April 26, 2024
20 Weeks
Krillian on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Hallick on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
PastePotPete on: 12 Weeks To Oscar: The Battle Of Black Swan
David Poland on: 15 Weeks To Oscar: Don’t You Forget About Me
cadavra on: 15 Weeks To Oscar: Don’t You Forget About Me
Brian on: 15 Weeks To Oscar: Don’t You Forget About Me
johnbritt on: 15 Weeks To Oscar: Don’t You Forget About Me
20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
12 Weeks To Oscar: The Battle Of Black Swan
15 Weeks To Oscar: Don’t You Forget About Me
26 Weeks To Oscar: The Year Of… Patience
20 Weeks To Oscar – 16 Days To Go.
20 Weeks To Oscar – 11 Weeks To Go
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I don’t know if I’m more mad or sad that in the first year of this ten nominee thing for Best Picture we’re just getting twice as much of the same thing instead of expanding the definition of what an Oscar worthy film is. A column arguing the upside merits of a mediocre film which the writer considers a failure overall as a musical is depressing me.
Hal, if they gives us double of the same shit. They are just fucking themselves over more. They have to include UP, Trek, and maybe one other film to make this top ten thing seem like it’s different. If these old smeckles do what they did last year. The Oscars deserve the dwindling ratings the ceremony receives each year. Populace brings in people. How they ignore this time and time again is beyond me.
Something to keep in mind: With the new ten-picture rule, all you need to GUARANTEE you’ll get one of the ten Best Picture spots is ten percent of the vote. And it’s entirely possible, even probable, that you could sneak in with half that percentage. So, IO, I wouldn’t give up hope that Star Trek will make the cut. Seriously.
“Nine” may still be in contention…but “The Last Station” has to be considered on total life support. Its release this week is a total shadow release…no box office results released in estimates…and generally meh reviews (71 on Metacritic, 67 on Rottentomatoes).
Why is it still being discussed ahead of “Star Trek,” “District 9” and the like?
The link for Best Actress/Supporting Actress goes to Best Picture instead.
I’d be pretty surprised if Star Trek got anything. Paramount isn’t really promoting it, right? Other blockbustery movies will crowd it out(not to mention that it’s pretty lame).
They’re sending Star Trek DVDs to critics’ groups. I’d say it’s in contention.
Jeff, that comment pretty much sums up your lack of… I don’t know what.
Jeff is an asshole because he has taste?
I loved STAR TREK but it’d be ridiculous if it got a Best Pic nom.
Exactly.
yeah, put me down for ‘love star trek but find a best picture nom a laughable concept’.
just because they went to 10 pictures doesn’t mean everybody lost the ability to logic.
its like saying last year if there had been 10 Best Picture noms Iron Man would have snagged a nomination.
I don’t want to live in that world.
You better want to live in that world, Anghus. If not, that award is going back to be an unimportant trinket won by a few, given by a few out of touch people, and hardly given a shit about by the public. Star Trek, Up, or even D9 have to get a nom. If not, it’s the same ol’shit, and the same ol’shit draws flies.
I do love that none of you have the power of your convictions, and completely miss an obvious Austin Powers reference.
Anghus: The world you live in has never been that great. Remember: Back when there were only five Best picture nominations, Doctor Dolittle (1967) got one of them. And Airport (1970) got another.
I disagree, re: “Nine.”
When I think of a movie musical that’s more moments than movie, I think of “Idlewild” – truly magnificent moments with zero connective tissue. On a very basic, gut level, I did not feel that in any way with “Nine” as I really connected in with Guido, Luisa and Lilli all the way through. While yes, I think Penelope Cruz gave a great performance, she was so much more to the side for me as I was far more affected by Nicole Kidman’s turn as Claudia, which surprised me.
Usually, I can see your side of things (and other folks’) even if I disagree with them, but I’m having a hard time doing that with “Nine.” Do I think it’s Best Picture? Not particularly (I have no idea what is and would probably vote “A Serious Man” if I had a vote), but for me, it’s definitely one of the most affecting movies I’ve seen for me, personally. It’s like “Almost Famous.” When that got shunted to the side upon its initial release, I just could not understand why as I was so deeply moved by the thing. It’s not the exact same thing here, but it’s in the ballpark.
I never really liked “Nine” the musical before, but found the movie to have fixed a lot of my problems with it and was really into the film. It wasn’t as surreal, Daniel Day-Lewis really got you into his side of things and then Marion Cotillard gave one of the best performances of the year and brought it all home to me.
I can’t wait to iTunes the soundtrack.
Hey, Raiders of the Lost Ark got nominated. Made me happy.
“Up” is a no-brainer nominee at this point, even if you only had three Best Picture slots to fill. That movie’s been looming over the competition since it opened. And this year is actually weak enough that it wouldn’t be a surprise to see it win.
Now, if “Coraline” were nominated, I’d have to say to myself, “wow – things really did change…”.
