The King’s Speech | 88 | 16 | 41 |
By 100s
2000 | Gladiator | 64 | 2 | 37 |
1994 | Forrest Gump | 82 | 3 | 19 |
1995 | Braveheart | 68 | 3 | 20 |
2002 | A Beautiful Mind | 72 | 3 | 33 |
1990 | Dances with Wolves | 72 | 4 | 20 |
1991 | Silence of the Lambs | 84 | 6 | 17 |
2005 | Crash | 69 | 6 | 36 |
1992 | Unforgiven | 82 | 7 | 21 |
2008 | Slumdog Millionaire | 86 | 10 | 36 |
1996 | The English Patient | 87 | 11 | 31 |
1999 | American Beauty | 86 | 11 | 33 |
1997 | Titanic | 74 | 11 | 34 |
2001 | Chicago | 82 | 12 | 37 |
1998 | Shakespeare in Love | 87 | 13 | 33 |
2006 | The Departed | 86 | 13 | 39 |
1993 | Schindler’s List | 93 | 15 | 23 |
2010 | The King’s Speech | 88 | 16 | 41 |
2009 | The Hurt Locker | 94 | 18 | 35 |
2007 | No Country for Old Men | 91 | 20 | 37 |
2004 | Million Dollar Baby | 86 | 22 | 39 |
2003 | Return of the King | 94 | 26 | 41 |
Average of 100 scores by how many critics in total:
2000 | Gladiator | 64 | 2 | 37 | 19.5 |
1995 | Braveheart | 68 | 3 | 20 | 30 |
1990 | Dances with Wolves | 72 | 4 | 20 | 32 |
1994 | Forrest Gump | 82 | 3 | 19 | 35 |
1991 | Silence of the Lambs | 84 | 6 | 17 | 36 |
2002 | A Beautiful Mind | 72 | 3 | 33 | 36 |
1992 | Unforgiven | 82 | 7 | 21 | 37 |
2005 | Crash | 69 | 6 | 36 | 37 |
1997 | Titanic | 74 | 11 | 34 | 40 |
1996 | The English Patient | 87 | 11 | 31 | 43 |
1999 | American Beauty | 86 | 11 | 33 | 43 |
2001 | Chicago | 82 | 12 | 37 | 44 |
1993 | Schindler’s List | 93 | 15 | 23 | 44 |
2008 | Slumdog Millionaire | 86 | 10 | 36 | 44 |
1998 | Shakespeare in Love | 87 | 13 | 33 | 44 |
2006 | The Departed | 86 | 13 | 39 | 46 |
2010 | The King’s Speech | 88 | 16 | 41 | 48 |
2009 | The Hurt Locker | 94 | 18 | 35 | 49 |
2004 | Million Dollar Baby | 86 | 22 | 39 | 49 |
2007 | No Country for Old Men | 91 | 20 | 37 | 49 |
2003 | Return of the King | 94 | 26 | 41 | 54 |
@Sasha Stone how in the heck, is Harry Potter not a hit with the public?!
Yeah, Other Scott, Schindler isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. It’s a film, ostensibly, about Schindler, but we never get into his interior. We never learn what made him different from his contemporaries, why he decided to risk his own life to save others.
I find the Holocaust to be a very interesting topic, it brought out the worst in people and, sometimes, the best in people. I’ve seen many movies on the topic, fiction and non-fiction alike, and read several books. I look at Schindler in kind of the same way a gay man looks at the movie Philadelphia. Nice intro to the subject, but there’s no depth or complexity in those films that truly brings the experience to life.
I find the non-Schindler scenes, while easily the most disturbing fictional images of the Holocaust on film, to be extremely exploitative. It is essentially scene after scene of nameless Jew marching to their deaths. Horriffic yes, Informantive, no.
As a contrast to a fictional scene about the Holocaust that is beautifully subtle and far more effective, you need to see the underappreciated (but still not a very good film overall) Everything is Illuminated. Midway in that film we get to a woman’s house. It is filled with box after box of recovered items from a Ukrainian village that was decimated by the Nazis. We see her too small house dominated by all of these items. ANd she can access specific items readily. She’s held onto these items for decades, probably 50 years. Her desperation to keep the memory of this village alive is emotionally moving beyond compare. And all we ever see is this old woman amongst her boxes. It’s a devastating scene that haunts me more than any of the graphic images in Schindler’s List.
