Oscars 2012 Pet Peeves – Top Five

DSCN0800

5. If it doesn’t make you cry it won’t win Best Picture. Sure, it always helps if you cry but it is hardly a pre-requisite.  Every year there are movies that make you cry in the lineup and they don’t win. War Horse left me a soggy wreck, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close produced sobs and standing ovations. Little Miss Sunshine, The Reader, you name it and they aren’t tears-producing. What does win? Movies that people don’t hate. The more people that hate your movie the less of a chance you have to win. The Artist, The King’s Speech, The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men – these were really hard films to hate and only two of them were sob-inducing.

4. Hey Adam Lambert criticizing the singing in Les Miserables – when your only claim to fame is runner-up on American Idol you aren’t exactly an authority on what constitutes great singing. Sure, I loved you on American Idol – you were my favorite – really wanted you to win. And maybe I agree with you about Russell Crowe but the rest of the singers?  There might be ten things wrong with Les Mis but the singing ain’t one of them.  It isn’t clear what possessed you to make such a claim against actors who really did give it 100% and all of whom could outsing any winner on American Idol any day of the week.

3. Folks who accuse critics who criticize Les Miserables “just not liking the musical.” It really isn’t true. Those who love the musical seem to split right down the middle as to who likes it and who doesn’t. The same goes for people who never saw the musical at all.  It is assumed that because critics were hard on the book and then hard on the play that they’re being hard on the film for those same reasons.  This film is splitting minds like Moulin Rouge did. It’s one of those you either love or you hate. And if you love, you REALLY love and if you hate, you REALLY hate. This self-imposed victimization by devotees makes it seem like there is no legit reason not to like the movie so there must be ulterior ones.   I think it’s possible to judge the film as a film and still love the musical itself.

2. “Critics don’t vote for the Oscars.” While it’s true, literally proven in 2010 beyond a shadow of a doubt, that critics can say one movie is better than the other and that still won’t make Oscar voters, or industry voters, turn their backs on a film they “like” more.  They are moved by one and not the other, they like to see this movie win because in their minds that means that the stuttering king wins or the poor kids of India are really winning some award.  Or the obsolete silent film star finally gets his due on stage at last with a shiny gold trophy.  But that doesn’t mean critics don’t matter. They still lend legitimacy and they are the ones who tend to write the books about film history. What they think does matter, otherwise no studio would ever quote them or their awards on ads.  In the end, the film that has won Best Picture going back ten years, with the exception of Crash, has had very very good to great reviews.  What people mean when they say “critics don’t vote for Oscars” is simply that their awards matter less than their overall take.

1. The ending of Lincoln – it has been frustrating that anyone with access to the internet or has seen a film or two really wants to tell Steven Spielberg how to direct. From Roger Ebert to Samuel L. Jackson to several people here and there (you reading this are probably one of them) they all seem to want Spielberg to have made the movie they wanted him to make. That would have been a great movie. To me, though, Spielberg make the movie HE wanted to make and THAT makes it a great movie.

It is not the job of the critic, or the viewer, or the blogger (god forbid) to attach perfection to art. That’s the artist’s job.  Give the people exactly what they want and your work with do nothing but satisfy them, which may be the definition of entertainment but it ain’t the definition of art.

My experience of watching movies age these 14 years on the job has taught me that these so-called imperfections not only smooth out over time but often, they become the very reason the film turns out to be great.  It didn’t take long for No Country for Old Men’s many endings to become one of the best things about it. Since I watch it three times a year or thereabouts I can tell you that the very thing people complained about in 2008 is the thing that makes it an exceptional work.  The characters in The Social Network aren’t likable.  Well, yeah.  Ain’t that the point? A social network created to help unsociable people become sociable. And anyway, Andrew Garfield WAS likable.   Can you imagine if people continued, all of these years later, to complain about how no one in All About Eve was likable or that Eve Harrington should have been redeemed in the end? If Ingrid Bergman had gone off with Humphrey Bogart at the end of Casablanca would you like the movie more?

Spielberg chose to take us through several key, memorable moments in the life of Abraham Lincoln. These points are often referred to in memory – how hard it would be on Tad, Mary’s crying, and the president’s head atop a blood-stained pillow. No, I didn’t need Spielberg to remind me of the bloody, brutal way some nutjob with a gun took out our most beloved president but the juxtaposition of that image next to all the good things we just saw him do is an important reminder all the same.  Spielberg could have ended it as every Tom, Dick and Harry wanted him to but then he couldn’t have included Lincoln’s greatest speech.  And if you include his greatest speech how, then, do you show the jarring nature of having given that speech very shortly before some awful human being puts a bullet in the president’s head? Spielberg and Kushner juggled those three important details of Lincoln’s life extraordinarily well. The price they’ve had to pay for it is the price I have to pay to for it – hearing everyone tell it to me as if they’ve just invented the thought.

And when I hear someone say Spielberg should have done this or Spielberg should have done that I want to bitch slap them.  Guess what, this IS what Spielberg did. Like it, don’t like it, hate it, love it but please, the guy’s been directing films for 30 years. The movie is about to make $150 million at the box office.  You’ve been blogging for five minutes.  Give the man his due.

Parents Reaction to Les Mis

Next Story »

Daniel Day-Lewis in the Lincoln Bedroom

89 Comments

  1. A.J
    January 2, 2013

    Like the list. However I didn’t LOVE or HATE Les Mis. It was ok in my opinion, not terrible and not great just ok. I don’t fall into either extreme. Although I will agree with you that most people are in extremes.

    Note: I never saw the musical

  2. Anna
    January 2, 2013

    Les Miserables is in my top ten list of my favorite things in life. I’m as obsessed as they come. However, as much as I enjoyed seeing the movie, I definitely saw its flaws and can’t say that I LOVED it. Maybe it’s because I’m too familiar with it and knew its potential, that I felt disappointed. I don’t think it’s a love/hate movie. Most reviews I’ve read are mixed – without many raves or pans.

  3. SFMike
    January 2, 2013

    I like *good* musicals and if they are turned into good movies, so much the better. Loved “Hairspray”; hated “Rock of Ages” — same director on both, go figure. Liked what Burton did with “Sweeney Todd”. I never saw “Les Miz” on stage, but for me, after Hathaway’s exit — and she really is the best thing in it — it’s just TWO MORE HOURS of one sound-alike inspirational ballad after another. It bludgeons you into being “moved”. Sorry. However, I will say that I found the brickbats tossed at Crowe puzzling. I guess the purists wanted a “Broadway” voice in that role, but for anyone under 60 who grew up listening to non-traditional singers (from Jagger to Rod Stewart to Springsteen to Joey Ramone) Crowe is hardly fingernails-on-a-blackboard. He’s playing a mean, gruff character and singing in a mean, gruff voice. Worked for me.

