Producer: Thomas Langmann

Producers: Judd Apatow, Barry Mendel, Clayton Townsend

Producers: Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor

Producers: Ceán Chaffin, Scott Rudin

Producers: Michael Barnathan, Chris Columbus, Brunson Green

Producers: Graham King, Martin Scorsese

Producers: George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Brian Oliver

Producers: Letty Aronson, Stephen Tenenbaum

Producers: Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz, Brad Pitt

Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg

The Producers Guild of America Producer of the Year Award in Animated Theatrical Motion Pictures:

Producers: Peter Jackson, Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg

Producer: Denise Ream

Producer: Melissa Cobb

Producers: Joe M. Aguilar, Latifa Ouaou

Producers: John B. Carls, Gore Verbinski

Load More Related Articles
Load More By Ryan Adams
Load More In PGA
  • Dave L

    Can we follow this online or twitter or something?

  • The last update from the PGA Twitter page was Dec 27th.

  • Matt

    When do they announce?

  • Logan


  • Beth Stevens

    I believe the PGA is the only other group besides the Academy that uses the preferential voting system.

  • John

    Which is why the PGA nominees will be extremely similar to the future Best Picture Oscar nominees when they’re announced in late January. The voting system is the same.

  • Beth Stevens

    Yeah, but this year the PGA has 10 slots, while Oscar probably will have fewer than 10. Still, I’m very interested to see what the PGA list looks like, because our Oscar nominees could likely all be included on it this time.

  • Film Fatale

    Hooray for Jolie. In the Land of Blood and Honey is a major work by a first-time director and it absolutely cements her, in one fell swoop, a a major new writer/director. It is passionate, political, boldly designed, shot and acted.

    To think that Jolie wrote and directed it is mind-blowing, and that is a compliment.

  • Matt

    Ahh! I can’t handle all this uncertainty!

  • Again, what time do we think they are going to announce? The suspense is killing me!

  • Beth Stevens

    9 am Pacific

  • rufussondheim

    Please, if you think the Producers will match the Academy at large, you are mistaken. Sure, it will be similar, but the producers of are a different mindset than other movie professions. The role of these awards is to exclude certain movies from further discussion, like if HP8 gets excluded, then its chances for Best Pic are officially over. Or maybe it can provide some momentum for a studio film that’s not been in the mix thus far, something like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. For a movie like Drive, if it doesn’t get included, I don’t think that says too much either way.

    This is merely another piece of the puzzle. And we will give it far too much attention when we get this piece, at least until The Hollywood Awards Industry decides to toss us another piece.

  • forg

    I hope to see some surprises

  • Heath87

    The Artist
    The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
    The Descendants
    The Help
    War Horse
    The Tree of Life
    Midnight in Paris
    Harry Potter

  • Gustavo

    Actually this was the second accolade for “In the Land of Blood and Honey”. It was nominated to the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film.

  • forg

    excited to see the nominations, should be out anytime now right?

  • Max G

    I miss HP7.2 and Drive.

  • Yogsss

    So, the globes and the PGA picking “Ides of March” doesn’t tell you anything about it? It may have a chance.
    I’m so glad to see Hugo and… DRAGON TATTOO!!!!!

  • forg

    Wow The Ides of March and Bridesmaids!

    Game over for Harry Potter 🙁

  • steve50

    FUCK – I knew it – no Drive, no Tree of Life. Great list if you’re 6 years old.

  • Stefan

    Good night, “Drive” and “Tree of Life”. Oscar was not meant to be. But happy for “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” and “The Ides of March”.

  • Darwin

    no drive or tree of life

  • Beth Stevens

    No Tree of Life – now I’m pissed. At least Hugo is there, so I have something to root for. Also pleased for Dragon Tattoo.

  • joe

    Bye bye Drive and Potter. Tree of Life still has a chance. Great push for Dragon Tattoo. Not feeling Ides of March but whatever.

  • Greg Y

    Bridesmaids? Over Drive? What a shame.

  • Adrian

    Maybe there is still chance. I don’t believe BRIDESMAIDS or DRAGON TATTOO could get oscar nomination.

  • Mel

    Nice. You got that up lightning fast Ryan!

    So…..historically, how closely do the Oscar BP noms fall in line with the PGA? Or about the PGA and GG combined? If a picture is nominated for both, does it generally make it more definite for Oscar?

  • John

    No Tree of Life, no Drive and no Potter? Wow. That’s a shame. I still hope that The Tree of Life will somehow make it.

  • J.-C. B.

    I have to say it: I am just appalled every time I see Bridesmaids on any list of great achievements of 2011. Here especially. Good to know that the Oscar BP list may include less than 10 : hopefully that one will not make it.

  • Adam Lewis

    Yay for Tintin!!!

  • AdamA

    It is so not over for Tree of Life. The DGA could easily put it back on the map.

    Also: Bridesmaids! Woohoo!

    Also: Ides of March is a bigger sleeper than I thought–a PGA nom and a GG Drama nom aren’t bad resume-builders at all. What are the stats on that?

  • Maybe the acedemy fix all the guild’s mistakes… (sorry for my english)

  • Stefan

    SAG, Globes, PGA….. Does that mean that Bridesmaids now has a shot? Really? I must work on my sense of humour.

  • akumax

    it’s not about being happy or sad, it’s not about agree with a choice it’s the basic understanding of cinema. out of ten nominees the absence of The Tree of Life and Drive and Harry Potter last film is just a stain for a guild of producers. The best in 2011 is out of the list

  • Arthur

    i can’t say it doesn’t hurt me as an HP fan, but i can’t say i’m surprised with this list….

    AFTER THis last 30 days of Potter snubbing why would this be any different

  • TonyBiigood

    Dragon Tattoo !!

  • AdamA

    I must be a strange duck, because Drive was my favorite film of the year, and Bridesmaids wasn’t far behind. Don’t see the logic behind singling out Bridesmaids as the reason Drive was snubbed. (And I do agree it should have been recognized.)

  • A.J

    So if this was a year of 10 Bridesmaids would basically be considered a lock at this point wouldn’t it? How interesting. Glad to see Tree of Life gone, film sucks. Let’s not forget that nominating War Horse and Dragon Tattoo had little to nothing to do with their box office takes. Please Academy please let’s kill The Ides of March. We get it it everyone loves Ryan Gosling and George Clooney but Clooney has a horse in this derby and Gosling has a better one that should be in this derby.

  • Arthur

    So, Is Bridesmaids a BP Nomination REAL CONTENDER ????????
    I mean who would have thought that back in the summer

  • Anonymous

    Bridesmaids!! Glad Tree of life is out. Too bad Drive didn’t get in.

  • Yogsss

    Oh fuck, Moneyball is there too? FUCKING GREAT!!! 😀

  • TonyBiigood

    I’m Still Think That Fincher has a good Shot for the DGA :).

  • Bobby C.

    Bridesmaids? Really?! I’ll take Drive, Tree of Life or Harry Potter 7.2 over it.

  • rufussondheim

    I should have entered the contest – I got 9 of 10! I missed The Ides of March (instead picking Super 8)

    Sad to see no Drive, but I really am not suprised. Tree of Life exclusion is also expected, and wrong. But these are producers, they are money people. Which makes it curious that they didn’t nomination HP8, but, then, that would make them seem less prestigious.

    With this slate, they can have their cake and eat it too.

  • Jerry

    I was right about them leaving HP2 out but did not see Bridesmaid or Ides of March sneaking in there instead of Tree of Life or even Drive. Ides was nothing exceptional or nothing new to contribute to the political drama, you only have to turn on your t.v. to see Herman Cain or Bill Clinton about a decade back. Bridesmaid was entertaining but I would never put it before The Tree of Life to represent the best in cinema for the year. *scratches head*.

  • Sasha, that Bridesmaids call was spot on all along. Disappointing that it and The Ides of March had to replace Drive and The Tree of Life, but happy that Dragon Tattoo is in there! Didn’t see that coming!

    Happiest, though, that Harry Potter is not. I liked the film, but I can’t abide the trolls…

  • iretos

    But, truly speaking, from a viewer’s point of view, who cares???

  • Too Many AJs

    I think this might be the nail in the coffin for Tree of Life’s Best Picture chances (though hopefully it’ll get a Cinematography nom). I’d say we’re looking at just seven nominees:

    The Artist
    The Descendants
    The Help
    Midnight in Paris
    War Horse

  • The Great Dane

    Bridesmaids does NOT have a shot. Hangover didn’t get in, not even for screenplay – and it even won the Best Picture Globe!

    The PGA always gives a nod to a big commercial hit. But weird that they shunned HP7B since HP1 was in their Top 5 back then. Ides of March won’t get the needed no. 1 votes. Don’t think Dragon Tattoo will get them either. I’m starting to think that we’re indeed looking at a max of 7 Best Picture nominees. With The Help and Midnight in Paris being last in line and could easily not get their 300 #1 votes either.

  • anonymous

    Bobby C. Yes, Bridesmaids, really. It is one of the best comedies I have even seen. It is funny, and it’s got heart and soul. I am so glad that it even got a SAG Best Ensemble nod, and now PGA. Time to get over it,the bias against a film like Bridesmaids is not really necessarily. However, it is your opinion. I am glad Tree of life is out though. Hooray

  • anonymous

    I think the Oscar best picture nominees would be the following…
    The Descendant
    The Artist
    The Help
    Midnight in Paris
    War Horse
    Bridesmaids(No guts, no Glory)

  • anonymous

    The Great Dane. Not saying you are wrong, but Hangover didn’t get SAG ensemble nod, and best supporting no, did it?

  • anonymous

    If Bridesmaids got a WGA nod, that would mean, it might really have a shot for best picture nomination,,,(PGA,WGA,SAG)

  • Ina Hark

    Bridesmaids made money and has a SAG ensemble nom (as well as Globe comedy.) I think we’re at 8 Oscar films with Bridesmaids taking the final slot. We’ll have to wait for the DGA but Tree of Life may still have a shot at Best Director. I never thought BP was a likely possibility for it.

  • anonymous

    Goodbye. Tree of life!
    Goodbye. Harry Potter 8
    I am grateful and glad.

  • Brainy Pirate

    Wouldn’t Bridesmaids simply be taking the “4 Weddings and a Funeral” or “The Full Monty” or “Little Miss Sunshine” slot in the BP category? Why is it so unbelievable that it might get a nom? They’ve often awarded the big hit comedies.

  • anonymous

    I don’t think DGA is going to be so hard to predict..
    War Horse
    The Artist
    The Help
    Midnight in Paris

  • anonymous

    Bridesmaid is simply an excellent comedy with substance, period.
    Its box office status doesn’t hurt either. I won’t be surprised if it goes either way, but the fact is it’s got Globe, SAG, PGA, and possibly WGA.
    It is very good news for Bridesmaids.

  • bd74

    The Tree of Life was absolute dreck! And I say that as a Malick fan. Glad it wasn’t among the PGA nominees.

  • Kholby

    Midnight in Paris.

    It IS the highest grossing independent film of the year and the highest grossing movie of Woody Allen’s career in a time when the box office is the lowest it’s been in 16 years!

    And again, I say, I should re-watch Tree of Life, because I did NOT get it whatsoever.

    Also, I’m SUPER excited to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Its box office increased (as do most from the Christmas to the New Year weekend) much more than any other wide release. Perhaps it’s building?

  • James

    Good Lord, not Bridesmaids! That film has no imagination whatsoever, it’s like a rehash of past episodes of SNL and other sitcoms. Might have been funny at times, but no way, cmon. Now it seems quite comforting that there won’t be 10 nominees at the Oscars. Bridesmaids over Tree of Life… like scrap metal over platinum.

  • PaulH

    Yay Bridesmaids and Moneyball. Meh, everything else. Directors’ reputations got their respective films through nominee-wise *coughSpielbergScorsesePayneFincherAllenClooneycough*. Insurgency candidates Tree of Life and Harry Potter 7.2 R.I.P.? Probably.

  • I’ve never understood what these nominations actually mean that’s why I don’t guess in the contests, etc. I mean it’s the producer’s guild. So it should be about profitability right? I mean the people complaining about DRIVE shouldn’t have expected it because it didn’t get huge or maybe even decent box office right? I mean the point of producing a film to make money, isn’t it? It’s not about art or acting or lighting or any of that crap. So if the Potter people are upset I understand. It made all the money this year. But DRIVE is practically an indie film.

  • They are kidding, right?
    Where is “Drive”? And what about “Tree of Life”?

  • J.-C. B.

    Anonymous, I agree, matter of opinion. One of the problems I had with Bridesmaids (apart from its vulgarity) is that it is a film where adults behave like teenagers, and sometimes even children. I never find that funny. Give me a story where adults face real problems and react in a funny adult way anytime. Also, everything in it (wedding planning — again! Is that a national obsession or what? –, woman makes the wrong choice in men and finally opens her eyes, woman finds courage to get back in business etc.) felt to me like déjà-vu (too) many times.

  • anonymous

    Oh just because Christian Wigg is in Bridesmaids doesn’t mean it is just rehash of SNP episodes. I love how pretentious the Tree of Life fans get. There is a reason why Bridesmaids got nominated. It’s funny, it’s got heart and soul, it connects to people emotionally in general. I am so glad to see The Tree of Life out because it is pretentious, self indulgent, it is the kind of art house film that attracts pretentious audience and critics. Hooray, but I would agree that it is too bad that Drive didn’t get a PGA nod here…

  • anonymous

    @J C B. But adults to behave like teenagers sometimes. We are not perfect, we are immature, and we screw things up. What do you want the characters to be have in Bridesmaids? Like the ones in Tree of Life??

  • anonymous

    However,JCB. I understand your problem with Bridesmaids. It is a matter of opinions, you are right.

  • Joseph

    Paddy M, again with misusing the term ‘troll.’ Shut up.

  • Mohammed

    Bridesmaid ????? Realy ? It’s not a film with an artistic merrit. It has it’s funny moments, but was as bad if not worse then turd Part I & II called Hangover. I gues not it’s enough to be female and make a farty-film to be considered legit.

    Does anyone know if A Separation and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy were qualified ?

  • JJ

    I think I’ve figured out why HARRY POTTER isn’t going the distance – most probably figure the $ it made was reward enough. But, frankly, it all comes down to character and beating the odds – was there ever any doubt Harry wouldn’t triumph? And frankly, Longbottom emerging the hero was dumb. Ron and Hermione fell into the background in the final part. When Frodo and Sam made it to Mordor, it was a powerful triumph. HP7.2 was a bit messy at the end, with odd foregrounding and backgrounding of characters. It didn’t feel like the victory it should have felt like. And the x years later thing was unnecessary. Should have had an open ending.

  • Bob Burns

    leaving off Potter is suicidal. I saw little evidence of the Potter crowd doing the monkey dance, but, as I’ve said, why should they care?

    I only actually care about a couple of these films, unlike last year when we had eight worthy contenders.

  • James

    Bridesmaids got heart? Sure, and it’s got colon, rectum and anus as well. Defecating in the middle of the street sure is classy.

  • Dragoneer

    I think PGA members nominate based on the perceived challenge of bringing a project from idea to screen; if it also makes money, even better.

  • Marie

    This list sucks. You had so many more deserving movies that didn’t make the cut. I agree with the poster who said The Academy should fix the Guild’s mistakes. VERY DISAPPOINTED!

    Even the animated picks were subpar. Why in the hell would they pick the panned Cars 2?! I even thought Happy Feet 2 which also got lower reviews was much better in quality. Rio, Gnomeo & Juliet, Chico & Rita, Arthur Christmas….and I really thought the PGA would nominate Winnie the Pooh! I hope Winnie the Pooh makes the Oscar cut over Cars 2. I personally do not understand why the souless Rango with its weak script and mediocre plot is the frontrunner. I hope it does not win everything.

