UPDATED: Many tweets have been coming in about Hugo. They range in tone and enthusiasm but the bottom line is that it starts off slow but then revs up and becomes a brilliant tribute to film itself. No offense to those lucky enough to see it but when it comes to a Martin Scorsese movie I will take no one’s opinion except my own, thank you very much. The last thing I would ever do is say “oh, Scorsese’s movie? I heard it was [fill in the blank].” He is quite possibly the greatest living American director. He’s up there with Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock as one of the greatest directors who ever lived period, American or not. That he made a film at all is a cultural event. That people were lucky enough to see it, they should feel honored for it, and will remember that they were there because someday that will matter. What they think about how successful it will be — nobody knows anything.
So your next question will likely be, is it in or out for the Oscar race. And my answer to that is, who cares. Sorry the AMPAS, you don’t deserve Scorsese. You never did.
PREVIOUSLY:
Anne Thompson just tweeted from the NYFF (by the way, I am SO going next year):
Martin scorsese gets big round. Partial standing O. Work in progress: all temp, actual howard shore score, working on vfx, green screens,pre-vizes.
Good move to show Hugo as the surprise screening – it does indeed set the bar high, just as it brings a jolt excitement to the Scorsese film that many had written off as “children’s movie.” But, of course, underestimate Martin Scorsese at your own peril.
Reactions should be coming in ninety minutes from now.
I would have to strongly disagree with whoever said this was a kids film. I highly doubt kids would be able to sit still through the veeeerrryyyy slow first hour, nor fully understand the genius of the 2nd hour. That’s kind of where it struggles, really.
I would much rather call it a family film rather than an outright kids film, especially for cinephiles. I’m a cinema studies student and I was completely in love with the film history part. That made the film. If they make major cuts in the first hour (seriously, nothing happens), then it would be more magical. And the 3D is as perfect as described above. It’s fantastic.
I would have to strongly disagree with whoever said this was a kids film. I highly doubt kids would be able to sit still through the veeeerrryyyy slow first hour, nor fully understand the genius of the 2nd hour. That’s kind of where it struggles, really.
I would much rather call it a family film rather than an outright kids film, especially for cinephiles. I’m a cinema studies student and I was completely in love with the film history part. That made the film. If they make major cuts in the first hour (seriously, nothing happens), then it would be more magical. And the 3D is as perfect as described above. It’s fantastic.
“BORED by what is basically a film school history lesson. That’s what it was like, being lectured.”
Cool, I love film history and can even enjoy a well delivered lecture on the subject. Mr Holt is a reliable barometer for me of film quality. For the most part the high-profile films he has a sharper negative reaction to are ones of genuine quality.
“BORED by what is basically a film school history lesson. That’s what it was like, being lectured.”
Cool, I love film history and can even enjoy a well delivered lecture on the subject. Mr Holt is a reliable barometer for me of film quality. For the most part the high-profile films he has a sharper negative reaction to are ones of genuine quality.
Really think it’s not only about the reviews. It will most definitely not have the great reviews Potter did and they (AMPAS members) did not react well to the 1st Scorcese’s film after The Departed win. Not a single nomination. Don’t know it they will feel the need to give 5% of 1 to a film only because it’s Scorcese’s… This theory failed with Invictus last year. And J. Edgar may be hurt by that… Clint has already won too much… no need to reward him again. I think that if they happen to feel the need to nominate a familiy/blockbuster film, it will be Potter. At the moment I don’t think they will. And if they feel like going crazy for a cinema tribute, it will favor The Artist, not Hugo.
Really think it’s not only about the reviews. It will most definitely not have the great reviews Potter did and they (AMPAS members) did not react well to the 1st Scorcese’s film after The Departed win. Not a single nomination. Don’t know it they will feel the need to give 5% of 1 to a film only because it’s Scorcese’s… This theory failed with Invictus last year. And J. Edgar may be hurt by that… Clint has already won too much… no need to reward him again. I think that if they happen to feel the need to nominate a familiy/blockbuster film, it will be Potter. At the moment I don’t think they will. And if they feel like going crazy for a cinema tribute, it will favor The Artist, not Hugo.
There’s only 2 working directors I blindly trust on, and Scorsese is one of them (the other one being David Fincher) I’ve been excited for Hugo since it was announced, so seeing people’s reactions only add another layer of excitement. Yeah, maybe is not your typical Scorsese picture, but when directors work on genres they haven’t explored before, there’s a lot of room for experimentation (like the 3D stuff, maybe?) Also, all the experience they have on other genres they are use to do can help to create a different experience for the audience in a genre they have never worked before (hope this makes sense 😀 )
But actually, why I’m even trying! it’s Marty Scorsese! he could do a biopic about a fucking towel and it would be miles better than anything Tom Hooper could do in the next 50 years.
