Just something that's on my mind. Is No Country heading toward Oscar gold or will it be unceremoniously snuffed out in the final act. What do you think the next couple of months hold?
Vote and discuss
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Vote and discuss
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
No Country is obviously the new Frontrunner, but I don't think it will win.
No Country is a lock for a nomination, but I don't think it will win. However, the Coens may very well nab their first Director award.
i did not like the movie. i hope it gets snubbed. very very over rated - i think it's cool for critics to love everything coen.
"both thumbs down" - jimmy
didn't think too highly of javier either. josh brolin was the highlight. if anyone gets a nomination, he should. nothing enjoyable / uplifting / challenging about "no country." just a bunch of gore. mean & angry movie.
my guess is best pic will go to atonement or there will be blood....possibly sweeney todd.
I think it'll win best picture and director, but I doubt Bardem will win.
No Country is a lock for a nomination(s), the frontrunner as of right now and very likely will win. Considering the slate of films in competition-I'm sure of it. Best Pic and Best Director.
Hate to tell ya Jimmy, but it's getting nommed for sure. And if you think 'No Country' is too dark for the win then why predict 'There Will Be Blood' which is even more cynical/darker film?
I think Atonement and Sweeney will win the globes, at which point the oscar race will start to look wide open. It's not looking like Atonement has the stuff for an oscar win (the actors aren't behind it, for one), but I also can't quite see No Country getting it, so it's hard to say.
Into the Wild would seem possible if it rakes it lots of nominations, but it made very little money, so maybe not.
Right now, No Country has to be considered the frontrunner, but I'd hardly call it the prohibitive favorite. The race could end up being very interesting...
Right now, I think it wins. But we still have two months. I won't mind so much if it wins, but it's not my top film of the year. Maybe number 6. Other films this year just mean more. Atonement is the great love story; unfortunately I still am not sure how well the source material translated. Into the Wild is that "unique" film with great performances and a new, different story that doesn't fit into a genre. There Will Be Blood is the powerful "wow" film experience of the year, and if that score doesn't get nominated, the composer's branch is nuts. And Zodiac, to me, was the most wonderfully crafted film of the year. And then for simple pleasure, I'd put Ratatouille in my top 5 for the year. NCFOM is good, but it's not a wow for me. But then Best Pic rarely is. I don't see any of the films I mentioned actually winning. It's still NCFOM's to lose, and I don't see anything stopping it. At least it's not a snoozeworthy biopic.
I can see it winning Director, but with something more emotional winning Pic, like Into the Wild.
I really don’t think NO COUNTRY’S content will kill its chances for the Best Picture Oscar. Last year’s DEPARTED victory re-reminded us that voters can embrace brutal/bloody violence. (History has shown their far more frightened of human sexuality when it comes to picking which film to represent their industry.)
And in terms of NO COUNTRY’s dark content/unsettling ending, if SILENCE OF THE LAMBS can make it, anything can!
Right now I think were looking at a Best Picture race reminiscent of 1996:
The Coen Bros VS. The epic WWII romance
(FARGO/NO COUNTRY vs. ENGLISH PATIENT/ ATONEMENT)
The only other real alternative is INTO THE WILD. I’m 99% sure it comes down to one of those 3 films. The nomination tallies (especially WILD’s) should clear up whether NO COUNTRY is as far ahead as it seems.
Plus, as long as NO COUNTRY snags the DGA, I’d say its locked solid for the Best Directing Oscar. And since the Best Direction category has become a far better representative of cinema’s finest- I could live with NO COUNTRY triumphing there while something lesser is named Oscar’s Best Picture.
Finally saw it last night -- it's great, I loved it (9 out of 10), but, man, this is NOT a Best Picture. I don't, however, see which movie out of the real contenders can beat it!
So the only way it will be stopped is if something horribly glossy and trite gets nominated -- say a CWW or Great Debaters -- and pulls off a huge ride to victory.
"No Country" is my #1 movie of the year, but a fourth viewing tonight at a local multiplex (which was sold out by the way) reminded me how poorly this plays with average joe audiences.