    There is no way in hell The Academy is going to follow this list. The discrepancies between the precursors continues. It is almost like the PGA just went with the most popular choices they read on blogs. The DGA and WGA better not follow suit with this. I hope the BAFTA’s are not intimidated by the precursors blatant snobbery snubbing against Potter and give it some recognition in major categories.

    I think Bridesmaids, Ides of March, The Help, and possibly Midnight in Paris might be replaced by The Academy.

    I think The Academy might go for Tree of Life, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 ( If the BAFTA’s heavily nominate it), Drive, The Dangerous Method, or Tinker, Tailor, Solider Spy, and possibly In the Land of Blood & Honey if it can overcome the blatant media bias against Jolie because its rating is not certified yet because it needs more reviews. It deserves to be critically acclaimed.

    I don’t get the sheep who are rejoicing at TOL and HP being egregiously snubbed. They are much better choices than some of the movies on this list. TOL is a true masterpiece and Malick’s magnum opus. The HP Franchise deserves recognition.

    The PGA’s list does not reflect the range of choices that most cinemaphiles would choose nor the best movies of the year. They need to pick movies that will have longevity, not the current hip choices like The Help or Bridesmaids where I bet ten years from now, people will be wondering why they received so much awards buzz.
    I didn’t think Bridemaids had any more substance than Knocked Up or Superbad for pete’s sake. I was offended by The Help and I won’t go into another diatribe about it. People have the nerve to talk about sentimental manipulation in Spielberg’s movies…The Help was the most manipulative film of the year that also exploits a false portrait of culture, history & racial dynamics/white guilt.

    I am happy that the The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Moneyball, and War Horse managed to make the list considering they were on the bubble.

    I expected the current sentiment to be favoring The Artist or Hugo. I hope they pick Hugo. Or it would be wonderful if they broke away from the pack and choose something else that would change the race as it is not the Ides of March, Midnight in Paris, Bridesmaids, or The Help. I actually liked Bridemaids but I don’t think it is awards-worthy it the slightest.

  • Flavio

    They nominated Mad Men on TV? There was no show in 2011! WTF?

  • Matthew

    I’m amazed at how quickly ppl have cast aside The Ides of March, as if the Globe nomination was some strange out of this universe anomaly.

    The Academy LOVES mediocre political dramas. They always have. Frost/Nixon made it onto a 5 nomination ticket in a very competitive year.

    Add in the big year for Clooney and Gosling and you have a fierce competitor for a BP nom.

  • geremy

    Maybe PGA can do for Dragon Tattoo what they did for District 9 a couple years ago. I love it when less conventional films get honored.
    Too bad about Drive, hopefully Refn can still pull a nom in Director.
    I guess I’ve got no choice now but to see Bridesmaids.

  • Blue

    I love this list! The only thing that makes me sad is Winnie the Pooh getting snubbed over Cars 2.


  • anonymous

    James. Yes, Bridesmaids’s got heart, even though it has very raunchy scenes. Your bias, and snobbish attitude against Bridesmaids is obvious. Well, you go ahead and argue with those thousands of producers who nominated Bridesmaids. You want to be snobbish? I guess I can be snobbish. We are talking about film professionals who work in the film industry. It is their choice, they rejected The Tree of Life, too bad for you, and it is too good for me!!! Get over it already. Bridesmaids has been nominated for SAG, PGA, and possibly WGA. You will have one hell of a rough week this week if that happens.

  • My net connection went down 5 minutes after the nominations went up.

    Troubleshooting. Back online soon.

    In the meantime, I’m letting Marie be my spokesperson. I agree with just about every word she wrote.

  • If it had been last year, yes, the ones you are all mourning – Harry Potter, Drive, The Tree of Life – would have been considered OUT


    now it’s time to consider the Academy’s new voting system, because they DID change it, while the guilds and other precursors didn’t, so in the end, we might just find out that the precursors became irrelevant because of that.

    – ‘The Tree of Life’ is EXACTLY the kind of film that could be helped greatly by the new rule…it doesn’t need a lot of votes, it just needs 5% No1…and I think there might be a passionate fanbase there to pull that off.

    – Are we really that sure that there are 5% in the Academy who will put ‘Bridesmaids’ at No1 ? Even if there is the considerable girl-power in the Academy to pull that off, they are probably championing ‘The Help’, another film that might sound VERY strong, but could be hurt by the new voting system. These kind of impressive precursors would have put ‘Bridesmaids’ in lock-status last year, BUT this is EXACTLY the kind of film that could prove that the precursors might have just become irrelevant this year because the Academy changed their voting system…and the others did NOT.

    – If Clooney gets a DGA-nod, ‘The Ides of March’ is IN. Sure, the semi-unexpected GG/PGA love was a surprise, but let’s face it : the industry LOVES George Clooney. So if he gets the DGA-nod, that would prove to me that there will be probably 5% No1 in the Academy, too, even if not many No2s, No3s etc…so this is AGAIN, a film that the new rule will probably help…although considering the HFPA and PGA did NOT change their voting system and still nominated it, might prove ALREADY, that we had been seriously underestimating this one. Well, not anymore!

    – ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ seems to be recovering after the whole way-too-late-entry-might-fuck-up-our-Oscar-chances fiasco. I firmly believe Fincher will get a DGA-nod and the film will be a strong Oscar player in the end. I also think Mara will get a nod and will knock out Swinton, because the Academy doesn’t seem to get her and Mara will be – probably – in a bp-nominee. It also helps that she started building great buzz around the time the voting started…

    – And finally…Harry Potter and Drive. Last year, this would have been the moment (the PGA-absence) when I had given up on them BUT the new 5% rule changed the game…just like I’m really not that sure (at all) that ‘Bridesmaids’ will get 5% No1, I am VERY sure that these two just MIGHT. I’m not saying they WILL, I’m saying – thanks to the new rule – they shouldn’t be ruled out just yet. All they need is a relatively small (5% No1) passionate fanbase…and I think in HP’s case, the technical branches and especially the British-vote (they don’t have any other top contenders) might just cover that crucial 5%. Drive ? I don’t know…for what it’s worth there IS considerable critical support behind it (BFCA-love, 4 bd-wins, 1 bp-win, 1 script-win, 13 supporting actor-wins), the problem is, critics do NOT vote for Oscars…but they MIGHT influence the ones who DO.

    That’s my two cents.

  • bd74

    “TOL is a true masterpiece and Malick’s magnum opus.”

    Was TTOL better than all his other films? Absolutely no way!!! I’ve seen all his films, and I would rank TTOL as his worst.

  • anonymous

    You don’t get why Producers rejected TOL?
    It simple, it is their opinion. Just because you think TOL should have been recognized, that doesn’t mean they have to agree with you. That is one of the many problems with many Oscar bloggers here, they can’t accept different opinions. They get mad if their films don’t get selected. Sasha is right, the trick is really not minding. It is the industry’s choice, not yours and not mind. We can only agree or disagree.

  • * exceptions to Marie’s remarks:
    I love Rango.
    & no way will Midnight in Paris fail to be nominated.

  • Zooey

    No Drive and The Tree of Life – SHAME!
    But still a nod for Clooney’s mediocre The Ides of March?!?!
    I still believe that Mallick will be a directing nominee and The Tree of Life could really get into best picture!

  • Daveylow

    Antoinette writes: I mean the point of producing a film to make money, isn’t it? It’s not about art or acting or lighting or any of that crap.


    Not really so. The Hurt Locker barely made any money and it was nominated. And won, I believe.

    The Producers Guild chose Brokeback Mountain the year Crash won the Oscar for BP. So they do care about art.

  • Keifer

    “The Ides of March” and “Bridesmaids” are questionable choices.

    No Harry Potter? No Tree of Life?

    Otherwise, probably a pretty decent, although rather predictable, list encompassing most of the critic’s choices this year.

    Well, what the list means essentially is to put the nail in the coffin for an AMPAS Best Picture nomination for HP.

    Unless BAFTA embraces HP in their nominations (which it very well could considering its their most successful franchise), then any hope of a BP nomination come Oscar time has evaporated forever. I am sad to say.

  • The PGA includes TV producers.

    The guys who produce Two & a Half Men are members of the PGA. They like Bridesmaids better than Drive or Tree of Life? So be it. THEY HAVE A VOICE!

  • Keifer


    Thank you for your analysis re HP and TOL. I enjoyed reading your blog.

    And it gave me some hope.

    Wow. The nominations this year will be actually suspenseful.

    I’m glad about that.


  • Houstonrufus

    This is a disappointing list for me. Drive and Tree of Life are my two favorite films of the year. I’m sort of not surprised at their exclusion, but this does make me less enthusiastic about what’s ahead. I hope DGA can pull a surprise for Refn or Malick.

    I like several films on the list, but am only passionate about Drive and Tree of Life this year. Just not my year I guess. ha! Oh, well.

  • Matthew

    I think people over estimated Harry Potter from the beginning.

    Warner Bros’ FYC campaign was not nearly as big as people claimed it to be. It was much more a Holiday DVD campaign than any thing else.

    A November release definitely would have helped its Oscar chances, but WB is in for Potter as a cash cow and not a ticket to an awards do.

    As a Potter fan, I’ll be pleased if it can pick up three or four tech noms, much like Pans Labyrinth, District 9 and Children of Men. None of those films required trophy cases to garner their esteemed status.

  • anonymous

    ““The Ides of March” and “Bridesmaids” are questionable choices.

    No Harry Potter? No Tree of Life?”

    Exactly, they didn’t pick them because they didn’t think they were worthy, it is their opinion.

  • PaulH

    Go Puss in Boots! Boo to the automatic Pixar nomination slot. Boo for Gnomeo and Juliet on the outside looking in. 😐

  • rufussondheim

    OK, Reality Check –

    Bridesmaids is the #11 movie on the Critic’s Top 10 Lists. It’s appeared on more top 10 lists than Harry Potter, War Horse, The Help or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Those who say it is not awards worthy are not looking at it objectively.

    Personally, I think it’s on the outside of the Best Pic race, but just barely. I have it firmly in the top 10 for my Oscar Likeliness. But only if they go to 8 or 9 films. It will be hard for it to make it in if it’s only 7 films.

    The Ides of March is no Frost/Nixon. The latter received much better critical notices. You might not have liked it, but even if you are in the academy, you are only one voice in a sea of 5000 people.

    On a more vicious note, I’m sick of people not being able to look at anything objectively. Watching poster after poster say stuff like “Bridesmaids is trash, there is no way it will get nominated!” or, similarly, “Harry Potter has revolutionized the way humanity thinks about cinema, therefore it should win!” are not only do us a disservice by having to read their drivel, but they are doing themselves a disservice by making themselves look like idiots.

    Maintain some objectivity, people. The world is not made up of people who think just like you. Opinions outside of your own are extremely valid and probably more widespread than you can ever comprehend.


    On that note, I liked Bridesmaids, I thought it was very funny, even though the shit-joke section was entirely stupid. But it had many sequences that were inspired and spot-on in addressing behavior we all partake in but never admit that we do.

    Even though I wouldn’t nominate it, I would love to see it get a nomination. Too many comedies don’t get nominated. It would be nice to see that change.

    I do hope that whatever bit of momemtum it picks up today is not too late. Hopefully those academy members didn’t mail in their ballots already (I probably would have if I were them)

  • PaulH

    Perhaps the PGA saw that Drive was along the lines of the Fast and Furious series or Gone in 60 Seconds. How much is this Drive love for the movie itself, and how much is it wishful thinking for folks to see Refn get a director nod?

  • Tero Heikkinen

    Ides of March was a big surprise. Bridesmaids was expected, IMO. The lack of The Tree of Life was not expected, but I think it still has a shot for an Oscar nomination.

  • Sasha Stone

    leaving off Potter is suicidal. I saw little evidence of the Potter crowd doing the monkey dance, but, as I’ve said, why should they care?

    I agree. A real slap in the face.

  • anonymous

    There will always be one or two PGA nominated films that don’t get on AMPAS’ list, so that doesn’t mean Drive is not going to be nominated, but one thing for sure is that The Artist, The Descendant, The Help, Midnight in Paris, and Hugo should have no problems getting in.

  • James

    Anonymous, of course I’m biased and snobbish(?) against Bridesmaids coz I didn’t like it! And I’m not gonna have a hell week coz I’m used to these tragic awards scenarios. And you don’t have to lecture any of us about who made this and that choice and that we can’t do anything about it coz we already know that the same way we know that we can beg to differ if we want to! OK?

  • anonymous

    Sure. I just voiced my opinion about your bias and snobbishness, but unfortunately for you, Bridesmaids is becoming a contender, and I am delighted to see its being recognized.

  • Matthew

    There seems to have been little discussion about the continued resiliency of Midnight in Paris.

    Is it a bigger player than people are giving it credit for?

    Considering the love for Woody amongst SAG, the largest squad in the Academy, is it possible that MiP sitting in the top 3?

  • anonymous

    Now the question is, who will win PGA? Conservatively speaking, I will say The Artist, unfortunately in my opinion.

  • murtaza

    bridesmaids and midnight in paris over tree of life and drive is shameful. you cannot ignore tree of life and drive, 2011 isn’t complete without these two movies. they were essential.
    as for harry potter 7 i’m so glad it got kicked out of the race, that bullshit movie received reviews only because critics went sentimental that ohhh harry potter finally comes to an end, give it reviews for once. it was no different or no better than its previous installments, if people loved this episode so much they should’ve given similar critical response to all previous ones especially HP 7 part 1 which was way way better than final.

  • “Perhaps the PGA saw that Drive was along the lines of the Fast and Furious series or Gone in 60 Seconds”

    Perhaps that’s what the Cannes jury thought. Perhaps not.

  • Robert A.

    I wonder sometimes if we’re overestimating how much this new Academy rule is going to impact the Best Picture nominees. I understand that we’re entering a bit into uncharted waters here, but why do I feel as if, when the nominees are finally announced, it’s all going to look pretty predictable and standard, just like every other year.

    I’m willing to bet money that “Drive” and “Harry Potter” are done. Call it a wrap. “Drive” was probably my favorite movie of the year, but I just can not see it getting in, at this point. Frankly, I never did think it would factor in much with the Academy despite its good showing with critic awards. I also think we tend to overestimate the “Brit voting block,” like it’s some borg entity voting for nationalistic pride instead of a bunch of individual British voters voting on their favorite films (at least I hope that’s what they’re doing).

    If “The Tree of Life” misses out on a DGA nomination, then I think it’s chances are slim as well. Malick is always a tough call. In 1998 “The Thin Red Line” didn’t receive a PGA nomination or Globe nods, yet it did get the DGA nod and went on to get seven Oscar nominations. (Of course, it didn’t get a PGA nomination in a field of five.)

    “The guys who produce Two & a Half Men are members of the PGA. They like Bridesmaids better than Drive or Tree of Life? So be it. THEY HAVE A VOICE!”

    Sometimes it’s like Ryan Adams can read what’s inside of me!

    “It simple, it is their opinion. Just because you think TOL should have been recognized, that doesn’t mean they have to agree with you. That is one of the many problems with many Oscar bloggers here, they can’t accept different opinions. They get mad if their films don’t get selected.”

    Chung Fang/Matt/anonymous: I’m glad that you’ve learned this lesson after getting mad about Avatar not winning the guilds or the Oscar back in 2009.

  • Jorrey

    This year is starting to remind me of 2008. A large portion of films getting recognized that are dull (e.g., The Reader, Frost/Nixon) over films that had artistic merit (e.g., The Dark Knight, WALL*E). Drive, Shame or The Tree of Life would have been nice. Those films are very divisive, so I’m not surprised the PGA passed.

