comment #1

scooterzz says ...

here's the real prob with 'charlie wilson's war'...the talent is (for whatever reason) not doing a junket...there aren't many talk shows right now...even though this isn't a war movie, the subject matter will be perceived as such and, finally, it actually has the word 'WAR' in the title....this thing looks 'fucked' from the get-go and could be the victim of hanks/roberts/nichols hubris....

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

Plus it has the word CHARLIE in it which will spook Vietnam vets, and the word WILSON which will assosciate it with Owen and turn off People Magazine readers and suicide survivors. Fucked!

comment #3

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Burma Shave: You're a funny guy. You know, the way you tell the story and everything ..what?

comment #4

John Y says ...

I don't think you should count "Sweeny" or "Charlie Wilson's War" out just yet...

comment #5

bmcintire says ...

I like Denzel, and I am curious to see what he does as a director - but this? Jesus. I know this one may be more culturally significant (on a merely time-line based criteria) but after LEAN ON ME, DANGEROUS MINDS, CHEATERS, STAND AND DELIVER, ad nauseum - does anyone really need another one of these? I see this one fading into obscurity, and hopefully (as an actor, at the least) it will make him think twice about re-approaching the clench-jawed hero/humanitarian role. But probably not.

comment #6

MAGGA says ...

Ok, that is it, I will stop paying any attention to the stupid Oscars from now on (yeah right). If the films mentioned are the contenders in a year that has given us Jesse James, Zodiac and Inland Empire (and maybe Blood and Old Men later), then these people are actively trying to regress the artform. Screw them

comment #7

Reedyb says ...

I thought it was Wilson's War, a Tom Hanks Castaway sequel wherein a soccer ball becomes a terrorist and must be stopped.

My prediction for Best Pic (as if you care)? The Kite Runner. It's got the right elements for this year.

comment #8

ScottMendelson says ...

"I see this one fading into obscurity, and hopefully (as an actor, at the least) it will make him think twice about re-approaching the clench-jawed hero/humanitarian role. But probably not."

According to EW, Washington didn't want to act in this one, but the financiers made that a stipulation of funding the picture. For what it's worth...

Scott Mendelson

comment #9

Discman says ...

I watched the first 40 minutes of "Zodiac" last night -- a second viewing that confirmed everythign I've felt since the first viewing many months ago: It's easily the year's best film.

I can think of several others that might round out the list of potential Best Picture nominees without having seen the upcoming "heavyweights," none of which I expect to be all that great, although I'm holding out hope for Burton's film.

comment #10

benny says ...

Stop saying "no one has seen" when referring to Sweeney or CWW or The Great Debaters. Plenty of people, including some journalists, have seen these movies at this point. I'm one of them. And I can tell you that: 1) Sweeney is well-made, will be a hit, and an Oscar contender, though won't win Best Picture; 2) CWW is very entertaining, though, again, not a Best Picture winner; and 3) The Great Debaters is a quality-filled, way-too-uplifting period piece that on TV would be a big hit but as a feature is a little embarassing.

comment #11

Edward Havens says ...

Do we dare tell MAGGA that Inland Empire came out last year and is therefore ineligible for this year's awards, or is this just another arbitrary Academy rule that shows how out to touch they are with the world?

comment #12

gr81lives says ...

Charlie Wilson's War is going to be horrible! They had been in re shoots as of a month ago or so.

They aren't even doing a junket for it. Come on! Wake up this movie is going to bomb!

All recent war movies have bombed going back to last year. This movie needs all the help it can get and when the talent won't even support it the movie has a major problem.

Also rumor has it TOM HANKS will not do press junkets anymore... What a fool. He is in the land of Julia Roberts now. She can't stand doing press for a movie and the press can't stand her anymore.

Could this be another Bonfire of the Vanities for Tom Hanks???

As for Sweeney Todd. Paramount Pictures will find away to screw this up with awards they always do. Ask Dreamworks how they ran the Oscar Campaign for Dreamgirls.

comment #13

Zimmergirl says ...

I wouldn't hang an entire movie on what anyone says. We all have to work hard in trying to remove this attitude of "if it's not an Oscar movie it is therefore worthless." I am as guilty as anyone at this but just because a movie isn't going to get a best picture nod doesn't mean people shouldn't anticipate seeing it. I can't wait to see CWW and I don't personally care if it's "in" or not.

My top ten, top twenty, top hundred films of all time - I could count on one hand those that were Academy movies and even fewer best pic winners. So whatever.