(Yeah, I’m still bitter about that 🙁 )
There’s only 2 working directors I blindly trust on, and Scorsese is one of them (the other one being David Fincher) I’ve been excited for Hugo since it was announced, so seeing people’s reactions only add another layer of excitement. Yeah, maybe is not your typical Scorsese picture, but when directors work on genres they haven’t explored before, there’s a lot of room for experimentation (like the 3D stuff, maybe?) Also, all the experience they have on other genres they are use to do can help to create a different experience for the audience in a genre they have never worked before (hope this makes sense 😀 )
But actually, why I’m even trying! it’s Marty Scorsese! he could do a biopic about a fucking towel and it would be miles better than anything Tom Hooper could do in the next 50 years.
(Yeah, I’m still bitter about that 🙁 )
Had a chance to see this movie last night. It is good but not great. I agree that the tribute to film itself is the best part, and that may play well with movie-loving Academy members.
I adore Scorcese and his work, but I don’t think this is amongst his best. Not because it is a “children’s movie” (it is not, really, it is about the sentimentality of the human condition, and in subtle ways it is about love) but because it is slow in the first half, it seems to switch gears halfway through, and doesn’t quite captivate audiences.
Sasha, you’re right that “who cares” if AMPAS likes it or not, but this is after all an awards site, and the business is prognosticating: I’m pretty confident this is a NO for a Best Picture nod, but will get nods in technical categories (as others here have said).
Oh, and the NYFF is highly recommended – it is relatively easy to get tickets and they show a lot of great movies in advance (although, you may have seen them already if you go to earlier festivals). But they have Q&As with some directors (we had David Cronenberg after A Dangerous Method last week).
Had a chance to see this movie last night. It is good but not great. I agree that the tribute to film itself is the best part, and that may play well with movie-loving Academy members.
I adore Scorcese and his work, but I don’t think this is amongst his best. Not because it is a “children’s movie” (it is not, really, it is about the sentimentality of the human condition, and in subtle ways it is about love) but because it is slow in the first half, it seems to switch gears halfway through, and doesn’t quite captivate audiences.
Sasha, you’re right that “who cares” if AMPAS likes it or not, but this is after all an awards site, and the business is prognosticating: I’m pretty confident this is a NO for a Best Picture nod, but will get nods in technical categories (as others here have said).
Oh, and the NYFF is highly recommended – it is relatively easy to get tickets and they show a lot of great movies in advance (although, you may have seen them already if you go to earlier festivals). But they have Q&As with some directors (we had David Cronenberg after A Dangerous Method last week).
Marty is Marty I don’t care what other people say either! Great, if it is a children’s movie, there are too many crappy ones that if there is one of quality I am up for it. And sorry but I can’t take Stephen Holt’s opinion seriously at all with his precedents!
Another director that is ignore by AMPAS, Sasha is David Cronenberg. But like you said they like simple stories with simple direction!
Marty is Marty I don’t care what other people say either! Great, if it is a children’s movie, there are too many crappy ones that if there is one of quality I am up for it. And sorry but I can’t take Stephen Holt’s opinion seriously at all with his precedents!
Another director that is ignore by AMPAS, Sasha is David Cronenberg. But like you said they like simple stories with simple direction!
Ryan,
sorry, but the Academy that presented the 1976 directing Oscar to Rocky and didn’t even nominate Martin Scorsese for TAXI DRIVER (!) and the same Academy that ignored him for RAGING BULL and GOODFELLAS actually was ignoring Martin Scorsese for a very long time.
That’s right, Zooey. That’s exactly what I said.
But we know they took their sweet time dawdling around for years, passing him over to reward lesser directors.
That’s a direct reference to Raging Bull and Goodfellas. All I’m saying is that the Academy didn’t ignore Scorsese forever.
Ryan,
sorry, but the Academy that presented the 1976 directing Oscar to Rocky and didn’t even nominate Martin Scorsese for TAXI DRIVER (!) and the same Academy that ignored him for RAGING BULL and GOODFELLAS actually was ignoring Martin Scorsese for a very long time.
That’s right, Zooey. That’s exactly what I said.
But we know they took their sweet time dawdling around for years, passing him over to reward lesser directors.
That’s a direct reference to Raging Bull and Goodfellas. All I’m saying is that the Academy didn’t ignore Scorsese forever.
There was this two-minute featurette with Scorses that got me interested. At Deadline, i think.
There was this two-minute featurette with Scorses that got me interested. At Deadline, i think.
I’d like to know more details about 3D. I have now thought things over and this will be the 3rd film I will see in 3D. I hated the previous two so-called “experiences” (including Avatar which was meh), so I always choose 2D.
1. It’s Scorsese.
2. Someone called it the best live-action 3D.
Tell me about it. If there’s some cinematic history in that magic box (the name escapes me), will those scenes be in 2D (i.e. 3D would be supporting the story)? I’m sure I’ll find this info, but I’m lazy.
I want a 3D-movie where the 3D plays a part (and not being a gimmick). Compare it to The Wizard of Oz where the opening scene was not in colour, but soon it was more colourful than anything.