  4. Mel
    January 2, 2013

    I just thought Les Mis was ok. Hooper and Crowe kept it from being great……really just those two things and it would have been a knockout but I could not get past Crowe’s horrid singing that always threw the thing off and then Hooper trying to make a grand musical some intimate hand-held close-up experience. WTF. It doesn’t work. It makes the whole thing seem very ridiculous. The rest of the singing was fab though. All did a great job.

    As to criticizing Spielberg, what the hell? That is what we all do when we question movies and wish things for them that would have made them more enjoyable to us. Are you saying that voicing those things is off-limits? Why do we have to be filmmakers to know what we like or would have liked? The internet is full of blogs, everyone can share their opinions and discuss. So if someone hasn’t been sharing theirs on the internet for 13 years, it doesn’t count and never should? Whatever. I’m interested in opinions and discussions. That’s why I am here. I am uninterested in you dismissing any that don’t jive with yours by endlessly bringing up “13 years” or that they are all just opinions that don’t matter, yet here you are giving your opinion and talking about theirs so it must matter. You are my favorite Sasha, but for fuck’s sake, come on. You have better words to use and make a point than that. You are a great writer.

  5. January 2, 2013

    There might be ten things wrong with Les Mis but the singing ain’t one of them. It isn’t clear what possessed you to make such a claim against actors who really did give it 100% and all of whom could outsing any winner on American Idol any day of the week.

    He has the right to express his opinion on twitter just like everyone else which is exactly what he did. If the media want to make a story out of it that’s not his fault. And he’s right. The singing was mostly awful. An actor who has a mediocre voice giving 100% doesn’t change the quality of his singing. If you want to say ‘well they tried so hard, I don’t care if they’re they best singers’, that’s one thing. But to try and act like their amount of effort somehow negates how they actually sound doesn’t work for a musical. Sorry. Maybe if there was a film that was mainly a normal drama where an actor sang one song, maybe in the shower, and he/she sounded terrible. Maybe in that case we should ignore the quality of their voice. But when they’re hired to sing constantly and it sounds less than perfect, the audience who paid to see that has every right to point out that it sounded less than perfect. You don’t sweep the largest aspect of a film under the rug because the cast tried hard. When you find the passage to the fantasy world where Russell Crowe wins American Idol, let me know. I’ll barricade it shut.

  6. John
    January 2, 2013

    Right.

    I love the music in Les Mis, always have. I saw the play when I was younger and loved the music but thought the story was a long bore (but I was a teenager at the time and probably had 43 other things on my mind).

    The movie: I see the flaws. The opening number – while visually engaging – did not reel me in the way the opening number of a musical should. I typically enjoy Crowe and Seyfried (and they act well, here) but I found that their voices didn’t overly do it for me. Some of the close-ups were too much (mostly whenever someone was walking or changing rooms, it was really annoying). I also thought the pacing was off, at times; though, that can be typical of any musical – with lesser characterization and/or exorbitant plot than in your average drama. And the new song “Suddenly” was just ok. I have other mini-quibbles throughout.

    That said, I thought most of the handheld close-ups gave me a “I’m there” realism amid the opulent sets/costumes that I REALLY loved.

    All said, though I have my quibbles, they did not take away from the “overall” that I felt. I understood the narrative of the film better than when expressed on stage. I thought Jackman was superb. Anne Hathaway bowled me over. Eddie Redmayne was a wonderful surprise. Samantha Barks makes a lovely and credible tragic heroine. The last 10 minutes really did me in, emotionally. And I left the theater feeling satiated with an overall positive experience.

    So, my account, from someone who always knew the music and saw the play but wasn’t wild about it … is that I really liked, but not loved the movie because of my afformentioned issues. I don’t LOVE it, and I don’t HATE it. It’s a flawed movie that worked for me. So while there is definitely that love it/hate it reaction that I’ve read about, I’m sure there is also plenty of room for peeps like me who sit somewhere in the middle, though tipped either positive or negative.

  7. dp
    January 2, 2013

    It’s funny that you posted a photo of DDL in Lincoln walking out of the White House to go to Ford’s Theater (on an earlier post)- it was to me the natural ending to the film. We already knew what was going to happen. But that’s just my opinion- someone who has never directed, acted, done a screenplay, etc. Just a viewer. It’s still a great film, it just became too self important with that ending (Camera pans to his deathbed through the oil lamp, the glow of the light then morphs to him giving that speech…I don’t want to say cheesy, but this sequence is what every Tom (Hooper), Dick and Harry would have done).

  8. the other mike
    January 2, 2013

    zero dark thirty, lincoln, django. are these films allowed to be criticised? appparently not. we must bow at the master filmmakers. never mind that we have to pay to watch these things, apparently we should just be honored. even sam jackson is not allowed to criticse the great spielberg, who i guess is the the director equivalent of linclon. smh.

  9. Eli
    January 2, 2013

    I adore this post.

  10. January 2, 2013

    The singing was mostly awful. An actor who has a mediocre voice giving 100% doesn’t change the quality of his singing.

    Actually? I haven’t seen Les Mis, but unless the quality of the singing in the footage I’ve seen in trailers, featurettes etc. is notably different from the quality of the singing in the rest of the film, I don’t know how you can categorise it as ‘awful’. Even Russell Crowe, who doesn’t sound very good, doesn’t sound awful. Eddie Redmayne sounds superb! The others all sound fine. I’ll know better when I see the film, but I don’t expect to change my mind that you’re being hyperbolic.

    And anyway, I’d much rather a musical’s cast was comprised of great actors with OK voices than OK actors with great voices. Sweeney Todd is terrifically acted and decently sung, and it’s a fantastic film.

    And I get the criticism of Lincoln’s ending, but I think it’s a juvenile response to that film. That would have been the neater, more conventionally satisfying end to Lincoln, more expected. But it would have been emptier, cheaper.

    Some of my pet peeves:
    - ‘Life of Pi is losing steam’ – we’ll see about that. It’s not a sexy pick right now, and people like to be seen to make sexy picks.
    - The backlash to Zero Dark Thirty – from the critics groups, who want to assert their independence and then all line up behind Argo, and from the people who need their films to tell them how to think and how to feel.