    My only beef this year is with Bridesmaids. That film was ok, but it was not awards worthy. I’m not the type to look down on the comedic genre, but this movie has no business being anywhere near the awards circuit. To me, like Frost/Nixon, it seems to be the PC pick amongst voters. It fills the niche nicely. At least 2012 looks like it could be a banner year like 2007.

  • anonymous

    “Chung Fang/Matt/anonymous: I’m glad that you’ve learned this lesson after getting mad about Avatar not winning the guilds or the Oscar back in 2009.”
    Wow, it is funny that the bloggers here to get personal. I chose to be anonymous, so I could be anyone, so what’s with this attempt to try to find out who I am,uh? LOL
    Robert A, your real name is Matt, and you are from UK.

  • menyc

    I need to catch up on Christian Wigg on SNP.
    Who said martinis for breakfast are a thing of the past?

  • Considering voters are aware that they HAVE TO put their faves at No1, I think we will have 10 bp-nominees.

    FRONTRUNNERS (the films that I expect to score DGA/Oscar-bd nominations)
    1. The Descendants (Critics, BO, star power…it has it all)
    2. The Artist (…well…it HAS the critics)
    3. War Horse (an emotional war film from Spielberg…rest my case)
    4. Hugo (Scorsese’s most personal film to date…nuff said)
    5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (hmm…hunch ?)
    6. Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen’s greatest hit to date)

    ON-PAPER-LOCKS (the films that might be hurt by the new rule)
    7. The Help (it has the precursors,on paper that should be enough)
    8. Moneyball (ditto)
    9. Bridesmaids (ditto)

    POTENTIAL SURPRISES (the films that might be helped by the new rule)
    10. The Tree of Life (I think it HAS that 5% in the Academy)
    11. The Ides of March (not sure, but the PGA/GG love is promising)
    12. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II (British-vote ?)
    13. Drive (critics LOVE it, could they influence the Academy ?)
    14. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (British-vote ?)
    15. J. Edgar (Eastwood could pull off that 5% on paper)
    16. Young Adult (his last two dramedies made the cut)
    17. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (Daldry-factor)
    18. My Week with Marilyn (apparently the Academy-screening was a hit)

    19. Margin Call (could be a late bloomer)
    20. The Iron Lady (hopefully the Weinsteins stick with ‘The Artist’)

  • anonymous

    Just so you know, Robert A.
    I think Academy made a right choice in selecting The Hurt Locker. Avatar is just a 3D film that happened to fail to win best picture. I must be mistaken for someone else, Robert A.
    Obviously, you are from UK, and you have issues with people who disagree with you, Matt.

  • Oh, I forgot about ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’, so the British-vote DOES have options. Now THAT could be a problem for the HP-campaign. If they don’t have the Actors (SAG-snub), and they have to split the British-vote, all they have left are the Technical Branches…and boy, do THOSE guys have options ?

  • Matthew

    I think Ides of March is this year’s Frost/Nixon.

    Slow-paced political drama works wonders with the Academy.

  • I didn’t misuse the term ‘troll’. Nor did I misuse it again – it’s maybe only the second or third time I’ve ever used this tern in this context. And I won’t shut up, nor take kindly to being told to. Y’all should know that by now… 😀

  • Zach

    I had “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II” and “Super 8” in for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and “The Ides of March.”

    Not winning the Awards Daily PGA contest this year…

    Though, for me, “The Ides of March” was the biggest surprise. Low-budget drama with decent reviews that didn’t do noticable B.O.? Left field, man, left field…

  • anonymous

    Robert A, you crack me up. This is year 2012, and you obviously were still traumatized by another blogger fro 2009? It is too bad that I share the common ground with you, I do like Drive as well, and it is too bad that it didn’t on the list. The lesson you should learn don’t take it so personally when people disagree with you. Devin Morse.

  • anonymous

    It will be interesting to see the WGA’s choices.

  • Mel

    Phantom, you said this: I also think Mara will get a nod and will knock out Swinton, because the Academy doesn’t seem to get her and Mara will be – probably – in a bp-nominee.

    I’m pulling like hell for Mara. That was the one performance this year I simply CAN’T get out of my head. I didn’t just walk away thinking, “that was good acting” I walked away unable to shake Lisbeth Salander and could not stop thinking about her. So I totally want her to get the nom, she deserves it. But I don’t know why you’d say the Academy doesn’t get Swinton, they’ve given her a statue before. So I’m not sure that’s the theory I’d go with on who Mara will bump to get in.

  • Is incredible what Drive is out. TTOL and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. In the last years PGA got 90% of success, I´m afraid for this fact. Hugs to everyone.

  • Daveylow

    If 250 Brit voters put Tinker Tailor or Harry Potter as no 1 on their ballots, doesn’t that ensure an Oscar nomination for BP?

  • Sasha Stone

    Yay Mel. Me too.

  • JP

    The public’s darling (Potter) and the critics’ darling (Tree of Life) are DEAD! Yeah… the ratings and the repercussion of this year’s Oscars don’t look good at all.

    The 8th spot is looking good to The Ides of March (which is exactly why I never defended this rule change… Will put another Oscar-bait good film in and will leave much more remarkable films out… Just like Matthew said… I’m having Frost/Nixon feelings… a movie that most of us don’t want to make the cut but that is being heavily campaigned to do so).Dragon Tattoo and Bridesmaids are spoilers.

  • J.-C. B.

    James (loved your comments) and Anonymous (thank you for your reply),

    Wow, this is becoming a bit intense : Bridesmaids vs The Tree of Life and now vs The Artist ! Come on, let’s not get carried away here 🙂 One thing that has to be said about The Tree of LIfe (of which I was not the bigegst fan but yet enjoyed): it is a movie that dares to be different in opposing the infinitely big to the infinitely small. It is unlike anything else this year, except maybe its opposite, Melancholia. Both good films made by visionary filmmakers. As for The Artist (THE movie of the year for me), it is a love letter to cinema that moved me with a universal theme: we all go up, and down… And it is daring too in its form (a silent film that manages to be eloquent anyway). That is the kind of filmmaking that I find worthy of accolades. There are just too many generic movies these days (whether they are blockbusters with explosions or… comedies with — no, I will stop it hetre and not get in that again :). Take care guys ! We should have drinks some day.

  • Glenn UK

    Loving the Bridemaid’s love. Its a great comedy and I feel it deserves its nomination. And I think it will be on the Best Picture list for Oscar too. Let’s not get too snobbish people. Comedy deserves as much a shot at the big awards as the arty farty films and I would give Bridesmaid’s the Oscar over TOL and TGWTDT. I love Malick but TOL was not his best – once again I anticipated way too highly. I just wish he could produce another Days of Heaven – an American classic but alas he has got nowhere near since.

  • Mattoc

    The PGAs role is to reward the finest ‘producing’ work of the year.

    If you consider the role of the film producer and what their responsibilities are – I think TOL doesn’t deserve to be on the list. Look at the history of the production. Put it this way, I wouldn’t hire these guys to build me a house…I’d be living on the street for 3 years.

    Clutching at straws…

  • 9+0 on “normal” and 4+1 on “animated”

    Had Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy instead of The Ides of March (HP was my NGNG) and on Animated had Arthur Christmas instead of Cars 2 (which was my NGNG).

    Can’t complain on any other fact that till I give Bridesmaid a second chance, it’s still the ONLY MOVIE of 2011 that I gave up viewing after 15 minutes of screening.

  • Bill

    I wish the Academy would just fall back to 5 nominees or stick with 10. Never mind this 5% nonsense.

  • Sasha Stone

    I wish the Academy would just fall back to 5 nominees or stick with 10. Never mind this 5% nonsense.

    Would love that.

  • J.-C. B.

    @Glenn UK, not loving Bridesmaids, or appreciating The Tree of Life for that matter, does not mean someone is snobbish. Matter of taste and opinion. Not a judgment on personality.

  • Jerry Grant

    “The Tree of Life” will still get nominated for BP. It is ranked #1 on too many individuals’ lists.

  • @J.-C B. You’re absolutely right. Although I didn’t really like either…

  • Jeremie

    Defecating in the middle of the street sure is classy.

    You should tell that to Pasolini.

    And I have to say, the nasty child in me is just loving the Potter snub. Feeling like a toldja is de rigueur.

  • Taylor

    If I could swap The Ides of March with Drive, I’d actually be perfectly content with this list.

  • Jake Garza

    The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo:)

  • Frank

    Are u gonna tell me that Bridesmaids is better than harry potter? the producers guild voters maybe are sick!!!! bridesmaids is not gonna get the chance to get an oscar nomination for best pic

  • Jake Garza

    The Ides of March now a Golden Globe Best Picture nominee and Producers Guild nominee, must be a Best Picture contender now, Am I right?

  • Arthur

    People HP is dead, stop saying BAFTAs will change anything ‘cuz by the time BAFTA noms are out the voting will be closed for oscar noms

    Although i don’t think BAFTAs will heavily nominate Potter, i imagine 5 or 6 tech nominations and that’s it

  • Mel

    How many people actually wait for the other noms to come out before they cast their ballots? Ballots are due Jan. 13th. I would assume most mail them in sooner than later to assure their vote makes the deadline.

  • I found the The Ides of March quite gripping, like the greatest episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews ever. I agreed with critics who complained that it didn’t say anything new, but it really didn’t have to. It was well-acted, entertaining, and Clooney’s occasional use of these sort of bluish hues worked really nicely. Drive just seemed a bit empty to me. A good film overall, but after seeing Bullitt about 8 times, it felt like a second-tier smart-action flick.

  • Glenn UK

    At J-C-B – the way people diminish Bridemaids as if it is something stuck to the bottom of their shoe is unfair. You cannot truly compare a film like Tree of Life to Bridemaids, its just not possible. But people have a superiority complex when they talk … and that is what I was referring to. They want to feel elitist …. for some reason they could never enjoy something like Bridemaids its so way beneath them and how dare it show on top 10 lists during awards season – scandalous. The public spoke with their dollars which film they preferred and it is a great fun filled movie with fantastic performances. I would love to see a comedy get a fair crack at achieving, they have been down trodden way too long!

  • Benjamin Forestieri

    Sad people rather celebrate the films they don’t like didn’t make it than to be happy for those they loved and did make it in, or at least be disappointed the ones you were rooting for didn’t make it. Seriously, stop hating

  • Joseph

    Paddy M, a troll is someone who purposely posts things that will rile up the reader. Who just wants to be get people mad. Those who post about HP positively aren’t doing that.

    Actually, people like Jeremie are the trolls when it comes to HP.

    “And I have to say, the nasty child in me is just loving the Potter snub. Feeling like a toldja is de rigueur.”

    If that isn’t meant to offend an HP fan, then I don’t know…

  • JP

    Agree with Bill and Sasha. In 2009, the Academy decide to change the number of films selected to BP for basically 2 reasons: ratings and to diversify this category with animation, blockbuster, foreigns… With this new rule change, they will do exactly the opposite: instead of nominating WALL-Es and The Dark Kinights, they will nominate 2 The Readers and 2 Frost/Nixon and end up with a 7/8 films category full of Oscar-bait films. The ratings will go down as usual and no diversification at all. The top 10 was a price the Academy should pay for not-so-good years like 2011, where I don’t think they could make a GREAT top 10 as they did in a fantastic year that was 2010.

    The worst thing of all is not the snubs in Best Picture. It’s this RIDICULOUS Best Animated Film category. In such a weak year, they could make it worse by nominating that stupid film that’s only in because it’s Pixar’s.

  • Mel

    Sure, they awarded Tilda Swinton in the supporting actress category for a performance that was good, but then they snubbed her superior turns, her absolutely stunning performance in ‘Julia’ and her remarkably impressive work in ‘I am love’. It just doesn’t make sense to me, usually it is the other way around : leading lady is ignored for great lead performances and then is made to settle with a supporting award (Redgrave, Binoche, Dench, Zellweger, Blanchett), but in Swinton’s case the Academy awarded her in supporting and THEN after acknowledging she is a great talent, decided to ignore her MUCH more impressive lead turns.

    If Mara will knock someone out, I think it will be her : the Davis-Williams-Streep trio is locked, so it leaves Swinton and Close, and latter is not only doing the rounds, is also considered one of the greatest actresses of all time…and definitely one of the greatest WITHOUT an Oscar. I think it will – as it often does – come down to who the Academy ‘likes’ more….and in my opinion, that will be Glenn Close.

  • Thanks, Keifer!

  • J.-C. B.

    @Glenn UK. Thank you for your reply but I have seen lots of movies in 2012 for which I paid admittance fee. That does not mean I would put all of them on a best list. Also, the way films are released also haas an impact on box office receipts. Not sure this is always a valid measure for objective quality. I did not like Bridesmaids for reasons that are just as valid as yours for liking it. No elitism of snubbery here. Jost plain honesty. Take care.

  • Mel

    Every year, someone comes out of left field though. I am pulling for Mara, but understand the politics involved and putting Close in b/c it seems she’s worthy for a career of good stuff. Honestly, that’s how I felt last year about Bening. I wanted her to win, not b/c I was blown away by her in TKAAR, but b/c I love her as an actress and felt she was “due”….but alas, they went for Portman who I thought gave the hokiest one-note performance I’ve seen in a while.

    It’s hard for me to understand sometimes. But it becomes easier when I read an article in EW this past summer about a freakin Nun in New England who was in some movies in the 60s and promptly left Hollywood to join a convent….and who is somehow a lifetime voting member of the Academy. Makes me wonder how many similar voting members like her exist. I start to feel like a whole hell of a lot when I ponder BP winners like Forrest Gump and The Kings Speech.

  • Hooray to THE ARTIST and to THE DESCENDANTS to a slightly lesser degree. And the biggest hooray to WAR HORSE. The Woody Allen nomination doesn’t make my day, but OK, fair enough.

    THE IDES OF MARCH and BRIDESMAIDS are more deserving than THE TREE OF LIFE? Of course. But as your own tone connotes, it’s crazy to try and make sense out of this rat race. If you do it’s painful.

    If the Academy makes just one change, it must be THE TREE OF LIFE making it in.

  • Houston

    Here’s hoping Bridesmaids doesn’t become this year’s “The Blind Side” and sneak in. ugh.

  • J.-C. B.

    Mel and Phantom, have you actually seen Albert Nobbs ? I like Glenn Close and her body of work too but in this one…speaking of one-note performance… That was one of my major disappoitments at the Toronto Film Festival. A film that could have been truly great just comes off as bland. Janet McTeer gives the one truly memorable performance in it.

  • Glenn UK

    J-C-B – we are cool. We can disagree. People view differently and have differing experiences. But people are extremely condescending when it comes to Bridemaids. I still think Tree of Life will show for Oscar but at the expense of which movie I have no idea. Oscar always throws a curve ball.

  • Scott

    Well, there’s fucking Bridesmaids again, stealing Potter’s spot, ugh…

  • Scott

    No Tree of Life is some consolation at least

  • steve50

    “I like several films on the list, but am only passionate about Drive and Tree of Life this year. Just not my year I guess.”

    I’m feeling about the same as @Houstonrufus. Had to do some yard work to settle down.

    I guess I can get behind TGWTDT, Moneyball or Hugo if the other two are not nominated, as they are the only ones that require some brain power to enjoy.

    The Bridesmaids thing, though, god…Full Monty all over again. A wasted spot for what is a forgettable movie – a couple of giggles and you’re done; next. So many movies were better produced and I would not be feeling disgusted if HP had taken that slot. You can’t tell me that Bridesmaids was a bigger challenge to produce than anything that’s been left off the list, and the HP people should feel insulted by this snub.