(I do love the book Everything is Illuminated, I highly recommend it over the movie, but see the movie anyway, because this scene is rendered so beautifully on film.)
Oh, Rage against the machine- good old times! 🙂
I find it pretty funny that every year when the award season starts everybody is talking about the same candidates that are officially declared “the year´s best”.
But each year there are so many great, beautiful, inspiring movies that don´t seem to have a shot at all, same procedure every year. For example, yesterday I saw “Jane Eyre”. I know hardly anyone is intrested in this old story, an adaptation from a 19th century novel, quite a few times adapted before- but damn, that was really a pretty good film that deserves some attention, first of all Mia Wasikowska.
And my other favorites this year? Melancholia, Norwegian Wood, The Kid with the bike (Golden Globe nominee!)… but I guess I have to wait to get the chance to see “The Artist” and “The Descendants”. One of those will be the winner, and maybe I can add it to my favourites too.
To address JMC, my argument is the land sale SHOULD be the center of the film, but isn’t.
Rufussondheim — You’re breaking my heart by rehashing those missed opportunities.
People go on about the scandal of Crash beating Brokeback — and it was a scandal that the beautifully-rendered Brokeback lost, but in the scheme of things Crash was far from one of the worst BP winners. I think it was not successful, but at least it was TRYING to do something interesting and slightly contemporary and brought a particular individual perspective to its story and the filmmaking. It wasn’t just a total audience-pandering piece of insulting Hollywood product, like all those terrible winners from the 1990s.
Interesting that you list Schindler. I loved it when I saw it, as did almost everyone, but I have never wanted to see it again because I actually suspect that it was really not any good and we were all fooled by it. I did see about 20 minutes of it on TV a while back and I couldn’t keep watching it.
Braveheart is wretched.
The mid-90’s were the worst time for Oscar for me. 5 movies in a row won Best Pic and I think all are sub-par (although some have decent attributes.)
93- Schindler’s List
94- Forrest Gump
95- Braveheart
96- The English Patient
97- Titanic
(When they could have a string that consisted of The Piano, Pulp Fiction, Babe, Fargo, LA Confidential)
Forrest Gump and A Beautiful Mind are both disgustingly boring, banal films, the two worst Oscar winners of the past 20 years. I don’t know how an intelligent, sentient being can sit through the saccharine Forrest Gump and not vomit all over his box of chocolates. These are movies for people who pat themselves on the back and think that they are noble and broad-minded and sensitive because they are allowing themselves to be manipulated by simplistic, dishonest and wretchedly sentimental stories “about about people with disabilities”.
I have a suspicion that Braveheart may be awful too, but it is the one Oscar winner of the past 20 years that I have successfully avoided seeing.
My favorite films over the last ten years or so include Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind primarily because of Russell Crowe’s performances.The story telling is solid,the supporting casts were excellent even the film scores were memorable. Now while I generally liked some of the other nominees those films never became favorites the way Gladiator and ABM have for me.The film business has an awful lot of critics and there are agendas,likes and dislikes,you know subjectivity.The civilian ticket buyer does pay some attention to all that but in the end the films which endure are the ones which are the most satisfying for said ticket buyers.Film scores matter most to critics.
The Harvey Factor is not to be ignored. This year it’s OVERWHELMING. He’s got six films in play and three of them have turned up as major awards contenders – The Artist, My Week with Marilyn, The Iron Lady
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out, but if you had told me that a little 90 min B&W SILENT FRENCH made film could go all the way to Best Picture of the Year, I would have said “Impossible!” (with an accent francais) But I would have added “Only Harvey Weinstein could pull off an Oscar Hat Trick like that!” And as we’re seeing, he has…
It really is astonishing. And films about Hollywood never WIN. That rule could be broken this year.
Films made by the French never ever win Best Picture. They can be ABOUT France, like “Gigi” or “American in Paris” but they were made by Americans. That “rule” could be broken, too, this year.
It will be interesting to see what HW does with Vanessa Redgrave’s non-starter Supp. Actress campaign for “Coriolanus.” Will he abandon it? And push Berenice Bejo into being a household name? He might.IF he can, he WILL!
Nobody knows how to influence the Academy like HW? HOW does he do it? Well, for one thing, he ENDLESSLY screens his films so that all the members possible can see them. He makes sure his films are also front and center in the press ALL THE TIME.