  11. Jerry Grant
    January 2, 2013

    I agree with many who posted above: I neither totally loved nor hated “Les Miz.” Basically, Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway tower over the film. Hugh Jackman’s performance is so astonishing, it puts the oftentimes-mediocre movie in a whole other category. But there’s lots of “blah” time. Too much of it.

    While I think the “Moulin Rouge” comparison about love it-hate it is apt to a degree, I think “Moulin Rouge” was still more polarizing (and a more extraordinary film).

  12. January 2, 2013

    even sam jackson is not allowed to criticse the great spielberg, who i guess is the the director equivalent of linclon. [sic]

    Sure he is, and the rest of us are allowed to criticise Sam Jackson. No-one’s right to voice their opinion has been challenged, just the opinions they’ve voiced. Aren’t you doing the very same thing?

    I expect, the other mike, that you’re just pissed cos Sasha’s opinion doesn’t reflect yours.

  13. January 2, 2013

    Sasha,

    The King’s Speech: 95% RT
    The Social Network: 96% RT

    You’ve been using RT to make your argument against Les Misérables.

    Please explain critical opinion in the context of RT and your quote:

    “While it’s true, literally proven in 2010 beyond a shadow of a doubt, that critics can say one movie is better than the other and that still won’t make Oscar voters.”

    Are you arguing that 1% is “beyond a shadow of a doubt”?

    That certainly seems to be what you’re saying here.

  14. Mel
    January 2, 2013

    I’m sure she meant b/c TSN swept critics awards that year.

    RT always cracks me up b/c when people need it in an argument it matters, when it goes against their argument it doesn’t matter and is a joke. Same with box office. Just funny to watch.

  15. kasper
    January 2, 2013

    I really don’t know what people’s beef is with the end of Lincoln? What are people criticizing? We don’t see the assassination? The keeping score of congressional votes? Everyone keeps talking about the “end of Lincoln” but I don’t recall anything significant that would cause such a reaction…

  16. January 2, 2013

    “While it’s true, literally proven in 2010 beyond a shadow of a doubt, that critics can say one movie is better than the other and that still won’t make Oscar voters.”

    Are you arguing that 1% is “beyond a shadow of a doubt”?

    That certainly seems to be what you’re saying here.

    Not really Vince. There’s a flaw in the logic if that’s the conclusion you reach.

    One example where RT and BP match up within 1% is meaningless if there are 30 examples where RT and BP do not match up.

    In order to disprove Sasha’s belief that critics can’t make Oscar voters vote a certain way, you would need to demonstrate somehow that Oscar voters match up with RT all the time. One example isn’t enough.

    But the bigger problem with your example is that it argues the wrong point. Sasha is not saying that the best reviewed films are more likely to win best picture. She’s saying that the movies with polarized disparate mixed reviews almost never win.

  17. January 2, 2013

    While we’re at at:

    Brokeback Mountain: 87%
    Crash: 76%

    Is 11% “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that Brokeback was the superior picture?

    The Artist: 98% RT
    Any other BP nominee that year: < 96%

    Is 3% "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that anything other than The Artist was the Best Picture of the year?

    Is RT only to be used when it's convenient for our argument?

  18. Mel
    January 2, 2013

    Is RT only to be used when it’s convenient for our argument?

    Duh. That is the universal internet rule of RT!

  19. PJ
    January 2, 2013

    The ending of Lincoln was a cop out. First being in the theater but only to see the kid scream? Then defy history and make Lincoln lay diagonal on the bed. It’s not about perfection, it is about knowing history and putting it to film. It is same problem with ZD30 and torture. If you are going to make your film based on actual events, then please do not rewrite the actual events for no reason at all.

  20. January 2, 2013

    “In order to disprove Sasha’s belief that critics can’t make Oscar voters vote a certain way, you would need to demonstrate somehow that Oscar voters match up with RT all the time.”

    The critics were in agreement with The King’s Speech and The Social Network. Unless you consider 1% “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

    Sasha wrote that in 2010, “that critics can say one movie is better than the other.”

    If you’re going to argue for Sasha, then please argue that 1% is “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

    I’m arguing with margins so thin, critics were in agreement over The King’s Speech and The Social Network. And I’m shedding light on this in the context of Sasha recently using RT as a measure of critical opinion.

  21. Zach
    January 2, 2013

    I didn’t think the singing in Les Mis was awful. There were a few bum notes or places where I would have rather had the vocals sweetened (Russell Crowe). Others like Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway weren’t always singing in a way that was vocally “perfect,” but that kept the film from being any more bombastic; those two in particular were EMOTING rather than merely singing. So maybe sweeten Crowe, but the others were fine. Amanda Seyfried’s barely in the movie and her falsetto didn’t bother me.

    Also in the camp of people who thought Les Mis was good and neither great nor horrible. The performances are too strong to deny. And while many of my problems are with the underlying source material (at least the play; haven’t read Hugo), I still fault Hooper and the “screenwriters” for failing to attempt to fix some of the problems. Remember how smart Rob Marshall was to redesign Chicago such that the musical numbers were Roxie Hart’s fantasies? Hooper needed the same kind of ingenuity to smooth out the narrative weaknesses, but I don’t think he had it in him.

    On a side note, I DVR’d the 1935 non-operatic Best Picture nominee Les Miserables with Charles Laughton. I’m looking forward to seeing that, especially to see how I feel about the narrative.

  22. Zach
    January 2, 2013

    And yeah, not that I’ve been very happy with most of Adam Lambert’s music (was a fan of his on Idol, too), but he’s managed to have some success in the years since, including a Grammy nomination. Just to echo Antoinette above me, Russell Crowe would never win a singing competition (though TOFOG fans would support him).

    But I’d honestly rather hear what Rob Marshall, Bill Condon, Baz Luhrmann, or Adam Shankman has to say about Les Mis than Adam Lambert. (I notice Lea Michele, who failed to get Eponine, had only positive things to say.)

  23. January 2, 2013

    I’m arguing with margins so thin, critics were in agreement over The King’s Speech and The Social Network.

    Then you suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of how RT works.

    RT is saying 15% of critics don’t think The King’s Speech sucks.
    RT is saying 15% of critics don’t think The Social Network sucks.

    What if 15% of people said Coca-Cola doesn’t suck and 15% said a glass of Orange Juice doesn’t suck? You would not jump to the conclusion that Coke and OJ are equally good for you, would you?

  24. January 2, 2013

    I’m arguing with margins so thin, critics were in agreement over The King’s Speech and The Social Network.

    Vince, you don’t believe that. You can’t possibly believe that. Look at how silly that statement sounds. You know that’s not right.

