This year, there are only a handful of films that have run the gauntlet and came out the other side. As we head into the season of the critics awards, more favoritism and preference will fall into place. As of today, though, Best Picture is anyone’s game.
The critics, an ever-changing and growing chorus, seem not to agree this year on any one film. There is no Social Network, Hurt Locker, No Country for Old Men, or even a King’s Speech – there is certainly no Slumdog Millionaire. Each new film that comes out has its supporters and its detractors, passionate detractors, in fact, who are maybe a little less inclined to agree with their peers after last year’s unanimous push for one film. Perhaps they didn’t like being lumped into one big group aligning behind one film.
Either way, things feel like they’re all over the place. So unless we’re talking about Harry Potter or Rise of the Planet of the Apes, any film could take the lead right now and it wouldn’t be that surprising. The Descendants and The Artist seem to be the two most popular choices among films that can win. But we’re not even at that stage; strangely enough, we’re still wondering what might get nominated.
When the Academy took away the assurance of ten slots for Best Picture most of scattered like barnyard chicks. We’d grown accustomed to imagining a ten picture race where just about anything was possible. The original expansion to ten was designed to include popular films but it was discovered that the Academy was just as oriented towards great films, be they big or small, as the critics were. The change failed to do what they wanted it to do. Now we’re back to a scenario that is more similar to their Big Five. There will be five strong films and those films will likely find matching nominations in acting, writing, directing, and possibly editing. The Academy has always felt secure in the notion that the branches could share the wealth with no problem. Big, effects-heavy movies that lacked good writing and acting could sit comfortably in the tech categories, but the more preferred films — the dramas, the period war movies — would take the “top” categories. It shouldn’t matter that a film “only gets” art direction and cinematography nominations. But it does, somehow. It does.
The “best” that count most are best writing, acting and directing. Editing gets to go along for the ride too. When the planets align a movie comes along and takes it all because it is a good story, epic in scope, with many branches vibing its greatness. But this year, things feel very strange. Nothing is lining up. Where is that movie everyone loves? Even films that seem like they should be up in the 90s are pulled back down to the 80s on Metacritic by one or two strong, negative reviews. It can’t be agreed that everyone loves Hugo or The Descendants or The Artist — there are one or two or three holdouts who don’t.
This could be because Metacritic is using a stricter scoring system than they’ve used in previous years, or the critics just can’t allow themselves to all fall in love with one movie, or the movies just haven’t been up to snuff. Me, I’m scratching my head at, say, Kenneth Turan’s negative take on Hugo. I expect that from the critics who like to be contrary but Turan has never been one of those. Of all people, I expected him to love the film. Then again, at the Q&A for the film he didn’t stay to see Thelma Schoonmaker chat with Paul Thomas Anderson — I knew then that he wouldn’t give the film a rave.
A word about critics, their reviews, and Metacritic. When I met Joe Morgenstern in Telluride and asked him what his favorite film of the year was he answered Midnight in Paris. Metacritic has Morgenstern’s review of that film scored at 90. Wouldn’t it be 100 if it was his favorite of the year? Well, apparently not. This is something to keep in mind when looking at the way reviews are scored, subjectively. But I’ll still take it over Rotten Tomatoes which only gives you a thumbs up/thumbs down collective.
In the end, all things inevitably drift back to two movies. Only two have hit the highest score at Metacritic, tied with a conservative 87, and have been tested with audiences — Moneyball and Harry Potter.
Both films, if the critics are being honest about their reviews, should do well with the critics awards. Then again, you have to wonder about scoring reviews in the first place. What does it mean if most of the prominent critics gave a film a 100 but a few select critics, like the Descendants’ main detractors, Dana Stevens of Slate and Stephanie Zacharek of Movieline, hate the film? What does it mean if Kenneth Turan gives Hugo a middling score while Manohla Dargis, Ebert, TIME magazine all praise it?
It means, like everything else in life, there is nothing unanimous about the critics awards. This was the predicament I feared after last year came to a crashing end. That the industry had wholly shut out the critics’ darling so thoroughly and completely it had to mean that the following year would offer no such alignment. It feels like a free-for-all now, not a Presidential election where you take sides in order to push forth one candidate. And what it might mean is an unpredictable Oscar race ahead.
Right now, the field is so wide open, in fact, that if any of the films that haven’t yet opened hit really big, there is room now for a juggernaut to take hold. And if there is one coming it will either have to be War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. If one of these films aims straight, hits big, and dings the box-office gong, it’s all over.
But what if none of them do? Does that mean Moneyball and Harry Potter are the two frontrunners heading into the Oscar race? The stories for Shame, The Descendants and The Artist are still unfinished; too soon to count them out. We do know that none of them have thus far gotten a Wall-E seal of approval with many scores of 100. The Oscar race this year, we have to conclude, might not be driven by critics at all. I’ve always gotten the sense, despite the push last year for one film, that tThe critics like to be on the other side of the party, across the room from the Oscar voters. (And the Oscar voters don’t want to mingle either.)
Spend some time with Academy members and critics and you can see why. Critics actually love movies. They love watching them. They have to watch a lot of them every year. They see more movies than Academy members do. They see more movies than most people in the general public do. They care about the future of cinema.
Academy members, on the other hand, probably watch a lot more TV. HBO is where all of the good filmmakers and writers have exiled themselves to – there, they are not imprisoned by the bottom line. They aren’t necessarily focused-grouped to death. They don’t have to be subjected to the gauntlet of critics and Twitter before their films ever even open. That’s where most of the great filmmaking is happening in America now: on cable TV.
Walking through the Academy when they screened The Artist it was clear that these aren’t people who are going to fall all over themselves to check out the latest Von Trier film. They’re lucky, most of them, if they can manage to stay awake during a screening of any film, let alone one that is supposed to be hailed as the greatest film of the year. Not to generalize but their voting proves how they think. The movie has to be exceptionally entertaining, like Slumdog Millionaire, or I suppose The King’s Speech, to pull them out of their comfortable coma cocoon to pay attention.
That brings us back to this year — our headless horseman of an Oscar year with so many wonderful films getting slaughtered, needlessly, by critics who, frankly, think too much. Many of them could do with a dose of the Academy’s attitude: is it a good picture or not? Perhaps it’s that there are just too many of them now. Too many opinions floating around out there. And studios think that if they co-opt the bloggers they can somehow control how their movie is perceived. But it doesn’t quite work that way, does it? The critics still matter. The public still matters. The Oscar race isn’t decided by twenty bloggers who went to Telluride.
So what happens now? We cluck about waiting for something significant to happen. It’s about to happen. The clock is ticking. The votes are going to have to be counted in about a week as the New York Film Critics hand in their choice for the year’s best. I’m going to bet that the Los Angeles Film Critics, which comes a week later after New York, doesn’t align. I’m going to bet that this year, the awards will be all over the place and there will be no consensus.
What is Oscar buzz? Oscar buzz used to be something tangible and real. It used to be “this is the movie all of the Academy members are talking about.” That was Crash. That was Slumdog Millionaire. That was The King’s Speech. But publicists and studios have gotten so good at manipulating what is thought of as buzz (starting back in the days of Saving Private Ryan and Shakespeare in Love, when it became more obvious that the system could be manipulated) it’s hard to know what’s real and what isn’t real. With so many mouthpieces speaking FOR the Academy who can we really trust? This year, everyone will body-flop towards those who were “right” about the King’s Speech. Fair enough. You will never lose too badly by aligning with popular thinking, and by underestimating the the willingness to always choose the safe crowd-pleaser.
However, films that cut through the safe zone this year will mostly ignored. The Rise of the Planet of the Apes is still one of the best films I saw this year. The critics didn’t agree and neither will the Academy. I still love that movie. I personally need no validation from either group. The only reason I care what the critics think is because I do believe they influence the awards. I only care what the Academy thinks when they step outside their comfort zone and reward true cinematic greatness: No Country for Old Men, The Departed, The Hurt Locker, All About Eve, Casablanca, The Silence of the Lambs. It happens.
If I had to pick a top ten right now, without seeing the films that are still yet to open it would be easy to find ten. It would be easy to find 20. My ten would look like this:
Hugo
Moneyball
Shame
The Artist
The Descendants
The Rise of the Planet of the Apes
We Need to Talk About Kevin
Rampart
Tree of Life
Project Nim
And the next tier would be:
Drive
The Ides of March
Bridesmaids
J. Edgar
A Dangerous Method
The Help
It won’t matter what I think, I know. But I can end the year with the comfortable knowledge that we must always remember to love the movies we love, no matter what the critics think, no matter how the Academy decides.
But let’s take yet another look at the films as they stand now. The box office story is not yet told for The Descendants and The Artist. How much money people pay to see those movies will impact their position in the race for Best Picture, even though they’re currently considered the frontrunners.
Moneyball
Box office: $72 million
Metacritic score: 87
Metacritic user score: 7.9
Metacritic scores of 90-100: 15
Rotten Tomatoes: 95
Moneyball — when I think of this film I see the last shot of the movie. I see a closer look at Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt whose face has finally loosened around the edges, with fatherly pride and worry all competing for his state of being. I see the fear from his failure as a young, promising player, his missed opportunity to study at Stanford under a full scholarship, and his innocent optimism about changing the game of baseball. His putting the “moneybag” practice into play DID change baseball. Some think not for the better. Some think it plays the game the right way, by taking away the concept of star players. But me, knowing not a lot about economics or the statistics of anything, can see only the film – a script sculpted by many hands over the years, honed and dissected and eventually refined into something meaningful. I see the ensemble cast, led by Pitt in a career best performance but supported beautifully by Jonah Hill and the unknowns cast as baseball players. I see the almost-win in the last act, the last hurdle before the big World Series win and maybe it reminds me once again that winning everything isn’t everything. When Billy Beane hears his daughter singing to him, when he remembers that life is short and our children grow up so fast, sometimes it isn’t that moment when you step up and accept the trophy that matters. Sometimes it’s what’s right in front of you right now. Nothing lasts. Billy Beane could have left California and missed out on his daughter’s growing up. Maybe that would have made him a success. Maybe people wouldn’t think him such an eternal loser. But to me, when he made that decision to stay, when he stopped looking ahead to find his happiness and saw it, briefly but undeniably, right in front of him? That is what makes Moneyball one of the best films of the year.
In any other year Moneyball might be just one of the good movies released but not the best reviewed. Somehow, though, by some fluke, there it sits. Moneyball seems in line for a PGA, WGA, SAG and perhaps a DGA nomination. It will be nominated, most likely, for a Golden Globe, and it should sail through the top ten lists for AFI and National Board of Review.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Box office: $381 million
Metacritic score, 87
Metacritic user score, 7.8
Metacritic scores of 90-100: 15
Rotten Tomatoes score, 96
The FYC ads for Harry Potter say “attention must be paid,” and this is how the Harry Potter fans feel too. All of those movies, watching that cast grow up before our eyes, all of them successful, a tribute to readers and fans everywhere. And yet, and yet…Harry Potter makes little sense to anyone who hasn’t read the books, especially tired old adults. It’s hard to see Best Picture prestige in stories about pre-teens who just end up married by the end of it. The real problem with Harry Potter, to my mind, is not the films’ fault but the source material. You can’t really argue with all of the money the franchise has made, but after all of that, Harry just didn’t seem like an interesting enough character to me to warrant all of that drama with Voldemort. I’m willing to admit to being wrong and out of touch on this. I can’t really sell Harry Potter the story for Oscar’s Best Picture. But I can sell, or argue, the notion that when you’re talking about taking stock of the best films of any year, attention must be paid to one that made that kind of money, entertained that many fans and closed out a very successful series which never got any awards recognition in the major categories. I can argue that 2011 could remember Harry Potter as one of its best. I could also argue that Inception didn’t really make sense either and that didn’t prevent it from being nominated.
But I know deep down that with ten slots, Harry Potter’s inclusion would be a cake walk. With the new voting system, it has to not only earn 50 or 60 number one votes – which is possible if supporter can rally and put that film at number one. It then has to pass the second test, where it really needs to be a 2 and a 3 movie. This is where I think it can’t cut it. I don’t see members putting it high on their ballots. Not with films like Midnight in Paris, The Artist, The Descendants — these films are going to crowd the top of the ballot.
Theoretically I agree with the “attention must paid” notion. But I don’t know where it goes from there.
The Descendants
Box office: too soon to know
Metacritic score: 84
Scores of 90-100: 17 (might have the most 100s)
Rotten Tomatoes: 90
In another of the “strong men also cry” films from 2011, it’s not to appreciate the pitch-perfect mastery at play in The Descendants, Alexander Payne’s unapologetically sincere love story. It’s easy to hold back sloppy emotions, to pretend that because you show them it makes you somehow weaker. The tenderness evident in this film stripped away snark and cynicism to dissolve us down to our primal emotions — fear of death, need for love — was surprising coming from Payne. Again, how any critic can judge this film harshly is one of the mysteries I’ll never understand, except to say that we all have different ideas of what makes a great film great. The Descendants is a film I will watch repeatedly, like Sideways, which is a film I’ve seen so many times I sometimes think whole cells in my body carry around particles from it.