Like present day would be in 3D and the past in 2D, or something. Or when some directors change aspect ratio within the movie – to underline something.
I’d like to know more details about 3D. I have now thought things over and this will be the 3rd film I will see in 3D. I hated the previous two so-called “experiences” (including Avatar which was meh), so I always choose 2D.
1. It’s Scorsese.
2. Someone called it the best live-action 3D.
Tell me about it. If there’s some cinematic history in that magic box (the name escapes me), will those scenes be in 2D (i.e. 3D would be supporting the story)? I’m sure I’ll find this info, but I’m lazy.
I want a 3D-movie where the 3D plays a part (and not being a gimmick). Compare it to The Wizard of Oz where the opening scene was not in colour, but soon it was more colourful than anything.
Like present day would be in 3D and the past in 2D, or something. Or when some directors change aspect ratio within the movie – to underline something.
“Hugo has a distinct advantage over Potter because it is directed by Martin Scorsese not David Yates.”
And THAT is an advantage.
Sasha: I also say that – in addition to David Fincher – if Paul Thomas Anderson doesn’t have an Oscar soon (Screenplay would be fine by me), the Academy can suck it.
“Hugo has a distinct advantage over Potter because it is directed by Martin Scorsese not David Yates.”
And THAT is an advantage.
Sasha: I also say that – in addition to David Fincher – if Paul Thomas Anderson doesn’t have an Oscar soon (Screenplay would be fine by me), the Academy can suck it.
Saw this at the NYFF last night. It is very much a children’s movie. And there is absolutely no shame in that–it’s a very well-made movie whose audience is under 12. I know it’s hard to believe that people would make movies for reasons other than awards, but maybe Scorsese was making a movie for his grandchildren instead of for Oscar bloggers.
However, on that note, I don’t see Picture happening–but will probably be included in Art Direction, Costume, and Score 😉
Saw this at the NYFF last night. It is very much a children’s movie. And there is absolutely no shame in that–it’s a very well-made movie whose audience is under 12. I know it’s hard to believe that people would make movies for reasons other than awards, but maybe Scorsese was making a movie for his grandchildren instead of for Oscar bloggers.
However, on that note, I don’t see Picture happening–but will probably be included in Art Direction, Costume, and Score 😉
Scott, Potter probably doesn’t have a spot. Also Hugo doesn’t have to have as high of a Metacritic or BFCA score or whatever (academy members aren’t critics) to overtake HP. Hugo has a distinct advantage over Potter because it is directed by Martin Scorcese not David Yates.
Scott, Potter probably doesn’t have a spot. Also Hugo doesn’t have to have as high of a Metacritic or BFCA score or whatever (academy members aren’t critics) to overtake HP. Hugo has a distinct advantage over Potter because it is directed by Martin Scorcese not David Yates.
Murtaza, that’s rubbish. The only director who may deserve that criticism is Coppola
Murtaza, that’s rubbish. The only director who may deserve that criticism is Coppola
“there’s also two adorable daschunds(sp?) who fall in love”
You’re saying that Scorsese has filmed 3D weenie dog romance?? Consider my ticket purchased and torn. Consider my tush in a seat. Consider my 3D glasses snug against the sides of my head.
“there’s also two adorable daschunds(sp?) who fall in love”
You’re saying that Scorsese has filmed 3D weenie dog romance?? Consider my ticket purchased and torn. Consider my tush in a seat. Consider my 3D glasses snug against the sides of my head.
just what martin scorsese needed to make at this point of his career. i believe he’s gone into some sort of mental confusion like other great directors of our time like steven spielberg, oliver stone, ridley scott and francis ford coppola. they can’t make movies now living up to the kind of work they’ve done earlier. now martin scorsese has joined the group ever since his shitty shutter island. here goes another director making movies for four year olds!!!!!!!!!!!!
just what martin scorsese needed to make at this point of his career. i believe he’s gone into some sort of mental confusion like other great directors of our time like steven spielberg, oliver stone, ridley scott and francis ford coppola. they can’t make movies now living up to the kind of work they’ve done earlier. now martin scorsese has joined the group ever since his shitty shutter island. here goes another director making movies for four year olds!!!!!!!!!!!!
@A
Actually there IS something wrong with that. Very, very wrong.
Needless to say my anticipation of Hugo has now spiked… not that I ever expected anything less than excellence from the greatest living filmmaker.
@A
Actually there IS something wrong with that. Very, very wrong.
Needless to say my anticipation of Hugo has now spiked… not that I ever expected anything less than excellence from the greatest living filmmaker.
