comment #1

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

Finally got to see I've Loved You So Long and I am astounded at the lack of crit-group love for Kristin Scott-Thomas. Especially since Hawkins seems to have stolen her slot in almost every case. Damn shame.

comment #2

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

The Best Picture category is nuts-- really diverse with movies that have such drastically different topics from each other.

pretty cool. I'm really excited to see which films are gonna snag the Oscar nods.

comment #3

T. Holly says ...

I can't read this without the scores broken down and how the voting went down in each round, I'm spoiled now. Of all people, the onliners should be spilling the beans so no one has to crunch the numbers and prime the pump for info.

comment #4

Mark says ...

Downey Jr. and Hoffman as Supporting vs. Leading Actors is silliness.

comment #5

Doug says ...

Yes, some love for the "In Bruges" screenplay!

comment #6

Floyd Thursby says ...

How did Kristin Scott-Thomas go from Oscar frontrunner to definite nominee to iffy nominee?

comment #7

byanyother says ...

Scott-Thomas could still be recognized in the end by the Academy. She has a lot of friends. The reason is that I've Loved you So Long has a really dumb cheat for an ending. That is, if anyone bothers to even watch it in the first place. The movie isn't getting the kind of critical acclaim it would need to launch her, however. Happy-Go-Lucky is getting it.

comment #8

arturobandini2 says ...

Floyd and MikeSchaefer: The omission of Scott Thomas from nearly every awards society speaks to the idiocy of these ceremonies. If you bothered to see I've Loved You So Long at all, then you know which lead actor (male or female) gave the most haunting performance of 2008; to not recognize that performance is to admit that you didn't make the effort to see it. Shameful, really. And poor Elsa Zylberstein. She probably provided more heavy lifting than any supporting actor last year ... and got zip.

comment #9

the400blows says ...

I'm getting sick and tired of seeing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button nominated for Best Picture? What was so geat about it? It was too long with nothing really important to say. It wasn't even all that entertaining. Instead, why isn't Doubt, Happy-Go-Lucky, Revolutionary Road, or Wendy and Lucy nominated for Best Picture?

comment #10

Geoff says ...

Loved Benjamin Button. It IS like being on a gondola through Venice, so I get why people say "nothing happens."

But there's just something about that opening with the blind clockmaker that gets to me.

comment #11

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

You'd also think being online they might try to do things differently than the Academy and have more than just 5 nominees. Why not 7 or 10?

The entire point of doing a 2 step nominating process is to narrow down the field so that if it's clear one's choice hasn't got a chance in hell, that vote can be shifted to one that does. Although it would be much simplier to simply make it an "instant runoff" scenario where everything but the top 10 are eliminated and if one's vote was not for those 10, a second choice is then awarded the vote.

comment #12

Mark says ...

Also, kudos for the Wall-E script nomination. Probably the most moving script I read last year. Replete with endless name exchanges between the leads, and lots of (insert 3-minute action piece)'s.

comment #13

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

400blows,

Did you really think that TCCoBB had "nothing" to say about our mortality, fate, and how time/age has an effect on our relationships (both romantic and friendly)? I'll grant you that perhaps it had nothing original to say, but I think with film (as opposed to novels), how you tell the story is often the most important thing, and on that count I thought it was fairly visceral, emotional, and masterful.

Can anyone shed some light on TDK being in the adapted category? As a Batman fan, I've heard a lot of explanations ranging from legit (screenplay was based on a story mapped out by David Goyer & Nolan), to questionable (like Borat, the film centers around a pre-existing fictional character) to very unlikely (graphic novels such as The Long Halloween and The Killing Joke were considered the "source material").

comment #14

T. Holly says ...

Of course I'm talking about the gaping holes for souls that need to fill the endless Oscar void. Attention must now be paid to the PGA nominations.

comment #15

the400blows says ...

"Did you really think that TCCoBB had "nothing" to say about our mortality, fate, and how time/age has an effect on our relationships (both romantic and friendly)? I'll grant you that perhaps it had nothing original to say, but I think with film (as opposed to novels), how you tell the story is often the most important thing, and on that count I thought it was fairly visceral, emotional, and masterful."

citizenkaned: It's difficult to have something "important" to say about mortality and fate when the two main characters are aging in opposite directions. I found it kindaweird that a 70+ year old man was smitten by an 8 year old girl. And then when their paths cross at the age of 25-30, they can finally hook up with each other. But, for most people, you think about the first time you were sexually attracted to your partner. So Benjamin is dreaming about Daisy when she was 8 years old, and Daisy is dreaming about Benjamin when he was 70+ years old. You don't find that a little bit bizarre?