    Guess the past couple of years spoiled me. At least it will be just a game this time – no emotional investment.

  • Morgan

    No Tree of Life…

    It’s one of the best films of the year – Why is it not being recognised?

    In 20 years time, people will look back and go “What the fuck?”

    But, in saying that, most of the greatest films ever have not won the oscar – and a lot haven’t been nominated.

  • Scott

    In 20 years time Tree of Life won’t even be remembered, but they’ll look back and go where the fuck is the Harry Potter finale?!

  • Where´s “Drive”?
    I´ll say it again: WHERE´S “DRIVE?”
    Please, PGA, don´t waste our time…
    It´s a shame!

  • OCO300

    @Sasha, yeah I mean IDES OF MARCH?! Some critics gave the film mixed or even negative reviews and it had 67% on Metacritic, however it did get a 91% on BFCA.

    Also did they turn Harry Potter 8 down because it’s a highest grossing film of the year, a fantasy film, or a sequel?

    well at least David Yates won the John Schlesinger Britannia Award for Artistic Excellence in Directing, Special Achievement in Filmaking (from National Board of Reviews), and won the ADG Excellence in Production Design Award thanks too HP:DH 2. And Harry Potter 8 did win some BEST FILM awards and some of those award didn’t had only critics vote?

  • OCO300

    @rufussondheim well what about the SAG awards and BAFTA?

  • Joseph

    No way is the Academy going to “replace” The Help. It has everything the Academy loves: period setting (1960s), important issue (racism), ensemble cast with likely nominees (Davis, Spencer, Chastain), box office smash. Not only will it be nominated, but I bet it’ll win, too.

  • Andrew

    how boringly predictable the nominations are

  • Tero Heikkinen

    I disagree. Harry Potter is in the NOW. The Tree of Life is something people will analyse decades later.

    There’s a difference between “of the year” and “in years”.

  • Andrew

    why do people assume film X replaced film Y in the list? u have no way of knowing this. pure fantasy

  • Jamesintoronto

    I love that Bridesmaids is getting some love from the guilds and critics. When I first saw it I was reminded of some of the classic American comedies like Animal House and Blazing Saddles, films that were not taken seriously at the time but have since become revered. Having seen Bridesmaids three times already I’m sure I will be enjoying it 20 years from now.

    I’m not that upset about Tree Of Life being left off the list but am confused by the lack of love for Margin Call, in my opinion one of the best films of the year.

  • Robert A.

    “I disagree. Harry Potter is in the NOW. The Tree of Life is something people will analyse decades later.

    There’s a difference between “of the year” and “in years”.”

    *bows to Tero*

  • John Oliver

    It’s hard for me to understand sometimes. But it becomes easier when I read an article in EW this past summer about a freakin Nun in New England who was in some movies in the 60s and promptly left Hollywood to join a convent….and who is somehow a lifetime voting member of the Academy

    Mel,that NUN you were talking about is actress Delores Hart, who appeared in two films with Elvis Presley, and 8 other films before retiring in 1963.

  • J.-C. B.

    I’ve seen Albert Nobbs and I thought Glenn Close delivered a BRILLIANT performance, but I also knew instantly that since it is a remarkably understated turn, it will have a tough time getting recognized when the Academy is so famous for going for flashy roles with big shoutingcrying Oscar-scenes. Trust me, Glenn ‘Acting Giant’ Close won’t fight for a project for 30 years so then she could give a one-note-performance, something she had NEVER been accused of before. If the performance was quiet and understated, it was her deliberate artistic decision to go in that direction. Still, though not flashy in any way, in my opinion, there were still brilliant moments of subtleties and nuances.

    I also knew the general consensus will be that Janet McTeer overshadowed Glenn Close in ‘Albert Nobbs’ and I don’t think that’s true. They were equally fantastic, only McTeer had a flashy role that was easy to instantly consider ‘great’, meanwhile Close has to fight for acclaim because her role wasn’t flashy, her performance’s essence was in the little moments, McTeer’s was in the big ones…in a way, I think it comes down to the roles they play : McTeer didn’t overshadow Close…Hubert overshadowed Albert.

  • Joseph

    Harry Potter is the ‘now’? LMFAO. Just stop.

  • diane

    HP is dead. GWTDT has just got the adrenalin shot it needed to extend its shakey legs and recoup its budget since boxoffice poison Daniel Craig couldn`t open yet another movie that isn`t Bond (which is opened by Bond ,not a particular actor playing him).

    So this is going to be the line-up of Best Picture nominees. ZZZZZZ. Wakje me up when TDKR, The Hobbit and the likes arrive to compete.

  • thw

    I am glad both Drive and Tree of Life did not make it to the list. Both are artsy fartsy, incomprehensible and empty. Yay for Ides of March, Hugo and Dragon Tattoo. Having said that, some of the PGA nominated pics seem to hint box office performance plays a role. This may not be true when the Academy members vote.

  • Scott

    Tero, Harry Potter is going to last like Lord of the Rings. It will be passed down through the generations.

  • DLBnyc

    Bridesmaids over The Tree of Life or Extremely Loud? That is astonishing to me.

  • rufussondheim

    The Harry Potter movies will be quaint 20 years from now. They will be on TV a lot and people will like them, but they will not be considered classics like a Star Wars or a Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    The books, however, will be read a hundred years from now and still be loved. The kids who do not like to read will be watching the movies so they can do their book reports. They are, after all, just Cliff’s Notes summaries of the books, they largely lack any magic that can’t be found inside the books.

    Bridesmaids is definitely better than HP8. Bridesmaids will be watched 20 years from now, in the same way we watch Ghostbusters or Animal House. It’s good stuff, provided you are inclined to like that type of humor.

  • Scott

    The theme park has been so popular even they are building another…a sign that Potter is going no-where soon. It’s arguably the biggest worldwide phenomenon and has been a staple for nearly 15 years already.

  • murtaza

    @ scott
    harry potter wasn’t even near lord of the rings, stop comparing the two films for countless reasons. lord of the rings is something cinema did best, it’s a classic. HP was a average movie.

  • Scott

    Well I suppose that’s somewhat true rufuss…there has to be some separation of book and film, but I don’t see the franchise dying out much.

  • OCO300

    @Scott how come Bridesmaids and Moneyball weren’t on the 10 on the National Board of Review Awards?

  • Scott

    murtaza, that’s somewhat right…if we’re talking about strictly the films then LotR turned a chore of a book into an enjoyable spectacle whereas the Potter films never quite lived up to the greatness of the source material.

  • Tero Heikkinen

    I agree that Harry Potter books (not movies) will be loved as long as people read. Especially younger people. Did LOTR ever lose interest? No, they are still being read.

    I wouldn’t compare HP and LOTR movies either. Peter Jackson’s fantasies are masterpieces in their own genre.

  • rufussondheim

    It’s a worldwide phenomenon because of the books, not because of the movies.

  • Scott

    But I’d still say in large part they are better then just “average” and critical acclaim supports this. Here’s my O.W.L format report card-

    SS: Exceeds Expectations
    CoS: Acceptable
    PoA: Exceeds Expectations
    GoF: Acceptable
    OotP: Exceeds Expectations
    HBP: Outstanding
    DH1: Outstanding
    DH2: Outstanding

    As a whole pretty fantastic really…none surpass the books naturally, but at least no poor, dreadful, or troll grade films.

  • Joseph

    It’s both the books AND movies.

  • rufussondheim

    Scott, I know it will never happen, but I’ve come away with the idea of a new visual interpretation of the books. I’d love to see an animated version of the books. It would have to be a TV series.

    I think each chapter could be an episode. Of course, the traditional idea of what an episode is would have to change. You couldn’t fit each episode into an hour or 30 minutes, or even stretch out each chapter to that long. They would have to be as long as they needed to be.

    And, of course, each episode would be an extraordinarily faithful version of the chapter. No dialogue added or subtracted. Nothing added or taken away.

    Of course, the project could only be undertaken by a network with a serious vision on what TV is capable of, something like HBO.

  • rufussondheim

    And when that gets produced you can see my Saw meets The Muppets creation.

  • Joseph

    And you couldn’t compare HP to LOTR if you wanted. One was made at the same time, under the same team. The other was separate productions with different teams and the books weren’t completed, so they didn’t know where the story was going. Not only that, but they had to rush them because they had to keep up with the aging kids.

  • henry

    National Board of Review Awards’s top 10 is not good predecting the nominees. I think that the only thing worth on it, it is the indivdual winners. Not the top 10. So Hp didnt make anything important being in it.

    Harry potter lost all the chances to get a best picture nominee. Bafta awards wont recognize it in the best picture category.

    OCO300 stop talking about possibilities that you only see

  • Scott

    All good points Joseph

  • Anthony

    What a shame for Drive. This is so sad.

    According to the last couple of years and the critics top tens lists are a match with the BP nominations, so According to the all critics top 10 lists of this year Tree of life is at #1 and Drive is at number #2 with the top number one spots. And if you were to look at all the critics nominations accross the country so far, I would say that Drive has been nominated %80 of the time.

    I really hope that it does. It is my favorit of this year or maybe even the last couple,

  • Scott

    The National Board of Review aren’t idiots, that’s why. They are actually capable of recognizing the impact that Harry Potter has made and that they are for the most part excellent film-making in their own right.

  • henry

    you are wrong Joseph, only the books will be unforgetable. The movies could be much better. So they are considered as nothing special.

  • henry

    if you only saw the top 10 of the past movies, you will realize that they have choosen movies with 0 posibilities in the important awards. So They are being considered as not good predictors

  • OCO300

    @murtaza yeah I bet the HP:DH 2 earned was average? And did everyone who went to see the movie, thought it was average? And the grades it got on Rotten Tomatoes, BFCA, and Metacritic was that average?

    @Diane “HP is dead”?! Hahahahahaha, sure to you but to everyone? I mean it will always be known as the most sucessful franchise in history and arguably for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 the best reviewed and most successful film of the year.

  • Scott

    And that much the same as Lord of the Rings, the box office and critical response is too much to ignore

  • Joseph

    henry, that’s your opinion. The majority aren’t like you, Jeremie, or Tero.

  • Scott

    See, the NBR actually has sense and recognizes that.

  • Morgan

    “According to the last couple of years and the critics top tens lists are a match with the BP nominations, so According to the all critics top 10 lists of this year Tree of life is at #1 and Drive is at number #2 with the top number one spots. And if you were to look at all the critics nominations accross the country so far, I would say that Drive has been nominated %80 of the time.”

    Exactly. This year the two most critcally acclaimed films (The Tree of Life and Drive) are going unrecognised by PGA and probably Oscar and probably DGA. For shame.

  • henry

    haha are you sure that those reviews were important?? everybody forgot all bout that. The only impostant thing is…. Harry Potter is being snubbed by eevery award in this season. So that franchise was not take very well.

    The movies are famous because of the books. not own merit

    you have to watch that mission impossble is being reviewed with the same percent than hp

  • henry

    jeremie or tero could be the same person, and they are not majority.

    You are wrong, because the critics asociation and the industry are like me hahahaha because they have snubbed hp for the same reason I named

  • steve50

    “For shame.”

    @morgan – yeah, that one too.

  • Zach

    Eww, is Cars 2 not the J. Edgar of the animated lineup. Two posts above me mentioned Winnie the Pooh, and I’m personally surprised how that’s been ignored this Oscar season given the shorts’ Oscar history. I don’t know what an Arthur Christmas is, but that seemed to be doing well. Also, sue me, but for the critically-derided-but-adorable-furry-animals/flashy-animation slot, why not Happy Feet 2?

  • Tero Heikkinen

    Nothing wrong with being in minority.

    We are not the same person, Jeremie and I. If you had been on this website for YEARS, you would know that.

  • henry

    Lord of the ring is a masterpiece.. It capture the attetion of the industry and critics asociatio from the beginning. They had not to resquest nominations with trailers, or for your consideration posters.

  • Scott

    Yeah, I don’t think Tero and Jeremie are the same person…Tero at least has some respect, even if he didn’t particularly care for the films.

  • Zach

    Anybody who is ever surprised to see Bridesmaids show up on these kinds of lists: the PGA always nominates critically acclaimed crowdpleasers, including comedies that are not conventional “Oscar movies” (My Big Fat Greek Wedding). I won’t be surprised if/when Bridesmaids and Melissa McCarthy get snubbed/ignored by the Academy even though, quite frankly, the lineup of conventional “Oscar movies” and Oscar-bait performances this year is so weak that I am of the opinion that Bridesmaids would truly deserve its nominations. (And on that note, I don’t think Harry Potter was particularly great, but I get the frustration since it’s a weak year of boring Oscar movies nobody wants to see. Just my two cents.)

  • Joseph

    You and the critics are a minority. Done.

  • Tero Heikkinen

    I criticise movies for living.

  • Joseph


  • Robert A.

    Yeah, anyone who thinks Jeremie and Tero are the same person must not be a longtime reader of AD. Besides, Jeremie and Tero have two very distinct voices–if you read their posts, you can tell they’re written by two different people.

  • Since I had a generally negative response to The Tree of Life, I thought I’d briefly explain why since to give fans of the film an understanding as to why it hasn’t been racking up early award nominations…

    Days of Heaven was a stunning film, full of lush imagery and an appropriately simple plot assisted by Linda Manz’ often heartbreaking narration. It was also 90 minutes long. The lean quality allowed me to appreciate the magic hour shots of vast fields, the quick shots of animals, and warmer scenes like the four leads playing baseball. The Tree of Life, at 2 and a half hours, requires a particularly layered plot, or at least scenes filled with building tensions. And the scenes with Brad Pitt delivered. His performance, Oscar worthy, elevated the film every time he appeared, acting as the contradictory loving adversary to Hunter McCracken’s young son. Pitt represented the best and worst of fatherhood, the overarching power that produces love and fear in equal turns. The small touches of childhood, with your father playing a beautiful organ piece or viscous arguments that never reach real conclusions, contributed to a moody narrative that reached deep into my mind. The Tree of Life at its best created a universe that envelops the viewer in the same anxieties and warmth experienced by McCracken’s character.

    Then…then there were the endless shots of space activity, of Sean Penn staring out of glass, of dinosaurs…I entered the primary narrative scenes bored by images not out of place in an educational video on the universe. Just as Malick drew me into his vision, his indulges left me cold. Were the non-dialogue scenes brief interludes, I might have remained within the film’s familial setting. Since they occupied such a lengthy piece of the film, I needed them to matter, to merge into the primary story in some comprehensible way. I could see the parallel between the fallen dinosaur and McCracken, the threatening dinosaur and Pitt, the manner in which a similar creature can instill dread before moving away as a distant body when protection and care are wanted. But understanding a scene does not mean finding it necessary. Malick had Lubezki, he had Pitt, he had McCracken, he had his own understanding of the world he brought to screen. He had them, he lost them, and he let grand sweeping statements about the world’s creation overwhelm a potentially beautiful story.

    To those of who you loved The Tree of Life and found the excess imagery well, not excessive but welcome, great. At the very least, Malick’s film contains the ambitions and patient development missing from mainstream productions. If it moved you, you are better for the experience. Just realize that a whole body of thoughtful movie-goers like myself feel differently.

  • RobertASSS

    A long time reader? RobertA, you seem to have problems with people who disagree with you. You get pissed and then you start to try to assume their real identities. Relax. Who am I now? Matt? Anonymous? Chung?
    Maybe you should try to relax, Robert. You are not long time reader, you are a time presentation of the OCD behavior who is full of yourself. RobertA/MoutainDew/Devin Morse/. Focus on the discussions and try not to get so personal, thanks.