I asked Michel Hazanaviscius how HW does it, and he replied, “It’s his hobby.”
Scott Rudin’s hold-back policy this year with “Tattoo” and “Extremely” really seems to have back-fired badly. Diastrously.
I don’t think most of the SAG nominators even GOT screeners or screenings of this two films. But we know the Golden Globes saw them…and still only Rooney Mara is the sole nomination for both in SAG and the GG.
Oh well…We’ve heard of peaking too early before. But never too late…
Shame is 2. Thought Sasha would like that….
Roger Eberts Best Of 2011 is up. A Separation is number 1.
JR, I’m sorry, but there’s no way Hugo will win the Art Direction Oscar. That award will go to Stuart Craig for Harry Potter. He brought some brilliant art direction to the series and was always snubbed. There’s no way they can cheat him from something he deserved to have already.
And just for the hell of it, while I’m talking Potter, it will also win Visual Effects. Sorry Apes.
Apparently,everybody must have the same taste in movies or risk to be ridiculed if you do not…
I’d have no problem with Marty winning Director and The Artist winning Picture (since it seems to be heading that way).
GoonNow is right, m1 is wrong. FOTR > ROTK
I’m tempted to agree with Marcus (without having seen EL&IC). What’s up with the no-love?
I’m still waiting on the surprise Need Talk Kevin surge.
Correction to Sasha: Roger Ebert didn’t give Braveheart a 100. However, her point is still valid, because I think the time to track his importance to this race begins on February 21, 1999, the day after Gene Siskel died. That was Ebert’s first near-death experience (and yes, I know he’s had a few since) – google away and you’ll see that every single Siskel eulogy gave extensive explanation to the greatness of the couple, the Lennon and McCartney of film reviewing. THAT’S when Ebert became Paul McCartney, and the growth of the internet (and creation of sites like imdb and RT and this one) didn’t hurt – he became everyone’s first check on taste.
You know I think Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 should get a best picture nod and so does Daniel Radcliffe for Best Actor and here’s why…and this goes for the Broadcast Film Critics Association and Golden Globes
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: BFCA (93/100)[Critcs’ Choice], Rotten Tomatoes (96% based on 267 reviews among all critics and 100% based on 41 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #1 in the summer that beat Midnight in Paris and Tree of Life, also it was ranked #1 in 4,375 theaters.
The Ides of March: BFCA (91/100) [Critics’ Choice], RT (85% based on 199 reviews among all critcs and 73% based on 41 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #2 in 2,199 theaters.
The Help: BFCA (89/100) [Critics’ Choice], RT (75% based on 191 reviews among all critics and 68% based on 40 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #2 in 2,534 theaters.
The Descendants: BFCA (92/100) [Critics’ Choice], RT (89% based on 170 reviews among all critics and 90% based on 41 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #10 in 29 theaters and #7 in 876 theaters.
Moneyball: BFCA (91/100) [Critics’ Choice], RT (95% based on 204 reviews among all critics and 97% based on 39 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #2 in 2,993 theaters.
The Artist: BFCA (91/100) [4 stars], RT (95% based on 85 reviews among all critics and 100% based on 26 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #29 in 4 theaters.
Hugo: BFCA (87/100) [Critics’ Choice], RT (93% based on 167 reviews among all critics and 92% based on 38 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #5 in 1,227 theaters.
J. Edgar: BFCA (76/100) [3 stars], RT (42% based on 167 reviews among all critics and 55% based on 40 reviews among top critics which is Rotten), and was ranked #5 in 1,910 theaters.
Drive: BFCA (91/100) [Critics’ Choice], RT (93% based on 214 reviews among all critics and 84% based on 38 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #3 in 2,886 theaters.
Shame: BFCA (80/100) [3 stars], RT (78% based on 120 reviews among all critics and 74% based on 35 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #17 in 10 theaters.
Midnight in Paris: BFCA (85/100) [Critics’ Choice], RT (93% based on 189 reviews among all critics and 95% based on 42 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh), and was ranked #13 in 6 theaters and #8 in 944 theaters.
Tree of Life: BFCA (78/100) [3 stars], RT (84% based on 230 reviews among all critics and 88% based on 40 reviews among top critics which was Certified Fresh), and was ranked #15 in 4 theaters.
Tinker, Tailor Soldier Spy: BFCA (87/100) [Critics’ Choice], RT (84% based on 123 reviews among all critics and 89% based on 29 reviews among top critics which is Certified Fresh) and was ranked #17 in 4 theaters.