Is Stephen Holt the same guy who wrote that he hated The Social Network (“this is not cinema”) and wrote WOWOWOWOWOW about The King’s Speech? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Is Stephen Holt the same guy who wrote that he hated The Social Network (“this is not cinema”) and wrote WOWOWOWOWOW about The King’s Speech? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
A second opinion on “this kid,” who has a name. Whose name is Asa Butterfield.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I was blown away by the technical achievements of this not-yet-completed film, but the most magical part of the movie is the lead performer: Asa Butterfield, a young actor I was not aware of before Hugo. So often it’s difficult to find a child actor who isn’t painfully aware he’s in a movie. A kid who can just act like a kid. That’s Butterfield—and his Hugo is complex and lost, wide-eyed when he’s with the bright and cheery Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), sullen when witness to the despair of the maddening Georges (Ben Kinglsey). I thought he was really something special, and whether the end-of-the-year awards takes notice, he’ll be an important part of connecting the history-based film (read: potentially dense for young ones) to the kids it’s being sold to.
http://www.hollywood.com/news/NYFF_Our_Reactions_to_the_Very_First_Screening_of_Scorseses_Hugo/7848038
A second opinion on “this kid,” who has a name. Whose name is Asa Butterfield.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I was blown away by the technical achievements of this not-yet-completed film, but the most magical part of the movie is the lead performer: Asa Butterfield, a young actor I was not aware of before Hugo. So often it’s difficult to find a child actor who isn’t painfully aware he’s in a movie. A kid who can just act like a kid. That’s Butterfield—and his Hugo is complex and lost, wide-eyed when he’s with the bright and cheery Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), sullen when witness to the despair of the maddening Georges (Ben Kinglsey). I thought he was really something special, and whether the end-of-the-year awards takes notice, he’ll be an important part of connecting the history-based film (read: potentially dense for young ones) to the kids it’s being sold to.
http://www.hollywood.com/news/NYFF_Our_Reactions_to_the_Very_First_Screening_of_Scorseses_Hugo/7848038
Just the can sitting there
That made me snort/laugh. There’s nothing worse that bad kid acting.
I dunno, this review is so different from the others. But it’s this type of review that made me question why they’d show an unfinished movie in the internet age. If there were a lot like this it could be instant buzzkill. It doesn’t really matter if it’s bad. It matters how many people will have heard that it’s bad.
Just the can sitting there
That made me snort/laugh. There’s nothing worse that bad kid acting.
I dunno, this review is so different from the others. But it’s this type of review that made me question why they’d show an unfinished movie in the internet age. If there were a lot like this it could be instant buzzkill. It doesn’t really matter if it’s bad. It matters how many people will have heard that it’s bad.
OK. Here I am. Exhausted for TV show casualites at a late hour! GLACK! I haven’t even had time to post here and I know you’ve been waiting.
Sasha, I totally agree with you on Scorcese being the greatest. But this movie was a TERRIBLE, two and a half hour disappointment to me.
I will say the three D effects are great. But I don’t CARE about Special FX. And of course the cinematography is gorgeous and Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing is snappy as ever, but my GAWD it’s long.I thought the lead kid(they didn’t give out production notes) was as boring as watching a can of paint. Not even paint DRYING. Just the can sitting there, which is what this kid, who is notup to the demands of carrying this whole epic film.
But Scorcese himself introduced it and said jovially, after the partial standing ovation, as Anne Thompson noted, “It’s a work in progress. It’s a work in progress.” And then listed all of things, mostly technical that were still unfinished and it was a long list.
Excepting of course, the flatflatflat performances. Even Sir Ben Kingsley was dull.
And this is NOT supposed to be a review BUT as a work in progress, if it’s 90 mins, it could be delightful. But I don’t know that they are going to cut in enough.
How many scenes of a kid that you don’t care about running through a railway station can one stand? Even Sasha Baron Cohen wasn’t enough to liven it up. Although come to think of it he and his doberman pincher were the liveliest things in it.
And there’s also two adorable daschunds(sp?) who fall in love. yes, the animals are better than the people. Although Cohen has bright moments of comedy and so do Richard Griffiths and Frances de la Tour as the daschunds owners…And there’s some dazzling visuals….ABOUT AN HOUR IN.
This isn’t a children’s movie. Children would never sit still for it. And nothing really happens for that first hour. Which I had the awful feeling they weren’t going to cut.
And Oscar? just the technicals. Sorry. Very disappointed.
And I saw “Beauty and the Beast” when they snuck it, unfinished, in 1991, or whenever it was at the NYFF, and it was DAZZLING and enchanting, even though it was not fully drawn or colored.
Cut 45 mins. out and I’ll go see it again. Otherwise, I don’t have the time to be disappointed and BORED by what is basically a film school history lesson. That’s what it was like, being lectured.
OK. Here I am. Exhausted for TV show casualites at a late hour! GLACK! I haven’t even had time to post here and I know you’ve been waiting.
Sasha, I totally agree with you on Scorcese being the greatest. But this movie was a TERRIBLE, two and a half hour disappointment to me.