Nine will die big time. And without the added slots would never ben nominated. Even a win won’t help the box office. Nobody in this movie is money in the bank and it looks boring.
STAR TREK … watched the dvd\ then watched again with commentary
J J admits the light flares were excessive … some good commentary insights but the writers keep saying such dork things, revealing their innner docktum … at one point JJ says “when we’ve been canned, when someone else is directing Star Trek” … it is such a tim Burton/Batman take on a franchise
“If these old smeckles do what they did last year. The Oscars deserve the dwindling ratings the ceremony receives each year. Populace brings in people”
The ratings went up last year.
Also, I think you meant to write “populist.”
“Coraline” totally deserves a Best Picture nomination. It and “Up” are top of my best of list for ’09.
Coraline was good. Up was good. Both are overrated. I’d much rather see Fantastic Mr. Fox in the top ten. Too bad it’s too awesome by half for its own good.
“I don’t know if I’m more mad or sad that in the first year of this ten nominee thing for Best Picture we’re just getting twice as much of the same thing instead of expanding the definition of what an Oscar worthy film is.”
Right here. Spot on sir. It’s not quite got to the point where The Dark Knight died for the Academy’s sins, but it’s getting close. The bias against popular hits that also happen to be good movies is getting ridiculous. Oh and by the way – the Tomatometer for Nine is running at 43%, and at 95% for Star Trek. And you just know which stands more chance of getting a Best Picture nomination. I just sit around and scratch my head.
LG suddenly decided to go with Russell Crowe’s Tenderness as a December release (limited). The full release is in April. They think it has awards potential?
Dr. Wally, different standards for different films. I think the original TransFormers had something like 70% on Rottentomatoes. Many critics found it to be a good popcorn movie. Hardly a best pic contender, primarily because of it’s ambitions (or lack thereof). Same applies to something like a Star Trek or Twilight. Perhaps well made for what they are, but what they are is not Oscar material.
This is not on topic with this particular column, but I’m stunned after reading the Noah Forrest column, so I had to go somewhere and try to start a dialogue (why are their no comments sections on the front page columns btw?). About Robin Wright Penn:
“she just decided, as William Goldman put it, that she didn
I keep revisiting this page today and can’t stop ogling Penelope Cruz’s legs. I wasn’t interested in Nine but now I don’t think I’ll be able to resist.
“Perhaps well made for what they are, but what they are is not Oscar material. ”
But if it’s badly made, or falls short – is it still Oscar material.
You seem to be saying that these movies warrant a nomination simply for wanting them. It’s an Oscar bait movie… sure, it’s not so good, but they were trying for awards, so nominate them.”
I’d certainly rather see a non-Oscar-bait movie that just happened to turn out really damned well be nominated over a lesser film that makes it in just because it had loftier ambitions that it failed to reach.
Finally saw Precious. I think Mo’Nique is a lock to win. Gabourey Sidibe is so different here as Precious than she is as I have seen her on the talk show circuit that I think it is nothing less than a brilliant portrayal. She definitely deserves it.
Seeing Brothers, I think Tobey Maguire is excellent as is the little girl who plays his oldest daughter. I think she deserves consideration. She made an impression on me and I couldn’t stop thinking about her performance and how it is that a child can connect so emotionally to the material and be so convincing. Kudos.
For a second I thought the above phrase read, “Tobey Maguire is excellent as the little girl.” Brief chuckly.
Chuckly? Chuckle.
“The bias against popular hits that also happen to be good movies is getting ridiculous. Oh and by the way – the Tomatometer for Nine is running at 43%, and at 95% for Star Trek. And you just know which stands more chance of getting a Best Picture nomination. I just sit around and scratch my head.”
Dr. Wally,
This is the most astute observation I have read on this website in weeks.
The Dark Knight deserved a Best Pic nod not because it was popular…but because it – was – the Best Pic of that year. The fact that it was popular was incidental.
Star Trek, a great film, will not be nominated and most likely Nine will. Quality of each has very little to do with it (although as a huge fan of Chicago I can’t wait to see Nine and the negative critical reaction makes me think it might be quite good).
Every profession is garnered by three groups.
1: The Creme de la Creme, those who rise above and lead the way. The are the leaders and trendsetters.
2: The worst, bottom feeders who are in it for the wrong reason and do not apply themselves accordingly.
3: The middle, followers who do what they are told. They are not hacks but are not going to risk their rep.
This middle group is who rules modern film criticism. They jack up the tomato-meter but can’t back it. They vote for films they think they should and are terrified of putting their reps on the line because they have no spine.
They are why most people have no respect for critics anymore. They are the ones who only liked Clint Eastwood after he did Unforgiven and knew nothing of his work before. Who only thought Spielberg was worthy after Schindler’s list and who thought The Dark Knight could not possibly be awards worthy because it was a hit. But dear or dear mid-tier MOV rubbish like Crash and Milk must win something because it is politically correct.
They are the ones ruining film criticism. They are why the new rule of 10 nominees will not make a difference and why it will probably be scrapped by the end of the next decade.
Yeah, but critics don’t vote for the Academy Awards.
yes, that’s what the other 102 meaningless critics awards are for, so critics can pat themselves on the back before the awards given by ‘peers’
Yeah, I know. It was my admitted knee-jerkism whenever Nicol posts.
The crucial point, I think, though, is that the Oscars have always been about looking for a very specific kind of middle-brow non-genre type of movie. I’m sure that if Rottentomatoes had existed back in 1933 they would have given Duck Soup and King Kong pretty good ratings, but neither of them got nominated for Best Picture either – and there were ten nominees back then, too.
Oh – and I don’t think it’s fair to compare Nine’s seven Rottentomatoes reviews with Star Trek’s 276; and that a mere thumbs up/down rating doesn’t fully express what the real critical response to the movie is.
jeff, my comment was meant to be in agreement with you re: the oscars not being handed out by critics!
(critics being a group of people whose opinions are no more important or valid than anybody else’s, they merely know how to articulate their opinions more clearly than most people…ideally)
Leah, just admit it, you’d have Spielberg’s feces nominated for an Oscar if he happened to do it in your backyard. I take your opinions in this area with a huge grain of salt.
“a mere thumbs up/down rating doesn’t fully express what the real critical response to the movie is.”
I concur with this – reading the individual reviews, the consensus appears to be “Very good, but not great”. However, since Rottentomatoes only uses “rotten/fresh” and the reviews are pretty consistent it gets a 95% fresh rating.
It’s a solid film, much in the way Spidey and XMen were, made all the more surprising given how niche the franchise had become. But top 10 “best” (if there was such a way to objectively assess quality)? Eh… I’m not sure about that.
“They are the ones who only liked Clint Eastwood after he did Unforgiven and knew nothing of his work before.”
Eastwood not only was nominated, but won Best Director at the Globes for “Bird” in ’88. Forest Whitaker won Best Actor at Cannes for it and Eastwood was nominated for the Golden Palm, which he was also nominated for in ’85 for “Pale Rider” and in ’90 for “White Hunter Black Heart.”
People have been on to Eastwood as a filmmaker pre-“Unforgiven.” I’m not saying at the level they are now, but “Bird” really made people sit up and pay attention.
I actually think “Outlaw Josey Wales” and “High Plains Drifter” are up there when it comes to Eastwood’s cinematic achievements, but “Eiger Sanction,” “Firefox” and some of the other films he made early on were very much programmaers and when he tried something different with, say, “Bronco Billy” or “Honkytonk Man,” they still feel like films where he was getting his footing.
That said, “Play Misty for Me” is pretty great.
hey martin, why don’t you put that huge grain of salt in your stretched-out gob and piss in your own mouth to wash it down! yummy for the tummy
(actually spielberg was just in my yard, i tried to collect his feces so i could get it nominated but i didn’t get to the loo in time)
Nicol, you seem to be rewriting history here.
First Raiders and Color Purple were nominated for best picture and quite a few people including critics cried foul when the latter lost. Speilberg has been an institution with audiences and critics since Jaws with perhaps some time in the wilderness following 1941 and Hook.
As for Clint, critics went nuts over Bird and many actively championed the film. As for other dozen and a half films he directed before that, are you suggesting Heartbreak Ridge or Firefox deserve to be held up as an example of the best possible filmmaking? These were popular entertainments but most of his work in the eighties (yes, even honkytonk man) was routine.
I don’t understand why people complain that Oscar is so Snooty. Gladiator, Chicago, Return of the King, Million Dollar Baby and the Departed are not exactly stuffy Merchant Ivory chamber pieces. Even Slumdog Millionare and a Beautiful Mind can be considered populist entertainment.
And though it is enterily subjective the best movie of last year was Elegy.
SJR beat me to the punch, I need to type faster.
I think its ironic that in the year that they expanded the category presumably to let more studio films get nominated, the dependents have seemed to fall apart. After routinely getting one of the five slots both Miramax and Searchlight seem to be out of the running this year. A Serious Man’s low grosses (and the brothers recent win) could keep Focus out of contention. Only the infrequetly nominated SPC looks to get a BP nod.
“1: The Creme de la Creme, those who rise above and lead the way. The are the leaders and trendsetters.
2: The worst, bottom feeders who are in it for the wrong reason and do not apply themselves accordingly.
3: The middle, followers who do what they are told. They are not hacks but are not going to risk their rep.”
Translation: Moe, Curly and Larry.
Nicol says there are critics “who thought The Dark Knight could not possibly be awards worthy because it was a hit.”
Nicol, please provide one or two links to these critics who wrote that, so that we can all at long last start to believe that you’re not totally full of shit.
The lack of an Oscar nod for The Eiger Sanction is proof positive of Hollywood’s anti-Christian bias