  25. unlikely hood
    January 2, 2013

    Guess what, this IS what Spielberg did. Like it, don’t like it, hate it, love it but please, the guy’s been directing films for 30 years.

    It’s 40 years.

    Last time Sasha made this mistake on a mainpage post (a few days ago), I pointed out that it was the third such recent post by her with that error. I said “Let’s hope there won’t be a fourth.” Here’s the fourth!

    Let’s hope she doesn’t do it a fifth time?

  26. January 2, 2013

    Ryan,

    Sasha has been using Rotten Tomatoes to gauge critical opinion. Critical opinion at RT places a 1% margin between The Social Network and The King’s Speech. Please explain how 1% is “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” according to Sasha’s post.

    Again, as a reminder, Sasha wrote:

    “While it’s true, literally proven in 2010 beyond a shadow of a doubt, that critics can say one movie is better than the other.” Really? Critics said beyond a shadow of a doubt that The Social Network was better than The King’s Speech. Can you please provide the evidence, since you’re arguing for her?

    And, also a reminder, Sasha has been arguing repetitively as of late that Les Mis doesn’t measure up critically to the other BP contenders bidding for a nomination. And, she has been using Rotten Tomatoes to back this assessment up. Please clear up what constitutes “critical opinion.” And “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

  27. January 2, 2013

    Look Vince, let’s simplify down to a basic essence.

    Here’s me. Here’s me saying that The King’s Speech was ok. It wasn’t horrible, It wasn’t rotten. eh, alright, fine, it was cute.

    Here’s me again. Here’s me saying that The Social Network was genius. Here’s me saying I think The Social Network was the best movie of the year.

    So here’s me saying both The King’s Speech and The Social Network earn Fresh ratings from me.

    Are you going to now argue that The Social Network and The King’s Speech must be equal because R.A. has positive things to say about both of them?

  28. Kane
    January 2, 2013

    I think we’re able to criticize whatever we’d like. Adam Lambert (though I don’t watch the show) was runner up on American Idol. That’s pretty big in the singing community. I think that he’s much more qualified to judge singing in a movie than most of us. It’s easy to say he came across as an asshole but let’s not forget his talents got him where he is, even if it wasn’t as far as other celebrities.

  29. January 2, 2013

    Great list, and I agree with all your points. With Les Mis, I never saw the play but had listened to the soundtrack a bit, and I pretty much loved the movie. Others I know who are in love with the play were more lukewarm in reception. And then there are others to provide the foils of both of these. It’s divisive, and not in an easily delineatable (I know that’s not a word) way.

    Also, I think Lincoln could’ve ended with him leaving for the theater, but the last few scenes are there for a reason, and they work beautifully. It’s important, and moving, to think of the battle for the amendment in terms of where it falls in Lincoln’s life; he accomplished something great only months before he died.

  30. January 2, 2013

    Sasha has been using Rotten Tomatoes to gauge critical opinion

    Nope. Sasha is using RT as a rough guide to determine how many people really can’t abide some movies.

    A basic at-a-glance black/white Love/Hate percentage is not refined enough to be a gauge of critical opinion.

    It can only serve as a red flag for a movie if the amount of red begins to creep toward 1/3 of the viewers who apparently hated it.

    Sasha believes Les Mis is in Red Flag territory. That’s all.

  31. January 2, 2013

    And when I hear someone say Spielberg should have done this or Spielberg should have done that I want to bitch slap them.

    I wasn’t going to do this. But this is what you said about WAR HORSE last year.

    Any hack could have directed that film but it took Spielberg to truly screw it up by having to overdue what was already a moving story.

    http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/2012/01/10/the-state-of-the-race-dga-fallout-and-yeah-david-fincher/

    Now as Vince has mentioned you’re using RT as some kind of standard, when I think it was maybe not even a week ago that you said you never use it here. I can understand thinking that every article is a separate entity and people won’t go back and read the others. But I’m sure there are more people than those who comment here who’ve been reading for a long time and know you keep contradicting yourself.

    Yesterday you told me that DJANGO UNCHAINED has no chance at BP and that LES MIS had a better chance after saying it had no chance. And now you seem to think SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK has a good chance when earlier in the season there was no way in hell that could win, according to you. But for fun if we look at RT and metacritic DJANGO and SLP are virtually tied. The only difference between the two that I can find if we’re using stats and nominations is that DJANGO did not get a SAG nom for ensemble when you reported that the screeners for DJANGO hadn’t made it in time.

    So are we going by RT and metacritic? Are we going by Top Ten lists? Are we going by the nominations that have already come out? Or are we just cherry-picking to serve our own ends?

  32. Mel
    January 2, 2013

    What we like is not facts and figures. No one is more or less qualified to talk about what movies they liked or didn’t like and why. The only point of criticism in film or music or any art, is to eventually find a critic you normally really like and tend to be on the same wavelength to help you pic new things to try in a sea of endless possibilities. They help me sort. Or sometimes just entertain me.

    Ryan, I feel like you are missing the point of Vince’s argument. He is just pointing out that Sasha has been a bit wishy-washy on her use of RT in arguments. She uses it as proof that Les Mis should not be a contender, but evidently did not use it in her thesis that critics preferred TSN over TKS beyond a shadow of a doubt.

  33. January 2, 2013

    But for fun if we look at RT and metacritic DJANGO and SLP are virtually tied. The only difference between the two…

    Ima hafta interrupt and laugh a lot if you think “the only difference” between Django and SLP are numbers on RT and a SAG thing.

  34. January 2, 2013

    I’m going by the data that’s available. I gave The King’s Speech a “C” and “The Social Network” a B+. However, I am not included in general critical opinion, not can I assume that everyone feels the way I do. I saw it with two people who thought it was the best picture of the year. Half of my friends cite Crash as their favorite film of 2005. My understanding is that RT and MC are generally accepted as “critical opinion.”

    “Are you going to now argue that The Social Network and The King’s Speech must be equal because R.A. has positive things to say about both of them?”

    I’m not arguing degrees of enthusiasm in RT recommendations. If I were, I could argue that, based on many of the 50 “rotten” reviews of Les Mis I’ve read, a lot of them were “Middle of the Road,” meaning that those “rotten” reviews could just have easily been “fresh” reviews.

    Sasha has been using RT as a representation of critical opinion. If it’s so important and, as you argue, one has to look beyond the percentages to infer degrees of enthusiasm and Sasha should be arguing that Zero Dark Thirty is the best picture of the year. Because, if we’re talking degrees of enthusiasm, then, Zero Dark Thirty has “literally proven” to be “beyond a shadow of a doubt, that critics” have deemed it the best picture of the year over Lincoln.