The Descendants seems to have everything it takes to not just be nominated for Best Picture but to win. And it could be the frontrunner as we speak, especially if most of the Oscar peeps turn out to be right. Payne is certainly one of the most celebrated directors never to have won an Oscar. And yet, what if another movie comes along that hits stronger? That ending isn’t written yet.
Hugo
Box office: too soon to know
Metacritic score: 84
Scores of 90-100: 11 (still waiting on a few reviews)
Rotten Tomatoes: 96
Again, but for a couple of middling to negative-ish reviews, Hugo would be your high-scorer. That Martin Scorsese made a movie that moves people to tears all the while digging into 3-D technology is, to my mind, a gift. How anyone could complain about this film boggles my mind and yet they do complain. Not only do they complain but they nitpick. Hugo is, to me, one of the great films of this past year. But it’s a family film, too. And perhaps the nitpicking will worm its way into the Academy.
The Help
Box office: $168 million
Rotten Tomatoes: 75
Metacritic score: 62
Scores of 90-100: 2
The critics didn’t like this one but the public did. Hopefully it will go a long way towards convincing studios that films with women in the lead can make a lot of money. That a black woman, in that big cast of white actresses, is being discussed to actually win Best Actress is one of the exceptional things about this year that most people don’t seem to be noticing. I think because people generally bristle at the notion of the “affirmative action” Oscars. That argument only works if you think Viola Davis is the frontrunner because she’s black, but it’s much more than that. She’s the frontrunner because she is the only female who might be nominated for Best Actress who is in a film that might be nominated for Best Picture. The only Best Actress contender in a Best Picture contender. The only one. The Help is full of great performances and is, hopefully, a film Academy members will vote for despite it not having cool street cred.
Midnight in Paris
Box office: 55 million – the highest grossing Woody Allen film of all time.
Metacritic Score: 81
User score: 7.9
Metacritic scores of 90-100: 9
Rotten Tomatoes score: 93
It is the time to celebrate Woody Allen once again. With the American Masters series and the upcoming documentary, and Midnight in Paris being the most profitable and beloved Woody Allen movie to come out in a very long time, it’s hard to imagine it being forgotten by year’s end. I also think Woody Allen will probably be nominated for Best Director. Midnight in Paris is an easy watch. It doesn’t ask you to do much but sit back and enjoy the show. And that could go a long way in a year with so many films that want more from you than that.
The Tree of Life:
Metacritic Score: 85
Metacritic scores of 90-100:21 (the most)
Rotten Tomatoes: 84
Box office: $13 million
Oh, The Tree of Life. I still think this one is kicking around the conversation. I don’t know if it will make the Best Picture cut – it might. The power of Malick and all. But something tells me Sean Penn’s negative comments about the screenplay might have altered perception ever so slightly. You won’t see a film more ambitious, more thoroughly realized about the life of a baby boomer than The Tree of Life, which is one of the reasons it could hit big with Academy members. It does strike a chord when it strikes a chord and those who love it really really really love it. In the realm of “films that don’t make any sense” you have Harry Potter on the one hand and The Tree of Life on the other. One made a lot of money, one made a little money. One is wholly original. One is the end of a very long, very beloved series. Again, let it be said that if there were ten nominees both of these films might stand a better chance. As it stands now, it’s still a mystery.
Other films not counted out yet:
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (RT score: 97)
Margin Call (RT score: 85)
The Ides of March (RT score: 85)
We’re flying blind. Destination unknown. In a couple of weeks the picture will become a little more clear as to what films are going to be favorited the various groups, which films will unite voters and which films will split them apart.
Scott, call up your friend, and tell him he’s f***ing crazy. He should be checked for some sort of psychotic issue. Harry Potter as “the greatest motion picture ever?” You’ve got to be kidding me. I saw it, both of the final two back to back. They were alright, decent I’d say, and at best, pretty good and entertaining. But best ever? Part of the reason for the film’s excellent reception is because it was the last film in a long series, based off of a beloved set of novels. Here’s the part that I have the largest problem with:
“What Harry Potter does is blend reality with fantasy and make the mythic more intimate than ever before. It is the great story of OUR time. Lord of the Rings was a story from the past, Star Wars is timeless, but Harry Potter is the story that marks our story at this point in time. Harry Potter is our definitive modern myth and Deathly Hallows will see it close.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate the film. And while I have only read a couple of the books, I remember finding them quite good. But I have seen the earlier HP films, and the last two really couldn’t have gone anywhere but up from where that series left it. Harry Potter is the “greatest story of our time?” It is creative, yes, but is it really as all-encompassing as your friend says? It had a lot of box-office appeal, but it’s opening weekend was 1/2 of it’s entire domestic box-office take. This tells me one thing: there a lot of people who DIDN’T see it. Many of the fans of the books, and those who have seen all the prior films, went to see it. And then, suddenly, everyone that wanted to see it saw it on the first day/weekend, and everything dropped from there. Clearly, the film didn’t have as much appeal as your friend states if its massive opening weekend couldn’t turn into a more substantial box-office run.
I’m sorry, but I just cannot see myself ever calling the Harry Potter films the greatest series ever, or Deathly Hallows 1&2 the best films ever. They are creative stories, but their mass appeal is simply not that great, and the filmmaking and production was good at best. But it needs to be more than good to be considered anywhere near the best. And just because Harry Potter is, as your friend says, “our definitive modern myth,”, perhaps he should focus on the MODERN there and see what he really said. Modern? Yes. Myth? Yes. Definitive? No. No. Absolutely not.
Scott, call up your friend, and tell him he’s f***ing crazy. He should be checked for some sort of psychotic issue. Harry Potter as “the greatest motion picture ever?” You’ve got to be kidding me. I saw it, both of the final two back to back. They were alright, decent I’d say, and at best, pretty good and entertaining. But best ever? Part of the reason for the film’s excellent reception is because it was the last film in a long series, based off of a beloved set of novels. Here’s the part that I have the largest problem with:
“What Harry Potter does is blend reality with fantasy and make the mythic more intimate than ever before. It is the great story of OUR time. Lord of the Rings was a story from the past, Star Wars is timeless, but Harry Potter is the story that marks our story at this point in time. Harry Potter is our definitive modern myth and Deathly Hallows will see it close.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate the film. And while I have only read a couple of the books, I remember finding them quite good. But I have seen the earlier HP films, and the last two really couldn’t have gone anywhere but up from where that series left it. Harry Potter is the “greatest story of our time?” It is creative, yes, but is it really as all-encompassing as your friend says? It had a lot of box-office appeal, but it’s opening weekend was 1/2 of it’s entire domestic box-office take. This tells me one thing: there a lot of people who DIDN’T see it. Many of the fans of the books, and those who have seen all the prior films, went to see it. And then, suddenly, everyone that wanted to see it saw it on the first day/weekend, and everything dropped from there. Clearly, the film didn’t have as much appeal as your friend states if its massive opening weekend couldn’t turn into a more substantial box-office run.
I’m sorry, but I just cannot see myself ever calling the Harry Potter films the greatest series ever, or Deathly Hallows 1&2 the best films ever. They are creative stories, but their mass appeal is simply not that great, and the filmmaking and production was good at best. But it needs to be more than good to be considered anywhere near the best. And just because Harry Potter is, as your friend says, “our definitive modern myth,”, perhaps he should focus on the MODERN there and see what he really said. Modern? Yes. Myth? Yes. Definitive? No. No. Absolutely not.
The Academy has often nominated a commercial, blockbuster oriented film, I.E., Babe, Seabiscuit, The Blind Side, Inception… etc. It’s not realy that far of a shot to think that HP7 would get a nomination. Speaking of which, Babe. That’s something whose prestige level (in Academy terms) I’d consider low. It has the reviews and the crowd pleasing though (both of which would be 9 or 10.)
The Academy has often nominated a commercial, blockbuster oriented film, I.E., Babe, Seabiscuit, The Blind Side, Inception… etc. It’s not realy that far of a shot to think that HP7 would get a nomination. Speaking of which, Babe. That’s something whose prestige level (in Academy terms) I’d consider low. It has the reviews and the crowd pleasing though (both of which would be 9 or 10.)
About Harry Potter having a 0 prestige level, I’d disagree. I think it’d be around 5. It has the whole finale thing going for it, has a wide cast of famed British actors and the box office (that of which I believe weighs to the prestige). Also, by your logic Winter’s Bone, a tiny indie with minimum prestige, attention, or “crowdpleasing” wouldn’t have gotten nominated. That combined with the the supposition that it’ll pick up quite a few nominations (and some wins) at the precursors (especially anything taking place in Britain, i.e., the series has 28 BAFTA noms to its 9 Oscar noms), along with it’s likely getting nominated for tons of technical categories (Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Artistic Direction, Makeup, Visual Effects, Cinematography and maybe Score) makes it a decent bet for a nomination for Best Nom. It’s not sure, but it has a fair chance.
As for winner, I’m betting on The Artist. It’s still too wide to call one, but it edges out Descendants just slightly in my mind.
Also, as to Hugo getting good box office, all of the experts are betting against it due to its stiff competition. (Arthur Christmas, The Muppets, and last week’s Breaking Dawn) It might not even make its production cost.
Winter’s Bone won the Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Prize as well as the Sundance Waldo Salt Screenplay Award. It was adapted from a novel by one of America’s most distinguished if lesser known authors. I don’t know what crowd wouldn’t be pleased with a young girl who’s struggling single-handedly to keep her home and family together and who triumphs against all odds. It pleased the hell out of me.
For the record, I never said Harry Potter doesn’t have its own brand of prestige. But we don’t all have the same definition of prestige — and Academy members have their own ideas about what it constitutes. How do we know the Academy viewed Winter’s Bone as a prestige film? 4 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture.
That might be inconceivable to some people, but there it is.
About Harry Potter having a 0 prestige level, I’d disagree. I think it’d be around 5. It has the whole finale thing going for it, has a wide cast of famed British actors and the box office (that of which I believe weighs to the prestige). Also, by your logic Winter’s Bone, a tiny indie with minimum prestige, attention, or “crowdpleasing” wouldn’t have gotten nominated. That combined with the the supposition that it’ll pick up quite a few nominations (and some wins) at the precursors (especially anything taking place in Britain, i.e., the series has 28 BAFTA noms to its 9 Oscar noms), along with it’s likely getting nominated for tons of technical categories (Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Artistic Direction, Makeup, Visual Effects, Cinematography and maybe Score) makes it a decent bet for a nomination for Best Nom. It’s not sure, but it has a fair chance.
As for winner, I’m betting on The Artist. It’s still too wide to call one, but it edges out Descendants just slightly in my mind.
Also, as to Hugo getting good box office, all of the experts are betting against it due to its stiff competition. (Arthur Christmas, The Muppets, and last week’s Breaking Dawn) It might not even make its production cost.
Winter’s Bone won the Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Prize as well as the Sundance Waldo Salt Screenplay Award. It was adapted from a novel by one of America’s most distinguished if lesser known authors. I don’t know what crowd wouldn’t be pleased with a young girl who’s struggling single-handedly to keep her home and family together and who triumphs against all odds. It pleased the hell out of me.
For the record, I never said Harry Potter doesn’t have its own brand of prestige. But we don’t all have the same definition of prestige — and Academy members have their own ideas about what it constitutes. How do we know the Academy viewed Winter’s Bone as a prestige film? 4 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture.
That might be inconceivable to some people, but there it is.
Yeah and my dog is a wolf
Yeah and my dog is a wolf
Frank Darubount is also the man. Just needed to be said.
Frank Darubount is also the man. Just needed to be said.
Ps Ryan. Your cat is fat.
Oh snap!
Also my fat dog could out lazy your fat cat any day.
Taji fat?! 19 lbs isn’t big for a panther.
Ps Ryan. Your cat is fat.
Oh snap!
Also my fat dog could out lazy your fat cat any day.
Taji fat?! 19 lbs isn’t big for a panther.
Stephen King is the fucking man. He has written 8 of my favorite books of all time
The Stand
It
Salems Lot
Bag of Bones
The Dead Zone
Pet Semetary
The Shining
The Long Walk
Lucky for you Ryan you meant no disrespect…. We would have to have had it out :p
Stephen King is the fucking man. He has written 8 of my favorite books of all time
The Stand
It
Salems Lot
Bag of Bones
The Dead Zone
Pet Semetary
The Shining
The Long Walk
Lucky for you Ryan you meant no disrespect…. We would have to have had it out :p
I think even if I assigned Prestige of The Social Network to a 10, one higher than The King’s Speech, it still would have a lower score.
Yes, I totally agree about 20/20 Hindsight. It’s easy to assign values.