  • Craig Z

    You just kind of outed yourself their Robert. Only Matt/Chang fung/whatever would accuse someone of being mountain dew or Robert Morse.

    Anybody who knows you can spot you from a mile away.

  • Scott

    “henry says:
    everybody forgot all bout that.”

    Seems some have forgot this…

    Sorcerer’s Stone- 80%, 64, 90
    Chamber of Secrets- 83%, 63, 84
    Prisoner of Azkaban- 91%, 82, 84
    Goblet of Fire- 87%, 81, 87
    Order of the Phoenix- 78%, 71, 82
    Half-Blood Prince- 84%, 78, 87
    Deathly Hallows: Part 1- 79%, 65, 87
    Deathly Hallows: Part 2- 96%, 87, 93

    Those are the RT, Metacritic, and BFCA scores, respectively. For a film franchise to have such high consistency (not a single one rotten, with unfavorable reviews, or less then 3 stars) over a decade of production and with different directors is pretty damn remarkable.

    No, they aren’t quite on par with LotR (with the exception of Deathly Hallows giving a run for the money as far as finales go) but as Joseph pointed out there’s so many differences in the production of the two you can’t really compare anyways.

  • RobertlowercaseA

    “I won’t be surprised if/when Bridesmaids and Melissa McCarthy get snubbed/ignored by the Academy even though, quite frankly, the lineup of conventional “Oscar movies” and Oscar-bait performances this year is so weak that I am of the opinion that Bridesmaids”
    Would you be surprised if Bridesmaids got major nominations? It could go either way.

  • OCO300

    @henry “snubbed at every award”?! what about Hollywood Movie of the Year, Scream Awards, Teen CHoice Awards, National Board of Review, National Movie Awards, Nickelodeon Australian Kids’ Choice Awards, British Academy Children’s Awards, BAFTA Britannia Awards, Satellite Awards, Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association Awards, Houston Film Critics Society Awards, St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association Awards, San Diego Film Critics Society Awards, Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards, People’s Choice Awards, 53rd Grammy Awards, Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards, Screen Actors Guild, Alliance of Women Film Journalists (however that was only nominated to Alan Rickman), and ADG Excellence in Production Design Award

  • RobertlowercaseA

    CraigZ, who is Mountain Dew???? o Fung Chang, or Matt. What’s that got to do with the discussions on this site?

  • Craig Z

    I was talking to a different Robert I believe

  • OCO300

    @Scott tell him my man

  • RobertlowercaseA

    CraigZ, only RobertA would accuse someone as CraigZ/MountainDew/Morse. Let’s focus on the discussions here, thanks. Why get so personal?

  • Nico

    I am about to be crucified: I watched HUGO today and I felt empty all the way through. Oscars for Art Direction and Ben Kingsley, sure, but the film was uneven and the child actors were hamming their way through everything. Butterfield was passable but Moretz? Is everyone blind? Or is my clock just not ticking right…..?

  • RobertlowercaseA

    OCD3000, you were attacked before for staying your opinion. Which picture do you think is the frontrunner now? I would say the The Artist. What do you think?

  • Craig Z

    Uh…… OCO, HP had no important awards at either the SAG or BFCA.

  • henry

    tell me OCO300: are you kidding me?? those awards that you named are important??? the most of them are where the public vote. And the other ones have nominated is tecnic categories.. or only minimum terms. But I am sure that warner is not interested in those awards that you said.

  • RobertlowercaseA

    I have yet to see Hugo. I don’t think there is a clear frontrunner, but I think the safe bet is on The Artist, unfortunately, in my opinion.

  • Craig Z

    Uh….. Robert. What the hell you talking about? I wasn’t talking to you. Mind your business.

  • henry

    and most of them were only nominations that didnt become in awards. And screen actor guild awards… was not in a important category… was nominted by stunt cast… with movies not strong enough

  • Nico

    …I must add to my above comment that the 3D in Hugo really was the best yet, even more so than Avatar. It wasn’t bad, just good, and very far from a masterpiece Sasha.

  • Scott

    Yeah, OCO is really grasping at straws…though given the critical reception when the film was released it really should be showing up everywhere, but as said these hypocrites that think they are mouthpieces for the Academy are passing it off as just a summer blockbuster that isn’t serious filmmaking *rolleyes*

  • RobertlowercaseA

    CraigZ/RobertA, no problem. Let’s focus on the film discussions here without getting personal.

  • alfred

    Game over for Potter, Tree of Life and Drive. We have the Oscar noms right there. Bridesmaids out, Dragon Tattoo or Ides of March out. The other 7 are locked. There will be only 8 noms.

  • RobertlowercaseA

    How do you know Bridesmaids, Dragon Tattoos and Ides of March are out?

  • Craig Z

    Leave me alone Robert

  • Alexandra

    Phantom…that DGA nom for Deathly Hallows 2, sure ain´t happening now…

  • RobertlowercaseA

    OCO3000, to be realistic, HP’s chances are very small. No SAG, NO PGA, probably no WGA. It is very hard to get in without the trio of guilds though.

  • RobertlowercaseA

    DGA prediction
    The Artist
    The Descendant
    Hugo/War Horse
    The Help
    Midnight in Paris

  • OCO300

    @RobertlowercaseA I think thee movie’s really good, I just don’t understand why it ranked it hasn’t ranked #1 in theaters or why is it doing bad at the domestic box office daily?

    @Craig Z yeah and next your going to say HP:DH 2 did bad at the box office, had alot of bad reviews from famous movie critics and newspapers, got bad grades on RottenTomtoes Metacritic and Broadcast Film Critics Association, nobody went to see the movie since July or nobody wore HP costumes when they went to see movie on it’s opening weekend.

    @henry and I bet WB wasn’t interested at building that Harry Potter themepark?

  • Alexandra

    When did I say it will ?

  • Zach

    @RobertlowercaseA, I probably would be surprised if Bridesmaids does get major nods, even if I end up predicting/anticipating it. Such a weak year. The original screenplay category seems so weak that Bridesmaids should definitely get in there even though a lot of it was probably improvised. I loved the cast and thought at the time Wiig was kind of award-worthy, so would love to see McCarthy recognized. Shailene Woodley did a great job in The Descendants, but she’s young like Andrew Garfield last year, and also TV, and SAG-less, and other than crying underwater, it wasn’t a very hard part to play. But multidimensional? Sure. I think she and McCarthy are probably fighting for the fifth slot.

    For Picture, I think Tree of Life can still make an Oscar comeback based on the pedigree of its cast and crew. Ides of March getting this recognition and then falling to more traditional Oscar movies would be akin to The Town vs. Winter’s Bone last year, even though the latter missed in places we thought it would get in and even though the former kept popping up, made good money and was entertaining, and had Affleck behind it. So I’m not sold on Bridesmaids or Ides of March getting Oscar love, even though they’re both frankly doing very well now with the precursors. I also thought Dragon Tattoo was very good, and you’d think Fincher would have more pull and be considered overdue after last year, but it’s not an unbridled success. So maybe we’ll just see 7 Best Picture nominees.

  • alfred

    I assume there will be only 8 noms. In that case, those will miss the cut.

  • RobertlowercaseA

    OC0300, which movie were you talking about?

  • Scott

    This is quite off the tracks, but I have a question about film in regards to online dating…do you guys feel you can tell a lot about someone based on what their favorite films are?

  • RobertlowercaseA

    I think there will be 7 or 8 best picture nominations. I still think that Drive might have a small chance.

  • Zach

    Oh, yes, I would still think Drive is up there. I would think that Tree of Life has a better shot than Drive, though, based on the critics’ awards, respect for Malick (he still looks really good to me as the 5th Director nominee), and the scope of the movie, whereas Drive is kind of like that little-engine-that-could we see every year that outperforms its expectations but doesn’t seem big enough for a Best Picture nomination (not that they can’t both get in).

  • Craig Z

    Huh? OCO. What I stated was fact. HP got no MAJOR nominations at either the BFCA or SAG.

  • Connor

    Shame that David Heyman was snubbed of a nomination from his work with Potter. If you’ve been following the film the past 10 years, you’ll know how much he done that secured it’s success.

    Oh well.

  • henry

    OC0300 you only tak about box office, about rottetomataes, about 93% percent in broadcast film critc critics asotiations, when they even not nominated to your favorite movie.

    I dont know why you name a thempark in this discussion. I meant that warner is not interested in those awards because they only do posters, trailers, and publicty for getting oscars nominations. Then they only care academy award. But it wont happen.

  • Alexandra

    Phantom…just the other day in a conversation involving HP chances at OSCARS and the Guilds …to tell you the truth,shame on me for being so picky and over sensitive but I felt you were NEEDLESSLY snarky about it…so,I decided I wouldn´t let this one slid by…Still, apologies if you feel singled out unfairly…

  • RobertlowercaseA

    OC0300. I hate to break it to you, and I admire your passion towards HP8, but it is unlikely that HP8 will get a best picture nod. Yes, it got great reviews, and it made millions of dollars, but it didn’t get SAG, didn’t get PGA, it looks like it is less and less likely that it is going to get a best picture nod at Oscars.

  • Chris

    Saw Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy yesterday. Only movie of 2011 where the sell-out audience actually was quiet and paid attention, no chatter, no cellphones. I’d like to thank the producers for that blissful moviegoing experience. Is there an award for that? 🙂

  • OCO300

    @RobertlowercaseA The Artist

    @Craig Z So?

    @henry did you even talk to or interview WB about it?

  • Luis Burguete


  • Alexandra

    Ryan,I know you said there is no MODERATING in this site,but that tasteless comment about Producers behinds should really encourage you to start…

  • OCO300

    @RobertlowercaseA Does the Academy have anything against Harry Potter?

  • Craig Z

    So…. Dont accuse me of providing false information

    And Scott. No don’t judge people by what their top films are. Movies aren’t as important to some as they are to others and who is to blame them honestly? How important are they really?

  • henry

    OCO300 it is obviouuus, they are desperate for getting a recognition to harry potter in the oscars. Also the fans.

  • @Luis: What the hell are you talking about? I don’t agree with the above list but they’re all well-received films. Why don’t you attempt to create a cogent argument against the Producer’s Guild rather than sound off like some Peter Griffin clone.

  • RobertlowercaseA

    OC0300. I don’t think the AMPAS has anything against HP.

  • RobertlowercaseA

    OC0300. The Artist appeals to older movie going public. It is a silent film, or at least a tribute to silent films. General movie going pubic has not patience to sit through a silent film.

  • henry

    they dont have anythig againist your favorite movie, they only see that Harry potter is not good enough for getting important nominations. That is it. You cannot blame them for not thinking of the same way that you.

    You love it, but they think that it is only good for being nominate in technical categories. And if it doesnt win, it is because of the hard competition

  • I think OCO300 and Scott should pool their paper route money together and buy a Harry Potter FYC on this site*.

    *The paper route comment was obnoxious but I’m serious about the FYC ad. You’re clearly passionate and don’t seem to be converting people in the comments. Why not try something more proactive?

  • MikeScott

    I’m sad DRIVE missed. 🙁 Cool BRIDESMAIDS made it though. Who cares if it’s a mainstream studio comedy? It was hilarious and smart. Both DRIVE and BRIDESMAIDS are “Best of the year” material, IMO.

  • RobertlowercaseA

    OCO300. You gotta take Oscar voters’ tastes and preference into consideration. HP 8 received great reviews, but that is from critics’ point of view. Voters don’t necessarily agree with critics. Last year is the best example of that.

  • Scott

    Found an article that answers my inquiry-

    Though for me personally, I like such a variety I’m not sure anything could be gathered about me…

  • Alexandra

    “Phantom…just the other day in a conversation involving HP chances at OSCARS and the Guilds …to tell you the truth,shame on me for being so picky and over sensitive but I felt you were NEEDLESSLY snarky about it…so,I decided I wouldn´t let this one slid by…Still, apologies if you feel singled out unfairly…”

    Snarky ? It was probably a misunderstanding, I don’t do ‘snarky’, but if you have a quote I could explain what I meant then, frankly I only have a vague memory about the whole thing. I probably said something like HP could be a strong guild/BAFTA player so I wouldn’t rule it out just yet or that it wouldn’t be surprising if after the critics phase the guild-phase would go into a different direction just like last year, and if that happened, that ‘way’ could be HP. But it was just all my usual theoretical word vomiting, sorry if it came across snarky or offensive to you.

  • Connor

    Jesse, that’s WB job.

  • Jerry Grant

    “The Tree of Life” will go down in history. It is less to be thought of alongside other films, and more to be thought of alongside Augustine’s or Rousseau’s “Confessions”, Virgil and Milton, Beethoven and Wagner. There are few films that deal sincerely with the cosmos in a theological perspective, or that have such a conviction that Art offers a way to do so. But that fact in itself is not an argument for it: it is, all in all, an astounding feat. Malick brings all of his expertise, including music-mixing, performing scientific experiments in a laboratory for the origin of the cosmos scenes, “epiphanic” filmmaking, and bringing serious philosophical issues from phenomenology, existentialism, and especially theology. It is not a stretch to put Terrence Malick alongside da Vinci or Goethe, perhaps not in the qualitative significance of his accomplishments, but as a multi-modal persistent artist with an unquenchable thirst to ask the biggest questions about being in the world.

    That’s me bringing out my pretentious guns, but I mean it. The movie doesn’t need Oscar, but years from now Oscar will surely look bad if they elect to leave it out.

  • @Connor: Well yeah, I’m just saying OCO300 was clearly moved in some monumental way by HP8 and it might be a good idea if he finds an outlet that extends beyond the awardsdaily comment board.

  • john b

    the Ides of March love makes me sick to my stomach. seriously was not that great. at all. just made by and starred George Clooney.

    popularity reigns more than ever now.

  • steve50

    “General movie going pubic has not patience to sit through a silent film.”

    Well that was more accurate than you intended, I think. Pubics are an impatient lot.

    Yes, those of us in our hundreds fondly remember flickering screen and tinkling piano.

  • Fielding

    From way up the page:

    “There seems to have been little discussion about the continued resiliency of Midnight in Paris.

    Is it a bigger player than people are giving it credit for?

    Considering the love for Woody amongst SAG, the largest squad in the Academy, is it possible that MiP sitting in the top 3?”

    Matthew, the answer to both your questions is a resounding YES! MiP has been a big hit with Academy members since its release, with packed and very enthusiastic screenings.

  • steve50

    “That’s me bringing out my pretentious guns, but I mean it.”

    Bring them, Jerry, although I wouldn’t say it’s pretentious – it is absolutley true that Oscar needs Tree Of Life more than Tree of Life needs Oscar.

  • Scott

    steve, what Oscar needs is Harry Potter. Just think of the ratings that would give it!

  • brandz

    Bridesmaids is the biggest piece-of-crap movie I’ve seen in many, many years. There’s NO way this should be included in any Top 10.

  • steve50

    Scott, that would be a short-term, popper-rush for the Academy that wouldn’t last a week. If it’s only ratings they want, they can pull any stunt and announce it prior to showtime. Food fight between the casts of The Help and Bridesmaids, maybe? How about a horse opening the envelope for best actor?

  • Scott

    Well it would also give the lasting impression of them being brave and not letting biases get in the way of choosing the best films of the year.

  • Tero Heikkinen

    If the staff at ABC were Academy voters, they would vote for HP to get the ratings. The real voters don’t think about TV ratings much. And maybe it’s a bad thing.

  • But doesn’t Harry Potter have a lot of fans who care more about the film experience itself than the accolades bestowed upon it? Exempting a few ardent supporters on this site, I can’t imagine there are a lot of people deciding whether to watch the Oscars based on whether HP8 gets a nod. I’m just making an assumption here, so if there’s evidence that I’m wrong, let me know. It just seemed that The Dark Knight has more cross-over between Oscar watchers and fans of the film itself.