War Horse: BFCA (80/100) [3 stars]
The Iron Lady: BFCA (79/100) [3 stars], Rotten Tomatoes (currently 71% based on 17 reviews among all critics).
The Iron Lady: BFCA (79/100) [3 stars]
When you look at that info you and everybody knows that HP8 did better than every movie on that list I made.
@Bob Burns: “I’llsayit one more time. The actual opinion of critics is expressed in their year=end lists, not the MC score or the RT score. Crash is the perfect example. It was the #6 film on the year end lists, but only got an MC 69 when it was released.”
I bet it works in the other direction more often: the MC score is high but the film is not seen as serious “best of year” material, much less as “award worthy”.
I’llsayit one more time. The actual opinion of critics is expressed in their year=end lists, not the MC score or the RT score,
Crash is the perfect example. It was the #6 film on the year end lists, but only got an MC 69 when it was released.
mark my words:
The Artist is the new Black Swan. I saw this last year, it is to much ahead of the curve (joker would said).
Too Beautiful to see an old new movie, but hugo are already this, and critics are very different from the industry. Critics are always worried with beauty and brilliant screenplays, industry likes something to make people remember the best pictures forever, The Artist will make academy remenber their good times, not the public, not the industry, only old filmakers, that reinveted the cinema industry like Cameron, Spielberg, Scorcese, Lucas e Coppola.
I prefer wait for the guilds.
The Artist’s actors will get their nominations, but the techs, it’s too much with hugo, tree of life, war horse to chalenge it.
Let’s See What Happen.
Yeah, that’s the list I’ve reposted a couple times…damn I see Potter has dropped a few spots, no longer Top 10
If not Best Picture, then perhaps at least Best Director in a split?? Marty deserves more than 1 BD Oscar. He’s a living legend.
Beautifully written article Sasha! Love what you wrote about Hugo– the one Scorsese movie that made you cry! It is such an endearing film. It has become my favorite Scorsese film since his underrated, The Age of Innocence– now THAT movie made me cry– unrequited love– featuring two of my favorite actors– Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer. But I digress. I do hope Hugo wins Best Picture at the Oscars!
^ Disclaimer: I keep forgetting he was an Exec Producer on ROTK and that’s one of my all-time favorites, so I was technically rooting for him there. And I would’ve been pleased with a win for Finding Neverland or The Aviator in 2004 also.
One thing I would keep in mind is that Harvey hasn’t pulled off his stunt in back-to-back years. You say voters tend not to over-think as much as we’d like to think they do but I think it’s possible that a lot of voters will take The Harvey Factor into consideration this year and feel like they don’t want The Best Picture to race to essentially be dictated by him, year in and year out. Incidentally, the only year 1995 and beyond in which I wanted his horse to win (2009-Inglourious Basterds), he failed me miserably. 🙁
I haven’t seen The Artist because it still hasn’t come near Omaha, NE but I hope it’s as good as The Descendants, Hugo and Moneyball because I really think those films are ALL great and I’d be fine with any of them taking home the prize. As for The Help, that’s next on my list to see!
http://criticstop10.com/
oops, here’s the website I was referring to
An update on the critics top 10 lists (if you haven’t been checking)
Tree of Life and Drive are the overwhelming favorites.They are neck and neck to finish near the top.
You’ll see that the film that did best each year on this website since 2002 was nominated for Best Pic. And last year, the top 9 (and 10 of the top 11) were nominated for Best Pic.
Of course, I won’t say this is a “rule” but, well, I am just pointing it out.
Tree of Life will win cinematography.
I think The Artist will win Best Picture at the Oscars. I am currently predicting The Artist to win 8 Oscars (Picture, Director, Actor, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Costume Design, Editing, Score), War Horse to win 2 (Sound Mixing and Sound Editing), My Week with Marilyn to win Actress, The Help to win Supporting Actress for Spencer, Hugo to win for Art Direction, The Muppets to win for Song, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes to win Visual Effects. I’m still undecided on who will win in Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Animated, Foreign, and Documentary Film.
Ignore that comment, I was reading a summary of the scores on imdb. Doh!
“maybe his problem is how the movies reduce people with disabilities to caricatures”
Short answer: yes.