The Brokeback/Crash year is a bit of a dilemma, but, I think the ‘crowdpleaser” aspect is where you would have to see is the major differentiation. – Crash had the ability to make people think they were being thoughtful about race, which makes people feel smart and good about themselves. People love to claim “I’m not a racist” and Crash allows people to do that in spades. (Me, I like movies that point out our racist selves, I like to be persuaded to think in new ways.) – Brokeback was a crowdpleaser for many, but for many more it was definitely not.
The one recent example that really goes against 20/20 Hindsight for me is Gladiator over Traffic. I think Traffic has considerably more Prestige, and higher critical reviews. I guess maybe the “crowdpleaser” number goes heavily towards Gladiator, but even then. But then I hated Gladiator so maybe that’s why I can’t see it clearly. Chicago winning over THe Pianist is also close and maybe goes against the formula.
Clearly, the formula is only a starting point.
As foir The Artist having low Prestige, I say that because the actors and director are unknowns. Plus the subject material isn’t weighty or important to make up for that. Yes, you are right, the prestige it does have is because of it being completely original in today’s marketplace. Plus it’s reception at Cannes adds to the Prestige factor. If I had to assign a number to it, I would give it a five or a six, which is pretty low compared to others.
It will be fun to look at all of the potential nominees and assign them numbers after Christmas when all of the unknowns become knowns. And I’m tending to agree with you, Hugo is looking better and better all the time. Good Prestige, Good Critical Raves, and it’s quite the Crowdpleaser too. I think the Box Office will be good, people I work with that never go to the movies are talking about going to see this one. I think that bodes well for its success.
I think even if I assigned Prestige of The Social Network to a 10, one higher than The King’s Speech, it still would have a lower score.
Yes, I totally agree about 20/20 Hindsight. It’s easy to assign values.
The Brokeback/Crash year is a bit of a dilemma, but, I think the ‘crowdpleaser” aspect is where you would have to see is the major differentiation. – Crash had the ability to make people think they were being thoughtful about race, which makes people feel smart and good about themselves. People love to claim “I’m not a racist” and Crash allows people to do that in spades. (Me, I like movies that point out our racist selves, I like to be persuaded to think in new ways.) – Brokeback was a crowdpleaser for many, but for many more it was definitely not.
The one recent example that really goes against 20/20 Hindsight for me is Gladiator over Traffic. I think Traffic has considerably more Prestige, and higher critical reviews. I guess maybe the “crowdpleaser” number goes heavily towards Gladiator, but even then. But then I hated Gladiator so maybe that’s why I can’t see it clearly. Chicago winning over THe Pianist is also close and maybe goes against the formula.
Clearly, the formula is only a starting point.
As foir The Artist having low Prestige, I say that because the actors and director are unknowns. Plus the subject material isn’t weighty or important to make up for that. Yes, you are right, the prestige it does have is because of it being completely original in today’s marketplace. Plus it’s reception at Cannes adds to the Prestige factor. If I had to assign a number to it, I would give it a five or a six, which is pretty low compared to others.
It will be fun to look at all of the potential nominees and assign them numbers after Christmas when all of the unknowns become knowns. And I’m tending to agree with you, Hugo is looking better and better all the time. Good Prestige, Good Critical Raves, and it’s quite the Crowdpleaser too. I think the Box Office will be good, people I work with that never go to the movies are talking about going to see this one. I think that bodes well for its success.
Oh, nevermind, I didn’t check closely enough either…Yates has turned it down and Ben Affleck has been signed on instead. Hmm
ah, I forgot too. Too fuzzy headed to be debating tonight. Affleck directing is equally interesting. My own point revolved around King, not Yates.
(And just to be clear, there’s no lack of respect for Stephen King in this house.)
Oh, nevermind, I didn’t check closely enough either…Yates has turned it down and Ben Affleck has been signed on instead. Hmm
ah, I forgot too. Too fuzzy headed to be debating tonight. Affleck directing is equally interesting. My own point revolved around King, not Yates.
(And just to be clear, there’s no lack of respect for Stephen King in this house.)
Well I don’t know about that…but it looks like we might get a Stephen King novel adapted into a movie by David Yates!
Yes! The Stand. And we have every reason to expect those films (a trilogy?) to be epic.
Well I don’t know about that…but it looks like we might get a Stephen King novel adapted into a movie by David Yates!
Yes! The Stand. And we have every reason to expect those films (a trilogy?) to be epic.
Um, Shawshank was nominated for Best Picture and so was The Green Mile…
ooh! and that would’ve been so easy to look up if I didn’t have some sort of food poisoning right now.
You’re right, Scott.
So now I’m really looking forward to a JK Rowling novel adapted into a movie by Frank Darabont.
Um, Shawshank was nominated for Best Picture and so was The Green Mile…
ooh! and that would’ve been so easy to look up if I didn’t have some sort of food poisoning right now.
You’re right, Scott.
So now I’m really looking forward to a JK Rowling novel adapted into a movie by Frank Darabont.
I just thought of something. What if all the Best Picture nominees are set in the past? Maybe it’s happened before, maybe even often. But I think that would say something awful about where we’re at as a people. If that were the case, Midnight in Paris would have to win, since that’s what it’s all about.
I just thought of something. What if all the Best Picture nominees are set in the past? Maybe it’s happened before, maybe even often. But I think that would say something awful about where we’re at as a people. If that were the case, Midnight in Paris would have to win, since that’s what it’s all about.
“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.”
― Stephen King
“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.”
― Stephen King
That’s a great quote, Scott.
Let’s remember though, Stephen King has written over 70 novels. Seems like about half of them half been adapted for films, but only 5 have ever received any Oscar nominations.
I think something like 15 or 16 nominations, total, for The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Stand By Me, Carrie, and Misery. Kathy Bates won the only Oscar I can think of from anything Stephen King ever wrote.
None of the movies made from his books have ever been nominated for Best Picture.So while he’s a brilliant storyteller, give great quotes, and he’s an all-around smart fellow, Stephen King and the Oscars don’t mesh.
(Before anybody rushes to check: The Shining got no Oscar nominations at all)
So it’s not about how beloved the books are, or even how great the movies made from his books may be.
It’s about the Academy’s taste. Which has a narrow focus. Stephen King and JK Rowling usually find themselves outside the scope of Oscar focus.
“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.”
― Stephen King
“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.”
― Stephen King
That’s a great quote, Scott.
Let’s remember though, Stephen King has written over 70 novels. Seems like about half of them half been adapted for films, but only 5 have ever received any Oscar nominations.
I think something like 15 or 16 nominations, total, for The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Stand By Me, Carrie, and Misery. Kathy Bates won the only Oscar I can think of from anything Stephen King ever wrote.
None of the movies made from his books have ever been nominated for Best Picture.So while he’s a brilliant storyteller, give great quotes, and he’s an all-around smart fellow, Stephen King and the Oscars don’t mesh.
(Before anybody rushes to check: The Shining got no Oscar nominations at all)
So it’s not about how beloved the books are, or even how great the movies made from his books may be.
It’s about the Academy’s taste. Which has a narrow focus. Stephen King and JK Rowling usually find themselves outside the scope of Oscar focus.
It’s hard to see Best Picture prestige in stories about pre-teens who just end up married by the end of it. The real problem with Harry Potter, to my mind, is not the films’ fault but the source material.
HA! I agree, I do NOT want to see HP take the best picture award, I don’t think it deserves it. But I swear to God, if you honestly think the source material is faulty, then you better read the books again. Or have you read them at all? The story is not about “pre-teens who end up married by the end of it”. To say that shows a serious lack of understanding of the concept of Harry Potter. This is not Twilight we’re talking about. I understand the Academy views HP in the same league as Twilight, and that they probably do see it as pre-teen shit, but don’t talk shit about the source material. I didn’t think this site was a book critic’s blog.
It’s hard to see Best Picture prestige in stories about pre-teens who just end up married by the end of it. The real problem with Harry Potter, to my mind, is not the films’ fault but the source material.
HA! I agree, I do NOT want to see HP take the best picture award, I don’t think it deserves it. But I swear to God, if you honestly think the source material is faulty, then you better read the books again. Or have you read them at all? The story is not about “pre-teens who end up married by the end of it”. To say that shows a serious lack of understanding of the concept of Harry Potter. This is not Twilight we’re talking about. I understand the Academy views HP in the same league as Twilight, and that they probably do see it as pre-teen shit, but don’t talk shit about the source material. I didn’t think this site was a book critic’s blog.
Sorry, was gonna ask about what you think of Crash winning over Brokeback. I would have thought that Brokeback totally trounced Crash on both prestige and critical raves. The conventional wisdom is that Brokeback lost because of its subject matter. I’m wondering if that is part of your prestige factor (loses points for controversial subject matter) or there is an additional element that results in a deduction for “controversial/edgy subject matter”.
Mind you, Crash winning was such an anomaly that I don’t think any rules applied that year.
Fun discussion.
Sorry, was gonna ask about what you think of Crash winning over Brokeback. I would have thought that Brokeback totally trounced Crash on both prestige and critical raves. The conventional wisdom is that Brokeback lost because of its subject matter. I’m wondering if that is part of your prestige factor (loses points for controversial subject matter) or there is an additional element that results in a deduction for “controversial/edgy subject matter”.
Mind you, Crash winning was such an anomaly that I don’t think any rules applied that year.
Fun discussion.
Ok that is clearer. As a general rule, I think no one would disagree that the elements of what makes a BP winner could be considered to be how much the public likes it (box office, happy and easy to digest), how much the film seems to have critical support (like it or not, critics influence how films are regarded in the public sphere and in Hollywood) and the “prestige” factors (Oscar should go to respectable movies with honourable sources, name directors, dealing with important issues etc.). So it is easy to identify those factors, but assigning numbers to each is very very difficult, especially the prestige factor (one can sort of semi-objectively assess critical support by generally looking at ratings on metacritic and rotten tomatoes, without slavishly following them; and one can semi-objectively assess crowdpleaser status by looking at box office). But what is prestige is pretty subjective — downbeat vs upbeat, “quality director” vs. not, etc.
Also, it is easy now that we know the results last year to plug in these numbers and come up with a result that makes it seem like your formula objectively and clearly determined what would win last year. Hindsight is 20/20. Two people could argue for days about whether TSN had a higher prestige value than TKS. It depends on what a person regards as prestige, and how he or she weighs each element of what makes up prestige. Knowing that TKS won, you assign a higher prestige rating to it, and the multiplier factor that you give prestige then means that TKS “clearly” becomes the winner. I don’t think it was so clear last year that TKS had higher prestige than TSN. Actually, I would have said the opposite. TSN had a more famous and respected director, told a truly relevant and compelling story in a very complex and sophisticated way (as opposed to the very conventional filmmaking of TKS), had one of the top notch screenwriters in the world. What TKS had was snob appeal and “name actors” — which is a factor in prestige, I admit.
Do you really think The Artist has no prestige? I would have thought that it got prestige points from being B&W and silent, that those elements make it seem sophisticated, and aware of film history. Perhaps not enough prestige points to make it a winner, though.
Why do you think The Descendants is still the front runner, under your formular, rather than Hugo? Let’s assume Hugo is going to be a big financial success (a pretty safe bet), isn’t it likely to rank at least the same as The Descendants in prestige and critical raves?
Wondering what you think about a year like
Ok that is clearer. As a general rule, I think no one would disagree that the elements of what makes a BP winner could be considered to be how much the public likes it (box office, happy and easy to digest), how much the film seems to have critical support (like it or not, critics influence how films are regarded in the public sphere and in Hollywood) and the “prestige” factors (Oscar should go to respectable movies with honourable sources, name directors, dealing with important issues etc.). So it is easy to identify those factors, but assigning numbers to each is very very difficult, especially the prestige factor (one can sort of semi-objectively assess critical support by generally looking at ratings on metacritic and rotten tomatoes, without slavishly following them; and one can semi-objectively assess crowdpleaser status by looking at box office). But what is prestige is pretty subjective — downbeat vs upbeat, “quality director” vs. not, etc.
Also, it is easy now that we know the results last year to plug in these numbers and come up with a result that makes it seem like your formula objectively and clearly determined what would win last year. Hindsight is 20/20. Two people could argue for days about whether TSN had a higher prestige value than TKS. It depends on what a person regards as prestige, and how he or she weighs each element of what makes up prestige. Knowing that TKS won, you assign a higher prestige rating to it, and the multiplier factor that you give prestige then means that TKS “clearly” becomes the winner. I don’t think it was so clear last year that TKS had higher prestige than TSN. Actually, I would have said the opposite. TSN had a more famous and respected director, told a truly relevant and compelling story in a very complex and sophisticated way (as opposed to the very conventional filmmaking of TKS), had one of the top notch screenwriters in the world. What TKS had was snob appeal and “name actors” — which is a factor in prestige, I admit.
Do you really think The Artist has no prestige? I would have thought that it got prestige points from being B&W and silent, that those elements make it seem sophisticated, and aware of film history. Perhaps not enough prestige points to make it a winner, though.