I will say the three D effects are great. But I don’t CARE about Special FX. And of course the cinematography is gorgeous and Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing is snappy as ever, but my GAWD it’s long.I thought the lead kid(they didn’t give out production notes) was as boring as watching a can of paint. Not even paint DRYING. Just the can sitting there, which is what this kid, who is notup to the demands of carrying this whole epic film.
But Scorcese himself introduced it and said jovially, after the partial standing ovation, as Anne Thompson noted, “It’s a work in progress. It’s a work in progress.” And then listed all of things, mostly technical that were still unfinished and it was a long list.
Excepting of course, the flatflatflat performances. Even Sir Ben Kingsley was dull.
And this is NOT supposed to be a review BUT as a work in progress, if it’s 90 mins, it could be delightful. But I don’t know that they are going to cut in enough.
How many scenes of a kid that you don’t care about running through a railway station can one stand? Even Sasha Baron Cohen wasn’t enough to liven it up. Although come to think of it he and his doberman pincher were the liveliest things in it.
And there’s also two adorable daschunds(sp?) who fall in love. yes, the animals are better than the people. Although Cohen has bright moments of comedy and so do Richard Griffiths and Frances de la Tour as the daschunds owners…And there’s some dazzling visuals….ABOUT AN HOUR IN.
This isn’t a children’s movie. Children would never sit still for it. And nothing really happens for that first hour. Which I had the awful feeling they weren’t going to cut.
And Oscar? just the technicals. Sorry. Very disappointed.
And I saw “Beauty and the Beast” when they snuck it, unfinished, in 1991, or whenever it was at the NYFF, and it was DAZZLING and enchanting, even though it was not fully drawn or colored.
Cut 45 mins. out and I’ll go see it again. Otherwise, I don’t have the time to be disappointed and BORED by what is basically a film school history lesson. That’s what it was like, being lectured.
Unless Hugo get’s 90+ on the review meters I don’t think you can automatically say it’s taking Potter’s spot…
Unless Hugo get’s 90+ on the review meters I don’t think you can automatically say it’s taking Potter’s spot…
And didn’t Scorsese already win an Oscar and, all told received a very large amount of attention from the Academy in the last decade? So why make it sound like he is ignored?
And didn’t Scorsese already win an Oscar and, all told received a very large amount of attention from the Academy in the last decade?
I didn’t take Sasha’s remark to mean that the Academy has ignored Scorsese.
But we know they took their sweet time dawdling around for years, passing him over to reward lesser directors.
And we know there comes a time in the career of a filmmaking genius when the Academy needs the genius to buff up its tarnished prestige far more than any genius needs an Oscar to validate his legacy.
If I’d written that line Sasha wrote, that’s what I’d have meant by it.
Right, Ryan. They finally got around to rewarding Scorsese for The Departed but that doesn’t mean they ever will again – the main reason being, he doesn’t make their kinds of movies. And after last year we know there is a “their kind of movie.” I didn’t used to think so. At any rate, my point is that I will judge Scorsese’s films not on whether the Academy will like them or not but on whether I will like them or not. They don’t deserve the greatest directors who never won Oscars — count the best directors the film industry has ever known. Ask yourself how many of them have won Oscars. Most of the time, the more interesting they are, the more daring they are, the less chance they have of winning the Oscar. So, if we’re going to look at all films through the lens of whether the Oscar voters will pay attention to them we’re going to have a really bland year of cinema. If directors have to reach such a low bar what is their incentive to continue to make great films? So, for people like Scorsese, Fincher and other mad geniuses, I will say — AMPAS doesn’t deserve them. They can stick with film authors they better understand, those who don’t threaten their tender sensibilities. If it sounds defensive, I can only say — after last year, that defensiveness is deserved. So yeah, I hope I won’t be a raging bitch too much longer. We’ll see.
And didn’t Scorsese already win an Oscar and, all told received a very large amount of attention from the Academy in the last decade? So why make it sound like he is ignored?
And didn’t Scorsese already win an Oscar and, all told received a very large amount of attention from the Academy in the last decade?
I didn’t take Sasha’s remark to mean that the Academy has ignored Scorsese.
But we know they took their sweet time dawdling around for years, passing him over to reward lesser directors.
And we know there comes a time in the career of a filmmaking genius when the Academy needs the genius to buff up its tarnished prestige far more than any genius needs an Oscar to validate his legacy.
If I’d written that line Sasha wrote, that’s what I’d have meant by it.
Right, Ryan. They finally got around to rewarding Scorsese for The Departed but that doesn’t mean they ever will again – the main reason being, he doesn’t make their kinds of movies. And after last year we know there is a “their kind of movie.” I didn’t used to think so. At any rate, my point is that I will judge Scorsese’s films not on whether the Academy will like them or not but on whether I will like them or not. They don’t deserve the greatest directors who never won Oscars — count the best directors the film industry has ever known. Ask yourself how many of them have won Oscars. Most of the time, the more interesting they are, the more daring they are, the less chance they have of winning the Oscar. So, if we’re going to look at all films through the lens of whether the Oscar voters will pay attention to them we’re going to have a really bland year of cinema. If directors have to reach such a low bar what is their incentive to continue to make great films? So, for people like Scorsese, Fincher and other mad geniuses, I will say — AMPAS doesn’t deserve them. They can stick with film authors they better understand, those who don’t threaten their tender sensibilities. If it sounds defensive, I can only say — after last year, that defensiveness is deserved. So yeah, I hope I won’t be a raging bitch too much longer. We’ll see.