In my mind, the locks are Atonement, No Country. the latter will be one of my favorite films of all time. The other three, I could see: Michael Clayton, Into the Wild, the Kite Runner -- the maybes to me are still: American Gangster, Charlie Wilson's, Sweeney, Juno.

Other than No Country, the best film I've seen this year is Todd Haynes' I'm Not There. But then again, I ain't Zimmergirl for nothin'.

comment #14

LuckyWilbury says ...

I knew that "Zimmergirl" was a Dylan reference...

comment #15

Zimmergirl says ...

I wish I was a lucky Wilbury. :-)

http://www.eilatgordinlevitan.com/kurenets/k_pages/zimmerman.html

But I'm not there, I'm gone.

comment #16

BurmaShave says ...

"They had been in re shoots as of a month ago or so."

That's already been de-bunked.

"Could this be another Bonfire of the Vanities for Tom Hanks???"

Not likely, not to mention Hanks himself never really caught much flack for that debacle. It hurt DePalma, who ironically has finally destroyed his career this year.

comment #17

gr81lives says ...

BurmaShave you have to admit not doing any press for Charlie Wilson's War is BS.

I don't think it's Universal not wanting to do press. If it was up to the studio they would have the cast and director going door to door.

Not many would be sad or surprised to Charlie Wilson's War flop.

comment #18

lawnorder says ...

There's nothing wrong with doing reshoots on a film. Most of the time, they're more in line with pick-ups - shots that the director wasn't able to get during production and needs them to fill in the story. Sometimes, and it happens on the day, the scene just doesn't come together - but you've got to move on. So they try to make it work in the editing room and if/when it doesn't, they decide to shoot it again. Filmmaking is an ongoing process and most filmmakers won't stop tweaking a film until the moment it's ripped from their hands. What counts is what gets up on the screen. Last minute reshoots have always happened in this business, but there wasn't the internet to report about it around the clock. We all want perfection, but we won't give filmmakers the time to get there. Instead we jump on websites and report about films in progress when the filmmakers are still trying to find the best film inside the film they've made. We're not supposed to see the painting until the artist unveils it. Everyone in this town says, let me see your rough cut, I know how to watch a rough cut. But nobody can really - because a great sound mix, a beautiful original score, a killer digital intermediate, looping, the right visual effects and CGI clean-up -- all those things up the quality of a film by at least 50 percent.

comment #19

JaySmack says ...

They shot that film down here in Louisiana, so I'm pumped to see it. And bmcintire can STFU. This is not some "white teacher coming to save the 'troubled black youth," movie that we've seen so many times. This is a story about blacks who won't conform to stereotype and in fact will beat whties at their own game. Which is probably what has wrankled bc's nerves.
Try to throw cold water on it all you want, it won't mean sh*t.

This story is not some rehash of the white "savior" fantasy that Hollywood tries to shove down our collective throats, and which blacks have categoriaclly rejected and excoriated. A myth that has only borne any success in the world of movies. This is a real story. Deal with it.

comment #20

Zimmergirl says ...

"We all want perfection, but we won't give filmmakers the time to get there."

Brilliant.

And you tell 'em, JaySmack.

comment #21

pteranodon says ...

"The Great Debaters" is based on true events but is not a "real story". In the real case, Wiley College debated USC for the national championship, not Harvard, and Wiley lost that debate.
Typical of this type of "real story", there is a father who does not support his child's involvement and the team faces discriminatory obstacles from other competitors (see "Cool Running" or "Race the Sun" for other examples).

Only one of the original debaters (Farmer) is represented in name (what about Heights and Jarrett?), and, since Wiley was a men-only college, there were no women on the team. Instead of the real debate topics, I expect we will be presented with groundbreaking civil rights arguments instead.

Another point that probably will not make the movie is that Tolson wrote all of the debate speeches and rebutals and his team memorized them.

I dislike this type of "based on a true story" movie because the real story is just as compelling (perhaps more so) and the real people involved should get their day in the sun. For example, "Race the Sun" had a black female science teacher inspiring a class of mixed race misfits. In reality, a white male Physics teacher inspired a class of mostly white Advanced Placement Physics students. Thus, ALL of the names and bio's of the real participants were scrapped in favor of fictional characters.

So, is "The Great Debaters" a real story? Well, there is a place called Wiley College that did have a debate team that competed in the national championship in 1935; the coach's name was Melvin Tolson; one of the debaters was named James Farmer. The rest is fiction.