Why do you think The Descendants is still the front runner, under your formular, rather than Hugo? Let’s assume Hugo is going to be a big financial success (a pretty safe bet), isn’t it likely to rank at least the same as The Descendants in prestige and critical raves?
Wondering what you think about a year like
I think you are misunderstanding my equation
Prestige is not Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser
First take a critical raves number from 1 to 10 and then add it to crowdpleasing ability (again from 1 to 10) – So you get a sum total from 2 to 20
Now take that number and multiply it by the prestige factor (again from 1 to 10) –
So your final result is from 2 to 200 – the nominee with the highest number will probably win.
As for discounting metacritic and rotten tomatoes, it’s pretty obvious. People here were looking at the numbers with a fine-tooth comb. “Oh HP is a better movie than Midnight in Paris because it got an 87 vs 84” and then actied like if Academy members had any integrity they would have to vote for HP. My point is that no one gives a crap about such fine distinctions and so talking about them is a waste of time.
Let me expand a little bit on my equation (which, after testing it, is a really good guide, I think.)
Prestige – this is a difficult concept to define, and an Academy Voter will likely define it differently than a non-Academy voter. A lot of things go into Prestige, the reputation of the stars, the director are key here. Also the subject matter and setting, if a movie is historical in scope that counts for more than if it’s a contemporary family drama. But most importantly, is the movie something the Academy would want to put forth as the best of the year. A movie like The King’s Speech had high prestige even though the director was not well known. It’s rooted in history, it’s got a respected cast which pushes it up the prestige ladder. The Social Network was about Facebook. Even though it had a Great Director, it’s prestige factor was slightly lower.
Critical Raves – This is something, again, that you just can’t get off a website. It’s more ephemeral than that. For me, assigning any number, now, to a film is premature. I’d give all the contenders an 8 or so at this point (maybe The Help a 7) When films go to 9 or 10, it’s because they start winning prizes. So the Social Network got to a 10, while The King’s Speech rated an 8.
I think Voters want to vote on a film that is respected and is seen as a good film, and once it is seen as worthy, that’s all they need. Giving a film like The Social Network a 10 in the equation as important because some people will vote for the Best film, they will simply agree with the critics.
Now the Crowdpleaser quotient is important because many people vote with their emotions. They don’t deconstruct films and look at each part. No one does except film studies academicians. Most voters vote on how the movie makes them feel, how much they love the movie, how much they want to talk about it with their friends afterwards. I’d rate the King’s Speech very high here, so many people told me to watch it, that I would love it. (I still haven’t watched it) – So I would rate it at least an 8, up to a 10 – so I will give it a 9. The Social Network, on the Other Hand, was an intellectual exercise. Yeah, some geeky people who really like to sink their teeth into a movie and the subtleties of human behavior loved it. But for most people it was simply too dense, too intellectual. I’d give it a 6 on the Crowdpleaser scale. Not one person I know told me I had to watch The Social Network (although I told a lot of people they needed to see it.)
So let’s look
Social Network – Prestige – 8, critcs – 10, crowdpleaser – 6
8*(10+6)= 128
KIng’s Speech – Prestige – 9, critics 8, crowdpleaser 9
9*(8+9) = 153
Hopefully that’s more clear.
I think you are misunderstanding my equation
Prestige is not Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser
First take a critical raves number from 1 to 10 and then add it to crowdpleasing ability (again from 1 to 10) – So you get a sum total from 2 to 20
Now take that number and multiply it by the prestige factor (again from 1 to 10) –
So your final result is from 2 to 200 – the nominee with the highest number will probably win.
As for discounting metacritic and rotten tomatoes, it’s pretty obvious. People here were looking at the numbers with a fine-tooth comb. “Oh HP is a better movie than Midnight in Paris because it got an 87 vs 84” and then actied like if Academy members had any integrity they would have to vote for HP. My point is that no one gives a crap about such fine distinctions and so talking about them is a waste of time.
Let me expand a little bit on my equation (which, after testing it, is a really good guide, I think.)
Prestige – this is a difficult concept to define, and an Academy Voter will likely define it differently than a non-Academy voter. A lot of things go into Prestige, the reputation of the stars, the director are key here. Also the subject matter and setting, if a movie is historical in scope that counts for more than if it’s a contemporary family drama. But most importantly, is the movie something the Academy would want to put forth as the best of the year. A movie like The King’s Speech had high prestige even though the director was not well known. It’s rooted in history, it’s got a respected cast which pushes it up the prestige ladder. The Social Network was about Facebook. Even though it had a Great Director, it’s prestige factor was slightly lower.
Critical Raves – This is something, again, that you just can’t get off a website. It’s more ephemeral than that. For me, assigning any number, now, to a film is premature. I’d give all the contenders an 8 or so at this point (maybe The Help a 7) When films go to 9 or 10, it’s because they start winning prizes. So the Social Network got to a 10, while The King’s Speech rated an 8.
I think Voters want to vote on a film that is respected and is seen as a good film, and once it is seen as worthy, that’s all they need. Giving a film like The Social Network a 10 in the equation as important because some people will vote for the Best film, they will simply agree with the critics.
Now the Crowdpleaser quotient is important because many people vote with their emotions. They don’t deconstruct films and look at each part. No one does except film studies academicians. Most voters vote on how the movie makes them feel, how much they love the movie, how much they want to talk about it with their friends afterwards. I’d rate the King’s Speech very high here, so many people told me to watch it, that I would love it. (I still haven’t watched it) – So I would rate it at least an 8, up to a 10 – so I will give it a 9. The Social Network, on the Other Hand, was an intellectual exercise. Yeah, some geeky people who really like to sink their teeth into a movie and the subtleties of human behavior loved it. But for most people it was simply too dense, too intellectual. I’d give it a 6 on the Crowdpleaser scale. Not one person I know told me I had to watch The Social Network (although I told a lot of people they needed to see it.)
So let’s look
Social Network – Prestige – 8, critcs – 10, crowdpleaser – 6
8*(10+6)= 128
KIng’s Speech – Prestige – 9, critics 8, crowdpleaser 9
9*(8+9) = 153
Hopefully that’s more clear.
Rufussondheim said: “I totally discount the notion of “peaking.” I think it’s a term people use who have the inability to articulate complex thoughts.”
Gee, I guess I don’t have the ability to articulate complex thoughts.
Speaking of failing to articulate complex thoughts, Rufus, it is not clear what you mean by this “Prestige” factor, which you have elevated to some objective principle that all of us are too stupid to recognize and that definitively determines what will win best picture.
On Nov. 24 at 6:36 a.m. you yourself define “Prestige” as “(Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser)”. Remember, that is YOUR defintion, not mine. And you repeat it many times in your posts.
I’ll leave aside the issue of what on earth “Crowdpleaser” has to do with the prestige of a film (in fact, very often the most popular films are junk and have the least “prestige” in any conventional understanding of that term). In any case, you then go on to state that Harry Potter — a huge critical success (i.e. critical raves) and a huge box office hit (i.e. crowdpleaser), lacks “prestige”. Huh????
In the same posting, just after identifying “critical raves” as an essential component of your “Prestige” concept, you suggest that we are all fools for daring to look at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes and that those sites — which compile and assess critics reviews and tell us what the critical consensus on a film is, and give us an indication of what films are getting raves or pans — are meaningless. Again, huh? So how exactly does one assess and define the concept of “critical raves”, if not to look at the critics’s reviews and try to discern the consensus????
Then, on Nov. 24 at 8:22 a.m., you try to define your notion of “Crowdpleaser” by saying it means films that have a happy ending and emotional release, and that aren’t too subtle, restrained, intellectual or downbeat. You present these definitions as if they are objective concepts capable of mathematical calculation, but they aren’t — they are often quite subjective. In any case, if this is now what “Crowdpleaser” means, then once again why does Harry Potter have “O” chance of winning? It meets all these criteria, and, moreover, was a true “Crowdpleaser” by the one truly objective standard — box office.
And in the same post, you also say The Hurt Locker had a Prestige rating of 10. If Prestige = Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser (once again, this is YOUR definition), then in what way did The Hurt Locker have the second essential component? It was not a huge box office hit, it was downbeat, had a very disturbing ending, etc.
Finallly, on Nov. 24 at 2:04 p.m., you completely contradict everything you have said before by stating that The Artist has “pretty low” Prestige … even though you expressly acknowledge that it has “critical raves”and is a “crowdpleaser”!! Huh???? You then redefine what you mean by Prestige, for the first time referring to the “pedigree” of the film, whether it deals with an “important subject”, is “epic” and comes from a “presitgious work”.
Seems like I am perhaps not the only one who has an “inability to articulate complex thoughts”.
It’s no wonder all of us are too stupid to understand your supposedly obvious “mathematical” concept of “Prestige”. You keep changing and modifying the definition and how it applies, depending on your subjective views of the particular film being discussed. Then, having twisted and tortured your supposedly objective formula once again, you announce that its obvious Prestige factor is precisely “X”, and it all makes so much sense and we are all idiots for not seeing it so lucidly.
Rufussondheim said: “I totally discount the notion of “peaking.” I think it’s a term people use who have the inability to articulate complex thoughts.”
Gee, I guess I don’t have the ability to articulate complex thoughts.
Speaking of failing to articulate complex thoughts, Rufus, it is not clear what you mean by this “Prestige” factor, which you have elevated to some objective principle that all of us are too stupid to recognize and that definitively determines what will win best picture.
On Nov. 24 at 6:36 a.m. you yourself define “Prestige” as “(Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser)”. Remember, that is YOUR defintion, not mine. And you repeat it many times in your posts.
I’ll leave aside the issue of what on earth “Crowdpleaser” has to do with the prestige of a film (in fact, very often the most popular films are junk and have the least “prestige” in any conventional understanding of that term). In any case, you then go on to state that Harry Potter — a huge critical success (i.e. critical raves) and a huge box office hit (i.e. crowdpleaser), lacks “prestige”. Huh????
In the same posting, just after identifying “critical raves” as an essential component of your “Prestige” concept, you suggest that we are all fools for daring to look at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes and that those sites — which compile and assess critics reviews and tell us what the critical consensus on a film is, and give us an indication of what films are getting raves or pans — are meaningless. Again, huh? So how exactly does one assess and define the concept of “critical raves”, if not to look at the critics’s reviews and try to discern the consensus????
Then, on Nov. 24 at 8:22 a.m., you try to define your notion of “Crowdpleaser” by saying it means films that have a happy ending and emotional release, and that aren’t too subtle, restrained, intellectual or downbeat. You present these definitions as if they are objective concepts capable of mathematical calculation, but they aren’t — they are often quite subjective. In any case, if this is now what “Crowdpleaser” means, then once again why does Harry Potter have “O” chance of winning? It meets all these criteria, and, moreover, was a true “Crowdpleaser” by the one truly objective standard — box office.
And in the same post, you also say The Hurt Locker had a Prestige rating of 10. If Prestige = Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser (once again, this is YOUR definition), then in what way did The Hurt Locker have the second essential component? It was not a huge box office hit, it was downbeat, had a very disturbing ending, etc.
Finallly, on Nov. 24 at 2:04 p.m., you completely contradict everything you have said before by stating that The Artist has “pretty low” Prestige … even though you expressly acknowledge that it has “critical raves”and is a “crowdpleaser”!! Huh???? You then redefine what you mean by Prestige, for the first time referring to the “pedigree” of the film, whether it deals with an “important subject”, is “epic” and comes from a “presitgious work”.
Seems like I am perhaps not the only one who has an “inability to articulate complex thoughts”.
It’s no wonder all of us are too stupid to understand your supposedly obvious “mathematical” concept of “Prestige”. You keep changing and modifying the definition and how it applies, depending on your subjective views of the particular film being discussed. Then, having twisted and tortured your supposedly objective formula once again, you announce that its obvious Prestige factor is precisely “X”, and it all makes so much sense and we are all idiots for not seeing it so lucidly.
@fielding – Who said
I hereby vow never to read anything else written by Sasha Stone, whose credibility has now dropped to the level of a lobotomised muskrat.
Balderdash, Anyone who would write something like that obviously would. That’s what floats ya boat!
Opinions change, just like hairstyles…
@fielding – Who said
I hereby vow never to read anything else written by Sasha Stone, whose credibility has now dropped to the level of a lobotomised muskrat.
Balderdash, Anyone who would write something like that obviously would. That’s what floats ya boat!
Opinions change, just like hairstyles…
Waitasec. Ever since you saw Midnight in Paris at Cannes you’ve been saying it’s a surefire nominee – but now it’s not in your top 10 for the year, nor is it even in your damn second-tier?
Huh?
That’s ridiculous.
I hereby vow never to read anything else written by Sasha Stone, whose credibility has now dropped to the level of a lobotomised muskrat.
Waitasec. Ever since you saw Midnight in Paris at Cannes you’ve been saying it’s a surefire nominee – but now it’s not in your top 10 for the year, nor is it even in your damn second-tier?