I don’t mean to offend anyone, it just that this whole post above sounded awfully defensive.
And no, Scorsese is not the greatest working American director but you are free to call him that or anyone else you please. The first impressions were good. Why so defensive?
I don’t mean to offend anyone, it just that this whole post above sounded awfully defensive.
And no, Scorsese is not the greatest working American director but you are free to call him that or anyone else you please. The first impressions were good. Why so defensive?
Even with 5 nominees, how “light” (aka PG/PG-13 -friendly) the category can be? There has to be at least one R-rated picture in there.
I checked, the last year with no R-rated nominees was the year of 1977 when Annie Hall, The Goodbye Girl, Julia, Star Wars and The Turning Point were all rated PG (PG-13 was not even invented yet, of course).
Even with 5 nominees, how “light” (aka PG/PG-13 -friendly) the category can be? There has to be at least one R-rated picture in there.
I checked, the last year with no R-rated nominees was the year of 1977 when Annie Hall, The Goodbye Girl, Julia, Star Wars and The Turning Point were all rated PG (PG-13 was not even invented yet, of course).
I saw it. There were so green screens still. It was the full cut, they are definitely cutting some parts. But imagine Oliver meets Harry Potter, that’s what Hugo is. At some parts boring at others brilliant. The film can defintely shake the race in many ways including a supporting nom for Kinglsey and even film is they play the right cards. It plays the same sort of film tribute The Artist uses.
I saw it. There were so green screens still. It was the full cut, they are definitely cutting some parts. But imagine Oliver meets Harry Potter, that’s what Hugo is. At some parts boring at others brilliant. The film can defintely shake the race in many ways including a supporting nom for Kinglsey and even film is they play the right cards. It plays the same sort of film tribute The Artist uses.
if there’s just a temp score on it, well music is a huge part of a film, I don’t think anyone has seen the true version yet. remember how big a part the music was in Shutter Island?
if there’s just a temp score on it, well music is a huge part of a film, I don’t think anyone has seen the true version yet. remember how big a part the music was in Shutter Island?
Not completely sold on The Descendants yet (The Ides of March may hurt it)… Looks like The Artist is the only “sure-nominee” which is funny cause it’s not even American (or British).
Not completely sold on The Descendants yet (The Ides of March may hurt it)… Looks like The Artist is the only “sure-nominee” which is funny cause it’s not even American (or British).
great point ryan… i’m ok with 5 BP noms if that’s what we get… much more of a badge of honor to get a BP nom when there is only 5
great point ryan… i’m ok with 5 BP noms if that’s what we get… much more of a badge of honor to get a BP nom when there is only 5
@ Tero
i wouldn’t totally rule out TOF (which is a Masterpiece) quite yet, i think the 5% minimum thing for first place votes to get a BP nom may save it… if 2011 ended today, TOF would be easily the consensus #1 on the critics top 10 lists i believe). it may be a polarizing film (for viewers, not critics) but it will get a lot of 1st place votes.
@ Tero
i wouldn’t totally rule out TOF (which is a Masterpiece) quite yet, i think the 5% minimum thing for first place votes to get a BP nom may save it… if 2011 ended today, TOF would be easily the consensus #1 on the critics top 10 lists i believe). it may be a polarizing film (for viewers, not critics) but it will get a lot of 1st place votes.
2011 is getting crowded for BP.
I thought Hugo was out, but it seems to be in. With this we can finally say goodbye to The Tree of Life (which would be a travesty), Drive (which is also a masterpiece) and – of course – Harry Potter (someone will hate me when he reads this). I don’t see My Week with Marilyn getting the BP nomination… Stephen Holt is blinded by Michelle Williams, and Harvey Weinstein (naturally). If I didn’t know any better, I would guess that he works for WC 🙂
I also thought that The Ides of March is out, but it’s getting stronger…
Only if War Horse and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy suck. Will they? Nah…
^
the more great movies we have in 2011, the more the #1 favorite factor dilutes the pool with too much awesome diversity. Result, 5 BP nominees, just like the ’90s all over again.
😕
2011 is getting crowded for BP.