  • Luck
  • Scott

    Yes and no Jesse…we would like to see it validated as serious filmmaking and receive the recognition it deserved based on the the unanimously positive critical response (100% Top Critics, no mixed or negative reviews on Metacritic, etc) and public reception (A+ Cinemascore, box office records, etc)

    And when the AMPAS continues to ignore the films the general public likes they aren’t going to feel very inclined to support the show. In fact, I would expect a backlash even greater then the one that The Dark Knight snubbing stirred up.

  • steve50

    I think you’re right, Jesse. Just as the TOL/Drive/Shame fans don’t rely on Oscar recognition, I don’t think the HP fans do, either. Which brings up the question of relevance, again. If it’s only the middlebrow, occasional – key word here – filmgoer that is satisfied by the results, and not the rabid, frequent-flyer fans at either end of the spectrum, what is the point?

  • Connor


    So They are still campaigning? Seems like a waste of money.

  • Larry B

    No “Tree of Life” – yea!
    “War Horse” – yuchh!

  • Scott

    Note however that I generally approve of the choices the AMPAS has made. The only huge faults in recent history have been Saving Private Ryan not winning, The Dark Knight snub, and the Nolan directing snub for Inception.

    Oh, and Titanic over Good Will Hunting and LA Confidential…but it was too big of a force to ignore, the same way that Harry Potter SHOULD be…

  • Scott

    Yikes, I really need to update that thread though…

  • steve50

    Hell is about to freeze over because Scott and I agree on the same basic principle. While we have very different tastes, we agree that AMPAS put some thought into that list at the end of the month. As Glenn Close said in Fatal Attraction, “I will not be ignored!”

  • @Scott: If you’re lcbaseball then you’re really missing out on the 70’s New Hollywood!…Regardless, I think you’re in the minority when it comes to basing whether you watch the Oscars or not on the film’s placement there. I think most people treat the Oscars as a sort of group event, like the Super Bowl. The teams playing don’t matter as much as the event does, hence the inclusion of major half-time acts designed to bring in a broad swatch of people disinclined to simply watch the game. If you’re a baseball fan, you know that the same isn’t true of the World Series, partly because it’s an extended event with no real pomp beyond the games themselves and Fox Sports displays of patriotism. I think the Academy worries itself more over who’s presenting than who’s nominated. Hence the recent clusterfuck over the number of nominated films. They think certain films draw in viewers, but I doubt that’s the case except in rare situations.

  • OLIN

    How far are we from the DGA announcement? I need an exact date.

    I’m sure it’s on the site somewhere, but I don’t feel like navigating through all theses FYC ads. (and no, I’m not bitching, they make me… happy.)

    Also, how close would we say David Fincher is to a DGA nod?

  • Scott

    Jesse, I just updated the thread, which now reflects that I’ve seen 6 of the 1970’s Best Picture winners. I still maintain that it was one of the worst decades for film though. Music however is a whole different story.

  • How far are we from the DGA announcement

    Monday, January 9

  • “I still maintain that [the 70’s] was one of the worst decades for film though. Music however is a whole different story.”

    You’re killing me Scott! The 70’s were boss, although I suppose it was weaker for sweeping epics and musicals…You didn’t list Annie Hall or The Deer Hunter, both of which I recommend without hesitation. In fact, I envy you because you have about 5 hours of brilliance ahead of you…

    You got the music part right, though. 🙂 Prog-rock, we hardly knew ye…

  • forg

    Cars 2 deserved the nod, yes story was disappointing (but seriously it wasn’t THAT BAD) plus it was well produced and technically this is what the awards is all about. But I would have chosen Winnie the Pooh too over Cars 2.

  • Scott

    Drama, mystery, romance, and comedy are my main interests…not sweeping epics (still haven’t got around to finishing Lawrence of Arabia) and musicals, but there is something about the presentation of most 70’s films that is a real turn-off.

  • steve50

    Scott, Scott, Scott – I looked at your link. To appreciate the 70s, you have to go way beyond Oscar, which was not much more than Nehru jackets, bad hair and too much suntanning. Go to Altman, Roeg, Rafelson. Woody Allen was a hoot back then. The Conversation, Chinatown, Network were nominees, but also try Being There, McCabe and Mrs Miller, The Conformist – there were literally hundreds of great movies. Where we have to search and grab for them now, we were falling over them in the 70s.

  • Ivica Alac, Czech Republic

    I think that Bridesmaids will not get in (screenplay will and highly probably Melissa also). The Tree of Life will surely get enough number 1 votes, The Ides of March will not. Not so sure about The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but if it gets nominated I think that Rooney Mara could win. More so if Fincher also gets a nod. Otherwise it’s Michelle Williams to beat (especially if the screening was a hit and she was nominated before) because Viola Davis is losing steam and Meryl is in a not-so-good movie. I am curious about Drive (I would like to see BP nomination) and Michael Shannon (his winnings and nominations so far caught my attention and I think he has a good chance of getting in). Sorry if it’s not so PGA related, but I have to share these feelings somehow 🙂

  • Ah. Check out the great Woody Allen films (Annie Hall, Manhattan) and An Unmarried Woman. Those are probably the best 70’s films dealing with mature comedy and romance and lacking the dinginess that I find an attribute of the decade but could be a hindrance to others.

  • @Scott: What Steve50 said, except the part about the suntanning. As an Angeleno, I will tan until I die prematurely from rampant skin cancer.

  • Chinatown, McCabe and Mrs Miller, The Conformist

    These 3 films float among my top half-dozen favorite movies of all time (no ranking. depends on which one I’ve watched most recently.)

    I sent Sasha an OOP copy of The Conformist as a stocking stuffer last week, because she had a schedule conflict and missed its screening in Cannes last May.

    Il Conformista is coming to blu-ray on Jan 30.

  • g

    I am really suprised about the Ides of March! I can’t believe they nominated that over Drive! Oh well,

    Super excited for:
    The Artist
    The Descendants
    Midnight In Paris

  • julian the emperor

    McCabe and Mrs. Miller…just the use of Cohen’s The Stranger Song in the long opening sequence…FANTASTIC!

  • JP

    One thing I’m almost sure: some people are going to commit suicide if Bridesmaids get a Best Picture nomination and The Tree of Life doesn’t.

  • julian the emperor,

    You know, during pre-production when they were building that town the cast was antsy and Altman was impatient to begin. So Altman had the construction crew dressed in period costume and just started filming around them before they were half finished with some of the sets.

    (oh, and the costumes — they just had racks and racks of vintage clothes and Altman let the actors go select anything they wanted off the racks. They developed their characters around whatever hats and boots they were drawn to.)

  • JP

    Fincher is not getting nominated. Almost sure of that. Hazanavicus and Payne are solid because of their films.

    I can’t see the DGA/Academy taking out either one of the BIG TRIO of american filmakers (scorsese-spielberg-allen) or the acclaimed Malick to nominate Fincher. if TGWDT gets BP nod, it’s his prize.

  • Craig Z

    ” I still maintain that it was one of the worst decades for film though.”

    As if I needed any more reason to not take your opinion seriously…..

  • julian the emperor

    Well, JP, that could very well happen…a SAG ensemble nom and a PGA nom for Bridesmaids…there is a definite possibility. But it depends on whether TGWTDT can muster a late surge and whether TOL have a loyal enough fan base within the Academy. I, for one, wouldn’t feel too unhappy about a Bridesmaids nom. That movie is a lot of fun, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The genre cliches that go with it, is something I can live with. But if it gets in at the expense of TOL, that is a shame, I must admit.

    I think there are six safe spots now: The Artist, The Descendants, Hugo, The Help, Midnight In Paris and War Horse. Moneyball looks like number seven. IF there are eight nominees, I’m thinking: Bridesmaids, Tree of Life or TGWTDT. But Ides Of March keeps surprising us….it would be foolish to entirely count it out. Drive is the wild card (a film with a dedicated fan base like that can never be counted out with this voting system).

  • @Ryan Adams: Awesome about the costuming and set building; I had no idea. McCabe has probably my favorite set along with Gangs of New York.

    Did you read Easy Riders, Raging Bulls? Great anecdotes about McCabe, especially how Robert Altman lived in this huge glass house and tried to keep the days really short so he could go home and watch football. Beatty was an obsessed perfectionist and the whole experience was a nightmare for both men, perhaps proving the theory that a happy set makes for a crappy movie and vice-versa.

  • julian the emperor

    Ryan: great trivia! I didn’t know that. But it certainly doesn’t detract from my intense love affair with Altman’s filmography!:)

  • Scott

    Not too hot on Altman…Gosford Park was a bore.

  • julian the emperor

    Scott, please…Gosford Park is far from Altman’s best, but a bore? I would say; a hell of a lot of fun! (even though it hasn’t aged as well for me as much of his other work).

  • Scott

    Yes, a bore. The tagline (Tea At Four. Dinner At Eight. Murder At Midnight.) made it sound far more intriguing then it was. Needed more suspense and less social commentary. Hitchcock would have done it right.

  • Yeah, Scott, if Gosford Park is the only Altman film you’ve seen…McCabe, The Long Goodbye, California Split, Nashville, Short Cuts, MASH, and The Player all range from good to outstanding. Though it featured his traditional ensemble, Gosford Park is an anomaly in terms of subject matter. Letting it distance you from his other works would be like avoiding Scorsese because you didn’t like Hugo or Woody Allen because you weren’t crazy about Match Point. Altman was one of our most diverse filmmakers.

    And since it’s hard to convey tone online sometimes, I’m not harassing you here. I’ve probably seen all the above films only in the last couple years. Nothing wrong with having filmography gaps. Just try to keep an open mind 🙂

  • Scott

    And speaking of murder mysteries, I’d love to see a Hollywood adaption by a talented director of Agatha Christie’s novels.

  • Jesse, Easy Riders Raging Bulls is one of my favorite film books.

    Those details about the sets and costumes for McCabe and Mrs Miller come from Altman: The Oral Biography — first hand accounts from dozens and dozens of filmmakers he worked with over the years.

    I like how Altman had Vilmos Zsigmond flash the original negative, giving it a haze that would impossible brighten up later in the lab. He wanted it foggy and burned that bridge behind him. No way to bring it back to perfect clarity if they took it away from him.

  • Scott

    So why are none of Altman’s films in the IMDB Top 250 then? And it’s not like they just got pushed off by some new titles…even his top rated are at least a few tenths away from the 8.0 threshold. Almost all the other great classic diectors (Hitchcock, Kubrick, Wilder, Capra, Hawks, etc) have films on the list. Now perhaps you don’t put much stock in IMDb…but what about the AFI Top 100 and other lists? I can’t recall ever seeing an Altman film on ’em. In fact I think the only director I’ve really missed out on that is generally considered great is Woody Allen.

  • Mel

    I haven’t picked up Variety or any of the Major papers lately. Which films are aggressively campaigning? I notice TGWTDT banner here, but unlike the others, it’s not an FYC style. I seriously think they weren’t thinking about Oscar with this one. Has anyone seen any FYC for it?

  • @Scott: MASH and Nashville both ranked in the 50’s on AFI’s most recent top 100 list. As for iMDB, few of Altman’s films were hits (though MASH was huge) so the vote totals are lower. Also, his films always seem more popular with film lovers than casual audiences, unlike Woody Allen. Altman had a genial style in his work; they weren’t especially grim or suspenseful, just very much based within the truths of the people portrayed in them. Consider The Long Goodbye, a killer semi-satire on the end of 60’s idealism despite being based on the older Raymond Chandler novel. Roger Ebert’s given a ridiculous number of Altman films 4 stars, and on my own great movies list (which means jack shit to anyone but myself) I’ve listed 4.

    @Ryan Adams: I’ll have to check that book out. Love great filmmaking stories.

  • but what about the AFI Top 100 and other lists? I can’t recall ever seeing an Altman film on ‘em.

    M*A*S*H & Nashville are both on the AFI Top 100.
    #54 & #59

    [edit: oops, Jesse’s quick on the draw.]

  • Craig Z

    Did Scott just seriously bring up the IMDB top 250 as a credible source???

    Full of kids who don’t know anything about films made before 1995

  • Now now, Craig Z, IMDB IS topped by Shawshank which was made in 1994, so give voters a little credit…

    Also, 12 Angry Men clocks in at #6, which strikes me as being a pleasant sort of WTF? selection.

  • Also, 12 Angry Men clocks in at #6, which strikes me as being a pleasant sort of WTF?

    Maybe we’ll see Altman on the IMDb Top 250 when we see more Criterion Editions of Altman films (other than 3 Women & Short Cuts)

  • Craig Z

    Hey have their moments but I mean come on….. I love Fight Club as much as most but isn’t that top 50?

  • Fight Club’s at #13, just ahead of freakin’ GoodFellas. Yeah, modern cult films do really well on that list…

  • Scott

    Craig Z says:
    January 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm
    Did Scott just seriously bring up the IMDB top 250 as a credible source???

    Full of kids who don’t know anything about films made before 1995

    Oh really?

    “For what it’s worth, I looked further into how many are “classics” and if I counted correctly 99 of ’em are from before 1970 and 65 of these are from “The Golden Age of Hollywood” (which if I understand correctly is from like the start of the 1930’s to the end of the 1950s, right?)”

    That count is from November of 2009 though…I haven’t checked recently.

  • Scott

    And apologies on the AFI list…I later realized I wasn’t looking at the most current.

  • rufussondheim

    The best first Altman film to see is The Player. Its biting satire of the Hollywood culture should be accessible to all viewers. The opening 6 plus minute tracking shot is a classic as is the final “filmed” scene with (I think) Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts.

    It’s not the best Altman, but it’s the best introduction.

  • Scott

    Hmm, well he places at #25 on this list-

    Looks like Fritz Lang is the only director in the Top 25 that I haven’t seen a film of. Howard Hawks and Preston Sturges (who aren’t in the Top 25) should be waaay higher up the list!

  • Scott

    And though Forrest Gump is one of my all time favorites, Robert Zemeckis being on the list over say Nolan or Fincher is laughable, lol.

  • Scott, at some point you will need to stop relying on lists to validate your preconceived notions and start forming some actual notions of your own.

    But if you need another list to guide you (nothing wrong with that), here’s Robert Altman, ranked #17 among EW’s 50 greatest directors.

  • Scott

    I have opinions of my own…but as I said before, really my only way of knowing about films from before I was born is through these sort of lists.

  • Scott

    Coincidentally I found that list myself…though I think this link is easier to browse-

  • Scott

    In fact I think Orson Welles is vastly over-rated…how’s that for a controversial notion of my own? :p

  • Scott

    BTW, this article is a good laugh-

    I actually found myself agreeing on Lean, Lynch, and Tarantino…but when I continued scrolling down the page and saw Scorsese and Hitchcock listed as the Top 2 over-rated I burst out laughing and figured it must be satire…

  • really my only way of knowing about films from before I was born is through these sort of lists.

    Like I said, “nothing wrong with that” — I’m only saying, skimming lists for names you recognize and dismissing anything that’s absent is a sketchy way to back your arguments.

    Not trying to slam you, Scott. I came to this conversation late and not even sure I understand what you’re saying. But I got the impression that you’re basing your entire opinion of Robert Altman on one movie.

    Honestly, I don’t think he’s your kind of director, so I’m not even going to encourage you to seek out a lot of titles that you won’t like.

    But it doesn’t make you sound very well-informed to say movies from the 70s are a “turn-off” — so if you’re not capable of sitting through them, then you shouldn’t pass judgement on them, right?