Huh?
That’s ridiculous.
I hereby vow never to read anything else written by Sasha Stone, whose credibility has now dropped to the level of a lobotomised muskrat.
About The Artist – While I think it got a ton of critical raves and it’s a definite crowdpleaser, it’s Prestige is pretty low. It has no pedigree nor is it about an important subject. It’s also not epic in scope nor is it based on a prestigious work.
When filling out their final ballots I think the voters will say to themselves “Hmm, they are probably happy enough just getting nominated.”
About The Artist – While I think it got a ton of critical raves and it’s a definite crowdpleaser, it’s Prestige is pretty low. It has no pedigree nor is it about an important subject. It’s also not epic in scope nor is it based on a prestigious work.
When filling out their final ballots I think the voters will say to themselves “Hmm, they are probably happy enough just getting nominated.”
I think Best Supporting Actress will go to Octavia Spencer unless Viola Davis gets put in that category (which is a definite possibility), Otherwise the other categories are definitely wide open. I don’t think anyone can challenge The Help in that category (unless, somehow 3 or more of the nominees are from that movie)
I don’t think The Descendants has peaked yet. Up in the Air would have never “peaked” early if it won a lot of critics awards. I would say it was eclipsed by The Hurt Locker.
Last year, when the critics awards were all going to The Social Network, people were saying The King’s Speech had peaked after all the buzz it received from TIFF. People just forgot my simple equation (which is not their fault since I didn’t articulate it yet.)
I totally discount the notion of “peaking.” I think it’s a term people use who have the inability to articulate complex thoughts.
I think Best Supporting Actress will go to Octavia Spencer unless Viola Davis gets put in that category (which is a definite possibility), Otherwise the other categories are definitely wide open. I don’t think anyone can challenge The Help in that category (unless, somehow 3 or more of the nominees are from that movie)
I don’t think The Descendants has peaked yet. Up in the Air would have never “peaked” early if it won a lot of critics awards. I would say it was eclipsed by The Hurt Locker.
Last year, when the critics awards were all going to The Social Network, people were saying The King’s Speech had peaked after all the buzz it received from TIFF. People just forgot my simple equation (which is not their fault since I didn’t articulate it yet.)
I totally discount the notion of “peaking.” I think it’s a term people use who have the inability to articulate complex thoughts.
“As for Tree of Life yes those who love it truly love it and those who hate it truly should be lobotomized.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself Nik. Well done! 😛
“As for Tree of Life yes those who love it truly love it and those who hate it truly should be lobotomized.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself Nik. Well done! 😛
Red State was a bit like an episode of NCIS – watchable and predictable.
Performances are cartoony and over the top in some cases.
I cannot see any scenario where this film would be considered for major awards. It seems like a waste of time writing this comment, but did so for people who may feel like they are missing out on a sleeper. By all means watch it just lower your expectations.
Red State was a bit like an episode of NCIS – watchable and predictable.
Performances are cartoony and over the top in some cases.
I cannot see any scenario where this film would be considered for major awards. It seems like a waste of time writing this comment, but did so for people who may feel like they are missing out on a sleeper. By all means watch it just lower your expectations.
Great a post about the state of the race. And 3/4 of the comments are about Harry Potter (with 90% of them by Scott). How exciting. If every post in the following month is polluted like that, I’m off. I’ll be back on nomination day when the trolls are away. See you then.
Great a post about the state of the race. And 3/4 of the comments are about Harry Potter (with 90% of them by Scott). How exciting. If every post in the following month is polluted like that, I’m off. I’ll be back on nomination day when the trolls are away. See you then.
@Jesus Now you’re making me want to see Red State. I was ignoring it. Maybe I’ll pick it up later.
@Tero I had avoided Cruising for years. I knew it was supposed to be vile and horrible and just stayed away. Then a few years ago I was working my way through Pacino movies I hadn’t seen and I decided to watch it. At the end my reaction was, “Wow. I really liked that. What was supposed to be wrong with it again?” So I watched some of the behind the scenes stuff and looked it up online and I can see how people would be offended, especially back then. But I really think it comes down to your interpretation of the movie. I don’t like to talk about spoilers of a movie around people who may not have seen it so if you want to discuss it elsewhere, I’d be happy to. But I thought Friedkin made a great serial killer mystery that just happened to be set in that community at that time. I know there are different cuts so maybe that has something to do with it too. The one I watched was on DVD and it had a director commentary.
@Jesus Now you’re making me want to see Red State. I was ignoring it. Maybe I’ll pick it up later.
@Tero I had avoided Cruising for years. I knew it was supposed to be vile and horrible and just stayed away. Then a few years ago I was working my way through Pacino movies I hadn’t seen and I decided to watch it. At the end my reaction was, “Wow. I really liked that. What was supposed to be wrong with it again?” So I watched some of the behind the scenes stuff and looked it up online and I can see how people would be offended, especially back then. But I really think it comes down to your interpretation of the movie. I don’t like to talk about spoilers of a movie around people who may not have seen it so if you want to discuss it elsewhere, I’d be happy to. But I thought Friedkin made a great serial killer mystery that just happened to be set in that community at that time. I know there are different cuts so maybe that has something to do with it too. The one I watched was on DVD and it had a director commentary.
Hey Rufusondheim:
I definitely agree that Up in the Air was less feelgood-y than The Descendants. It overall had a more sour message and it did end on a downbeat note.
I have this feeling that The Descendants reached its peak, and it is now going to start declining in interest and will become one of the “also-rans”. I think people will see it as too small and understated a film, against the other competitors — the sheer novelty and daring nature of The Artist, the grand moviemaking gthrill of Hugo, or the big sentimental and sweeping story of War Horse. Clooney may still win actor, but I think The Descendants is a classic “screenplay” film that won’t win BP.
I love that for the first year in quite a few, it seems right now that all of the six major awards are up for grabs. It makes debating the outcome, and predicting winners, much more fun. Right now, there doesn’t seem to be a single shoo-in in any category. Maybe Plummer as Supporting is the one who has the strongest chances. Things will change as the critics and other awards come out — we may start to see trends for and against certain films and performances, but Oscar is so much more fun when the outcome is unclear.
Hey Rufusondheim:
I definitely agree that Up in the Air was less feelgood-y than The Descendants. It overall had a more sour message and it did end on a downbeat note.
I have this feeling that The Descendants reached its peak, and it is now going to start declining in interest and will become one of the “also-rans”. I think people will see it as too small and understated a film, against the other competitors — the sheer novelty and daring nature of The Artist, the grand moviemaking gthrill of Hugo, or the big sentimental and sweeping story of War Horse. Clooney may still win actor, but I think The Descendants is a classic “screenplay” film that won’t win BP.
I love that for the first year in quite a few, it seems right now that all of the six major awards are up for grabs. It makes debating the outcome, and predicting winners, much more fun. Right now, there doesn’t seem to be a single shoo-in in any category. Maybe Plummer as Supporting is the one who has the strongest chances. Things will change as the critics and other awards come out — we may start to see trends for and against certain films and performances, but Oscar is so much more fun when the outcome is unclear.
I should perhaps define the term “crowdpleaser” because I think that can be interpreted many ways. Part of it is having a happy ending, part of it is having an emotional release moment that makes the audience feel something. If a movie is too restrained or too subtle or too downbeat or too intellectual, then it’s less of a crowdpleaser.
“How did The Hurt Locker win then?” you may ask – Because it’s Prestige was a 10. Critical Raves were a 10. Avatar’s Prestige was a 7 or an 8 at best. And it wasn’t as much of a crowdpleaser as you would think.
I should perhaps define the term “crowdpleaser” because I think that can be interpreted many ways. Part of it is having a happy ending, part of it is having an emotional release moment that makes the audience feel something. If a movie is too restrained or too subtle or too downbeat or too intellectual, then it’s less of a crowdpleaser.
“How did The Hurt Locker win then?” you may ask – Because it’s Prestige was a 10. Critical Raves were a 10. Avatar’s Prestige was a 7 or an 8 at best. And it wasn’t as much of a crowdpleaser as you would think.
I don’t think Up in the Air is a crowdpleaser. It’s got a kind of downbeat ending. From what I am hearing The Descendants has a happier ending. Plus it has that big “emotional release scene” that Up in the Air chose (thankfully) not to have. Based on the little I’ve heard about The Descendants (I am trying to skip over any plot points in the reviews) the film that it recalls to me in structure is Terms of Endearment. We didn’t have blogs back then so I can’t be 100% sure I am correct, but I think that was the overwhelming favorite to win as soon as it was seen.
So if you want to compare the two.
Prestige – Up in the Air – 7 – The Descendants – 8 (Based on Director)
Critical Raves – I’d give both a 9
Crowdpleaser – Up in the Air – 5, The Descendants – 8 or 9 (my best guess)
Win clearly goes to The Descendants here.
I don’t think Up in the Air is a crowdpleaser. It’s got a kind of downbeat ending. From what I am hearing The Descendants has a happier ending. Plus it has that big “emotional release scene” that Up in the Air chose (thankfully) not to have. Based on the little I’ve heard about The Descendants (I am trying to skip over any plot points in the reviews) the film that it recalls to me in structure is Terms of Endearment. We didn’t have blogs back then so I can’t be 100% sure I am correct, but I think that was the overwhelming favorite to win as soon as it was seen.
So if you want to compare the two.
Prestige – Up in the Air – 7 – The Descendants – 8 (Based on Director)
Critical Raves – I’d give both a 9
Crowdpleaser – Up in the Air – 5, The Descendants – 8 or 9 (my best guess)
Win clearly goes to The Descendants here.
And I’m beginning to hate spell check and the grammar check thing on my comp. It looks like a third grader wrote that. Ugh.
But another note this discussion is really quite good. Great intercourse between everyone with solid opinions and favorites. Nice to see we can all participate without the bashing that sometimes creeps into these threads. Nicely done everyone.
And I’m beginning to hate spell check and the grammar check thing on my comp. It looks like a third grader wrote that. Ugh.
But another note this discussion is really quite good. Great intercourse between everyone with solid opinions and favorites. Nice to see we can all participate without the bashing that sometimes creeps into these threads. Nicely done everyone.
“Rufussondheim said:
Oh. The Descendants will win.
It’s basic math.
Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser = Win.”
The Descendants has an 84 on Metacritic.
Remember Up in the Air? Another George Clooney gets serious in small, touching movie that hinged on acting and the writing rather than directorial or visual flair or grandeur.
Up in the Air had an 83 on Metacritic. Virtually indistinguishable from The Descendants.
Number of Oscars nominations for Up in the Air: Six.
Number of wins: Zero.
I enjoyed The Descendants. I laughed. I smiled. I nodded knowingly. I cried. But am I the only one who left the theatre feeling that the whole thing was essentially a nice little TV movie, with a very smug message about how incredibly rich people are just the same as the rest of us, and don’t live lavish lifestyles but just live on their employment income, and don’t spoil their children, and love the environment. The whole thing seemed constructed to foster the image of George Clooney, beautiful rich superstar, as an ordinary humble guy.
“Rufussondheim said:
Oh. The Descendants will win.
It’s basic math.
Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser = Win.”
The Descendants has an 84 on Metacritic.
Remember Up in the Air? Another George Clooney gets serious in small, touching movie that hinged on acting and the writing rather than directorial or visual flair or grandeur.
Up in the Air had an 83 on Metacritic. Virtually indistinguishable from The Descendants.
Number of Oscars nominations for Up in the Air: Six.
Number of wins: Zero.
I enjoyed The Descendants. I laughed. I smiled. I nodded knowingly. I cried. But am I the only one who left the theatre feeling that the whole thing was essentially a nice little TV movie, with a very smug message about how incredibly rich people are just the same as the rest of us, and don’t live lavish lifestyles but just live on their employment income, and don’t spoil their children, and love the environment. The whole thing seemed constructed to foster the image of George Clooney, beautiful rich superstar, as an ordinary humble guy.
I don’t think we are really flying blind at this point. I think we have two very strong contenders that the critics have put out in front of most of the others. The Descendants and Hugo. If you look at Metacritic The Descendants with 42 reviews has 16 reviews with a score of 100 and 2 in the 90 range with no negatives and only five mixed. Hugo with 36 reviews has 11 with 100 7 in the 90 range and 4 mixed. To me that is solid base for both films. I think both will do well at the box office based on word of mouth and the buzz. Hugo is probably going to be a blockbuster.
As for Tree of Life yes those who love it truly love it and those who hate it truly hate it. I said earlier that Sean Penn was totally wasted in that piece of drivel. I think it’ll make top ten lists but even if it does the producers should send a gift basket too the critics who include it.
