comment #1

thorsen1nk says ...

Why do you give Poland the ink, Wells? He's such an inveterate hack with about as much insight as an airline safety-briefing card. It saddens me that you'd even give him the time of day.

comment #2

Dave says ...

Jeff, ALL the movies nominated this year were muscled in by critics. None of them were box-office hits, except for Juno, which was decidely after-the-fact of it getting critical buzz.

NCFOM was just as much "muscled" into the nominations as TWBB. Michael Clayton, good film that it is, seems to be there on the backs of George Clooney's fawning publicity (you can't help but love the guy, but man, he's got an AWESOME PR firm at work for him). Atonement-- who went to see that again?

Of course, their box office is irrelevant to their merit, but this is DEFINITELY a "critic's year" at the Oscars.

comment #3

le corbeau says ...

What does he think got muscled in in 2002? The nominees were Chicago, Gangs of NY, The Two Towers, The Hours and The Pianist. All of which seem like the kind of thing the Oscars would go for anyway.

I'd say the critics made Letters From Iwo Jima last year (was it the National Society that gave their prize to it, validating the notion in the ether that it was better than Flags?)

comment #4

JHRussell says ...

This year, the only "muscled in" movie is TWBB, and I don't think it has a chance of winning - nobody is championing this film. A big push for "Into the Wild" fell short because, well, the movie sucks.

Last year "Letters from Iwo Jima" was muscled in and it surely had no chance of winning. The year before that "Crash" (Ebert) and "Munich" were muscled in. "Crash" is one of the rare muscled in films that won because voters were looking for anything-but-Brokeback...this year TWBB will not even come close to the top prize as Michael Clayton, Juno, and NCFOM fight it out...

The real puzzler this year is "Atonement." Nobody likes it - not the critics, not the fans - how did it make it? Did Academy voters actually watch this steaming pile?

comment #5

actionman says ...

"A big push for "Into the Wild" fell short because, well, the movie sucks."

Um...no...but thanks for playing!

comment #6

VeniceJeff says ...

Most year's have a "critics choice" that didn't connect w audiences or no one really enjoyed. Recently Babel, Letters to Iwo Jima, Good Night and Good Luck. The one that stands out to me is The Thin Red Line. What a turgid slog that thing was.

I also think that every year there's generally one Not Worthy/People's Choice movie, esp when you look at the last 20 yrs. This year, I'd say Juno, others pick Atonement, but remember such un-admirables as Seabiscuit, Chocolat, 4 Weddings and a Funeral, Ghost, The Fugitive, Pretty Woman, Dead Poets Society, Good Will Hunting.

comment #7

Arran says ...

JH, where do you get the idea that "nobody" likes Atonement? It rates an 85 at Metacritic and an 82% at Rotten Tomatoes, and has grossed close to $50m.

Personally I wasn't that enamoured with it, but I'm not sure where the idea that critics didn't even like it is coming from.

comment #8

actionman says ...

"The real puzzler this year is "Atonement." Nobody likes it - not the critics, not the fans -how did it make it? Did Academy voters actually watch this steaming pile?"

You must be drunk or something, dude. Atonement has done almost $100 million worldwide and has gotten great reviews (82% at RT; 86% top critics). The author has even stated that he thinks its a great film version of his novel. People walking out of theaters have all said the same thing -- the film did the book justice and is just a solid film all around.

Now, I like the film a lot but I don't think it's one of the top five films of the year. But to say that the film hasn't been well received is just silly. Frankly, not to name call, but referring to Atonement as a "steaming pile" is a bit ignorant...no?

Yeah, a 6 minute, beyond-complicated stedicam shot really helped make the film a "steaming pile."

comment #9

JHRussell says ...

On Atonement, citing rottentomatoes makes my point - it is 10 points below the average of the other 4 nominated films - and for the presumptive Oscar favorite movie before it got released and people actually saw it, citing its tepid domestic box office also makes my point - Atonement is the odd duck Best Picture nominated film - no director nomination - no lead actor nominations - as I said, it is a puzzling BP nomination - it is not a critics' darling film, and it is not a fan favorite - what don't you agree with? It is one of the most mediocre nominated BP films in recent memory, that is all...

comment #10

JHRussell says ...

Oh, and as someone else pointed out, "Babel" is a classic critics muscle in film - will "steaming pile" offend anyone if I attach it to this, umm, steaming pile?

comment #11

Arran says ...

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying JH, I just thought your assertion that critics didn't like it was ridiculous, as the large majority did.

comment #12

ROTC says ...

Despite the positive RT and Metacritic numbers, JH is right about Atonement in that no critics are really championing it as a Best Picture favorite. Instead, Atonement is riding out it's own Hillary-esque wave as a preordained nominee whose appeal has waned dramatically since the campaign began.

comment #13

Dave says ...

"Seabiscuit, Chocolat, 4 Weddings and a Funeral, Ghost, The Fugitive, Pretty Woman, Dead Poets Society, Good Will Hunting."

You know what's interesting about that list? I'd probably end up watching several of those movies on cable when they pass by far more often than I'd watch many of the seemingly "better" movies out there (Seabiscuit, The Fugitive definitely, Good Will Hunting. . . yeah, I watch them when they come on).

The movies this year, with the personal exception of Juno (to each their own), are all movies I really like, even love. But we're all kidding ourselves if we don't recognize them as critic's movies.

Actually, perhaps counterintuitively, I'll argue that Juno is FAR more muscled in than TWBB. It's doubtful the movie would have found the audience that it has without the critical love that it's gotten. And the feedback cycle of "critics love it!" and the fact that it actually made some decent coin. . . voila, little movie that could status and Oscar nom.

Any other year, Juno ends up unseen until it lands on Comedy Central re-runs sandwiched between Napoleon Dynamite and Rushmore.

comment #14

MAGGA says ...

TWBB was finally released in Norway today. Before I saw it I read five reviews, of which four calles it one of the best American films of the last thirty years and a guranteed Oscar winner. Obviously they do not know Oscar politics, and never seem to learn. I saw it a couple of hours ago and I must say we had three classic movies from the US this yead (Zodiac and Jesse James the other two, No Country is released next weekend). I am glad one of them was at least nominated. The last shot of this movie, which people have referred to as funny, was certainly that but also put the whole character in perspective for me and makes me want to watch the film again in the next few days just to get a handle on it. I think this says everything Spielberg tried to say in his non-brilliant years (post-Empire, pre-Jurassic), but that last line, the delivery, I mean, is as great as Alex saying "I was cured all right" at the end of Clockwork Orange. This film gives me the kind of hope for the medium that Obama gives Jeffrey about whatever. Even after Juno tore it down a few days ago (the success of that movie explains how Bush got elected)

comment #15

T. S. Idiot says ...

I'm just happy to see Wells picking on Poland again. Politicians come and go, but hated rivals are forever.

comment #16

PerfectTommy says ...

I little late on this, but I just wanted to tell you JH you are always more than welcome to call the movie "Babel" a steaming pile.

comment #17

BurmaShave says ...

JH, how recently were you fired from Paramount Vantage?