  35. KB
    January 2, 2013

    There might be ten things wrong with Les Mis but the singing ain’t one of them. It isn’t clear what possessed you to make such a claim against actors who really did give it 100% and all of whom could outsing any winner on American Idol any day of the week.

    Sasha – If you think anyone in “Les Miserables” the film can “outsing” a Kelly Clarkson or Carrie Underwood then you really don’t know what great technique is. This statement absurd.

  36. January 2, 2013

    but evidently did not use it in her thesis that critics preferred TSN over TKS beyond a shadow of a doubt

    um, that’s not a thesis. It’s a fact.

    85% of critics saying The King’s Speech doesn’t necessarily suck donkey ass is not equal to 85% of critics in nearly unanimous agreement that The Social Network was the best movie of the year.

    a 71% score for Les Mis is an obvious problem. So much negativity spells trouble for Les Mis when Lincoln, Argo, ZDT as SLP are all flying high in the 90s with less than 10% negativity being demonstrated by critics for any of those stronger films.

    It means 3 out 10 people really can’t stand Les Mis. It’s very hard to cobble together a win when so many people are resistant to a movie’s charms. Especially in a year when there are so many other better options.

    I will also maybe need to remind you guys that Sasha began predicting The King’s Speech to win Best Picture in mid January that year. Because we could all see that a lot of good numbers were indicating The King’s Speech had genuine strong support.

    That doesn’t mean we could deny the fact that the critics overwhelming preferred The Social Network. We just realized the reality of the climate. And when I say “we” I mean “not me” because I was still a victim of my own delusional stubbornness right up to Oscar Night. I kept thinking Fincher and Social Network would win, 7 or 8 weeks after Sasha told me I needed to begin to prepare myself for disappointment.

  37. KB
    January 2, 2013

    Antoinette for the win.

  38. January 2, 2013

    “Sasha has been using RT as a representation of critical opinion.”

    Nope. Wrong. You should stop saying that. Sasha has stated pretty clearly for years that she finds RT not very useful. Except that sometimes — like now — RT can function as a really blunt but sharply delineated indicator on occasions when 1/3 of people agree that a movie is rotten.

  39. January 2, 2013

    So are we going by RT and metacritic? Are we going by Top Ten lists? Are we going by the nominations that have already come out? Or are we just cherry-picking to serve our own ends?

    You might want to consider the possibility that some of us are able to take all kinds of factors into account.

    Look! ZDT has the highest metacritic score of any of the realistic Oscar contenders. Fact! Neato!

    See how I’m talking about metacritic rght now? Do you think that means I’m suddenly a slave to metacritic? Do you think I’m “cherry-picking” when I make a factual statement but fail to write a huge essay reminding you that I’m aware metacritic isn’t the whole story?

    Have you noticed that we feature items about RT, items about Metacritic, dozens of items about Top 10 Lists. We cover all the precursors all the time, in real time, instantly. Because we think all those things are worth thinking about.

    When the name of the site changes to AwardsDailybutnowmostlyallwecareaboutisRT.com you’ll know it, ok? We’ll change the theme to green and red.

  40. Jerry Grant
    January 2, 2013

    Btw, I totally agree with Vince Smetana on this one.

    The recurring expression of TSN as better than TKS “beyond a shadow of a doubt” just doesn’t seem right. I often trust this site with its well-considered and cautious balanced approach. But this is one recurring opinion voiced by the editors that needs to be questioned. “The King’s Speech” was admired and sometimes adored by critics and normal folk for good reasons, in a way that has been consistently understated in this forum.

    (A minor nitpicking)

  41. KB
    January 2, 2013

    I’d like to go back and say that I don’t mean to say that Sasha doesn’t know what good technique is, I got carried away – but I do think that her saying anyone in “Les Miserables” could outsing the past winners on AI is still so over-the-top. C’mon.

  42. Jerry Grant
    January 2, 2013

    I don’t mean to flare up tempers. It’s not a very big deal. I love this site; this is just one point of disagreement.

  43. Brent Nichols
    January 2, 2013

    Hugh Jackman’s version of “Bring Him Home” was paaaaainful. He was shrieking and really straining to hit those notes. He took a beautiful and touching song and made it a loud screamfest that was almost unbearable to me, especially if you’ve ever heard some truly great singers perform that song. I think it was worse than anything Russell Crowe did in the movie which was generally just weak and boring, but not cringe-inducing like Jackman often was.

    So I have to agree with Adam Lambert–the live singing allowed some truly superb acting but the vocals themselves were often just bad.

  44. January 2, 2013

    The recurring expression of TSN as better than TKS “beyond a shadow of a doubt” just doesn’t seem right. I often trust this site with its well-considered and cautious balanced approach. But this is one recurring opinion voiced by the editors that needs to be questioned.

    Question all you want, Jerry.
    Here’s the answer:

    First, please recall, The Internet Is Written In Ink.

    The critics placed The Social Network at #1 on 22 Top 10 lists.
    The critics placed The King’s Speech at #1 on 3 Top 10 lists.*

    22 is more than 3. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    TSN appeared on 78 Top 10 Lists.
    TKS appeared on 36 Top 10 Lists.

    TSN appeared on more than twice as many top 10 lists as TKS. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    *(The only 3 Top 10 Lists where The King’s Speech was #1:
    Box Office Magazine, Reelviews, The St. Petersburg Times)

  45. January 2, 2013

    What’s being argued here is that The Social Network was the most critically acclaimed film of 2010 because it had a high RT rating AND all the critic groups handed it all the awards.

    Les Misérables has the benefit of neither.

    The King’s Speech had the benefit of one. (RT)

    Lincoln has the benefit of one. (RT)

    Zero Dark Thirty has the benefit of two. (RT and critic awards)

    Ergo, Sasha and Ryan are arguing that the best film of the year is Zero Dark Thirty, not Lincoln.

    Understood. Over and out.

  46. January 2, 2013

    Another stat:

    The Social Network won 30 critics’ group Best Picture awards
    The King’s Speech won 1 critics’ group Best Picture award

    (On my count)

  47. January 2, 2013

    literally proven in 2010 beyond a shadow of a doubt, that critics can say one movie is better than the other and that still won’t make Oscar voters, or industry voters, turn their backs on a film they “like” more

    Vince, where exactly did either Sasha or Ryan use RT or critic awards to influence their personal decisions on what the best film of the year is?

    Not understood.