I think The Descendants and Hugo are the frontrunners right now with a handful that we haven’t seen open yet. War Horse, Extremely Loud, Tin Tin, Tinker Tailor and Dragon Tattoo. I know everyone is waiting with bated breath for Dragon Tattoo I think the outcome of that film remains to be seen critically but on a box office level I think it’ll do well. The Artist I think falls behind The Descendants and Hugo now as everyone is obviously “not in love” with it and it has quite a few reviews that really miss pushing it into the same category as The Descendants and Hugo.
I do tend to agree that with the remainder of the pack or the other potential BP nominees that it could be all over the place. Personally I think War Horse is the one to watch at this point and what if really interesting is how guarded everyone is being about War Horse, Extremely Loud, Tinker Tailor and Dragon Tattoo. The one thing interesting about War Horse is that there are now and have been for a short time ads hitting the media too keep spurs the interest for it when it opens. And certainly the Broadway ads aren’t hurting either.
What I think is even more interesting however is how all over the place the acting nominations may be. Films that haven’t garnered great critical success are still harboring performances that have certainly received the critic’s blessings. I’m still watching MWWM and with 36 reviews now in it have only reached a score of 66 not a good sign. J Edgar seems to still be attracting business which I find interesting and I wonder how much of that will fall off in the next few weeks. Even more interesting is how many of these films will be pulled back waiting on the results of the Oscars nominations and Critics top ten lists too boost their box office.
In some respects this year is all over the place but I think clearly that right now The Descendants and Hugo have control of the race.
I don’t think we are really flying blind at this point. I think we have two very strong contenders that the critics have put out in front of most of the others. The Descendants and Hugo. If you look at Metacritic The Descendants with 42 reviews has 16 reviews with a score of 100 and 2 in the 90 range with no negatives and only five mixed. Hugo with 36 reviews has 11 with 100 7 in the 90 range and 4 mixed. To me that is solid base for both films. I think both will do well at the box office based on word of mouth and the buzz. Hugo is probably going to be a blockbuster.
As for Tree of Life yes those who love it truly love it and those who hate it truly hate it. I said earlier that Sean Penn was totally wasted in that piece of drivel. I think it’ll make top ten lists but even if it does the producers should send a gift basket too the critics who include it.
I think The Descendants and Hugo are the frontrunners right now with a handful that we haven’t seen open yet. War Horse, Extremely Loud, Tin Tin, Tinker Tailor and Dragon Tattoo. I know everyone is waiting with bated breath for Dragon Tattoo I think the outcome of that film remains to be seen critically but on a box office level I think it’ll do well. The Artist I think falls behind The Descendants and Hugo now as everyone is obviously “not in love” with it and it has quite a few reviews that really miss pushing it into the same category as The Descendants and Hugo.
I do tend to agree that with the remainder of the pack or the other potential BP nominees that it could be all over the place. Personally I think War Horse is the one to watch at this point and what if really interesting is how guarded everyone is being about War Horse, Extremely Loud, Tinker Tailor and Dragon Tattoo. The one thing interesting about War Horse is that there are now and have been for a short time ads hitting the media too keep spurs the interest for it when it opens. And certainly the Broadway ads aren’t hurting either.
What I think is even more interesting however is how all over the place the acting nominations may be. Films that haven’t garnered great critical success are still harboring performances that have certainly received the critic’s blessings. I’m still watching MWWM and with 36 reviews now in it have only reached a score of 66 not a good sign. J Edgar seems to still be attracting business which I find interesting and I wonder how much of that will fall off in the next few weeks. Even more interesting is how many of these films will be pulled back waiting on the results of the Oscars nominations and Critics top ten lists too boost their box office.
In some respects this year is all over the place but I think clearly that right now The Descendants and Hugo have control of the race.
I guess I have to modify my equation to this
Prestige * (Critical Raves + Corwdpleaser) = Win
ANd since Harry Potter’s prestige = 0 then Win = 0
You can throw out metacritic average and rotten tomatoes scores. They are meaningless. You show me one member of the Academy that uses them as a foundation for filling out their ballot and I will show you a Republican willing to raise a rich person’s taxes.
I guess I have to modify my equation to this
Prestige * (Critical Raves + Corwdpleaser) = Win
ANd since Harry Potter’s prestige = 0 then Win = 0
You can throw out metacritic average and rotten tomatoes scores. They are meaningless. You show me one member of the Academy that uses them as a foundation for filling out their ballot and I will show you a Republican willing to raise a rich person’s taxes.
Maybe, but since I have only seen the movies (no books, theme parks etc…), I know very little of Harry Potter. He’s quite a mystery character that was probably well introduced in the books, but not in the movies. I know more about Hannibal Lecter than about Harry Potter.
Maybe, but since I have only seen the movies (no books, theme parks etc…), I know very little of Harry Potter. He’s quite a mystery character that was probably well introduced in the books, but not in the movies. I know more about Hannibal Lecter than about Harry Potter.
Harry Potter won’t get nominated.
There’s no prestige.
I can’t wait to say “I told you so”
And believe me, I will say it.
Harry Potter won’t get nominated.
There’s no prestige.
I can’t wait to say “I told you so”
And believe me, I will say it.
My position is that HP is worthy of honors. When Karger includes it in any of his predictions we can talk about an actual possibility of it getting into the race. HP’s an unusual fit for Oscar and will need a lot of hands on campaigning, which hasn’t happened so far. Web ads and billboards won’t do it, IMO.
Film by itself does not have nearly the cultural impact it once enjoyed….. they have become like novels. Oscar is becoming the National Book Awards for film. The Descendants is an ideal choice for Oscar as the National Book Awards.
The power of the Potter films is the way they compliment and expand the impact of the Potter narrative – elegantly. Books, films, games, theme parks, museum shows, commentary, social media… the Potter films are woven into much larger cultural phenomena than any film could achieve by itself. We know more and are more involved with Harry than any other character.
My position is that HP is worthy of honors. When Karger includes it in any of his predictions we can talk about an actual possibility of it getting into the race. HP’s an unusual fit for Oscar and will need a lot of hands on campaigning, which hasn’t happened so far. Web ads and billboards won’t do it, IMO.
Film by itself does not have nearly the cultural impact it once enjoyed….. they have become like novels. Oscar is becoming the National Book Awards for film. The Descendants is an ideal choice for Oscar as the National Book Awards.
The power of the Potter films is the way they compliment and expand the impact of the Potter narrative – elegantly. Books, films, games, theme parks, museum shows, commentary, social media… the Potter films are woven into much larger cultural phenomena than any film could achieve by itself. We know more and are more involved with Harry than any other character.
People are underastimating Extremely Loud… Stephen Daldy… 9/11… Tom Hanks… Sandra Bullock. If it gets good (good is enough just like The Reader), it will be a hurricane and mess things up in the race.
And I don’t see The Descendants winning the top prize. If they go for tear jerker, it’s ELIC or War Horse. If they go for sentimentalism over a tribute for films, it’s The Artist.
People are underastimating Extremely Loud… Stephen Daldy… 9/11… Tom Hanks… Sandra Bullock. If it gets good (good is enough just like The Reader), it will be a hurricane and mess things up in the race.
And I don’t see The Descendants winning the top prize. If they go for tear jerker, it’s ELIC or War Horse. If they go for sentimentalism over a tribute for films, it’s The Artist.
Often these early screenings have the score taken from another movie, maybe BSG didn’t hear any of the actual EL&IC score.
Often these early screenings have the score taken from another movie, maybe BSG didn’t hear any of the actual EL&IC score.
@BrandStrategyGuru
Thanks for the tip. It just seems strange to not make it available to the first TWO critics groups (if NBR can be called a critic’s group). How much can you tweak the music, anyway?
@BrandStrategyGuru
Thanks for the tip. It just seems strange to not make it available to the first TWO critics groups (if NBR can be called a critic’s group). How much can you tweak the music, anyway?
“…a film that inmediately claims its spot with films like Cruising…”
Seriously? Cruising? What an offensive piece of shit that movie was. Disgraceful.
“…a film that inmediately claims its spot with films like Cruising…”
Seriously? Cruising? What an offensive piece of shit that movie was. Disgraceful.
Plus, I honestly feel The People vs. George Lucas deserves 3 noms: Original Screenplay, Film Editing and Documentary Feature. As “Man on Wire”, the film trascends in many ways the initial proposal and develops in more trascendent ways than simply a pop-culture phenomenom.
Plus, I honestly feel The People vs. George Lucas deserves 3 noms: Original Screenplay, Film Editing and Documentary Feature. As “Man on Wire”, the film trascends in many ways the initial proposal and develops in more trascendent ways than simply a pop-culture phenomenom.
I feel embarrassed to see that the towering performances by Michael Parks, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Melissa Leo aren’t being discussed even as contenders, and that Alan Rickman’s 8 movies tour de force of ambiguity while bringing the character to a coherent heart-breaking end is just a longshot.
Also, I’m aware Red State won’t be equally aprecciated for the masterpiece it is and most will probably be turned off by it and even avoid it or think it is crap. A film painful to watch, full of dread, a wake up call, full of subtext and layers, a film that inmediately claims its spot with films like Cruising, Dog Day Afternoon, Three Days of the Condor, All the President’s Men… I’m 100% sure that 10-20 years from now, this movie will have a classic status and people will wonder – a la Blade Runner – why it didn’t make a huge splash not only among audiences and critics but also in the Awards Race (Pic, Dir, Actor, Supp. Actor, Supp. Actress, Ensemble, Original Screenplay, Film Editing).
I feel embarrassed to see that the towering performances by Michael Parks, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Melissa Leo aren’t being discussed even as contenders, and that Alan Rickman’s 8 movies tour de force of ambiguity while bringing the character to a coherent heart-breaking end is just a longshot.
Also, I’m aware Red State won’t be equally aprecciated for the masterpiece it is and most will probably be turned off by it and even avoid it or think it is crap. A film painful to watch, full of dread, a wake up call, full of subtext and layers, a film that inmediately claims its spot with films like Cruising, Dog Day Afternoon, Three Days of the Condor, All the President’s Men… I’m 100% sure that 10-20 years from now, this movie will have a classic status and people will wonder – a la Blade Runner – why it didn’t make a huge splash not only among audiences and critics but also in the Awards Race (Pic, Dir, Actor, Supp. Actor, Supp. Actress, Ensemble, Original Screenplay, Film Editing).
I haven’t seen much…
Midnight in Paris
Drive
Tree of life
Melancholia
…in that order. Drive I realize is basically a crap film, but done very well. Midnight is light entertainment, but perfectly done. Tree of life is the Tree of life, and Melancholia is frustrating to watch, but very rewarding sans the ending which I think less would have been more.
I honestly can’t think of anything else I would put up there at the moment.
I haven’t seen much…
Midnight in Paris
Drive
Tree of life
Melancholia
…in that order. Drive I realize is basically a crap film, but done very well. Midnight is light entertainment, but perfectly done. Tree of life is the Tree of life, and Melancholia is frustrating to watch, but very rewarding sans the ending which I think less would have been more.
I honestly can’t think of anything else I would put up there at the moment.
If I was to award already…
Picture:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II
runner up: Red State
Director:
Kevin Smith, Red State
runner up: Lars von Trier, Melancholia
Actor: Michael Parks, Red State
runner up: Michel Piccoli, Habemus Papam
Actress: Charlotte Gainsbourg and Kirsten Dunst, Melancholia
runner up: Brit Marling, Another Earth
Supp. Actor: Alan Rickman, Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows, Part II
runner up: John Goodman, Red State
Supp. Actress: Melissa Leo, Red State
runner up: Marion Cotillard, Midnight in Paris
Film not in English: Habemus Papam
runner up: Troll Hunter
Documentary: The People vs. George Lucas
runner up: Zeitgeist 3: Moving Forward
Animated: The Adventures of Tintin
runner up: Cars 2, but at soooo much distance…
If I was to award already…
Picture:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II
runner up: Red State
Director:
Kevin Smith, Red State
runner up: Lars von Trier, Melancholia
Actor: Michael Parks, Red State
runner up: Michel Piccoli, Habemus Papam
Actress: Charlotte Gainsbourg and Kirsten Dunst, Melancholia
runner up: Brit Marling, Another Earth
Supp. Actor: Alan Rickman, Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows, Part II
runner up: John Goodman, Red State
Supp. Actress: Melissa Leo, Red State
runner up: Marion Cotillard, Midnight in Paris
Film not in English: Habemus Papam
runner up: Troll Hunter
Documentary: The People vs. George Lucas
runner up: Zeitgeist 3: Moving Forward
Animated: The Adventures of Tintin
runner up: Cars 2, but at soooo much distance…
@Steve50
I have seen a screening of “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” about 2 months ago, and we were told the music/effects were not ready and to not judge the film on them. Trust me, the film is NOT a stinker, it’s very good. We all cried, every single person in the audience. Major tear jerker. Many people will have a strong emotional reaction to it. (And Sandra Bullock contender for supporting actress).
