Until Saving Mr. Banks comes out and charms everyone right out of their pants on its way to victory, leaving the Internet to bemoan how square the Academy is.

Lincoln received amazing reviews. I would be surprised if 12 Years a Slave ended up with a higher Metacritic score.

And ha at the good doctor citing McQueen's record, as if the most of the Academy saw Hunger and Shame.

I think 12 Years will end up around 90, give or take a couple points. The raves so far have been really intense, with almost no major detractors.

As for it winning, it's the only film that makes a moderate amount of sense to me, but people calling it this early is never good for a movie's traction. Still, it seems to have a clear path to a potential win, with wins also for Directing/Actor/S. Actor or Actress/Screenplay/random tech or two.

I think these ones have great chances:

The Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle, Saving Mr. Banks and maybe Gravity

Well, of course it is bold to call that half a year in advance, but fortune favors the bold, eh? Ebert called Argo in September as well, so...


See, I think 12 Years a Slave is more "important" than Lincoln. Abolishing the slavery is one thing, but this is a film about slavery through the eyes of a slave. This is more "important" and much more appealing to white guilt in addition to apparently being a damn rgeat film.

American Hustle and The Monuments Men might be good/very good, but they also seem more "lighter".

Gravity will be amazing and rank very high on IMDb, but just too genre for it to win.

I agree the rave for 12 Years a Slave feels much more intense than Lincoln. In some sense, it's closer to Schindler's List for me. It's also Fox Searchlight's only contender this year, so it doesn't have to diverge its energy like other studios.

Will be very interested to see its box office though. By all accounts, the film is certainly not easy to sit through, but pure awards strength could push it pretty far.

And the amazing reviews of the film will overshadow The Butler and Fruitvale Station.

Assuming it is warmly received the way Nicole Holofcener's past films (Lovely and Amazing, Please Give) were, I wonder if Fox Searchlight will campaign for James Gandolfini.

In that case, fortune also favors the soon-to-be-dead.

I'll miss you, Lecter.

Why is everybody OK with 12 Years A Slave winning for its significance when we were all so outraged at Crash winning for the same reason?

Because Crash is fucking awful and manipulative.

+1

What a shit movie.

(yes, I am still bitter 8 years later)

Crash also gets a lot shit because the queers can't stand the fact Munich was robbed.

word

Crash gets a lot of shit because that's exactly what it is.

I enjoyed Crash. It's no masterpiece, but it's definitely at Traffic level of goodness, which I don't ever hear being lambasted like Crash is.

Crash wasn't based on a true event, and the way the story was told could definitely feel manipulative for people (although I'm a fan). 12 Years a Slave, on the other hand, is gut wrenching in telling a real story, and by all accounts, its power doesn't come from any manipulation. I still insist it feels more Schinder's List to me.

I can already tell you this is bullshit. Every film is manipulative in one way or another, whether it is colorizing a small child's coat in an otherwise B&W image or presenting a story of a random crime in 71 disorienting fragments, etc., etc. Every film is pushing buttons and playing with the audience. This, "Oh, my, this isn't...this isn't -manipulative-, is it?" fear I always see online is hilarious.

I totally agree. A film about a black slave would have a hard time trying not to be manipulative. It definitely going to be painting blacks as humanitarian, living Jesus's and the white man as a bastard that hates all other races.

I think Traffic is worse. Then again, I am really not a fan of Traffic at all.

Traffic is a masterpiece.