  48. January 2, 2013

    I would love to hear the response to Antoinette’s last comment.

  49. January 2, 2013

    Ergo, Sasha and Ryan are arguing that the best film of the year is Zero Dark Thirty, not Lincoln.

    Understood. Over and out.

    Hate to blow your lame faulty logic out of the water all day long, Vince. But You’re quite crazy if you think I have to agree every year with what the critics say. We cite what the critics have said, but that doesn’t mean we’re slaves to their numbers.

    I agreed with the critics about Social Network. You should know I disagreed strongly with critics consensus about The Artist. I now agree with the critics that ZDT and Lincoln and Argo are 3 of the very best movies of the year.

    For me, personally, Life of Pi is the best film of the year.

    No need for you to perform any more mathematical proofs, ok Pythagoras? Take a break. I’ve now told you exactly and precisely what film I think is the best of the year, so you don’t have to deduce it with your dime-store grasp of logic.

    “Ergo”?
    Ergo fuck yourself.

    :)

  50. January 2, 2013

    Paddy > They argue their personal decisions using RT and critic awards as proof. (i.e. justifying their animosity towards Les Mis, and supporting The Social Network as the best film of the year)

    Ask them, not me.

  51. January 2, 2013

    “lame faulty logic” “You’re quite crazy” ” ok Pythagoras” “dime-store grasp of logic.” “Ergo f— yourself.”

    Personal insults are always the foundation of sound logic, right?

  52. January 2, 2013

    I’m asking you, Vince, because you brought it up:

    What’s being argued here is that The Social Network was the most critically acclaimed film of 2010 because it had a high RT rating AND all the critic groups handed it all the awards…

    …Ergo, Sasha and Ryan are arguing that the best film of the year is Zero Dark Thirty, not Lincoln.

    I’m not going to ask someone else to defend your statements. Can you not find anything to back this up?

  53. Sasha Stone
    January 2, 2013

    …Ergo, Sasha and Ryan are arguing that the best film of the year is Zero Dark Thirty, not Lincoln.

    I don’t think we’re arguing that.

  54. Sasha Stone
    January 2, 2013

    Sasha – If you think anyone in “Les Miserables” the film can “outsing” a Kelly Clarkson or Carrie Underwood then you really don’t know what great technique is. This statement absurd.

    They are pop singers and they’re just okay. The only one I’d get behind is Fantasia.

  55. Alex Haren
    January 2, 2013

    The singing in Les Mis is absolutely terrible. It’s committed, sure. But it’s not quality musicianship by any definition. The thing is, it’s not really the actors’ fault. The vision for the film is a faulty one (and I say this having been hopeful going in). They were lead down a bad road and the product reflects as much. I thought that John Adams was great and I liked The King’s Speech well enough, but Hooper’s work on this project is laughably bad.

    The film being viewed as “over-the-top” is because everyone was instructed to play everything small. This exposed the music as seeming trite and generic. A production that embraced the bombast would have reduced this issue (like it did in Moulin Rouge).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvXpNruEULw (Tony Winning performance.)

  56. January 2, 2013

    Personal insults are always the foundation of sound logic, right?

    I’m not even about logic. All I’ve done on this page is state plain facts. No logic required.

    Your logic is faulty, Vince. Your attempt to belittle my argument by twisting it beyond what I said and then poking me with a stabby little dagger of “Ergo” sounded lame to me. That’s a plain fact.

    You want logic: IF you think I always have to agree with critics THEN you are crazy. There. That’s a plain fact and logic both.

    You’re gonna hurt Pythagoras’s feelings if he finds out you’re insulted to be found in the same sentence with him. That wasn’t an insult. It was an observation that you, my friend, are no Pythagoras. Fact. So please stop trying to play Gotcha! with these silly word traps you keep setting up to trash and mock me, ok?

  57. January 2, 2013

    Paddy > Sasha argued that it’s a pet peeve of hers that the critics don’t matter. When I brought up The King’s Speech, Ryan specified that critics didn’t matter in 2010, because there was a discrepancy beyond a shadow of a doubt between critical enthusiasm for The Social Network vs. The King’s Speech. The “critically approved” picture in that instance was TSN. As far as the critics groups have gone this season, they have awarded ZD30 more wins than Lincoln.

    Ergo, if critical opinion should matter more in the awards race, as well as the degree of enthusiasm between pictures, than ZD30 should be awarded best picture over Lincoln. So far, critics have handed Lincoln the best film of the year a big fat zero times.

  58. Kane
    January 2, 2013

    Sasha, what about Jennifer Hudson? She does have an Oscar after all.

  59. January 2, 2013

    “Your attempt to belittle my argument by twisting it beyond what I said and then poking me with a stabby little dagger of “Ergo” sounded lame to me. That’s a plain fact.”

    I never used “ergo” to belittle. You chose to read it that way. That’s not fact. That’s your subjective reading of it. Please don’t justify your insults with projecting intent on my comments. If you want to call people names, fine. But, don’t go justifying it by blaming them. That’s like stealing bread from someone because you’re hungry, getting caught, and then blaming them for having bread.

  60. January 2, 2013

    And, if “critics don’t matter,” are we supposed to forget that The Hurt Locker, which made $15M at the box-office won Best Picture, because “the critics don’t matter”? That was only three years ago.

  61. January 2, 2013

    Ergo, if critical opinion should matter more in the awards race, as well as the degree of enthusiasm between pictures, than ZD30 should be awarded best picture over Lincoln. So far, critics have handed Lincoln the best film of the year a big fat zero times.

    That’s not what you wrote first time, though Vince. You initially wrote that Sasha and Ryan were arguing that Zero Dark Thirty was the best film of the year on such evidence, rather than that they were arguing that it ought to win Best Picture. See the difference? And nor are they arguing that, it would seem. You’ve still, thus, not backed up that initial statement.

    Also, the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association handed Lincoln their Best Film prize a big fat one time.

  62. unlikely hood
    January 2, 2013

    Yet with all this, the arguers on this thread are still Clay, Webster, and Calhoun compared to the clowns that have taken their place in Congress.

    Obviously Ryan wouldn’t have dropped the f-bomb if it wasn’t for the Argo pun. I thought it was funny.

    But I agree, Antoinette for the win. (Somehow I can never find the time to scroll through the site archives like that.)

  63. January 2, 2013

    Paddy > “Ergo, Sasha and Ryan are arguing that the best film of the year is Zero Dark Thirty, not Lincoln.”

    IF all of these other properties were true, THEN, Sasha/Ryan had no choice but to except the conclusion. The argument doesn’t change.