    Your Orson Welles remark is just embarrassing, so you’d be better off sticking to praising stuff you like and curb your desire to sneer at certified geniuses.

  • In fact I think Orson Welles is vastly over-rated… how’s that for a controversial notion of my own?

    “how’s that?”
    you want the truth? It’s meaningless, because the term “over-rated” is meaningless.

  • Scott

    Well Citizen Kane is a technical marvel but most of his “masterpieces” feature the always wooden Joseph Cotton and are quite simply lacking in one or more departments. The only one that really hits on all cylinders is Touch of Evil.

  • Scott

    And this opinion is further cemented by my recent viewing of The Magnificent Ambersons

    Acting- 7
    Script- 7
    Visuals- 8
    Sound- 8
    Editing- 6

    Total Score = 72

    Verdict- Sounds great on paper…on screen not so much. Only thing really worthwhile is the irony of the fate that befalls the spoiled brat. Otherwise what you’ve got is the typically wooden Joseph Cotton in an unpleasant film of disjointed segments. Someone like Capra would have handled this so much better. 🙁

  • most of his “masterpieces” feature the always wooden Joseph Cotton

    Joseph Cotten appeared in only 2 of the best 10 movies Welles directed.

  • Scott

    Well he only really directed like 3 “masterpieces” far as I’m aware, so hence the use of most. Also, I know Welles didn’t direct The Third Man but that’s another over-rated film that Cotton is in.

  • Well he only really directed like 3 “masterpieces” far as I’m aware

    trying to say this nicely, Scott. But the limits of your awareness don’t extend very far.

  • Scott

    There’s only 4 with higher then an 8.0 and one of them is made for TV

  • “The Third Man… another over-rated film”

    When you use the word “over-rated” all that means is “I know that a shit ton of film scholars and really smart people rate The Third Man more highly than I do. But I just don’t get why they rate it so highly.”

    So since all of us here know The Third Man, we think you’re clueless. And we all know Orson Welles a lot better than we know you, Scott. You’re insulting someone who means a lot to most of us. Consequently, your lack of respect for movies we love reflects badly on you around here. It doesn’t reflect on the movies at all.

    So when you say something is “over-rated” all you’re doing is telling us that you don’t respect the movies and directors most film lovers admire.

    If you want to broadcast that here every day, fine with me. But it’s not something I’d want to flaunt if I were you.

    All most of us see is a kid who enjoys showing his ass. Have at it. It’s not interesting to argue with you.

  • Scott

    No Ryan, you can’t please everyone. Plus, have you neglected to notice all of the truly great masterpieces and directors that I do love…?

  • @Scott: I’m only 21 and so I’m still trying to fill a lot of gaps in my own film awareness. Ryan’s right about passing judgement on directors without seeing a lot of their work. I haven’t even seen The Third Man or Touch of Evil OR The Magnificent Ambersons because I’m waiting to experience them on the big screen. Thus, all I can say about Orson Welles is that he demonstrated ridiculous amounts of talent in 4 separate categories of 1 film, Citizen Kane. So, I’m excited to see what else he has to offer in various forms. But even if I found Citizen Kane dull, I’d still reserve judgement on Welles as a filmmaker until I’d seen at least all three of the films listed above. Try the same with Altman; his standing is probably as high as Welles’ in most circles thanks to a greater quantity of acclaimed works (even if Altman never quite had a Citizen Kane). You wouldn’t want to base your whole opinion on The Beatles based on just Let it Be or something. One film can define a director, or an actor, even if it’s considered a great work. I never fully “got” The Tree of Life or The Thin Red Line, but I’ll always be engaged in what Malick has to offer because I responded so highly to Days of Heaven and Badlands.

  • Scott

    The thing is Jesse, I have seen all of Orson’s films that you listed. And you are right about Citizen Kane…it excels in 4 categories, but not all 5

  • Scott

    *so I feel ok passing judgement now

  • Scott

    Also, please note that just because I consider a film over-rated doesn’t mean I disrespect it or think it’s poor piece of filmmaking. In fact it probably just means I would rate it a B or C as opposed to an A. And while I like just about anything, I tend to be extremely critical and it’s somewhat rare for a film to classify as a true “masterpiece” in my book. That list is a short one of about 30 films.

  • I was speaking of Welles as he pertains to my judgment, not yours, and the 4 categories (acting, writing, producing, and directing) as they apply specifically to Orson as well. I think it’s very difficult to negatively judge a major filmmaker. You’re running uphill. A single film, maybe, but you’re probably better off championing an under-appreciated flick (like HP8, right?) than trying to dismiss something that’s acclaimed. Notice how my polite take-down of The Tree of Life at 3:03pm didn’t garner any responses. I’m not telling you to just follow what other people say. Just be aware that challenging a critical status quo requires a ton of thought regarding the material and those involved in making it.

    Now I gotta say good night. Time to hit the gym so I look more like Joseph Cotten and less like Orson Welles.

  • Scott

    In other words, I’ve seen a heck of a lot of 80-90 and even low to mid 90’s films but very few 95+, which is what it’s got to attain to be considered a masterpiece in my book.

  • Fielding

    Scott, your “mark” for The Magnificent Ambersons reminds me of that ridiculous textbook in Dead Poets’ Society that instructs students to locate poems on a graph. Remember what happened to it?

  • [by the way, Scott. That makes 1001 comments you’ve posted on AD since July 11. Congratulations. (there’s no prize.)

    So I’m impressed by your persistence. Maybe you like to antagonize, but it’s nice that you don’t pick fights. Carry on!]

  • Scott

    Here’s my Citizen Kane review (from a few years ago) just for kicks…

    Citizen Kane-

    Its legendary status alone makes one apprehensive. I was just chatting with someone the other day who said he’ll never see it because he’s afraid he’ll be severely disappointed. I almost think disappointment is inevitable given it’s reputation-


    There is a semi-official consensus in film circles that Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made, which has led Roger Ebert to quip that: ‘So it’s settled: “Citizen Kane” is the official greatest film of all time.’ It topped both the AFI’s 100 Years…100 Movies list and the 10th Anniversary Update, as well as all of the Sight & Sound polls of the 10 greatest films for nearly half a century.

    Well, I watched it finally and I’m reluctant to say anything against it but I’m going to attempt an honest review here and not just jump on the bandwagon like many seem to with this film. I’ll start by saying right off the bat this is not my new fav and I don’t agree with the above.

    Ok, here’s the thing. On a technical level…yeah this might be the greatest film- cinematography, editing, sound, etc…it’s all top notch.

    The acting is also incredible, with the exception of Joseph Cotton. However, Citizen Kane feels like “all style and no substance” Ok, perhaps none is too harsh of a word…little substance. The film is sadly quite a bore, in my opinion. Even “rosebud”…the mystery that was built up so much, felt anti-climactic and in the words of the director himself, “It’s a gimmick, really” There is another more amusing possible meaning behind the word though…

    Acting- 9
    Script- 6
    Visuals- 10
    Sound- 10
    Editing- 10

    Total Score = 90%

  • Scott

    Fielding, I’m an engineering student so that shouldn’t be too much of a surprise.

  • Scott

    Now Ryan, I suggest you read over the following again before you accuse me of not having respect or admiration for movies, great directors, etc.

    Favorite directors-

    “Alfred Hitchcock (at last count I’ve seen 25 of his films)

    Billy Wilder (Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, Witness for the Prosecution, Double Indemnity, Stalag 17, Sabrina, Seven Yeah Itch, Sunset Blvd.)

    Frank Capra (It Happened One Night, Arsenic and Old Lace, You Can’t Take it With You, Meet John Doe, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, It’s A Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington)

    Howard Hawks (The Big Sleep, Bringing Up Baby, Sergeant York, Ball of Fire, Monkey Business, Scarface (so much better then the Pacino version), To Have and Have Not, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, His Girl Friday)

    Stanley Kubrick (not exactly a fav, but I’ve seen The Killing, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Lolita, 2001, and Dr. Strangelove…it’s been a mixed bag)

    now for more modern…

    Christopher Nolan (seen all 8 of his films)

    Steven Spielberg (Indiana Jones Trilogy, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, Jurassic Park, Catch Me If You Can, Jaws, E.T.)

    Martin Scorsese (including him under modern because I don’t really care for his older stuff with the exception of Raging Bull. Seen everything from the last decade)”

  • before you accuse me of not having respect or admiration for movies, great directors, etc.

    That’s not what I said. I didn’t accuse you of that. I didn’t accuse you of anything.

    I pointed out that you’re flaunting your low regard for one specific director and a couple of specific movies that most film lovers deeply admire.

  • Craig Z

    Scott, Maybe you should recount that IMDB list…. Since 8 new movies a year make it on that fly by night list.

    You can’t prove greatness with lists or stats Scott BTW…. Any filmgoer worth their salt(of which i personaly don’t include you) at least respects Altman greatly. Not judge them by the one movie of his they have seen and judge their greatness by the IMDB top 250……. A list that in which Donnie Darko is ranked higher than All Quiet on the Western Front….

    Also, Robert Altman has been nominated for 7 Oscars…I thought you were an Oscar follower…. Maybe you should give him the benifit of the doubt instead of write him off because you have too short of an attention span for Gosford Park

  • Maybe you should recount that IMDB list…. Since 8 new movies a year make it

    The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo hit the list yesterday at #250 today it’s #219

    (ding ding ding!)

    Every movie on the list is great. I’d rather be on the list than off it (it can be especially indicative of january zeitgeist) but it’s only a subset of 2500 essential movies.

  • Craig Z

    Oh they are all pretty good films but it is just so fickle I can’t take it seriously.

  • Craig Z

    But then again I don’t need a list to tell me what is great(or back up my claims)

  • “But then again I don’t need a list to tell me what is great (or back up my claims)”

    nope, I see what you’re saying. me either.

    it’s not cool to base opinions on a list
    (but a list looks cool if it resembles opinions I already have)

  • Since 8 new movies a year make it

    Craig Z, You said it right there.

    because it’s a sad year that doesn’t have 25 great movies from around the world.

    (& that’s how I arrive at my estimate of 2500 great movies — probably about half of which older than 1970 I haven’t even seen yet.)

  • Craig Z

    Ryan if you do enjoy lists (I absolutely do but they don’t effect my opinions) I found a pretty fun book called 101 greatest movies of all time in Barnes and Noble. Pretty in depth. Don’t remember who wrote it. It think it has pictures of Al Pacino, Orson Wells and Jack featured prominently on the cover.

    Also was it Scott who said something about not liking the epics of the seventies? That’s the Sixties. Epics were very out of fashion in the Seventies. Crime movies were kind of the thing in the seventies.

  • The Great Dane

    Nothing like a healthy little debate… 🙂

  • Mattoc


    The way I look at it, from what you’re saying and the films you enjoy and the films you don’t enjoy, is that you want the satisfaction without putting in the effort.

    There are people on this site, myself included that have put in many years of their life watching films. It’s not an easy thing to do unless you absolutely love it.

    To appreciate movies fully you need context. Otherwise you don’t know whether boundaries are being pushed or merely winks to the past.

    You don’t have to be a film nut like some of us, and that’s quite ok…but dismissing something without context is ignorant.

    Btw – I think Fritz would be right up your alley with all those angles…then have a look at the other expressionists.

    I understand what you mean about the 70s, but you’re criticisms are why I love the 70s. You need to look at it in context as I said earlier and what the rest of the world was doing. The US took the challenge of the Europeons and then some.

  • Mel

    The 70s had great films! It seems like Scott just didn’t like the aesthetics of 70s cinema…..he dissed early Scorsese!

    Scott actually sounds a lot like me when I started up with Film Studies. And then after spending 4 years earning a degree in Film Studies, it all changed. I totally would have been on here pissing that HP didn’t win best pic every year they made one. Flabbergasted by how they could deny something people loved so much(pretty sure I the mark of a good film was box office and popularity). Nothing wrong with that type of fan, (that was me my whole childhood and it led me to want to study film), but it’s gonna stir a nasty pot yer not even a part of when you start talkin shit on Welles.

    I think I even vaguely remember thinking Kane was mildly boring the first time I saw it in good old F101. You have to watch the shit out of that movie in college though and just like a great film, it does nothing but get better and better and better.

  • Stefan

    Scoring movies reminds me on Dead Poets’ Society. I love the “Rip it out”-scene. Is it really necessary to score the ingredients of a movie? Is it really necessary to score movies at all. I know that Lawrence of Arabia is a better movie than, say, Bridesmaids, even without scoring. 1 or 2 thumps up or down is suffcient to me. And much more credible and reliable than ending up in a 77.2 over a 76.9.

  • Mattoc

    @stefan – is it necessary? No. But a long a competition is a word then yes, scoring is an effective mechanism.
    Is competition necessary? It is inherent…

  • @Mel: In my limited (compared to most of you all) exposure to deeper cuts of film, the 70’s rate as my absolute favorite (1967-1980 to be exact). But yeah, all periods of film have their merits and I’d need to see about 500 more from the Hays Code era to really compare its value to the 70’s. We dig what we dig. Doesn’t mean we’re right.

    I was fortunate enough to see Citizen Kane when I was 13, so I was old enough to understand its basic ideas but also so underexposed to mature films that it really knocked me on my ass. Same goes for The Godfather.

    @Stefan: I like what Roger Ebert says about his star system. He basically rates films on how well they accomplish their ostensible goals. He thus avoids having to give Bridesmaids like, a 1.5 because it’s so many degrees weaker than Lawrence of Arabia. (He gave Bridesmaids a 3.5/4.)

  • Stefan

    @ Jesse Crall: Fair point! Personally, I am not a fan of Bridesmaids (although acknowledging that it has good scenes). I know Ebert’s review of Bridesmaids and I see where he is coming from. Therefore, there is no point in arguing against 3.5/4 for Bridesmaids. I also appreciate Ebert’s approach, which is perfect for “new” films.

    What I question is the scoring of “old” films, as Scott does, ending up in 72 for Magnificent Ambersons and 90 for Citizen Kane (althouigh respecting his determination). @ Mattoc: Agreed, it may be helpful in terms of competition (although my approach still would be different). But where is the competition between, say, Citizen Kane and The Godfather? Both have their deserves places in movie history, having enormous impact of future generations of filmmaking. IMDb’s Top 250 is based on an average of valuations across the board, which is an indication, but easy to manipulate. Same with RT or MC. Helpful. Interesting to see, how critics actually respond. But not more. If I ask you about a ranking of your 10 favourites, I bet an annual salary that your ranking is different in comparison to last year or next year.

  • Stefan

    This is the moment to regret that one cannot edit apparent grammatical mistakes in his comments… “deserved places” instead of “deserves places” and “impact on” instead of “impact of”. Sorry!

  • Mattoc

    Nothing makes me more jealous that a seeing a budding film lover. This is not a comment directed at anyone on this site…just a general statement.

  • Mattoc

    Stefan, I agree with you 101% as a whole. What other people say about a film in meaningless to me…to a point. I do like to take an opportunity to debate a point of view if it is warranted. If someone does not like something then there is no real discussion. It’s just opinion for which everyone is entitled to.

    My comment was more about human nature than anything else.

    You, personally may not see any value or true indication of a films worth by ratings, but I guess you find reading lists, Oscar noms etc interesting/enjoyable/fun…?

    Most lists never equal my own, but taste is something you’re born with right 😉

  • Scott

    Craig Z says:
    January 3, 2012 at 11:27 pm
    Ryan if you do enjoy lists (I absolutely do but they don’t effect my opinions) I found a pretty fun book called 101 greatest movies of all time in Barnes and Noble. Pretty in depth. Don’t remember who wrote it. It think it has pictures of Al Pacino, Orson Wells and Jack featured prominently on the cover.