As for "how you tell the story" in filmmaking, I guess I found TCCoBB to be too long to find it "visceral, emotional, and masterful." But that's the problem I've found with Fincher films. I thought Zodiac was a little too long too.

All I was trying to say was that there were a lot of other films that were better told and made than TCCoBB that the OFCS could've nominated for Best Picture. I'm beginning to think the reason TCCoBB is getting nominated for Best Picture is because it's a more accessible film than Zodiac, and the Oscars didn't nominate Zodiac for Best Picture (so this is payback time). That's fine and dandy but the film should be somewhat worthy of its nomination, and I don't think TCCoBB is--unlike Slumdog Millionaire.

comment #16

/3rtfu11 says ...

the400blows says
All I was trying to say was that there were a lot of other films that were better told and made than TCCoBB that the OFCS could've nominated for Best Picture.

I feel the same way about TDK. The I continue to watch it the worse it plays for me. Heath Ledger's performance never gets old but the movie is outright silly.

comment #17

/3rtfu11 says ...

I feel the same way about TDK and I own the dvd. Heath Ledger never gets old but the movie has lost a great deal of its awe factor which made a majority of people feel like the just watched the greatest thing ever. It's a well-made silly B-Movie.

comment #18

Edward Havens says ...

The400Blows said: "It's difficult to have something "important" to say about mortality and fate when the two main characters are aging in opposite directions. I found it kindaweird that a 70+ year old man was smitten by an 8 year old girl. And then when their paths cross at the age of 25-30, they can finally hook up with each other. But, for most people, you think about the first time you were sexually attracted to your partner. So Benjamin is dreaming about Daisy when she was 8 years old, and Daisy is dreaming about Benjamin when he was 70+ years old. You don't find that a little bit bizarre?"

I'm sorry, but if that's what you got out of Benjamin Button, then you just didn't get it. Benjamin isn't 70+ when he meets Daisy. He's only 11 or 12, and in Daisy he has found someone who sees him for who he truly is and not just his outward appearance.

comment #19

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

400blows-

First of all, what Edward said. They were always the same age, it's just that their outward appearance was always out of synch (except in the middle). But I think you understand that.

I actually think they would have taken the story a little further (i.e. to its logical conclusion) and had them making love a bit earlier in the story (perhaps even with them "underage," which would have led to some very interesting conflict, which admittedly is one thing that was a bit lacking here).

So if you say you find it "a little bit bizarre," I think that's the point. I see TCCoBB as sort of akin to "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." They both use science-fictiony hooks to analyze and deconstruct the concept of romantic relationships and view them in a way one might never have before. It seems like parts of the film made you a little uneasy, which I think is the natural reaction. But I'd say that's a reaction I don't often associate with films that have "nothing to say," which is how you described "Button" in your earlier post.

I'll agree that TCCoBB is more a accessible (i.e. "commercial-friendly") film than Zodiac (which I actually much prefer), and that's probably the reason you're seeing it show up on so many of these year-end lists of nominees.

I think the key is to approach it as more of a fable than an actual story in the real world. I think in reality, there would be a lot more taunting, violence, and probably even investigation into his life due to Ben's freak-status. But the filmmakers have decided to avoid the head-on nastiness, focusing instead on the central theme, which is fairly strong.

So I do think it's an award-worthy movie. Certainly much more so in my mind than Slumdog Millionaire, which I liked. I think the romances in both films are equally underdeveloped. I'll take the aging backwards hook over "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" any day, though.

comment #20

iamwhoiam says ...

Enough with that TDK nonsense. I'm beginning to really afraid of it getting Oscar nom. TCCoBB shouldn't be there either.

comment #21

smiley says ...

citizenkaned, Mr. Wells,

I'm curious why do you prefer Zodiac so much more than Benjaim Button? Granted I saw the midnight showing of Zodiac and was dissapointed it didn't garner an Oscar nod for Best Picture, but both are very good works and touch upon very real issues like obsession and death.

comment #22

the400blows says ...