IN MY EYES, here is the current list for Best Picture nominations (If I don’t specifically mention I didn’t see a film, it means I saw it):
Definite Nominees
1. The Artist (current front-runner for winning)
2. The Descendants
Likely Nominees
3. War Horse (Didn’t see it yet)
4. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
5. Midnight in Paris
6. The Help
Possible Nominees
7. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Didn’t see it yet)
8. Moneyball
9. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
10. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Didn’t see it yet)
Not likely
11. The Tree of Life
12. Hugo (Didn’t see it yet)
13. The Ides of March
14. J. Edgar
15. Young Adult (Didn’t see it yet)
16. Carnage (Didn’t see it yet)
17. Drive
By the way – and this is not related to the BP discussion – I saw “A Dangerous Method” today (very good), and Keira Knightley kinda blew me away. If enough voters see this film, she could get nominated. She definitely deserves it, in my eyes. Both Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortensen were excellent, but Knightley has the most showy role, followed by Mortensen.
@Steve50
I have seen a screening of “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” about 2 months ago, and we were told the music/effects were not ready and to not judge the film on them. Trust me, the film is NOT a stinker, it’s very good. We all cried, every single person in the audience. Major tear jerker. Many people will have a strong emotional reaction to it. (And Sandra Bullock contender for supporting actress).
IN MY EYES, here is the current list for Best Picture nominations (If I don’t specifically mention I didn’t see a film, it means I saw it):
Definite Nominees
1. The Artist (current front-runner for winning)
2. The Descendants
Likely Nominees
3. War Horse (Didn’t see it yet)
4. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
5. Midnight in Paris
6. The Help
Possible Nominees
7. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Didn’t see it yet)
8. Moneyball
9. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
10. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Didn’t see it yet)
Not likely
11. The Tree of Life
12. Hugo (Didn’t see it yet)
13. The Ides of March
14. J. Edgar
15. Young Adult (Didn’t see it yet)
16. Carnage (Didn’t see it yet)
17. Drive
By the way – and this is not related to the BP discussion – I saw “A Dangerous Method” today (very good), and Keira Knightley kinda blew me away. If enough voters see this film, she could get nominated. She definitely deserves it, in my eyes. Both Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortensen were excellent, but Knightley has the most showy role, followed by Mortensen.
My list from what i saw this year, so far…
*****
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II
2. Red State
3. Habemus Papam (We have a Pope)
4. The Adventures of Tintin
5. Melancholia
**** 1/2
6. Midnight in Paris
7. Another Earth
8. Thor
9. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
10. Attack the Block
11. The People vs. George Lucas
12. Cinema Verité
13. Zeitgeist: Moving Forward
****
14. Paul
15. Contagion
16. Captain America: The First Avenger
17. Source Code
18. Tucker & Dale vs. Evil
19. Troll Hunter
20. The Adjustment Bureau
21. Scream 4
22. Super 8
*** 1/2
23. Rubber
24. X-Men: First Class
25. Los Ojos de Julia (Julia’s Eyes)
26. The Ward
Thos are the “fresh” films I’ve seen this year.
Bottom 10, as a curiosity…
10. Sucker Punch (the 1st Snyder film that completely bores me)
9. Phineas & Ferb movie (even thought I love the show, they should never have tried to translate it to a full lenght feature, while I have The Powerpuff Girls movie as one of my fave animated TV to movie translations, they could have learnt from that one)
8. Ironclad (if it was less gory and more “meaty” it would have been awesome, but this is just an empty gorefest)
7. Hall Pass (ONE good laugh – the jacuzzi/hot tub one – in a whole movie for the Farrellys is completely unforgivable)
6. Quarantine 2: Terminal (even thought the set up is a good idea, it is a mess)
5. Konferenz der Tiere (Animals United) (if this is Europe’s alternative to American CGI animation I think we should just give up and focus in what we do best)
4. Hop (tries so hard to be Shrek that I almost puked at it… plus the hard endevour to try to understand a film that obviously relates only to the USA, the Easter bunny is an all-american tradition which is cute but makes no sense abroad… too infantile, even thought I can’t complain about Marsden, but on his role choice)
3. 11-11-11 (SOOOOOO BADDDDDLY WRITTEN, EDITED AND ACTED… AND DIRECTED… still here and there provokes enough tension to avoid the “worst of the year” in the last minute… also rips off “Darkness”, “Poltergeist” and so many so often)
2. Your Highness (I mean, WTF? Tempted of asking Portman’s Oscar back)
1. Battle: Los Angeles (nausea inducing propaganda… I love Aaron Eckhart when he does Thank You for Smoking or The Dark Knight – two snubs at Oscars – and he’s good in this movie, BUT can’t save this disaster that makes Skyline looks like a masterpiece).
My list from what i saw this year, so far…
*****
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II
2. Red State
3. Habemus Papam (We have a Pope)
4. The Adventures of Tintin
5. Melancholia
**** 1/2
6. Midnight in Paris
7. Another Earth
8. Thor
9. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
10. Attack the Block
11. The People vs. George Lucas
12. Cinema Verité
13. Zeitgeist: Moving Forward
****
14. Paul
15. Contagion
16. Captain America: The First Avenger
17. Source Code
18. Tucker & Dale vs. Evil
19. Troll Hunter
20. The Adjustment Bureau
21. Scream 4
22. Super 8
*** 1/2
23. Rubber
24. X-Men: First Class
25. Los Ojos de Julia (Julia’s Eyes)
26. The Ward
Thos are the “fresh” films I’ve seen this year.
Bottom 10, as a curiosity…
10. Sucker Punch (the 1st Snyder film that completely bores me)
9. Phineas & Ferb movie (even thought I love the show, they should never have tried to translate it to a full lenght feature, while I have The Powerpuff Girls movie as one of my fave animated TV to movie translations, they could have learnt from that one)
8. Ironclad (if it was less gory and more “meaty” it would have been awesome, but this is just an empty gorefest)
7. Hall Pass (ONE good laugh – the jacuzzi/hot tub one – in a whole movie for the Farrellys is completely unforgivable)
6. Quarantine 2: Terminal (even thought the set up is a good idea, it is a mess)
5. Konferenz der Tiere (Animals United) (if this is Europe’s alternative to American CGI animation I think we should just give up and focus in what we do best)
4. Hop (tries so hard to be Shrek that I almost puked at it… plus the hard endevour to try to understand a film that obviously relates only to the USA, the Easter bunny is an all-american tradition which is cute but makes no sense abroad… too infantile, even thought I can’t complain about Marsden, but on his role choice)
3. 11-11-11 (SOOOOOO BADDDDDLY WRITTEN, EDITED AND ACTED… AND DIRECTED… still here and there provokes enough tension to avoid the “worst of the year” in the last minute… also rips off “Darkness”, “Poltergeist” and so many so often)
2. Your Highness (I mean, WTF? Tempted of asking Portman’s Oscar back)
1. Battle: Los Angeles (nausea inducing propaganda… I love Aaron Eckhart when he does Thank You for Smoking or The Dark Knight – two snubs at Oscars – and he’s good in this movie, BUT can’t save this disaster that makes Skyline looks like a masterpiece).
@christiannnw – ‘Red’ was my first experience of Kieslowski which I saw at the movies. I was young then and didn’t have much exposure to foreign films. I wouldn’t say it opened my eyes – Bergman did that, but at the time it was the most beautifully filmed movie I had ever seen.
They still make movies likes is, I wish more people sought them out…
@christiannnw – ‘Red’ was my first experience of Kieslowski which I saw at the movies. I was young then and didn’t have much exposure to foreign films. I wouldn’t say it opened my eyes – Bergman did that, but at the time it was the most beautifully filmed movie I had ever seen.
They still make movies likes is, I wish more people sought them out…
Beth, where did you get the BFCA scores for The Artist and A Dangerous Method? All I see on their site for these 2 are “voting-in-progress”.
Scott, click on “All in Theatres” and you’ll find them. The Artist has climbed to 90 now, and Dangerous Method to 75.
Scott, this link shows the recent updates
http://www.criticschoice.com/in-theatres/
I have to stop looking at these till Hugo settles and sticks at a number. Making me crazy watching the score jump around.
Beth, where did you get the BFCA scores for The Artist and A Dangerous Method? All I see on their site for these 2 are “voting-in-progress”.
Scott, click on “All in Theatres” and you’ll find them. The Artist has climbed to 90 now, and Dangerous Method to 75.
Scott, this link shows the recent updates
http://www.criticschoice.com/in-theatres/
I have to stop looking at these till Hugo settles and sticks at a number. Making me crazy watching the score jump around.
Well that’s true perhaps true Tero…I wondered myself from the moment the split was announced how it would affect it’s Academy Award chances. I was supportive of the split but I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t have rather had a Titanic length 1 shot finale.
Well that’s true perhaps true Tero…I wondered myself from the moment the split was announced how it would affect it’s Academy Award chances. I was supportive of the split but I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t have rather had a Titanic length 1 shot finale.
The love for Harry, I mean…
The love for Harry, I mean…
You can still find the love you want and need at Mugglenet…
You can still find the love you want and need at Mugglenet…
Really hope 10 films are nominated this year. Would love to see Martha Marcy May Marlene, Shame, and Drive get nominated, though that seems unlikely. I do like that the race is pretty wide open so far this year. Makes things interesting. Though I’ll be pleased to just see Gosling be nominated for Drive and Elizabeth Olsen for Martha. Shame I’d like to see get as many noms as possible so more theaters may reconsider their policy on NC-17 movies and end up showing it. Would be fantastic if the film was a mini-breakout success.
Really hope 10 films are nominated this year. Would love to see Martha Marcy May Marlene, Shame, and Drive get nominated, though that seems unlikely. I do like that the race is pretty wide open so far this year. Makes things interesting. Though I’ll be pleased to just see Gosling be nominated for Drive and Elizabeth Olsen for Martha. Shame I’d like to see get as many noms as possible so more theaters may reconsider their policy on NC-17 movies and end up showing it. Would be fantastic if the film was a mini-breakout success.
I want to say something about the actors. Radcliffe has always been the weakest link in the series, Maybe it’s the fault of the directors, but he’s acting talent is incredibly limited. I can only think that they could not know how he will do when he was, what, 10 when they cast him. Grint – on the other hand – was excellent casting. Watson is irritating, but that is due to the character being annoying.
Potter -films succeeded to me (aka kept me interested) due to supporting actors which were Britain’s finest. Not naming anyone in particular, cause they are so many. Even if the roles were short, they were still enjoyable. The appeal on DH2 was that they brought almost everyone back – even for a few seconds.
Rickman, Fiennes and Smith stood out, but I don’t see the fuss. i would be pissed if any of them got nominated. And surely that will not happen.
Biggest letdown in the series has been the drama. Everytime some character died (and very few did in the movies) or fell in love or whatever, I couldn’t care any less. If I don’t care about the characters, something is wrong. Having said that, the most interesting character – Sirius – didn’t have much screen time. Oldman did good job.
In general, I feel like the movies (can’t say anything about the books) would’ve been better if they only made like 4 or 5 films. Nothing happens in between (except in Azkaban). The beginning and the ending had something. DH1 was the worst of the series and DH2 and Azkaban the best. Therefore, it’s very hard for me to endorse Part 2 when Part 1 only had material for some 45 minutes. The finale should’ve been a near three hour film in ONE part. It could’ve been something truly great.
Now, I predict that HP8 gets only 4 nominations (both sounds, visual effects and makeup). Why would they nominate art direction when most of it is recycled from previous parts? Score is a possibility, but Desplat (=annual nominee by default) has better scores in 2011. I congratulate him for keeping Williams’ main theme in minimum. It’s not his.
I want to say something about the actors. Radcliffe has always been the weakest link in the series, Maybe it’s the fault of the directors, but he’s acting talent is incredibly limited. I can only think that they could not know how he will do when he was, what, 10 when they cast him. Grint – on the other hand – was excellent casting. Watson is irritating, but that is due to the character being annoying.
Potter -films succeeded to me (aka kept me interested) due to supporting actors which were Britain’s finest. Not naming anyone in particular, cause they are so many. Even if the roles were short, they were still enjoyable. The appeal on DH2 was that they brought almost everyone back – even for a few seconds.
Rickman, Fiennes and Smith stood out, but I don’t see the fuss. i would be pissed if any of them got nominated. And surely that will not happen.
Biggest letdown in the series has been the drama. Everytime some character died (and very few did in the movies) or fell in love or whatever, I couldn’t care any less. If I don’t care about the characters, something is wrong. Having said that, the most interesting character – Sirius – didn’t have much screen time. Oldman did good job.
In general, I feel like the movies (can’t say anything about the books) would’ve been better if they only made like 4 or 5 films. Nothing happens in between (except in Azkaban). The beginning and the ending had something. DH1 was the worst of the series and DH2 and Azkaban the best. Therefore, it’s very hard for me to endorse Part 2 when Part 1 only had material for some 45 minutes. The finale should’ve been a near three hour film in ONE part. It could’ve been something truly great.