I thought Hugo was out, but it seems to be in. With this we can finally say goodbye to The Tree of Life (which would be a travesty), Drive (which is also a masterpiece) and – of course – Harry Potter (someone will hate me when he reads this). I don’t see My Week with Marilyn getting the BP nomination… Stephen Holt is blinded by Michelle Williams, and Harvey Weinstein (naturally). If I didn’t know any better, I would guess that he works for WC 🙂
I also thought that The Ides of March is out, but it’s getting stronger…
Only if War Horse and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy suck. Will they? Nah…
^
the more great movies we have in 2011, the more the #1 favorite factor dilutes the pool with too much awesome diversity. Result, 5 BP nominees, just like the ’90s all over again.
😕
Yeah I don’t think the QT thing is a diss or anything disrespectful. Tarantino has a distinctive style. While having drawn from the best, it’s his own and instantly recognizable. So I think that was a succinct way to get a point across in a tweet. I get what it means. I don’t know if it’s true, but I get it.
For example, I think Drive is Refn’s version of an imaginary Tarantino reimagining of Walter Hill’s The Driver. I think whether they agree of disagree, a film fan would have some clue what I mean by that.
Yeah I don’t think the QT thing is a diss or anything disrespectful. Tarantino has a distinctive style. While having drawn from the best, it’s his own and instantly recognizable. So I think that was a succinct way to get a point across in a tweet. I get what it means. I don’t know if it’s true, but I get it.
For example, I think Drive is Refn’s version of an imaginary Tarantino reimagining of Walter Hill’s The Driver. I think whether they agree of disagree, a film fan would have some clue what I mean by that.
dfa said what I really meant to say.
But there’s 3D in it, that’s not very cinematic to me (at least history-wise).
Darn it! That was an opinion. Just leave the money on the table and go.
dfa said what I really meant to say.
But there’s 3D in it, that’s not very cinematic to me (at least history-wise).
Darn it! That was an opinion. Just leave the money on the table and go.
Maybe because Scorcese is quoting and paying hommage liberally to his historic cinema favorites, like tarantino does?
I think you’re right, dfa & Tero.
That seems to be the shared refrain in a lot of these first impressions.
Chloë Grace Moretz says:
ahh!! & ahh!!!
so there you have it.
“It’s got flaws, but it’s also the best live-action 3D I’ve ever seen.” (Katey Rich)
Maybe because Scorcese is quoting and paying hommage liberally to his historic cinema favorites, like tarantino does?
I think you’re right, dfa & Tero.
That seems to be the shared refrain in a lot of these first impressions.
Chloë Grace Moretz says:
ahh!! & ahh!!!
so there you have it.
“It’s got flaws, but it’s also the best live-action 3D I’ve ever seen.” (Katey Rich)
Love for CINEMA / art form?
Love for CINEMA / art form?
Hmm, the early word is promising… BUT I will not have an opinion on this movie until I’ve seen it. Can it be done? Maybe not. 😉
Hmm, the early word is promising… BUT I will not have an opinion on this movie until I’ve seen it. Can it be done? Maybe not. 😉
I was at the screening tonight and I was totally swept away. All I can honestly say is that it was magical, with Scorsese letting loose completely and expressing pure cinematic love without using cheap sentimentality. I know it sounds cheesy, but there your have it.
Decipher this one:
I was at the screening tonight and I was totally swept away. All I can honestly say is that it was magical, with Scorsese letting loose completely and expressing pure cinematic love without using cheap sentimentality. I know it sounds cheesy, but there your have it.
Decipher this one:
@A Nice to meet you 😀 lol
@A Nice to meet you 😀 lol
Antoinette says:
“So far on twitter I only read a “so disappointed” everyone else is just saying they were there.”
For the record, if you do a twitter search on those words, you’ll find it was made 3 hours before the screening. Plus, if you’d bother to examine the context, the tweeter was addressing the star of the Brit soap “Made in Chelsea.” His name is Hugo Taylor.
But you probably already knew that.
Antoinette says:
“So far on twitter I only read a “so disappointed” everyone else is just saying they were there.”
For the record, if you do a twitter search on those words, you’ll find it was made 3 hours before the screening. Plus, if you’d bother to examine the context, the tweeter was addressing the star of the Brit soap “Made in Chelsea.” His name is Hugo Taylor.
But you probably already knew that.
I really don’t care if it’s awards fodder. Sounds like something Scorsese really cared about. I have the book the movie is based on but I did find it an unusual project for this director. Though one of my favorite Scorsese films is Kundun, which was a huge departure for him.
A friend of mine who was there at the screening just e-mailed me to tell me that she didn’t think the film was all that magical.
I’m with Sasha. I want to make my own decision about this one.
I want to make my own decision about this one.
There’s an idea!
Let’s all make an exception for this movie and not have a personal opinion until we see it. For once in the history of movie discussion boards.
Meanwhile, back to the purpose of this post: reporting what other people thought who saw it tonight:
I really don’t care if it’s awards fodder. Sounds like something Scorsese really cared about. I have the book the movie is based on but I did find it an unusual project for this director. Though one of my favorite Scorsese films is Kundun, which was a huge departure for him.
A friend of mine who was there at the screening just e-mailed me to tell me that she didn’t think the film was all that magical.