"But I'd say that's a reaction I don't often associate with films that have "nothing to say," which is how you described "Button" in your earlier post."

citizenkaned: I didn't say "nothing to say." I said, "nothing important to say," and I still feel that way. There's a saying that goes something like this: "...having the wisdom of an old person in the body of a young person so you don't waste your youth." They could've explored this concept in the film and didn't. **SPOILER ALERT** What wisdom of an old person did Benjamin utilize when he was in the body of a young person? To run away from his responsibilities as a husband and father because he was afraid their baby may wind up being like him? Or, becoming a burden to his wife in his later years? Either way-he ran. I don't think that was the wisdom from a mature person. That was more like the behavior of an immature person. So, again I say: TCCoBB didn't really have anything important to say and as a result, its spot could've gone to a more worthy film as a best picture nominee.

comment #23

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Smiley,

I would agree that the themes in both films are very potent. I guess I am just partial to the gritty, realistic way Zodiac approached those themes as opposed to Button, which took a more laid-back, fabled approach, which is fine, too. I actually think the aesthetic choices are correct for both movies.

How to put this succinctly? I guess what I'm saying is I generally prefer 70s cinema to 60s cinema.

comment #24

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

400 - I would absolutely agree that the film dropped the ball in a couple scenes where it could have more thoroughly explored issues that addressed Ben's dichotomy of having an old mind and a young body (or vice versa).

However, just because a character in a film acts a certain way doesn't automatically mean the film and/or filmmakers automatically endorse that behavior. (SPOILERS follow through to the end) Did Ben run away from the life he had built? You bet. Was that immature behavior? I think that's a much more difficult question to answer.

His justification for leaving ("she needs a real man in herlife that can be his father for his entire life") is more legitimate the more I think about it, and certainly more legitimate than any number of fathers who leave their families in the real world. Think about how damaging it would be to watch a man who helped conceive you age backwards in time until he was younger than you, until he wasn't even able to form full words in his infant body. Or maybe not. Maybe if that's all a child knows, it wouldn't be scarring at all. Maybe finding out later in life (like Caroline does in the movie) is truly the more damaging option.

So perhaps it doesn't have anything "important to say," but I think the fact that we're discussing these issues does in fact prove that it does have questions which are "important to ask." I really think I prefer questions to answers in my films, so despite its faults, I consider myself a fan.

Btw, I didn't think "Slumdog Millionaire" really had anything important to say or ask, IMHO. "It was fate." Wow, is that really the best they can do? I dunno...maybe I missed something and you can help enlighten me.

comment #25

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: *her father for her entire life...sorry.

comment #26

K. Bowen says ...

Oh gee, Amy Adams acting mousy. Brilliance!

comment #27

Rich S. says ...

Did he really say "nommies?" What is this, HE guest contributor Rachael Ray?

comment #28

the400blows says ...

to citizenkaned: I appreciate your insight of TCCoBB. **SPOILER ALERT** I guess you can look at Benjamin's running away from two different perspectives.

I liked Slumdog and feel it deserves to get nominated for best picture, but I don't think it should win. I would give that honor to Doubt because it was the most thought-provoking film of the year. Any film that can blend in religion, sex and politics in their storyline deserves to win.

Getting back to Slumdog, what I liked about it was how it showed that you don't need a college degree to win a million bucks on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." You can have street smarts like Jamal. So I liked how they incorporated his life experiences with the answers to the questions on the game show. Another thing I liked about Slumdog was that it seemed like one of the very few films to actually show what India is really like--unlike the "Bollywood" movies, Monsoon Wedding, etc. In that regard, it reminded me of an Italian neo-realist film, but made for the mainstream audience. Incidentally, the only reason I brought up Slumdog in my earlier post was because I was trying to compare 2 indie filmmakers (Boyle and Fincher) and their subsequent films (Slumdog and Benjamin). I just felt Slumdog was a much tighter--and more interesting--film than TCCoBB.

comment #29

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

And I appreciate your insight on SM, 400. I certainly agree that it shows what the "real India" is like...and absolutely worth seeing for that reason alone (if nothing else).

I'll guess I'll have to check out "Doubt" before the Oscars, I keep hearing interesting things.