Now, I predict that HP8 gets only 4 nominations (both sounds, visual effects and makeup). Why would they nominate art direction when most of it is recycled from previous parts? Score is a possibility, but Desplat (=annual nominee by default) has better scores in 2011. I congratulate him for keeping Williams’ main theme in minimum. It’s not his.
“I don’t read the script. script reads me.”
“I don’t read the script. script reads me.”
Not a completely true statement, but close: Academy members don’t read books, they read screenplays.
Not a completely true statement, but close: Academy members don’t read books, they read screenplays.
I don’t have much interest in RT scores Scott. I do know that if I knew you in real life I would bet you $1000 that Tree of Life will finish above Harry Potter in the year end compiled critics lists, and I would do so with absolute 100% certainty.
I don’t have much interest in RT scores Scott. I do know that if I knew you in real life I would bet you $1000 that Tree of Life will finish above Harry Potter in the year end compiled critics lists, and I would do so with absolute 100% certainty.
So Matt, how do you explain the 8.8/10 Top Critics rating on RT for Potter? :p
Sounds like a lot more then “pretty good” to me. Incidentally it’s also a higher average rating then both Hugo and Tree of Life!
So Matt, how do you explain the 8.8/10 Top Critics rating on RT for Potter? :p
Sounds like a lot more then “pretty good” to me. Incidentally it’s also a higher average rating then both Hugo and Tree of Life!
Bob, I greatly doubt more Academy members have read Harry Potter than for example Lord of the Rings or even most early Stephen King or Tom Clancy novels. They mostly are not in the generation that grew up on those books.
Bob, I greatly doubt more Academy members have read Harry Potter than for example Lord of the Rings or even most early Stephen King or Tom Clancy novels. They mostly are not in the generation that grew up on those books.
More critics thought Harry Potter was “pretty good” than any other film this year, but where it falls short is in the extent of the raves. Potter only had 10 100s and 15 90+ reviews. By contrast Hugo already has 11 100s and 18 90+ reviews, and the true “best reviewed film of the year” Tree of Life has 14 100s and 22 90+s. When the critics lists start coming out Tree of Life is going to be #1 by a shockingly (to some, not to me) wide margin. Hugo will also fair very well. I’m not sure if Potter will register to a significant degree.
More critics thought Harry Potter was “pretty good” than any other film this year, but where it falls short is in the extent of the raves. Potter only had 10 100s and 15 90+ reviews. By contrast Hugo already has 11 100s and 18 90+ reviews, and the true “best reviewed film of the year” Tree of Life has 14 100s and 22 90+s. When the critics lists start coming out Tree of Life is going to be #1 by a shockingly (to some, not to me) wide margin. Hugo will also fair very well. I’m not sure if Potter will register to a significant degree.
Harry Potter makes little sense to anyone who hasn’t read the books, especially tired old adults. ”
I would bet that HP is by far the most widely read book among Academy members and that substantial numbers of them are big fans.
****
Sasha, if you don’t care much for Harry as a character, that’s your business, but I am curious whether you mean Harry as a film character, or Harry as a character overall. If the former, I agree…..the books devote hundreds of pages to Harry’s inner debate. And the films assume that we viewers bring our understanding of Harry’s struggles along with us to the movie theater.
*****
The connections between Harry and Voldemort are the central mysteries of the narrative. At the simplest level Voldemort is obsessed with Harry because Harry is the boy who lived.
Harry Potter makes little sense to anyone who hasn’t read the books, especially tired old adults. ”
I would bet that HP is by far the most widely read book among Academy members and that substantial numbers of them are big fans.
****
Sasha, if you don’t care much for Harry as a character, that’s your business, but I am curious whether you mean Harry as a film character, or Harry as a character overall. If the former, I agree…..the books devote hundreds of pages to Harry’s inner debate. And the films assume that we viewers bring our understanding of Harry’s struggles along with us to the movie theater.
*****
The connections between Harry and Voldemort are the central mysteries of the narrative. At the simplest level Voldemort is obsessed with Harry because Harry is the boy who lived.
Also, I feel like we’re all expecting a Social Network to come along this year (though even this had 1 mixed) but do you realize how rare it is that a film receives as unanimous praise as that one did? It’s a nearly impossible feat to please everyone (and there’s a lot of the general public that didn’t agree with the critics last year) and even those that all 40 some critics (or 200 or whatever) throw their weight behind happen one in a blue moon…
Also, I feel like we’re all expecting a Social Network to come along this year (though even this had 1 mixed) but do you realize how rare it is that a film receives as unanimous praise as that one did? It’s a nearly impossible feat to please everyone (and there’s a lot of the general public that didn’t agree with the critics last year) and even those that all 40 some critics (or 200 or whatever) throw their weight behind happen one in a blue moon…
God, this really is amazing…we all know HP7B got 100% approval from RT’s “Top Critics”, but I just looked over the Metacritic scores again and Deathly Hallows is also the only film to received ALL positive reviews. Not a one mixed or negative. Something that Hugo can’t say, nor The Artist, nor Moneyball, nor The Tree of Life, nor The Descendants, nor…should I continue? :p
Basically if there was no bias and you could follow logic then Harry Potter is the film that Sasha says doesn’t exist this year, the one that everyone loves. Sure, it doesn’t have a 90+ score but it’s hard to argue there are any holdouts when every review from any critic that has supposed worth is positive.
God, this really is amazing…we all know HP7B got 100% approval from RT’s “Top Critics”, but I just looked over the Metacritic scores again and Deathly Hallows is also the only film to received ALL positive reviews. Not a one mixed or negative. Something that Hugo can’t say, nor The Artist, nor Moneyball, nor The Tree of Life, nor The Descendants, nor…should I continue? :p
Basically if there was no bias and you could follow logic then Harry Potter is the film that Sasha says doesn’t exist this year, the one that everyone loves. Sure, it doesn’t have a 90+ score but it’s hard to argue there are any holdouts when every review from any critic that has supposed worth is positive.
Beth, where did you get the BFCA scores for The Artist and A Dangerous Method? All I see on their site for these 2 are “voting-in-progress”
Beth, where did you get the BFCA scores for The Artist and A Dangerous Method? All I see on their site for these 2 are “voting-in-progress”
Um, and Harry Potter doesn’t fit that formula? Try Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser + Massive B.O.
Um, and Harry Potter doesn’t fit that formula? Try Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser + Massive B.O.
Oh. The Descendants will win.
It’s basic math.
Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser = Win.
Oh. The Descendants will win.
It’s basic math.
Critical Raves + Crowdpleaser = Win.
I’m having a hard time reconciling with the fact that Harry Potter is the story of our time.
Here, I thought the story of our time was Infinite Jest.
I’m having a hard time reconciling with the fact that Harry Potter is the story of our time.
Here, I thought the story of our time was Infinite Jest.
I’m not sure Martha Marcy May Marlene or Take Shelter should be completely ruled out. They’re both among the most well-reviewed films of the year, and they have gotten enough sufficient buzz to warrant Dark Horse status, I think.
I’m not sure Martha Marcy May Marlene or Take Shelter should be completely ruled out. They’re both among the most well-reviewed films of the year, and they have gotten enough sufficient buzz to warrant Dark Horse status, I think.
“Super 8
Verdict- I loved the film within a film and the mystery aspects of the story and how it all came together…however, what was up with the ending? I realize J.J. Abrams was trying to pay homage to E.T. but it just feels so cheesy in this movie. There was also a few too many contrived moments…but the acting of the kids was surprisingly good, I loved the soundtrack, and it was visually quite impressive. The good far-outweighed the bad. I initially had no interest in seeing this, but I am glad I did
I could see a Best Pic nom for it even, but hopefully it doesn’t steal away Potter’s opportunity for the Blockbuster spot…”
“Super 8
Verdict- I loved the film within a film and the mystery aspects of the story and how it all came together…however, what was up with the ending? I realize J.J. Abrams was trying to pay homage to E.T. but it just feels so cheesy in this movie. There was also a few too many contrived moments…but the acting of the kids was surprisingly good, I loved the soundtrack, and it was visually quite impressive. The good far-outweighed the bad. I initially had no interest in seeing this, but I am glad I did
I could see a Best Pic nom for it even, but hopefully it doesn’t steal away Potter’s opportunity for the Blockbuster spot…”
No Strings Attached-
Verdict- I highly enjoyed this film. Pretty much everything clicked in this rom-com. It had heart, it was hilarious, and it was fairly original for a film of its genre; it almost veered toward some rom-com cliches (ie love triangle) but for the most part they kept it restrained with the focus on the “sex friends”, played by Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, who are both wonderful. I applaud Natalie for stepping into new/risky territory (she’s surprisingly a perfect fit for the role actually) and I think Ashton is better then people give him credit for.
No Strings Attached-
Verdict- I highly enjoyed this film. Pretty much everything clicked in this rom-com. It had heart, it was hilarious, and it was fairly original for a film of its genre; it almost veered toward some rom-com cliches (ie love triangle) but for the most part they kept it restrained with the focus on the “sex friends”, played by Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, who are both wonderful. I applaud Natalie for stepping into new/risky territory (she’s surprisingly a perfect fit for the role actually) and I think Ashton is better then people give him credit for.
@Scott: Care to explain why you like No Strings Attached? It’s easily one of the most insulting, absurd films I’ve seen in a long time. Thank god it didn’t cost Portman her Oscar.
Anyway, I just finished watching Super 8, and frankly I don’t get the hype. It’s entertaining, and the child actors are wonderful, but the plot is very obscure and the pacing is as clumsy as this final Harry Potter at times.
My favorite of the year so far is Win Win, so hopefully Fox Searchlight will put out a campaign for it. I loved Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, and The Tree of Life as well.
Here’s my ranking for Best Picture winners of the past five years:
1.The Hurt Locker
2.The King’s Speech
3.No Country for Old Men
4.Slumdog Millionaire
5.The Departed
I gave all of these films a 10/10. So I can’t complain about the Academy too much.
@Scott: Care to explain why you like No Strings Attached? It’s easily one of the most insulting, absurd films I’ve seen in a long time. Thank god it didn’t cost Portman her Oscar.
Anyway, I just finished watching Super 8, and frankly I don’t get the hype. It’s entertaining, and the child actors are wonderful, but the plot is very obscure and the pacing is as clumsy as this final Harry Potter at times.
My favorite of the year so far is Win Win, so hopefully Fox Searchlight will put out a campaign for it. I loved Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, and The Tree of Life as well.
Here’s my ranking for Best Picture winners of the past five years:
1.The Hurt Locker
2.The King’s Speech
3.No Country for Old Men
4.Slumdog Millionaire
5.The Departed
I gave all of these films a 10/10. So I can’t complain about the Academy too much.
@ Ryan
“The sample is larger, which means more reliable numbers.”
“By that logic,we could try to find 5,000 people online who have an opinion on a scale of 1-10”
It’s difficult to gather the opinion of 5,000 people who you can garantee are serious film fans, (and not 5 year olds, schizophrenics or film company executives, all of whom can vote on a site like IMDb for example). If there was a place online that did that, I would use it.
Maybe you don’t like to read reviews from the 300 RT critics (the top critics are definitely better writers for one thing), but I think we can agree that these people have a serious interest in film and have seen enough movies to be able to have an educated opinion. At least, that’s how I see it. I personally think that allowing only 30-40 persons to have an opinion is a little too elitist. I mean, we can have a handful of ritics that we like to follow, but when we want to come up with numbers that reflect a consensus, I think we should allow more people in. I also think that most Academy members are more casual filmgoers than the top of the top film critics so I expect their tastes would align better with a larger sample.
“RT doesn’t pretend to know what unrated reviews are worth.”
” Exactly. So how the heck do they arrive at their “average rating”?”
They only include the graded reviews in the calculation, which constitute about 80-90% of total reviews in general, so it’s not a big problem.
@ Ryan
“The sample is larger, which means more reliable numbers.”
“By that logic,we could try to find 5,000 people online who have an opinion on a scale of 1-10”
It’s difficult to gather the opinion of 5,000 people who you can garantee are serious film fans, (and not 5 year olds, schizophrenics or film company executives, all of whom can vote on a site like IMDb for example). If there was a place online that did that, I would use it.
Maybe you don’t like to read reviews from the 300 RT critics (the top critics are definitely better writers for one thing), but I think we can agree that these people have a serious interest in film and have seen enough movies to be able to have an educated opinion. At least, that’s how I see it. I personally think that allowing only 30-40 persons to have an opinion is a little too elitist. I mean, we can have a handful of ritics that we like to follow, but when we want to come up with numbers that reflect a consensus, I think we should allow more people in. I also think that most Academy members are more casual filmgoers than the top of the top film critics so I expect their tastes would align better with a larger sample.
“RT doesn’t pretend to know what unrated reviews are worth.”
” Exactly. So how the heck do they arrive at their “average rating”?”
They only include the graded reviews in the calculation, which constitute about 80-90% of total reviews in general, so it’s not a big problem.