    There’s also a 1001 Movies To See Before You Die list, lol

  • Stefan

    Mattoc, of course it’s interesting/enjoyable/fun. That is why we are all here. 😉 Because everyone of us has seen enough movies to contribute his personal estimations/feelings/favours. I really enjoy such discussions, by the way. I am just frowning about “I am giving Forrest Gump a 68.2 and Pulp Fiction an 86.4, while Shawshank Redemption is a close second with 85.9”.

  • Scott

    This is where the inspiration for my rating system comes from btw-

  • Craig Z

    Scott, that list is cool. That book I mentioned isn’t just a list actually. Each movie gets a two page writeup and stuff like trivia. Awards nominations etc

    Stefan, I don’t like that kind of rating either. Films aren’t term papers.

  • Scott

    I think it’s pretty obvious that a scientific person and a fine arts student might evaluate films very differently.

  • Mattoc

    Agreed Stefan. Absolutely agree.

  • Craig Z

    Whatever makes you happy Scott but we are talking about movies here which are both art and science. More art I think personally. Science to creat art to be specific.

  • Scott

    It’s a book as well Craig-

    Product Description
    “1001 Movies” is now well-established as the definitive guide to everything you need to know about must-see movies, from the films you shouldn’t have missed the first time around, to the films you can see again and again. Expert critics in each genre of film, from romance to horror and sci-fi, have painstakingly included, revised, cut and added films to bring the must-watch list bang up-to-date for 2007. They will tell you exactly why these films deserve inclusion in this definitive illustrated list, about their conception and development, and even about the most famous pieces of memorabilia associated with them. Packed with vital statistics, and a few facts that may surprise you, this is a collector’s must for the bookshelf as well as an entertaining read for all those who love the wonderful world of film.

  • Scott

    Well I prefer to define things in life by quantitative and qualitative measures Craig. My system is based on how close a film comes to perfection…though there is no such thing as a perfect film IMO so other rating scales where films are given 4/4, 5/5, 10/10, etc frankly don’t make sense.

  • Scott

    And you’d never see me give a film a 100 like they do on Metacritic. I believe the highest score I’ve given is a 98 and that was to The Apartment.

  • Mattoc

    I would say films are a leveler Scott. It’s entertainment. It’s aim is to entertain and to educate. Something we all can grasp.

  • Craig Z

    Do whatever works for you. But personally I find it silly. Cause perfection is subjective anyways and impossible and quite frankly I don’t believe filmmakers should be trying to achieve(I also doubt they do try)

    I find it silly to judge art scientifically. Which I believe should be judged emotionally.

    I don’t give any rating system personally. I just do my best to explain my feelings of the film.

    Though in short. Do what makes you happy.

  • Scott

    I agree actually Mattoc…films should be entertainment first and foremost. Now this doesn’t mean they have to be adrenaline rushes, as there’s many different aspects of a film one can find entertaining…however artsy fartsy stuff like Tree of Life has no place in a theatre or as home entertainment.

  • Scott

    Well I’m a perfectionist and if I were a filmmaker I would probably never actually be satisfied enough with a film to release it, lol

  • Craig Z

    That’s lame Scott…. I don’t like Tree of Life either but many people love it so it has its place… Different strokes. How bout you just not see Malicks next film and let the people that love it do their thing.

    If someone enjoys something it has a place for them. Even if not for you.

  • Scott

    But that’s exactly the point Craig…film needs to be separate from art.

  • Craig Z

    Film is art. Why should it be separated?

  • Scott

    I mean there are arts incorporated, but it should be more then just art. There needs to be substance, there needs to be a coherant story, etc

  • Mattoc

    If you want a list book, get the videohounds guide or something similar. The lists in the back are on a micro level and are comprehensive. If you want to see a list of films under the genre ” handicapped serial killers” or ” Modern Noir” look no further…

    The 1001 books is quite frankly a waste of money.

    Sub genre lists are the way to go for me.

  • Craig Z

    Art is subjective. You see it as a science(which isn’t) which makes it hard for you to see other peoples point of view. That’s probably why you are so off-putting most of the time.

    No matter how much analysys you put into it’s all just a matter of opinion. That’s why it’s art. Just a bunch of fancy tools to make moving and talking pictures.

  • Craig Z

    Story is just part of the art

  • Scott

    People rate hotels and dining and such so why not rate entertainment?

  • Mattoc

    Scott, no no no no and no. Film is art – you need to come out of the closet!

    To entertain and to educate. If it can do both then it will probably win a Oscar – quick check the list (hint Hugo)

    Coherent story? Sometimes you watch, sometimes you see, sometimes you just feel…

  • Mattoc

    @scott-because films (not defending Porky’s) are open to interpretation…an uncooked chicken is an uncooked chicken. An unmade bed is an unmade bed.

  • Mattoc

    Btw Scott – I noticed no one answered your OT about dating sites. To answer your question honestly…there must be a hint of intelligence or variation in the choices. I have never partaken, but of I did and I saw Valentines Day and New Years Eve, or even worse Necromantik and Guinea Pig series as their favourites – move on.

  • Scott

    Yes, but whether the bed is comfortable or the food is good is subjective or as you said “open to interpretation”

  • Mattoc

    You are not using your brain with food and shelter. It’s primal. Many top chefs of the world list toasted sandwhiches or tinned baked beans as their meal of choice. Rating food and shelter is pretentious considering the may that don’t have either.

  • Tero Heikkinen

    Personally I never give stars/points to films. I only do that on websites like this, or when a certain magazine requires it (but I do it unwillingly).

    It makes people lazy, and destroys film criticism. It’s better when people don’t just look at the numbers I gave, but actually read what I had to say.

    To review art scientifically looks weird, and I could never do Scott’s scale (Acting, Script, Visuals, Sound, Editing). If a film is hanging on just these five qualities, it’s dangerous. Like… what if a movie didn’t fare well in any of the five mentioned, but touched you in a new way? Scott, you probably think it can’t happen. Emotions outside your science.

  • Craig Z

    “People rate hotels and dining and such so why not rate entertainment?”

    Like I’ve said Scott. You can do whatever you want but I will still find it silly because frankly Hotels and movies are very different things. Not all things should be judged similarily. Would you rate a woman on a scale the same way you do a movie? No because those are two way different things. Like how hotels and movies have nothing in common either.

  • James

    Same here, I’m not a fan of film rating scales: numbers, stars, thumbs, tomatoes, popcorn buckets… For any given film, I have several views that simply cannot be expressed in figures.

  • OCO300

    @Jesse Grant how come it never ranked #1 in the box office?

  • Craig Z

    OCO, Who the hell is Jesse Grant? Nobody by that name has posted in this thread? This kid is seriously off in his own world.

  • Nily

    Im SOOOOOOOOO elated about TGWTDT & Tin Tin!

  • OCO300

    @Craig Z I meant to put Jerry Grant, sorry about that

  • IMDB has listed Johnny Depp as Hugo Producer (not an executive). So why he is not nominated as a producer with King and Scorsese?

  • OCO300
  • Logan

    The reason I can’t root for Dragon Tattoo in any of these “elections” is not that it isn’t a good movie or that Rooney Mara isn’t a good Elisabeth Salander. It’s that the Swedish original–especially Noomi Rapace–were so much better–and were virtually ignored by Hollywood.

  • rufussondheim

    Wow, a conversation on art/film/film criticism! I will now rate it.

    Originiality – 7
    Intelligence – 6
    Clarity – 4
    Depth – 4

    I give it a 21 out of 40. That rates as the fifth best conversation I’ve seen so far in 2012. Doubtful it will make my year end top 100 but nice try. Maybe your next conversation can up the ante.


    I don’t give a fuck about a movie’s sound or editing or acting or any of that. That shit is all window dressing to me. What I look for in a film is the ability to show me something new about myself or the world in which I live. Yeah, sometimes a movie can be so well made the impact it may not have can be overlooked, but that’s uncommon. I want a movie to excite me intellectually or emotionally, like all art, whether it be a music, literature, theater or film/TV.

    Now of course sound, editing and acting can enhance the impact of a movie, but if they are done at a minimally competent manner, that’s fine for me. (Actually, sometimes if this stuff is too polished it can lessen the impact of the movie for me. Up in the Air is a perfect example for me. It’s clear that every last second of the film was done over with great care. All of the rawness of the film was washed away. And that made the movie seem sterile to me.)

    It’s a shame Scott doesn’t see film as art. That explains a lot to me. This speaks volumes. First off, it implies that art is something to be kept in a certain location and only brought out when one is in the mood. It also implies an extremely limited viewpoint of the world.

    Not sure, Scott, how much science you have taken or what varieties. But I’ve taken a fair amount of molecular chemistry. And when I look at DNA and how elegantly it’s structured, all I see is art. It’s a magnificent and beautiful structure that amazes me. I am filled with awe, and forced to think of larger and grander themes and ideas that are not part of that molecule. To me, that’s what art is. Art is something that causes you to look at life differently, something that provokes thought above and beyond the physical structure.

    Art is all around us, Scott. I hope, one day, you learn to see it.

  • @rufussondheim: “Art is all around us.” Yup. I would even argue that film is the greatest art form because when done right, it combines the written word, performance, visuals, and music, all in a manner accessible to a wide audience.

    We live in a fucked up world with fucked up people. All we can do is keep from fucking it up more as we try to find the beauty within it. The gripping movies we individually take in flash beauty before us and then delve deep into our minds and our souls. How a film moves me, how it moves you, and to what degree stands irrelevant as long as we’re all willing to open ourselves up and accept what artists bring us.

  • Scott

    Craig Z says:
    January 4, 2012 at 5:23 am
    “People rate hotels and dining and such so why not rate entertainment?”

    Like I’ve said Scott. You can do whatever you want but I will still find it silly because frankly Hotels and movies are very different things. Not all things should be judged similarily. Would you rate a woman on a scale the same way you do a movie? No because those are two way different things. Like how hotels and movies have nothing in common either.

    Actually guys do rate women…the 1 to 10 scale rating game, doesn’t ring a bell?

  • Scott

    “It’s better when people don’t just look at the numbers I gave, but actually read what I had to say.”

    Here’s what I generally do when looking at a review…I like at the score and I read the introductory and conclusion paragraphs. That’s usually all, because I’ve found within reviews there are often times spoilers. So many reviewers just recount the plot.

    “To review art scientifically looks weird, and I could never do Scott’s scale (Acting, Script, Visuals, Sound, Editing). If a film is hanging on just these five qualities, it’s dangerous. Like… what if a movie didn’t fare well in any of the five mentioned, but touched you in a new way?”

    You’re right…I’ve yet really to come across a film that does so. If a film “touched” me then it’s because of the acting or the script or the cinematography or the score, etc. But then I’ve also never seen a life changing/altering film…I don’t think film (or art) has that power really, as much as I wish it did. For instance it would nice if a film such as Before Sunset actually altered my personality to be someone that is spontaneous and seizes the day.

  • Scott

    Sorry, I meant Before Sunset…Before Sunrise is the sequel.

  • Scott

    switch that around, lol…wtf, I must not have got enough sleep.

  • Robert A.

    “But then I’ve also never seen a life changing/altering film…I don’t think film (or art) has that power really, as much as I wish it did.”

    I think this depends on how you define life-changing or life-altering. I remember reading something from Holly Hunter about how she reacted after seeing “Wings of Desire.” She said she walked away from the theater feeling as if she were a different person from who she’d been when she’d stepped into the theater. The whole world felt different to her, like she was experiencing it in a new way. That, I think, great art and great film can do.

  • Scott

    It’s defined quite simply…does it change/alter the way you live life? You see, I’m shy and socially awkward (been suggested I’m very high functioning Asperger’s) and frustrated with life right now…like I don’t belong and I’m a spectator watching everyone else having fun. So is there any film that actually has the power to change my personality and feelings toward life?

  • Robert A.

    Well, okay, asking a movie to change your personality is probably asking too much of a film. But the point I got from Holly Hunter is that a great film can alter your perception of things, the world, life itself, even if only temporarily. But even if only temporary, I think that’s still a pretty beautiful thing–it’s like stepping outside yourself and seeing wha

  • Robert A.

    Oops! My computer sent that last post on its own, I think.

    What I was saying is that it’s still a pretty beautiful thing–it’s like stepping outside yourself and seeing what you’ve always seen but in a new and unexpected way. A film (and art) don’t necessarily alter your personality, but they can, every now and then, alter the way you perceive things.

  • Scott

    “…swept under the rug by the summer hit that for whatever reason the awards seem to favor– that would be Bridesmaids– and the usual crop of awards season bait that came after it. You can blame plenty of individual factors on the fact that Harry isn’t doing so well with the awards, from the kid-friendly and critically loved Hugo to the fact that there won’t be a guaranteed 10 Best Picture nominees this year (the number is on a sliding scale from 5 to 10). Maybe if the voters knew they’d have 10 to play with, they’d go for the blockbuster. Maybe if they weren’t enchanted by Martin Scorsese, they’d remember the other movie about an intrepid young boy making his way through the world. Maybe if Deathly Hallows had somehow just made a little more money.”

    “Here’s a question to chew over though– if Deathly Hallows hadn’t been split into two films, and was released this year as a single story, would it be nominated? Would it be so epic that the Academy would have no choice but to honor it? It’s hard to imagine something being better than one of the best-reviewed movies of the year that also made the most money, but I wonder if Academy voters see the split as more of a money-grabbing effort, and feel OK writing it off as “just a blockbuster” as a result. It didn’t work that way for Inception, so could the “Part 2″ be the difference here? Feel free to speculate over what could have been in the comments.”


  • Craig Z

    Actually Scott, the aspbergers thing makes sense. Particularly I can see it in your insistence of discussing one topic over and over despite everybody else losing interest.

    Though you probably don’t…. Aspbergers is the new OCD. Something people use as an excuse to explain their flaws.

  • Tero Heikkinen

    Scott, you HAVE that passion. You DO! Otherwise you wouldn’t be here. And everybody is talking to you, cause they see right through you.

    Just let it go, dude! You KNOW that film is art.


  • Tero Heikkinen

    It was only after… that I read about his possible condition. No biggie!

    We still love Scott.

  • OCO300

    @Scott ur right, I mean how was not nominated for PGA?! I mean it was a huge commercial success, it was a bad year for movies but not for sequels.

  • Tero Heikkinen


    2011 was not bad. Maybe it was not as good as the year earlier, but it was much better than most of the “noughties” (2007 was best there).

  • Mattoc

    We’re re-casting The Big Lebowski – we know OCOs Donny, and Tero’s Jesus…who’s everybody else?

  • Tero Heikkinen

    Well, you know, My English is, like, not that great, man.

    IRL, I would be quite close to Maude. Never Jesus.

  • OCO300

    @Tero than how come moviegoers spent over $3 billion dollars last summer to see the last HP film, Transformers 3, annd POTC: On Stranger Tides?

  • Scott

    What are you talking about OCO? Please just be quiet, because mentioning Potter alongside Transformers 3 and Pirates 4 isn’t helping the cause…

  • Craig Z

    OCO300, Box office =/= Quality

  • Scott

    Not always no…but box office and an A+ Cinemascore demands respect. Not to mention the critical response that we’ve recited ad nauseum.

  • Scott

    I probably should have put and in all caps to emphasize I mean the 2 together.

  • Craig Z

    Quality cannot be proven period.

  • OCO300

    @Scott sorry man no hard feelings

Check Also

60th BFI London Film Festival Announces 2016 Award Winners

(Press release) London – 15 October 2016: The 60th BFI London Film Festival in partnership…