People audibly sighing during it, cell phones punctuating the should-be-unbearably-tense silence, people whispering loudly about how boring it is, non-stop text-messaging (and these were people my parents' age, not pre-teens!) and laughter/shrugs when the film cut to black at the end.
I do think it's a lock for a nomination-- the Academy wouldn't dare show they're THAT unhip-- but I still think a win is a huuuuuge longshot.
I agree with Ryan's analysis (and I do agree that the Best Director award is a much better predictor of the year's finest than Best Picture).
I do think, however, that No Country will win Best Picture. People have complained about the ending, but I think this is a really pensive movie. This isn't an ending that destroys an otherwise good movie (think A.I.) I think this movie leaves a lot open to interpretation, and interpretation fosters dialogue, which is great for buzz.
Also, I think that this movie is a way to pay dues to the Coen Brothers. For some reason, I find that the Academy is more willing to reward overdue directors when they return to what is perceived as their characteristic niche. This was the case for Polanski and Scorcese, and I think it will also be the case for Coens. In any event, I hope that this year the Academy actually awards the best film based on artistry and not on some idealogical zeitgeist.
wins director into the wild as best pic.
I think that once the Academy catches up with "No Country for Old Men" and see that lame ending fizzle, they'll pull a "what was the fuss all about?" and go for something else instead. It could be a case of going against the tide again and not liking to be told what they should pick. But I don't know what the alternative is at this point, and that's the one main thing in "No Country"'s corner right now.
I really don't get the appeal of this movie. It is one of the few movies I have seen that I have no desire to see again...ever.
It didn't offend me, it didn't excite me, it didn't gross me out or make me think, it just bored me. It did not interest me one bit.
And even though I love Bardem, I was not even excited by his performance. He already looked scary and crazy, as he always looks, so what was the stretch exactly?
I hope to see this movie fall out of competition. And to see Holbrook win the supporting Oscar NOT Bardem.
Exactly. Whatever we feel about the film and it's ending (which I didn't care for), No Country for Old Men is the only film showing up everywhere. It even got a shaky ensemble nod from the SAGs. It's somehow emerged as the consensus choice of the year. Which it should definitely be frightened of, because it's a weird consensus choice. Then again, I'd argue that The Departed and The Silence of the Lambs were both odd choices as well.
"NCFOM" doesn't feel "right" as the best picture choice. Something like "Atonement" reads so much better on paper as the BP, but it's not getting the kind of critical press that "No Country for Old Men" has. I'd be kind of surprised to see the Academy go so dark again as the victor -- add this to "The Departed", "Crash", "Million Dollar Baby", and "Return of the King", and it's been a dour couple of years lately with the best picture winners.
And with "Atonement", why won't they wide release the damn thing yet? There's no reason that I have to wait until January to see something that half the world has been able to see for months now. That's so irritating.
As Ryan said, this is 1996 all over again. Atonement wins.
To anonymous: Its fine if your own opinion of No Country is unfavorable, but its one thing to say that No Country doesn't "feel" right. Its exactly this kind of claptrap analysis that the Academy does when they choose lame feel-good movies over truly challenging pieces of art.
Examples?
Rocky over Network/Taxi Driver/ All the President's Men
Ordinary People over Raging Bull
Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas
Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction
No Country does have a dark and bleak ending. It is a challenging movie and does not provide the feel-good "we can all get along" garbage that the bane of so many Best Picture winners. Again, its fine if you personally couldn't identify with the movie, but don't think that an Academy-Award movie "should" be of a certain mold. If the best movie of the year is a dark one, so be it.
I think Bardem wins Best Supporting. I also think No Country's the best film I've seen this year but suspect it's too dark for Academy voters. Haven't yet seen There Will be Blood, suspect this may be more well crafted all the way around, even than No Country. I'll be sooooo disappointed if Atonement takes best film, come on!
In my view, "No Country" doesn't fit the mold as BP. It's just not good enough, and I think after all's said and done, the Academy will have a "so what?" attitude toward it. That doesn't mean that a "certain" feel-good film must win it instead, and as it was cited, plenty of dark films have won this. But this one was meh, and it's gotten as far as it's gotten b/c of the critics attention, which should be going to "There Will Be Blood". But anyway, I don't think it's winning out in the end.
Post a Comment