Uh, maybe people will see the movies now that they've heard of them. And the "obscure" Crash made $54 million domestically. All the other recent winners have made tons more than that.
Yeah.But it's been that way for a while. So many movie critics seem to be more interested in showing off how smart they are, rather than just give a review of the damn movie. And certain types of filmmakers seem to make their films for no audience OTHER than the pinkies-in-the-air critics. It's like they say, 'Here, I have made 'Un Filme', which only the most erudite and sophisticated among you could ever hope to understand.' And the critics eat that crap up. But the majority of those films will never make a dime. I have seen the previews of all those movies mentioned in the article, and read some of the hype on place like Aintitcool, and I can tell you the following: There Will Be Blood: No one will see it. No one but critics and snobs will WANT to see it. Rarely have I seen an advertisement for a movie which was less appealing than this. Persepolis: Who do they think is going to pay money to watch a depressing black-and-white cartoon that looks like it was made in the 50's, about how sucky life is in the Middle East? Nobody, that's who. No Country for Old Men: Coen movies are sometimes fun, so this one will probably be interesting enough to rent, but is anyone actually going to theaters to pay to watch this movie? I'm not, I know that. Away From Her: Decent enough previews. Exept it's a depressing-as-hell look at something very sad and unhappy. Yay. CMon kids, let's all go see Away From Her, it's all about a woman who doesn't know her husband any more, just like Grandma! Yeah, how can that movie not make a bajillion bucks. Michael Clayton: Yet another Clooney stink-bomb. Eventually these out-of-touch hollywood types will realize that investing millions of dollars in the political-agenda bombs of people like Clooney and Redford is a bad way to turn a profit. But, it may take a while. It's like Colbert said one time to a guest from tinseltown: 'So, you live in Hollywood. Do you ever miss living in America?' These people are so far out of touch as to essentially be foreigners in their own country. It's a very vivid real-life version of the children's story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'.
I am glad when they give Oscars to the actual best movies instead of the best movie everyone and their dog saw. Nothing wrong with star power and special effects, those films will get their audience. Chris Rock did a good piece on it when he hosted the Oscars, when he went to a Magic Johnson theater and hardly anyone had seen the nominated movies, but everyone had seen White Chicks. That's just fine a LOT more people are gonna see White Chicks or You Me N' Dupree or Transformers than are gonna see Away from Her. But if the latter is a deserving film, why not let it win some Oscars and have a chance to be seen by a "relatively" larger audience.
Here's a clue... popular movies suck. No Country For Old Men was probably my most anticipated movie of the year, as I am a big fan of the Coens, and it did not disappoint. I am very interested in seeing "There will be Blood" and "Sweeney Todd"
Popular does not automatically equal sucks and Artsy does not automatically equal great Most award shows are nothing more than Elitism at its best Basically a way to turn their nose up to the 'rank and file' in an attempt to make themselve feel superior Excuse me if I will take a hamburger over Cavier but a Steak is superior to both! Obscure does not mean good but people feel the need to feel special Rocket River
Sorry but Oscars aren't a popularity contest where blockbuster movies with big name stars are suppose to get all the accolades. The reason nobody watches these so called "obscure" movies is because mainstream viewers in America are too dump to appreaciate a quality work of art. That is the reason why movies like Alvin and the Chipmunks grabbed $50 million over the weekend. But you won't see that kind of showing for "No Country For Old Men" or "Atonement" or even "Michael Clayton" starring a popular actor like George Clooney. Nope, America prefers bland, cliched, over-the-top movies because like fast food it is easy to gulp down without putting any effort into understanding it's qualities and what makes it a good treat.
