He Stands Alone

email this story
read comments (18)
post a comment

I admire In Contention's Kris Tapley for sticking his neck out on The Lovely Bones. I have a sense that the Zeligs are turning away from Peter Jackson's film but who knows? I've got a Lovely Bones screener sitting here, and I intend to watch it again tomorrow.

Tapley had better watch it though. If he isn't careful he'll have the rep of someone who just writes about what he likes or greatly respects and therefore isn't much of an Oscar prognosticator. I've had this thrown at me also. All I can say is "Thanks, it means a lot."

Heartbeat?<< previous | next >>Ploughmen, Poachers and Pickpockets

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM

comment #1

gazer says ...

I'll gladly fail being the "Oscar prognosticator" so long as it means staying true to the films I like, for what is the meaning in learning about Oscar-ways and the features they're prone to emphazise when the result leads to Mr. Tapley standing on his own? Original and daring films that boasts singular visions need all the positive attention they can get, and since Mr. Tapley is in the minority expressing this, it would seem he's in dire need of support. Filmmakers are meant to inspire; Oscar's aren't supposed to dictate.

Posted by gazer at December 8, 2009 4:29 PM

comment #2

Jonathan Spuij says ...

Nevertheless his prognoses are frequently on the money.

Posted by Jonathan Spuij at December 8, 2009 4:54 PM

comment #3

Glenn Kenny says ...

I'm flabbergasted. You've been pissing all over this movie since IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT JACKSON WAS DIRECTING IT, and now the sceptics on the thing are "Zeligs." You are a piece of work, man. And I say that admiringly, of course.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at December 8, 2009 5:48 PM

comment #4

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

The defensiveness that seeps through every word of that article suggests someone who is caught at the very crux of the art/entertainment fulcrum: art is subjective and movies subjectively emotional. Tapley admires a film that his peers don't and instead of simply shrugging it off to personal taste is going down the road of "You just don't get it, but my superior powers do."

It's probably good to set yourself the task of defending the critically dismissed to sharpen your intellect from time to time, but in the end it's a fool's errand if you think it will change the debate. Doubly so when arguing it for the benefit of an award, which are popularity contests no matter how you much you gussy them up.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie at December 8, 2009 5:48 PM

comment #5

Phreaker says ...

The Lovely Bones is a great movie.

Posted by Phreaker at December 8, 2009 6:06 PM

comment #6

Phreaker says ...

Oh and p.s. he's hardly alone. Sure, some of the early word from unimaginative writers wasn't positive but there have been plenty of positive reactions on the web that I've read.

Posted by Phreaker at December 8, 2009 6:15 PM

comment #7

televisiontears says ...

"Oscar prognosticators" are like lemmings that follow each other off a cliff. Is anyone even leading the buzz anymore (other than publicists)? No one tries to build up hype for the films they love. Instead, they guess what the voters will respond to. And for what? To spit out a few I-told-you- sos when the nominees are announced? If these folks were truly passionate about film, they'd man or woman-up and rock the boat. Jeff's tried it in the past, sadly to no avail - Zodiac, Children of Men, etc.

Kudos to you, Tapley (and Wells) for sticking with your passion and not giving a shit if you "have the rep of someone who just writes about what he likes or greatly respects and therefore isn't much of an Oscar prognosticator. "

Keep fucking that chicken.

Posted by televisiontears at December 8, 2009 7:01 PM

comment #8

LarryGopnik says ...

Saw it at a screening tonight -- went in with Tapley's view in mind, along with the seven friends I'd spoken to who had seen it (and, not kidding, every single one full-on loathed it) and... I'm somewhere in the middle. Tapley's right in the sense that I think it's a movie that deserves more than one viewing -- I plan on checking it out again -- but I'm fairly confident I didn't like it.

Some things worked for me, some didn't, but it's maybe the first time this year when I walked out of a movie and couldn't give an instant reaction about it, if pressed.

But yeah, definitely leaning towards the 'no' column at the moment.

Posted by LarryGopnik at December 8, 2009 7:17 PM

comment #9

televisiontears says ...

For those confused about that last line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss8LDBNcsWc

Posted by televisiontears at December 8, 2009 7:19 PM

comment #10

Phreaker says ...

Maybe it was Ebert and Siskel who forever ruined film criticism and objectivity. Ebert has bounced back on the other side but too many people on the web fall into the Team Jacob or Team Edward game of film criticism.

Posted by Phreaker at December 8, 2009 7:21 PM

comment #11

televisiontears says ...

"Some things worked for me, some didn't, but it's maybe the first time this year when I walked out of a movie and couldn't give an instant reaction about it, if pressed."

I honestly believe that's the highest praise you can give to a film.

Posted by televisiontears at December 8, 2009 7:21 PM

comment #12

Scott Mendelson says ...

I saw it tonight and haven't really made up my mind. I wasn't nearly as emotionally affected as I would have hoped (I was a sucker for LotR and King Kong), but there is lots to admire and respect. I'm definitely giving it a night's sleep before I tap out a review.

Posted by Scott Mendelson at December 8, 2009 11:14 PM

comment #13

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

"I saw it tonight and haven't really made up my mind."

"Some things worked for me, some didn't"

This is a classic case of the Emperor Has Not A Stitch. Really, if you did not know who had made this film, would really/truly dither? This isn't a film that, like perhaps FIGHT CLUB, you didn't know what to expect.

The cynic in me fairly screams out that if you are dithering, you trying to find a way to praise the movie because of who made it.

Most critics fell over themselves when Jackson made HEAVENLY CREATURES. They've been waiting patiently through both the LOTR trio and KONG for him to return. BONES was assumed to be just that. But apparently, he didn't make it.

Which suggests to me that it's far worse than even these initial reactions suggest, only no one wants to call it.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie at December 9, 2009 12:03 AM

comment #14

Gordon27 says ...

"This isn't a film that, like perhaps FIGHT CLUB, you didn't know what to expect. "

I can't believe it's almost 2010 and people still say things like this.

Posted by Gordon27 at December 9, 2009 12:43 AM

comment #15

Jonathan Spuij says ...

"Some things worked for me, some didn't, but it's maybe the first time this year when I walked out of a movie and couldn't give an instant reaction about it, if pressed."

I honestly believe that's the highest praise you can give to a film."

No it isn't. I felt the same about Precious but never really liked that film either. It was good, simply not a BP winner.

Posted by Jonathan Spuij at December 9, 2009 2:31 AM

comment #16

The Playlist says ...

Lovely Bones is largely embarrassing. The heaven sequences are like a tampon commercial scored to Enya. They're a CGI-wet fart. That's enough right there. The rest is an eye-sore. I love how the camera freaks out even over a casual breakfast. It's like someone gave Jackson amphetamines before every scene.

Posted by The Playlist at December 9, 2009 7:26 AM

comment #17