    I stand corrected on Dallas-Fort Worth.

  64. mecid
    January 2, 2013

    Everything comes down to tastes and tastes are differ.

  65. Kane
    January 2, 2013

    Jesus my head is hurting from all of this. It’s pretty much a he said, you said, she said, they said, we said, the dog said…this all can be fixed after somebody takes a magnifying glass and finds that one word that was glossed over to put things into context.

  66. Patrick
    January 2, 2013

    Vince Smetana said (addressing Sasha’s pet peeve #2):

    Ergo, if critical opinion should matter more in the awards race, as well as the degree of enthusiasm between pictures, than ZD30 should be awarded best picture over Lincoln.”

    Sasha’s pet peeve is when people say critical opinion doesn’t matter at all. But that doesn’t mean that critical opinion should be all that matters. These are not direct opposites.

    So you can’t just deduce that ZD30 should win based solely on critical opinion. However, you can deduce that ZD30′s chances are helped by critical opinion.

    That’s how I interpreted it.

  67. January 2, 2013

    “…if you want to call people names… ”

    If I wanted to I would. But I don’t and I didn’t.

  68. January 2, 2013

    Accept (I assume you mean ‘accept’, rather than ‘except’) what conclusion, Vince? I don’t understand.

  69. January 2, 2013

    Patrick > Sasha appears to be arguing that a movie only deserves Best Picture when : 1) It has a 85% RT or higher rating, and 2) Appears at the top of several Critic Top Ten Lists. Regardless if it’s a movie that doesn’t fit either or both of those elements, but the rest of the country falls in love with it. Her pet peeve is that “critics didn’t matter,” but it’s only in context of the last two years of Best Picture. They certainly mattered for 2009. Because if they weren’t there for The Hurt Locker, its win would have never happened.

    Ryan > “If I wanted to I would. But I don’t and I didn’t.”

    I stand corrected. But, the insults still occurred.

  70. January 2, 2013

    Paddy > I’ve done my best to explain my argument to you. I’m sorry you don’t follow it. Excuse me, while I go check in at Box Office Mojo to see where the grosses for Pitch Perfect are at. I hear from a very reliable source that its success was very unimpressive. Made for $17M and grossing almost $100M worldwide? Yeah, a real stinker.

  71. January 2, 2013

    Her pet peeve is that “critics didn’t matter,” but it’s only in context of the last two years of Best Picture.

    It kind of only applies to The King’s Speech vs. The Social Network, as far as the top end of the race goes. Last year, The Artist had the edge over all the other contenders. But still, the argument that “critics don’t vote for the Oscars etc.” still exists, and is rolled out every now and then to support some movement in the race.

  72. Jesse Crall
    January 2, 2013

    David Bowie should have played a role in Les Miz. Doesn’t matter which role as long as he brought some much needed personality to the venture.

    FWIW, whenever I mention a movie to someone who isn’t an obsessive like most of us, they immediately ask how it’s doing on the Tomatometer. I imagine Oscar voters who don’t see more than a few dozen flicks a year operate in the same way.

  73. rufussondheim
    January 2, 2013

    Adam Lambert was on a national tour of Wicked before he got onto American Idol. If anyone is able to criticize singing it is someone who, night after night, hears people singing “live” some songs that are in the same vocal range and difficulty as Les Miz.

    I love good singing! But I will freely say the singing in Les Miz is not as good as it could be. And I loved the movie. But it’s all a trade-off. And, with almost no exceptions, you can’t have great singing and an honest interpretation of the emotions one is feeling, especially when the emotions are as broad as they are in Les Miz.

    On Broadway, you don’t need to shed tears. No one will see them.

    ———-

    As for criticizing the ending of Lincoln, I feel fine and dandy about my criticisms. And I also feel fine and dandy about criticizing Spielberg as a whole. I don’t care if he is a filmmaking icon, I don’t care if his films have made billions of dollars over the years. I don’t care if entire organizations of his peers opt to give him awards on a semi-regular basis.

    Compared to all of the current “great” directors he pretty much sucks. And so does the end to Lincoln. And I don’t think I should be insulted for having, or sharing, that opinion.

    Maybe I should say, Sasha, you should be “bitch slapped” for not championing Oslo, August 31st. You clearly are not on the cusp of the next generation, you fail to notice great direction that tells a story in a very natural way, rather than the bloated sentiment of Spielberg, the narratively contrived Christopher Nolan, or that style-over-substance technical savant David Fincher. Joachim Trier’s got it all over those three and I’ve seen more talent in his two movies than I’ve seen in the last decade in any of the others.

    But that would be rude, so I’ll just chalk it up to a difference of opinion, to an understanding that we all go to the movies for different reasons and therfore we all come to different conclusions. Because that’s what civilized people do.

    But

  74. January 2, 2013

    Fucking hell, Vince, get over it! Pitch Perfect? I didn’t even remember that it was you with whom I slightly disagreed months ago. And all I ever claimed was that its initial grosses were good but not amazing, impressive but not outstanding! I made no conclusions about its closing total, if memory serves correctly, and never even deemed it a disappointment, never mind a ‘stinker’, as you put it.

    Bringing up a months-old, forgotten-about, irrelevant argument, a disagreement concocted in your mind, wholly misrepresenting my words. Real mature.

    Srsly, Vince, what is it with you today? Your time of the month?

  75. January 2, 2013

    Only two things:

    *Moulin Rouge! is a great movie, an amazing experience. A masterpiece. Les Miz is… nothing. Nothing but a great mistake.

    * Thinking about all the whole thing about Lincoln’ s end… I think how extraordinary and sublime The Master’s end is.

  76. January 2, 2013

    Paddy > To quote an oft-repeated line from Raising Arizona, one of my favorite films,

    “Okay, then.”

  77. Patrick
    January 2, 2013

    “Sasha appears to be arguing that a movie only deserves Best Picture when : 1) It has a 85% RT or higher rating, and 2) Appears at the top of several Critic Top Ten Lists. Regardless if it’s a movie that doesn’t fit either or both of those elements, but the rest of the country falls in love with it.”

    Vince, where are you getting any of this from? “Deserves”? You’re the only person to have used that word in here. And you’re also the first one to even bring up RT. Sure Sasha mentioned RT in her podcast, but that was to gauge divisiveness, not general critical opinion.

    I think that Sasha is merely saying that her pet peeve is when people say “critics don’t vote for the Oscars”. She acknowledges that this is true (using 2010 as an example), but “that doesn’t mean critics don’t matter”.