The Descendants, Hugo, Moneyball, The Help, Tree of Life, Drive and Midnight in Paris all have had 40+ metacritic reviews now and none have double digit 100 scores. The Help didn’t get any and Midnight in Paris only got 1. Which puts them with Braveheart, Crash etc in amount of 100 scores.
The Artist only has 24 reviews at the moment but has 5 100’s already.
War Horse, Extremely Loud, Dragon Tattoo, Tinker Tailor has yet to been fully reviewed though.
In terms of actual metacritic score – most of the nominees have a score in the 80s except The Help, which was never going to win anyway.
That didn’t make sense. I meant which film’s journey from script to screen to Oscar race will be the most compelling narrative.
and the fact the female was the ex-spouse of the Avatar Director made it an even better storyline.
You hit on something I didn’t even begin to think about yet this year. Which story has the narrative? Hmm….
maybe his problem is how the movies reduce people with disabilities to caricatures
—–
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, if The Artist fails to ignite at the Box Office, I think the Academy will be content with a sentiment of “they should be happy with the nomination.” If it’s a success (and considering many top Oscar nominated films do very well in January and February simply because of all the awards attention they receive) it will win easily, I think.
Whether this is fair or not, I don’t know, but that’s the way I think it will play out.
Now I know some of you will say “What about The Hurt Locker!!!!?????!!!!???” And I will say, but that’s a very different situation. The Hurt Locker came out in summer so its theatrical run was over, The Hurt Locker was more dominant in the critic’s awards than even The Artist currently is, The Hurt Locker was about a very current subject matter and it demanded to be considered as a result, and, lastly, it became the non-Avatar pick (kind of like Gingrich is the non-Romney.) People gravitated to a film so Avatar would not win, and this one seemed the best of the lot. It also didn’t hurt that it was helmed by a female director which gave it a good storyline, and the fact the female was the ex-spouse of the Avatar Director made it an even better storyline.
These, needless to say, are a bunch of circumstances that are not even remotely being replicated this Oscar season.
I couldn’t disagree more with Sharkman. The land sale plot isn’t a supblot, it is, in essence, THE plot. It is what brings the movie all together. Hence the very title of the movie. Additionally, the character of Sid is summarized perfectly in the hotel room conversation at night.
I know it is not a movie for everyone, but I think it is exactly what it wants to be. The film certainly connects to certain persons, myself included. Additionally, as far as tone and structure, I think much of it is because Hawai’i itself is a character. It is of no surprise then that the film just slowly shifts and ebbs, like the people of Hawai’i and the archipelago beneath them.
To me, it is the best film of the year and certainly the best performance by George Clooney.
Welp, my awards season is pretty much over as I have zero left in the hope department. I’ll just hang out and shoot the shit with you guys and see if anything entertaining happens. Worst year ever. I guess I’m still going to see TTSS tomorrow. What’s its score again? lol
I guess julian has a problem with movies about people with disabilities…
I take issue with the description of The Descendants as among the best of the year. Like, it’s a fine film and all, but it’s weakly structured, the land sale plot comes off as irrelevant when it shouldn’t, and the voiceover is agonizing because it violates a basic storytelling rule: show, don’t tell. And the doofus friend is pretty much obnoxious.
Oh, Rainman is another great one.
I honestly stopped paying attention to the comments after the “Crouching Tiger” is overrated response. That movie is phenomenal. It is a better action flick than Nolan has done, even with The Dark Knight. It is better than Brokeback Mountain.
The Fellowship of the Ring was easily the weakest of the trilogy. I haven’t seen all of the nominees from that year, but out of that, A Beautiful Mind, and Gosford Park, the last one is the one I would probably revisit.
Shakespeare in Love is phenomenal as well.
Universal love for Forrest Gump? Well, personally, watching it makes me physically uncomfortable. Almost as uncomfortable as watching Rainman…almost.
I love “Return of the King” of course, but “The Fellowship of the Ring” was always my favorite of the 3, because it did not focus on one or two battles, and had so much transition taking place in it from start to finish, I was never bored for second. Also the characters were new and fresh and you were curious about them, they were all very well developed and portrayed and somehow in the second and third films they were not as interesting to me. I had some problems with Aragorn in “Return of the King”.
And the reason I found it interesting is cause I thought there was universal love for those movies, particularly Forrest Gump. I guess the love wasn’t so universal with the critics though…
*scorned
@ Mark
If you puc The Help in this list, you probably have the BP nominees. I still think Extremely Loud will pull a The Reader-True Grit late turn and get nominated.