This is why I haven't seen the Oscars since Saving Private Ryan got screwed (except for seeing Gladiator take home Best Picture and when LOtR swept). Those types of awards shows are basically a chance for Hollywood types to get dressed up in outrageously expensive costumes, pat each other on the back for 4 hours, then congratulate each other for being smarter than the common man because they gave a statue to some film from Hungary that was nothing more than 2 hours of a dripping faucet but was lauded and called "thought provoking" by critics. For the most part, I don't like the movies that the so-called "experts" love. Maybe I'm just a part of the McDonald's generation or something, but I'd rather be ENTERTAINED by movies instead of preached to by them. I don't care if a movie has a "deeper meaning" or "stirs the soul". Did it make me glad I spent the money to go see it? No? Then sorry, it sucks. And for all you pretentious snobs who decry me as being "dumb", I DO watch so-called "arty" and independant films. I'll watch Whit Stillman and Coen brothers movies all day long given the chance ("Barcelona" and "Hudsucker Proxy" are two personal favorites). I do plan on watching "No Country for Old Men" and 'Sweeney Todd" when the opportunity arises. However, I'm also going to see the next National Treasure movie when it comes out for the same reason: I find both styles of movies entertaining, just for different reasons. If that makes me stupid, wouldn't someone who automatically dismisses a whole genre of film simply because of preconcieved notions be considered moreso?
I'd like to see The next National Treasure movie, the first one was pretty interesting. Obviously there is a line between what is popular drivel for the masses and what is considered artsy-fartsy or quirky for the sake of quirky. I don't consider anybody dumb unless they've paid money to see the Larry the Cable Guy movie.
This thread makes me laugh. Some of you are coming across exactly like the people you are criticizing. I personally enjoy films that make you think, that are beautifully shot, tell great stories or are full of wonderful acting performances. I understand that some of these movies aren't for anyone and I'm certainly not going to look down on you if you're one of the ones that helped Alvin and the Chipmunks or Enchanted one of the top movies of last weekend. But by criticizing these movies and people awarding these movies, you sound like a fool. I saw No Country for Old Men and it is my current favorite movie of the year. Daniel Day-Lewis may be one of the best actors of our lifetime and Paul Thomas Anderson is one of my favorite directors, so you can be damn sure that I'll be there to see There Will Be Blood when it opens here. If that makes me some elitist jerk, then so be it. For the record, I'll also see movies like National Treasure.
The Oscars have no cred. David Thewlis couldn't even get a nomination for best actor for his role in Naked. His performance was so much better than Tom Hanks in Philadelphia or any of the other nominees. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L-D7iKn-Kpk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L-D7iKn-Kpk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
The Filthy Critic is the only movie critic I bother reading. Even though in all his awesomeness he is still sometimes wrong.
Thanks I mean . . .Does anyone really thin adults made Alvin and the ChipMunks 50 mill??? Do you really think I'm going to take my 9 yr old to see No Country for Old Men?? Do you expect me too? Different times i watch different moves most times it is a get away Like someone said. . . I don't need a movie to preach to me and I have yet to see what makes one OSCAR worthy than another Subject matteR? Acting? Overly subjective stuff Rocket River I don't watch Soul Plane but I didn't like My LEft foot either
This article is foolish. It would have a point if - you know - movies like No Country for Old Men weren't actually good. Movie critics see every damn thing that comes up on screen. Of course they are going to recognize the formulaic style at the drop of a hat. There's nothing wrong with recognizing movies that do something different, stand out and rely more on story than explosions. And there's nothing wrong with a good, loud popcorn movie, either. I feel bad for people who can't enjoy both. If more people could see something a little different, and actually enjoy it for it's merits, I'd feel a little better about the world as a whole. Unless some of you think Alvin and the Chipmunks is going to represent good, original filmmaking. Hell, it could be funny as hell for all I know. that doesn't mean it's award winning....just entertaining. And there's nothing wrong with that. You sound worse than the 'snobs' you are criticizing. Can't tell if this is a sarcastic post or not.
I don't understand why anybody outside of the industry cares about the Oscars. Or any awards for that matter.
What makes something 'Award Winning'? Is this a Pheonix Suns are entertaining but the Spurs are Champions thing? 'The Industry' has its biases. What seperates an award winning pie from another pie? The award giver's tastes I think we should start with a basic question. What is the PURPOSE of <insert artform here>? Rocket River
Well for many people, myself included, watching a film is a form of escapism. I hardly think people are gonna find much "escape" with a movie as serious as Michael Clayton. Some may, and that's just fine. But me, sometimes I'd rather not be reminded of the atrocities of the world.
If you haven't seen the movies, why comment on them? That's just dumb... Are you arrogant enough to think you can summarize an entire film based on small clips and trailers? Yeah, it's the critics and "Hollywood elite" that are pretentious. I'm glad Hans Christian Andersen never lived to see his tale used over and over again in trite analogies... It's very vivid, though, very vivid.