I’m with Sasha. I want to make my own decision about this one.
I want to make my own decision about this one.
There’s an idea!
Let’s all make an exception for this movie and not have a personal opinion until we see it. For once in the history of movie discussion boards.
Meanwhile, back to the purpose of this post: reporting what other people thought who saw it tonight:
Except there almost certainly won’t be 10 BP nominees this year, and might be (though unlikely) as few as 5.
Clearly, Hugo has to be considered a possibility. But it needs those #1 votes, as do all the films, and to get it the film needs passion, not just respect.
Instead of speculating about a movie we haven’t seen, we could listen to people who saw it tonight. That’s the purpose of a post based on first impression tweets.
Except there almost certainly won’t be 10 BP nominees this year, and might be (though unlikely) as few as 5.
Clearly, Hugo has to be considered a possibility. But it needs those #1 votes, as do all the films, and to get it the film needs passion, not just respect.
Instead of speculating about a movie we haven’t seen, we could listen to people who saw it tonight. That’s the purpose of a post based on first impression tweets.
i’m agreeing with Ryan… with 10 slots for best picture i think any movie directed by scorsese has to be predicted for a best picture nom until its proven otherwise…
i’m agreeing with Ryan… with 10 slots for best picture i think any movie directed by scorsese has to be predicted for a best picture nom until its proven otherwise…
“Toy Story 3 and Up are literally targeted at 8-year-olds. Did you honestly expect people to be putting them on their Best Picture Predictons?!”
“Toy Story 3 and Up are literally targeted at 8-year-olds. Did you honestly expect people to be putting them on their Best Picture Predictons?!”
@m1
Okay, then,
“Babe is literally targeted at 8-year-olds. Did you honestly expect people to be putting it on their Best Picture predictions?!”
@m1
Okay, then,
“Babe is literally targeted at 8-year-olds. Did you honestly expect people to be putting it on their Best Picture predictions?!”
Thank You Ryan Adams. Did anyone think Speilburg targeted ET at Adults?
Thank You Ryan Adams. Did anyone think Speilburg targeted ET at Adults?
Ryan, that was 1939. It’s 2011.
Right, m1.
the 21st Century! when family films have been abolished, deemed unworthy to stand alongside The Blind Side.
Ryan, that was 1939. It’s 2011.
Right, m1.
the 21st Century! when family films have been abolished, deemed unworthy to stand alongside The Blind Side.
“…many had written off as “children’s movie.””
This movie is literally targeted at 8-year-olds. Did you honestly expect people to be putting it in their Best Picture predictions?!
blog comments of yesteryear (1939):
The Wizard of Oz is literally targeted at 8-year-olds. Did you honestly expect people to be putting it in their Best Picture predictions?! “
“…many had written off as “children’s movie.””
This movie is literally targeted at 8-year-olds. Did you honestly expect people to be putting it in their Best Picture predictions?!
blog comments of yesteryear (1939):
The Wizard of Oz is literally targeted at 8-year-olds. Did you honestly expect people to be putting it in their Best Picture predictions?! “
Oh great. Now we have likes on comments. This is going to be a disastuh! XD
So far on twitter I only read a “so disappointed” everyone else is just saying they were there. lol Tell us something.
Oh great. Now we have likes on comments. This is going to be a disastuh! XD
So far on twitter I only read a “so disappointed” everyone else is just saying they were there. lol Tell us something.
I believe it was Stephen Holt who suspected that Hugo might be the surprise screening. Well, let’s hear about it. This is one of the big question marks.
I believe it was Stephen Holt who suspected that Hugo might be the surprise screening. Well, let’s hear about it. This is one of the big question marks.
http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/hugo%20nyff
http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/hugo%20nyff
Can’t wait to see the comments on this one
Can’t wait to see the comments on this one
Hmm… I don’t feel surprised. I feel like I knew. And I never usually know anything. lol No, but this info had been tweeted right? I know I read it.
Anyway, how can it be “all temp”? That makes no sense. Who would show their potential Oscar movie in it’s skivvies?
Hmm… I don’t feel surprised. I feel like I knew. And I never usually know anything. lol No, but this info had been tweeted right? I know I read it.
Anyway, how can it be “all temp”? That makes no sense. Who would show their potential Oscar movie in it’s skivvies?
The release is a month and a half away. So a secret showing of a print that has to be explicitly called a “work-in-progress” this close to a release date doesn’t exactly instil confidence. What, exactly is the point apart from blatant Oscartunism©? Neither is the fact that the film isn’t finished.
Then again, according to IMDB, it IS finished. Not that it means anything.
The release is a month and a half away. So a secret showing of a print that has to be explicitly called a “work-in-progress” this close to a release date doesn’t exactly instil confidence. What, exactly is the point apart from blatant Oscartunism©? Neither is the fact that the film isn’t finished.
Then again, according to IMDB, it IS finished. Not that it means anything.