  78. Phat Tony
    January 2, 2013

    Well, I feel I can safely say that this particular comment thread was the most tedious, useless, back-and-forth load of bollocks I’ve ever read online.

  79. Brooke
    January 2, 2013

    Fully agree about Lez Mis. Those who love can’t seem to accept that there are legit reasons for someone to not like the movie (very legit IMO).

    Can’t agree on the Lincoln part. I had no problems with it, but people are fully entitled to crititse the ending if they didn’t like it. If a lot of people are saying it then its probably a valid complaint….

  80. sw
    January 2, 2013

    Re: #3 Split down the middle? Check again.

    But that’s not my main point. Yes, the film has flaws but what I have problem with is many of the reviews don’t actually give is a proper review. Here’s what I mean. Don’t watch The Avengers and complain about how comic book movies are based on comic books which are meant for kids and how you’re way too sophisticated for this shiznit. Don’t watch Henry V and spend 300 words going on about how obviously nobody actually talked like that back then. And similarly… don’t watch Les Mis and complain about how it’s sung-through. It’s just the nature of the show, and if that’s the main source of your complaint, you’re no longer reviewing the film — you’re taking issue with the musical itself. (Which is valid, but has no place in a film review. Take it up with Boublil and Schonberg, not Hooper.) It’s not clever, it’s not constructive, and it compromises the critic’s basic ability to provide an objective and perhaps analytical view of the film — which, at the end of the day, is his job.

    I will readily agree with people who say that Russel Crowe was weak and Hugh Jackman really shouldn’t sing “Bring Him Home” ever again. But these long rants about how it is sung-through are beside the point.

    And trying to turn “Les Mis” into a devise driven musical such as the film version of “Nine” or “Chicago”? Really? That would never work for several reasons which I don’t have time to address. But what caused someone to think such an idea? It comes from internal disbelief in the form of the film musicals, a need for a devise to accept the genre. Never mind that the film musical is as old as the talking picture itself (“The Jazz Singer” was a musical). There are countless examples of great film musicals that told dramatic stories without using any “dream” devise (Oliver, Fiddler on the Roof, My Fair Lady, Showboat …)

    So feel free to talks about how you think “Les Mis” is all close ups, or that you think the set looked cheap, or how terrible you think Russell Crowe is … I may disagree, but those are legitimate discussion points for a film review.

  81. Julia
    January 2, 2013

    Having discussed The Social Network with a lot of people, the notion that it can be defined by likeability is not just ironic (given the subject and theme) but patently false. People react to the characters in a lot of different ways and neither Garfield’s likeability nor Eisenberg’s lack of the same is perceived in a way that is universal. People dislike Garfield’s character because he’s an amoral pushover, as nice as any “Nice Guy”, and think fictional Zuckerberg is a jerk with a heart of gold. (I might have laughed some of these people in the face.)

    And that the movie allows that range of interpretation is its true strength. Of course, ambiguity, especially in characterization, is not helpful for an Oscar campaign. But neither is a director who doesn’t appear to want one, or a subject that ist likely to look dated within half a decade. The answer that “unlikeability” is its (appealing) flaw doesn’t strike me as catch-all answer to the Oscar debacle or its legacy as a film. And Lincoln, for the same reason, will not lose the Oscar or be remembered just because that ending sucked in all the right ways.

    I am saying this because the argument that the best thing about a movie are its flaws, is not just too simple and neat, but the sort that every movie that falls a bit short of greatness disproves.

  82. Andres
    January 2, 2013

    Thanks for writing about criticisms from the likes of Adam lambert and others.

    And thanks for saying what you did about Stephen Spielberg. People keep acting like they know how a film should end.
    A

  83. The Japanese Viewer
    January 2, 2013

    I disagree with Sasha only in principle regarding viewers and movie fans allegedly having been criticizing Spielberg’s choice of ending the film Lincoln. As long as viewers, having watched the film, remain in the film’s context, at least on paper here I don’t see any good enough reason to try to suppress the freedom of their thoughts. (I assume, no viewers in their right minds have already suggested that Spielberg’s Lincoln, let’s say, could have turned into a man of steel and dodged the bullets, or anything that outrageously serves (badly) as a perversion of the American history.)

    But really-to tell him how to direct, if literally so, might be a bit too much. The man knows what he’s doing; the fans have the rights to fantasize their own alternate endings but that’s how far it should go.

  84. Bob Burns
    January 2, 2013

    I loved Les Miserables, but totally get it if you, or anyone else, didn’t. Fine by me. Not campaigning for it either. Really don’t care whether it wins Oscars. What would be the point of Oscars for Les Miserables?

    ******

    The critics are definitely part of the process, but honestly, most of what they write is stupid. So much writing. So little thought.

    Completely agree with your comments about Spielberg, but feel that similar respect should be given to all the directors under consideration… write about the film they made.

  85. ramiro
    January 2, 2013

    laughed a lot with ‘ergo fuck yourself’.
    hahahahahah

  86. Jacob B
    January 2, 2013

    I think we all need to take a second and remember that the Oscars have not happened yet. Everyone here is here because they are someone interested in predicting the Oscars. There are different websites and tools we use to do that, and some are more applicable than others in certain situations. Because, as I’ve learned from listening to the podcasts from this website, you should never leave out a logical possibility. The Oscars are a month and a half away, Vince. Who knows what will win Best Picture? Sasha is just making logical points to explore possibilities.

  87. Nic V
    January 3, 2013

    Funny but I don’t remember Lincoln laying diagonally on that bed. What I remember was that they attempted to lay him in the bed on his back and as they got to his waist they realized he wouldn’t fit in the bed and twisted his body a bit so that it appeared he was diagonal. He appeared that way because they had to bend his knees to make him fit. I remember that because it struck me as so odd at first glance of the scene and then I remembered his height and why they had laid him the way they had. It made perfect sense to me.

  88. Claire
    January 3, 2013

    I am a big fan of musicals and I would say pretty much the only thing wrong with Les Mis was the singing. more so because of it being filmed live. To say that any of the cast could outsing Adam Lambert any day of the week (well you said any american idol winner but i assume you include him in this) is just wrong. Adam Lambert is a way better singer than almost all of the cast, with possible exceptions of Aaron Tveit and Samantha Barks.

  89. Nic V
    January 3, 2013

    If Les Miserables had opened on Broadway with the musical numbers performed as they are performed in the film with the quality of voice interpretations demonstrated in the film it would have closed before it got out of previews. Broadway Musicals rely on the quality of voice not just star personalities.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *