Eight Best Picture candidates

email this story
read comments (77)
post a comment

The winner of the 2007 Best Picture Oscar is most likely going to be one of those Iraq War/Afghanistan movies. The national anguish over Iraq and terrorism and the Middle East (specifically over the American lives lost and the billons of dollars invested so far in wars and skirmishes in these areas) demands it, and I suspect that the Academy will want to say something passionate about that general tempest during an election year. It'll be either Charlie Wilson's War (1980s Afghanistan) or Lions for Lambs (recent Afghanistan) or In The Valley of Elah (recent Iraq War).

In The Valley of Elah's Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron

Maybe. I don't know anything but a voice is saying this. Then again it's only mid June.

I'm repeating this prediction because MCN's David Poland has posted a new list of Best Picture contenders, and of his eight favorites he's got these three included. He may be on the money or not. But before we go any further he's posted a wrongo as far as the release date of Paul Haggis's In The Valley of Elah (Warner Independent) is concerned. Around 4 pm Poland had it coming out on August 21st -- it's being released on September 21st. No biggie, everyone errs, etc.

Poland has Mike Nichols' Charlie Wilson's War as a premature front-runner, but I'll bet he's been getting his ear bent about this thing by certain parties from over the hill so let's take it with a grain. The buzz about Charlie Wilson's War is, for now, mainly about the above-the-line roster -- Nichols as director, screenwriter Aaron Sorklin, actors Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philiip Seymour Hoffman, et. al. It's possible that an anti-elitist backlash could kick in down the road. "Oooh, here come the blue-chip pedigrees with their important, highly-regarded movie.....stand back and make room for their titanic gifts and laser vision."

A copy of the script of Charlie Wilson's War has been sitting on my desktop for a long time now. All I know is that I can't seem to make myself read it. It's probably because I still don't like that title. I think it's a bad idea to call any film "[fill in the blank]'s War." There have been films with titles like this before (The Private War of Major Benson, Murphy's War, etc.). This is a close-to-ridiculous assumption given the scant information, but any such title always seems to imply that the main character will be manipulative, obsessive and egoistic...and who finds this possibility inviting?

That high-profile film I saw a couple of days ago is another Best Picture contender, for sure, but I'm going to keep the water in the bucket for the time being.

I haven't said that Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd won't take the Best Picture Oscar, but it won't, okay? Trust me. For one thing it's got the Poland curse hanging around its neck (any film being pushed for Best Picture by Don Tommasino has a certain historical karma going against it, and Poland has already pushed Johnny Depp for Best Actor), and for another thing Burton doesn't "do" Oscar movies. He an expert at assembling eye-popping production-design movies with snarky-hip attitudes, but there isn't any humanistic or redemptive uncercurrent in Sweeney Todd that rings true in an Academy way, so I wouldn't bank.

Joel and Ethan Coen's No Country For Old Men (an epic and masterful film that may not finally be to the Academy's liking...we'll see), Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs, Terry George's Reservation Road and Shekhar Kapur's The Golden Age round things out for a total of eight.

What's the wild-card movie that isn't among these eight, but which should be?

Klipsch sound at the Landmark<< previous | next >>"Live Free or Die Hard"?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 21, 2007 at 3:28 PM

comment #1

AH says ...

Of the three, the only one that gives me pause is "... Elah."

Posted by AH at June 21, 2007 4:41 PM

comment #2

gruver1 says ...

Wells to AH: It's that ""Crash" thing...I hear you.

Posted by gruver1 at June 21, 2007 4:43 PM

comment #3

alynch says ...

Haggis has been receiving such a backlash ever since Crash won the oscar that he'll probably need to make a movie that has unanimous acclaim to get recognition, and I don't see that happening.

Posted by alynch at June 21, 2007 4:45 PM

comment #4

Hopscotch says ...

I read the CWW script awhile back, it's pretty faithful (arc-wise, and major plot-point wise) to the book it's based on.

It's on of those scripts..... I can see it being great, but then again it's a tough job. It's clever, it moves quickly very Sorkin-ian in dialogue, but Tom Hanks in a hot tub in a vegas hotel next to topless women....is how it OPENS, you try and imagine it.

the Crash backlash and Haggis backlash is in full-swing. After winning Best Pic, and that incredibly SMUG cameo on "Entourage". He also wrote "The Last Kiss" which my fiance says is one of the worst movies she's ever watched (I stayed clear), and I'm really reserved on anti-war rant from this guy. John Sayles! Where are you??

Posted by Hopscotch at June 21, 2007 4:52 PM

comment #5

Ian Sinclair says ...

BEOWULF is going to be up for Best Picture. If there is one thing about the Academy we should always remember, it is that recognition is always given to an emotionally and artistically satisfying picture that is popular with critics and audiences, especially when it gives an audience something they have never seen before, in this case an animated, adult picture in 3D. That it is based on the oldest work of literature in the English (actually Anglo-Saxon)language gives it academic pedigree, a heavyweight cast gives it star power, a visionary director helms it, the script is by too-cool-for-school Neil Gaiman and it is backed bya major studio with all kinds of cross-promotional ties. Anyone who doesn't have this on their likely list has rocks in their head.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at June 21, 2007 4:55 PM

comment #6

gruver1 says ...

By all means vent your "Crash" feelings -- let 'em rip. On the other hand I don't have to tell you that sometimes a big surprise wil come along and you'll find yourself doing a "whoa" when you least expect it. That's what can be so exciting about seeing a new film...you never know.

Posted by gruver1 at June 21, 2007 4:58 PM

comment #7

VedaPierce says ...

Haven't we had enough English royalty movies? So many highly-regarded ones have already been made about QE1 (not to mention last year's one on QE2), that "The Golden Age" would have to be truly exceptional to overcome audience and industry fatigue.

Posted by VedaPierce at June 21, 2007 4:58 PM

comment #8

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Ian Sinclair: "Beowulf"? Just call me Rocky.

Posted by gruver1 at June 21, 2007 4:59 PM

comment #9

Hopscotch says ...

I agree. I don't root for films to suck, I hope "Elah" is brilliant.

A friend of mine at Universal told me the Charlie Wilson's War trailer premieres in front of "Bourne Ultimatum", not too far away.

I can't wait for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Can not wait.

Posted by Hopscotch at June 21, 2007 5:00 PM

comment #10

bmcintire says ...

One thing to keep in mind about any recent Oscar backlashes you may be expecting (CRASH, CHICAGO, et al) is that the same pool who voted for them will be voting again this year. When was the last time you did a 180-degree mea culpa on a movie you selected as your favorite? They voted for these films because they thought they were good and they would probably do the same again if given the chance, if only to defend their opinions.

Posted by bmcintire at June 21, 2007 5:01 PM

comment #11

ratskiwatski says ...

Wells: Don't bother to crack the script - yet. First, get the book by George Crile, which is a revelation, like the secret history of of America in the late 70's through the 80's with a cast of characters too fucked up to be believed - and not always in a bad way. Just how deep we were in the Afghan/Soviet war is an amazing story, and it was all led by a coke-dabbling, pork-loving Congressman, aided and abbetted by a CIA guy who barely stayed on the reservation, a real Greek hardass.

I've got my fingers crossed, but am skeptical - is Tom Hanks gonna play a duly elected rep who gets popped snorting coke off hookers' asses in Vegas? Is Mike Nichols going to go with the truth of a massive operation being funded by uber-right wing Texas socialites or is he gonna go all glossy and tasteful as is his wont? And, though I probably like Sorkin more than most out here because of my love for stylized, fancy-dan writing, will he get to the dirty crux of this thing - that these sorely compromised but utterly patriotic people, basically won the war for the Taliban with little help whatsoever from Langley and the Hill... can you tell I got into it? Not to mention the blowback from arming USB to the teeth, training for Empire Fucking 101... we all know how 102 is going...

P.S. Crash is just a load of thin jizz, perilously close to being the conversational dealbreaker - as in, can I trust your taste if you like Crash. That shit's Kabuli theater, so posey and undercooked... Haggis is like someone like Todd Solondz - should get down on his knees saying hot, loud hosannas for the actors who make that shit play in a way it doesn't deserve. I only wish that The Towering Fucking Inferno had won Best Picture so I could say that Crash couldn't even beat that crap for the Worst Best booby prize. At least you got to see Richard Chamberlain go down in a pyroporn wreck. Thandie Newton only *thought* she got saved from one. Is *that* crap what passes for street invective in Hollywood and environs? Give me a break. Give me a drink.

Posted by ratskiwatski at June 21, 2007 5:39 PM

comment #12

Doug says ...

Do these so-called "backlashes" really exist anywhere other than on sites like this? To me, "Crash" and "Chicago" were the best films of the years they came out. Does anyone think because people who never liked these films keep crying about their winning Best Picture Oscars that I'm suddenly going to think, man, I must not have loved those films as much as I thought? For their to be a backlash, people have to have fallen out of love with these movies in the past two to five years. I don't see any evidence that that has happened.

Posted by Doug at June 21, 2007 5:49 PM

comment #13

Edward says ...

Zemeckis ceased being visionary after "Death Becomes Her." I was going to say after "Roger Rabbit," but I forgot how much I enjoyed DBH.

Posted by Edward at June 21, 2007 5:55 PM

comment #14

jeffmcm says ...

On the contrary, I think that once Zemeckis won his Best Director Oscar for Forrest Gump, he became a much more interesting filmmaker, more interested in taking chances.

"Does anyone think because people who never liked these films keep crying about their winning Best Picture Oscars that I'm suddenly going to think, man, I must not have loved those films as much as I thought?"

We're just hoping someday you'll come to your senses.

Oh, and Dr. Sinclair: your statement, "one thing about the Academy we should always remember, it is that recognition is always given to an emotionally and artistically satisfying picture that is popular with critics and audiences" unfortunately does not match up with reality.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 21, 2007 6:11 PM

comment #15

PanTheFaun says ...

Um... isn't the movie Wells saw the other day "Elah"?

Posted by PanTheFaun at June 21, 2007 6:16 PM

comment #16

PanTheFaun says ...

Oh, and I don't know anything about Burton's vision of it, but "Sweeney Todd" is incredibly humanistic and sad, with undercurrents of (squandered) redemption.

If a version of it is strictly about style, it's being done wrong.

Posted by PanTheFaun at June 21, 2007 6:18 PM

comment #17

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Poland doesn't know shit. I personally guarantee Charlie Wilson's War will not win Best Picture. You can take that to the bank. Will. Not. Win. Best. Picture. Not with that script. I think Elah will be one of the films to beat, along with Things We Lost in the Fire, Reservation Road, Lions For Lambs and American Gangster. Those are the final five in my mind, but obviously it's way too early and the only trailer that's been released is for Gangster. The Elizabeth sequel is up there but as much as I like the guy, I don't think a movie that stars Clive Owen can win BP. Love the trailers for Michael Clayton and The Brave One but both strike me as too commercial, although The Departed and Sunshine sort of disproved that idea last year. I'd keep an eye on Lust, Caution too, because you can never count out Ang Lee.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at June 21, 2007 6:52 PM

comment #18

Balthazar says ...

And of course "There Will Be Blood" ... It's a period piece that I'm just betting will say more about who we are in 2007 (and our oil obsession/politics) than it does about the period it's set in. I see screenplay and Best Actor nominations, at the least, for it.

Posted by Balthazar at June 21, 2007 7:01 PM

comment #19

malibugigolo says ...

Lions For Lambs?

Tosh. The line in it: "all oak trees were acorns once". I saw that in a script once. Yeah, it was written by a classmate in the 8th grade.

Talk about preaching. Charlie Wilson's war, too, and Elah. Nothing is cinematic about them. They read like radio plays.
American Gangster is the best script out of the bunch.

Things Lost in a Fire?
One could only hope the film reels are lost in the fire. I still laugh at the "spiritual greedy" lines. Have not read Res Road. But more Wasp bashing. BLAH.

The Brave One?
I want my dog! Bang. Bang.
Are you kidding me?

Blah.

American Gangster is the only one that I will see.Oh, and There Will Be Blood, but that needs to be compressed.

Posted by malibugigolo at June 21, 2007 7:06 PM

comment #20

malibugigolo says ...

Oh, and Carlos Reygadas' Silent Light. Can't wait for that. Top of the list.

Posted by malibugigolo at June 21, 2007 7:14 PM

comment #21

christian says ...

while we're all guessing i predict THE SIMPSONS MOVIE wins best animated feature. it's truly the only film i'm excited about now. that and NO COUNTRY...

Posted by christian at June 21, 2007 8:09 PM

comment #22

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Balthazar, could def. see those noms for There Will Be Blood. And Christian, from what I've been hearing, it sounds like Ratatouille has Best Animated all wrapped up. Malibu gigolo, a bit unfair to judge Things We Lost and Lions by some bad prose in their scripts, wouldn't you say? Both are stocked with real actors capable of giving the words an emotional weight. And while I don't think Brave One is Oscar bait, I think it looks sick. Who cares about that dog line? Big deal. People have been making way too big a deal about that one line. The mood generated by that trailer is perfect. However the movie turns out it'll be a huge step up from Flight Plan.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at June 21, 2007 8:14 PM

comment #23

Moneypenny says ...

This should win best picture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-eitsutpOc&mode=related&search=

Posted by Moneypenny at June 21, 2007 8:23 PM

comment #24

lazarus says ...

Yeah, there's no way in hell Ratatouille is not winning the Oscar, not with these reviews. Even if it doesn't break out, it will still make more than Spirited Away, which won handily because of the respect for the talent involved. And frankly, there's not enough good competition this year. Meet the Robinsons was better than expected, but up against the Pixar machine? No. And I don't care how funny The SImpsons is, people have seen it already, for 20 years. There's nothing fresh about it and they aren't going to award it on that basis alone.

Also, I love Balthazar's call on There Will Be Blood, which I thought of myself when I read Jeffrey's original posting. The question is how well the Academy will react to a less direct critique on the commodity that seems to be controlling the world? If the big three films are too preachy this one could sneak in. Is Daniel Day-Lewis hardcore enough by himself to carry the film? Would Magnolia have received a screenplay nom without its thespian roster? Because there are NO other names that you can advertise this film with. I respect PTA's decision to not go after the tons of actors who I'm sure would love to work with him, but the studio is going to have a hell of a time selling this film. It's going to have to be universally praised and start winning critic's awards or something. The Golden Lion wouldn't hurt, either.

After 3 smaller, present day films in a row winning Best Picture, I think it's likely they'll want to Go Large again...

Posted by lazarus at June 21, 2007 8:31 PM

comment #25

Moneypenny says ...

I heard Seymore Hoffman is playing the oil.

Posted by Moneypenny at June 21, 2007 8:46 PM

comment #26

Ishmael says ...

This one could be a possibility.

Posted by Ishmael at June 21, 2007 9:18 PM

comment #27

vjp666 says ...

Given its September release date (from the orginal July 07),
it seems as though Warners are dumping The Brave One.

Posted by vjp666 at June 21, 2007 9:46 PM

comment #28

BurmaShave says ...

Good call Ishmael. I'm surprised there isn't more buzz from these types about ATONEMENT. Great pedigree, great source material, great cast.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 21, 2007 9:58 PM

comment #29

BurmaShave says ...

Although we must remember there are some curmudgeonly types who really hated Joe Wright's PRIDE & PREJUDICE.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 21, 2007 10:00 PM

comment #30

malibugigolo says ...

MiraJeff:

"of giving the words an emotional weight"

The only emotion that I feel is pity for the actors for having to convey such horrible writing. Lions' scenes with the college professor read as comedy. It isn't even fit to be a coaster to American Gangster--a script that actually develops its characters and gives the actors a chance to act.

No Country For Old Geezers, I want to see that, too.

Posted by malibugigolo at June 21, 2007 10:16 PM

comment #31

BurmaShave says ...

malibu, your extreme hyperbole undercuts everything you say. Try to work on that. Just saying.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 21, 2007 10:45 PM

comment #32

christian says ...

i forgot about ratatat...i still can't say the title. but i'll be there.

Posted by christian at June 21, 2007 11:00 PM

comment #33

BurmaShave says ...

RAT-A-TOO-EE. Still don't want to see it. That Time article was so pretentious I think it actually hurt the film.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 21, 2007 11:13 PM

comment #34

Hallick says ...

Oscars Reality Check #1 in three words:
"Children of Men"

Oscars Reality Check #2, also in three words:
"Little Miss Sunshine"

You'd think that after last year (if not every other year of this goofball ceremony) people would stop equating the quality of the movies with their Oscar hopes.

Posted by Hallick at June 21, 2007 11:47 PM

comment #35

BurmaShave says ...

I just re-watched FARGO. GOD DAMN what a fine film. Arguably the blackest, most pitch-perfect dark comedy ever made. I can only hope NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN puts them back in the derby and back in the mainstream in a big way.

D.Z., don't even think for a second of saying any shit about FARGO. I will take you down to Chinatowm.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 1:13 AM

comment #36

BurmaShave says ...

Also no one has mentioned Marc Forster's THE KITE RUNNER. That would certainly fit Jeff's criteria as one of the Iraq/Afghanistan picks. If it's handled right, it could have real resonance.

Still, I don't know if I agree Hollywood is quite ready yet. They didn't even really start talking about Vietnam until THE DEER HUNTER in '78, and that was a fantasy of Vietnam. The PLATOON of the Iraq experience is at least 10 years away.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 1:30 AM

comment #37

BurmaShave says ...

Fuck I just realized they kicked FARGO off the AFI 100. Words fail. Fuck.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 1:52 AM

comment #38

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Burma, I feel your pain. I saw that list and thought, where the fuck did Fargo go? But no one has mentioned Kite Runner because no matter how good the book is that its based on, Marc Forster is kind of a hack. Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction, all barely above average films that are incredibly flawed. And don't even get me started on that convoluted mess known as Stay. Even Gosling couldn't save that one. And Malibu, I never said I had read the script for Lions For Lambs, bt have a friend who worked on the production who can testify to its awesomeness, apparently. And personally, I think Cruise is a great actor and I have faith in UA's first production under his regime.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at June 22, 2007 2:04 AM

comment #39

pchu says ...

Jeez, it's kind of pointless to predict the nominations since it's still 6 months away...

In other news, The Golden Age and the Coen Brothers' film No Country for Old Men will be playing in TIFF. I wonder what else will be playing there.

Posted by pchu at June 22, 2007 4:18 AM

comment #40

Josh Massey says ...

"Oscars Reality Check #1 in three words:
'Children of Men'

Oscars Reality Check #2, also in three words:
'Little Miss Sunshine'"

What Hallick said.

I was a complete Oscar junkie growing up, but can't even bring myself to care anymore. When Little Miss Sunshine is more heralded than Children of Men, or when Crash is held in higher esteem than A History of Violence, or Million Dollar Baby over The Aviator, or A Beautiful Mind over Mulholland Dr., or Gladiator over Wonder Boys, or Forrest Gump over The Shawshank Redemption, or freaking Terms of Endearment over The Right Stuff (that still pisses me off).

The Oscars have proven themselves to have as much worth as AFI "best of" lists. None.

Posted by Josh Massey at June 22, 2007 6:04 AM

comment #41

Rich S. says ...

Josh's post sums up my experiences almost exactly. Melvyn Douglas' win in 1979 over Robert Duvall severely shook my faith in the Oscars. Gandhi's win over E.T. in 1982 further battered it (though that one doesn't look quite so bad in retrospect). And Forrest Gump's win over not only Shawshank, but also Pulp Fiction AND Quiz Show shattered it. My favorite film of that year, Ed Wood, wasn't even nominated.

Even so, I still watched the damn things diligently up until about four years ago. But with DVR, I now watch the first hour and then fast forward over most of the rest. I no longer have the time or the energy for the dog-and-pony show.

Posted by Rich S. at June 22, 2007 7:22 AM

comment #42

MarkVH says ...

Ishmael and Burma, good call on Atonement - I've got really high hopes for it. Actually thought that P&P was the best film of '05 (a weak year, but boy howdy do I love that film).

I think that without the baggage of having done "another Jane Austen adaptation," Wright may really blow people away with this. The man's got skills.

Posted by MarkVH at June 22, 2007 7:33 AM

comment #43

BurmaShave says ...

MiraJeff I agree Forster is a hack, but he's a hack with five films under his belt, so I figure he's due for an Academy breakthrough.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 7:40 AM

comment #44

George Prager says ...

Someone has to remind me why CHILDREN OF MEN was held in such high esteem by some people. I thought it kinda sucked. I liked LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE.

Posted by George Prager at June 22, 2007 8:22 AM

comment #45

BurmaShave says ...

Because it was one of the best science fiction movies ever made, presented through some of the most exciting and revolutionary filmmaking techniques, serviced by great performances and fucking brilliant costume, production, and sound design. Lubezski's cinematography was a milestone. Not to mention like all great films of its type it had much to say about today while offering an all too plausible vision of the future. Go take some Quietus if you really can't get it. Truly the best film of 2006. I liked LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE too though.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 8:37 AM

comment #46

George Prager says ...

I'm glad that it is possible to like both, becuase I was getting the vibe that it wasn't. I actually agree with you on some of your praise for Children of Men ("great performances and fucking brilliant costume, production, and sound design"), I just couldn't get into it. I hated all the hand-held shit.

Posted by George Prager at June 22, 2007 8:42 AM

comment #47

christian says ...

"Arguably the blackest, most pitch-perfect dark comedy ever made."

not over DR. STRANGELOVE or NETWORK.

and at least martin landau won for ED WOOD.

Posted by christian at June 22, 2007 8:56 AM

comment #48

BurmaShave says ...

Christian, correct on DR. STRANGELOVE. NETWORK seriously overreaches though, especially in the third act, and Faye Dunaway was terrible.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 9:24 AM

comment #49

George Prager says ...

"Faye Dunaway was terrible."

Probably the dumbest thing that anyone has ever said on this site.

Posted by George Prager at June 22, 2007 9:31 AM

comment #50

T. S. Idiot says ...

We must remember that at this point in 2006 no one was predicting The Departed. On this date in 2005, few were touting Crash. While the Oscars remain a joke, at least they're becoming less predictable.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at June 22, 2007 9:49 AM

comment #51

Hopscotch says ...

I agree with you T.S. as far as Best Pictures is concerned. But the acting, writing and technical categories are becoming INCREDIBLY easy to predict these days, with the guild awards preceding it and all. I'd say the last acting shocker was Adrien Brody's win in 2003.

Posted by Hopscotch at June 22, 2007 10:16 AM

comment #52

BurmaShave says ...

George Prager, listen to her get the ratings and yell "We've struck the mother lode!" and tell me it doesn't grate on you. They gave her the Oscar she should have been given for BONNIE AND CLYDE or CHINATOWN, to the extent she should have been given one at all. Her performance seriously hobbles an otherwise perfect ensemble. If that's the dumbest thing you've ever read on this site, you obviously haven't been reading this site very long.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 10:17 AM

comment #53

raskimono says ...

Just to add a note. Read the script for Lions for lambs. It is boring, long and convoluted. No way in hell is it going to be oscar nominated. It won't even get past the critic's starting gate.

Posted by raskimono at June 22, 2007 10:19 AM

comment #54

George Prager says ...

I thought she was supposed to grate on you because she is playing a character who is very grating. But that's old school acting for you; when you actually act in a movie that requires acting and the actor acting understands that the audience is going to find your character grating. I guess you don't hang around women much, BurmaShave.

On a side note, I always thought that Marlene Warfield should've won the best supporting actress Oscar for playing Laureen Hobbs (she wasn't even nominated). Beatrice Straight was good, but it was just a stunt monologue in the middle of the movie. I guess she was too grating.

Posted by George Prager at June 22, 2007 10:27 AM

comment #55

Rich S. says ...

I'm not sure anyone has pointed this out yet, but that Charlize Theron is kind of pretty.

Posted by Rich S. at June 22, 2007 10:38 AM

comment #56

BurmaShave says ...

George Prager, you're truly an asshole. I express an opinion and you can't actually counter with anything legitimate. Defend your own opinion, faggot. You're the poor man's Ian Sinclair. I rarely read anything you have to say on any matter, and I doubt very many people on here do. Go fuck yourself. I guess you don't spend very much time around people.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 11:05 AM

comment #57

BurmaShave says ...

By the way, I meant grating as in poor line reading. But hey, that's old school acting for you! Die. Die. Die. Die. Die. Now. Now. Now. Now. Now.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 11:08 AM

comment #58

George Prager says ...

If that isn't a post by a crybaby who knows he can't back up his argument, I don't know what is. I don't know why you are even bothering to respond to my posts, since Jeff might be posting something you might find racially insensitive at this very moment and you aren't there to be among the first to respond. You'd better go.

Posted by George Prager at June 22, 2007 11:12 AM

comment #59

BurmaShave says ...

I've backed up my argument several times, George. You'll forgive my curtness, but I'm at work. Why do I have the feeling that at this moment you're not even wearing pants?

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 11:15 AM

comment #60

George Prager says ...

Poor line reading? Next you'll be criticizing Conchata Ferrell's body language, Lane Smith's eybrows, Wesley Addy's nosehair, Darryl Hickman's Binaca pumping technique...

Posted by George Prager at June 22, 2007 11:17 AM

comment #61

BurmaShave says ...

Good call on Marlene Warfield though. Seriously.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 11:21 AM

comment #62

BurmaShave says ...

Good call on Marlene Warfield though. Seriously.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 11:22 AM

comment #63

BurmaShave says ...

Lane Smith is a god. I would never do that. He was the beautiful icing on far too few cakes.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 11:25 AM

comment #64

York "Budd" Durden says ...

Haggis showed me a rough cut of Elah back in April when I was servicing his spa pumps. He got huffy after I told him I thought it was preachy and dull. Prick. Wish I'd pitched him on my stuff before offering up the critique.

When will I learn?

Posted by York "Budd" Durden at June 22, 2007 11:45 AM

comment #65

hatchetface says ...

George, I love the loser, frat-boy, knuckle-headed vibe you've contributed to this forum in the weeks since you've joined. Your idiotic, overlong and unfunny puns and musings have indeed made it seem as if.. well, as if you've always been here, man. You blend right in with the rest of the fuckwits here who insist on turning every thread into an impotent bout of nerd-combat. Thanks to you and your homies for the all eye-pollution, you fucking moron.

Posted by hatchetface at June 22, 2007 11:47 AM

comment #66

George Prager says ...

"I'm not sure anyone has pointed this out yet, but that Charlize Theron is kind of pretty."

And I'm supposed to be the guy on this thread not wearing any pants?

Posted by George Prager at June 22, 2007 11:49 AM

comment #67

christian says ...

"I guess you don't spend very much time around people."

burma, for somebody who tosses out witty phrases like "mirthless faggot" for no particular reason, or "die die die," you're hardly the go-to guy for people who love people.

Posted by christian at June 22, 2007 11:56 AM

comment #68

Rich S. says ...

And here I was about to post a comment supporting George's critique of Network. You just never know about some people.

Posted by Rich S. at June 22, 2007 11:59 AM

comment #69

Geoff157 says ...

How about this for a wildcard-- an Iraq war drama called REDACTED from Brian De Palma that is completely uncompromising in its depiction of the intensity of the past four years. I've seen parts of the screenplay for this (written by De Palma)-- it is killer material, a work of fiction based on actual events, filmed with a documentary approach that will certainly give it a vital immediacy. Don't be fooled by the fact that the film will be released by HDNet simultaneously the same day in theaters, on cable, and on DVD. Word is (from ScreenDaily.Com) that the film is also looking to go to the Venice Film Festival this year.

Posted by Geoff157 at June 22, 2007 12:03 PM

comment #70

George Prager says ...

It's becoming a `Lord of the Flies' situation here.
He's not posting on purpose. He wants us to tear each other apart. We must stick together. I'll go first.

That sounds awesome, Geoff157. I'm so there!

Posted by George Prager at June 22, 2007 12:07 PM

comment #71

Rich S. says ...

Actually, my comments on Network go both ways. I saw it again recently and it definitely did not have the impact it did in the late 70s. The reasons for that I believe are twofold. First, the movie is incredibly prescient insofar as it shows the glamorization of news and the transformation of it into a reality program. Second, many of the movies and television shows that followed aped Network so closely that many of the situations and characters became cliches. The final line has really morphed into a clunker.

Sadly, I think Dunaway's character falls into this latter category. It was a groundbreaking performance at the time, but now seems rather shrill. I think she's best in her quieter moments with William Holden. Nevertheless, I think the performance is still very funny in spots, especially their lovemaking scene. If the situation hasn't aged well, it's not Dunaway's fault.

Peter Finch, however, is still solid gold. His early scenes with Holden really make you believe that they were warhorses from the old Paley and Murrow days. His subsequent meltdown remains iconic.

Posted by Rich S. at June 22, 2007 12:58 PM

comment #72

BurmaShave says ...

Christian, that's a fair point. Die. Die. Die. Now. Now. Now.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 22, 2007 1:03 PM

comment #73

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Children of Men kinda sucked? Can we ban George for that statement? I keed, I keed...unless we can.

Have you people seen Network lately? Saw it again last year, and while I can acknowledge its importance at the time, a lot of the points seem rather quaint now, all the more for its heavy-handedness (both in acting and directing). Not a bad film by any means, just one who's reputation has diminished, not grown, over the years.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at June 22, 2007 7:07 PM

comment #74

Craig Kennedy says ...

Hatchetface, I just wanted to say that was a pretty solid douching you administered. You made me laugh. Thanks.

When I think of 'nerd-combat' I can't help but think of this guy. Enjoy.

Seriously though...
(in Rodney King voice) Can't we all just get along?

And to quote Ms. Barbra Streisand "People who need people are the luckiest people I know."

Also, Fargo rules.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at June 22, 2007 8:08 PM

comment #75

christian says ...

some of you are out of your minds on NETWORK. i watch it twice a year and try to see it in a theater where it still packs a wallop. it's brilliance is predicting exactly the path of news tv. but scenes like ned beaty's speech about corporate states to finch are still magnificent. and the radicals arguing contracts in their lair...and duvall: "we got a big fat-titted hit!"

it's preachy in that chayefsky way i love. and he was right.

Posted by christian at June 22, 2007 8:15 PM

comment #76

bacio says ...

CWW is too obvious a choice to even be nominated. if it is lucky it could go the "Munich" way, getting just about in. Yet, it seems too baity and ambitious for its own good. Think The Good Shepherd. The Good German. every year in the last couple of years, the obvious front-runner (based on pedigree) did not get in or did not win. I guess The Aviator did okay but it had Martin. Closer did not get in and it had Nichols. So there u go

Posted by bacio at June 23, 2007 4:24 AM

comment #77