But moreso Ryan and Paddy my top favorite films are ones that the Academy apparently scored…for instance Rear Window. Sure Hitchcock got a director nomination but they neglected to recognize the picture.
Here’s hoping the Oscar nominations are as follows:
The Artist
The Descendents
War Horse
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
Midnight in Paris
Hugo
Moneyball
You people are crazy. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is fantastic. That is all.
No, Scott, that’s not interesting. That’s quite expected.
now, now.
it’s supposed to a day of celebration.
I will say this: Scott gets a hard time around here for his taste in movies — but it is interesting that a significant segment of the Academy shares his taste often enough to award those movies that many of us scorn.
although… you’re right too, Paddy M. That’s what we’ve learned to expect every few years.
Huh, interesting that my favorites were the worst reviewed of the winners…
Gladiator
Forrest Gump
A Beautiful Mind
Haven’t seen Braveheart
in continuation to above, gladiator was a clear win, at least the juries felt the other way as compared to critics because gladiator won BFCA, GG, PGA, BAFTA and then it WON oscar. it was pretty much sure it’ll win oscar after winning major awards.
nope, gladiator and a beautiful mind were good films and yes crouching tiger was too overrated.
metacritic is a little peculiar when it comes to give ratings, most of the films which get rating in 90’s are not even considered for awards and it hardly gives any films rating in 90’s these days.
the worst film to win best picture was shakespeare in love by all means. it was a mess. infact oscars of 1998 were a mess. roberto, gwyneth, judi, life is beautiful along with shakespeare in love were all rubbish oscars given when they had better contenders who deserved to win.
Sasha, you crack me up!
“They don’t overthink these things. They don’t sit there with their ballot and say, “America, fuck yeah.”
I think Harry still has a shot. Ebert gave it the same score as King. And he only gave Ben Button 2.5 stars and that got nominated.
Oh and Gladiator sucks balls. One of the very worst winners ever.
Whatever way you cut it, if going by reviews, The King’s Speech always ends up amongst the 5 best reviewed Best Pictures of the last 20 years.
And yet people somehow think that The King’s Speech is a critic’s disaster or a very horribly reviewed film or something like that.
Sigh.
Maybe it’s just the Clooney tie, but I see Descendants as this year’s Michael Clayton or Up In The Air….several nominations, lots of pre-awards buzz, but its momentum just totally peters out by Oscar night. Maybe this is my own underwhelming feelings about the movie taking over, but I don’t see Descendants as a major player whatsoever.
@ Robin
I see your point. I agree with you about Rob Marshall. He was totally unknown. Mingela was pretty much unknown but he already had a BAFTA for screenplay before The English Patient and his film was just too big to be ingnored. It won 9 Academy Awards… only 4 films in history have won more than that. The Artist will not win 9 Oscars. Hugo is going to get the most technical awards probably. The only case I can remember of a non-American or British winner that had not built a name before is Milos Forman in 1975. Hazanavicus could happen… But right now I’m predicting Scorecese.
Gladiator is a much better film than Crash and A Beautiful Mind. It’s one of the greatest period epics of the last 20, 30 years. It may not be as good as Traffic, but is definitely better than Chocolat, Erin Brockovich and one of the most overrated films of all time Crouching Tigger, Hidden Dragon.
@ JP : The Inglorious Basterds campaign show us that nobody’s perfect. But he bounced back last year beating the critical juggernaut Social Network. I agree about Hopper, but i am not talking about quality or my taste (for me Hugo > The Artist, Social Network > The King’s Speech) but for Oscar chances and his ability to enhance them every time (ok ALMOST every time) he’s got a good product.
@ JP
The majority of Academy members couldn’t care less about TV shows when it comes to their votes. To them, Tom Hooper was an unknown director, he could even have been a debut director for all they care, who had turned in one of the most critically acclaimed, star-pleasing films of the year. Michel Hazanavicius fits the same mould exactly.
You think voters were keenly award of Hooper’s TV credits? Or they just went gaga for the movie? I mean you could bring up Hazanavicius’ other film credits for that matter…
I see no reason at all why Hazanavicius can’t beat out some established names. The fact that he stands out for one. Scorcese, Spielberg, Allen and Payne all have Oscars and Malick isn’t coming close to winning, so that leaves Daldry as someone they might want to award before they give it to the “new guy” but as his film has built very little steam and he’s been a filler each time he’s been nominated I don’t see it. Minghella wasn’t much of anybody when he beat out Mike Leigh, Milos Forman and the Coens for “The English Patient” and neither was Hooper last year. The DGA gave Rob Marshall an award over Scorcese despite the former being a complete newcomer and Marty having his best shot ever to finally win at the time. When people love a film, name recognition isn’t really important or Dujardin and Bejo wouldn’t be the shoo-ins they are either.
@ Minas But it’s different… although I find nothing special about Tom Hopper, a mediocre director compared to the ones he beat. But he made two of the most successful minisseries of the decade in terms of awards… Elizabeth I and John Addams.
I’m always surprised by how bad “Gladiator’s” reviews were, I mean it’s held in MUCH higher esteem than something like “Crash” or “A Beautiful Mind” nowadays, a populist classic in fact. I’ve read the majority of the reviews and I still think there was a bizzare negative approach to it in general. I don’t think it was untill we saw the various failed attempts at cashing in on its success (“Troy”, “Alexander”, “Kingdom of Heaven” etc…) that it became clear what a triumph it actually was in tapping into that classic Hollywood epic style.
Critics don’t vote on the Oscars. Yes, they can be a useful barometer on how well-liked the films are, but this kind of statistical critic-based approach doesn’t really take that very important fact into consideration.
@ JP: Last year they went for a (relaltive unknown) Englishman over the Coen Bros and Fincher. I see your point but it can happen again especially if you consider the Harvey factor.
Those are interesting comparisons Paddy, but The Artist is such a total art house exercise in pastiche film making; I think its winning would be relatively unprecedented.
Having seen an early screening of EXTREMELY LOUD I still have to say I am completely shocked by its total ommission at both the Globes and the SAG; the film not only is total “Oscar” bait in every way, its actually a terrific film. I can’t comprehend it beyond to surmise that Scott Rudin just really mis-calculated by not making it readily available enough in time.
Sasha, I’d actually love to hear your take on this. Statistics are made to be broken, but at this point is there any chance a movie like EXTREMELY LOUD could still be a major contender in the Oscar race, or does its lack of early visibility for the precursors render it DOA?
@ Minas
The Harvey factor is strong. But he failed to make Inglorious Basterds a BP winner and it had quite enough elements to be the middle term between the big blockbuster (avatar) and the big indie (the hurt locker)… and I actually found the film campaign had a couple of problems… starting by not really defining clearly If Melanie Laurent was lead or supporting. And then by not getting nominations for Costume Design and Art Direction, what is inexcusable… it was the biggest period film of that year. With this 2 bids, Basterds would have had the most noms and would have gained more momentum after winning the SAG.
I still see The Artist losing to Hugo. My concern is that BP and Best Director hardly ever don’t go to the same film. It has to be a pretty much special situation to make this split. And I don’t see such a special case this year just as I don’t see them giving a Best Director Oscar to an unknown french over 5 of the most acclaimed american filmakers (allen, spielberg, scorcese, malick and payne).
@ Marcus
The Artist’s box office thus far has been good enough. It’s probably never going to expand to such an extent that it cracks, say, the Top 5, as Slumdog Millionaire did. But I don’t think it needs to, as not many have predicted that it could even stand a chance of catching on with mainstream cinema-goers. Anyway, The Hurt Locker’s box office was very disappointing for a Best Picture winner, and it had even more of an uphill battle than The Artist to begin with.
Great article and very useful statistics. The one thing i want to add is the Harvey factor. Whenever he has a good product (The King’s Speech, The Artist, Shakespeare in Love), he wins. Simple as that. Whenever the product is not as good( The Cider House Rules, Chocolat), he loses. He is the best Oscar campaign orchestrator. The Ebert factor was at its peak in 2004 and 2005. Million Dollar Baby’s and Crash’s chances were not the same after he (almost)became a spokeperson of their quality. The most important thing however for a film is its endurance through the years. Something that happened with the works of Stanley Kubrick.
OK. Moneyball will win it. As a compromise.
Ebert only gave Return of the King 3.5 stars.
I’m still not convinced THE ARTIST is going to take off at the box office. At the end of the day, despite the love from the critics, its a silent film and I think it is still going to be a tough sell. I’m not ready to call the race over just yet.