The screening has started, and raves are coming in. Time to track them:

David Poland

Emanuel Levy

Tom O'Neil

I'm becoming a believer.

Hurray.

Colin Farrell is actually getting great comments. Its nice to see him bounce back after Alexander, he is a talented guy after all.

I don't know about you but Poland's review, however positive it is, makes the film sound pretentious and otherwise boring as is possible. His review sounds like something a philosopher or psychologist would say, the type of self-important pseudo-philosophical BS that is increasingly common in all areas of study these days.

I don't think being pretentious in the general public's eyes, even if your suspicion is true, will necessarily stop a film from being hailed by critics or nominated for awards.

I'm starting to become more of a believer. I've been discouraged by anything Colin Farrell has touched thus far, but it's interesting to see that TNW might actually be worth something. Something big. I'm enthusiastic...

It seemed like everyone forgot about this one for a while (I kind of did).

But wouldn't it be fun if this suddenly became a major player?

w00t! I am so there.

New Line has played a dangerous game with The New World. I still don't believe at this point that it will be enough, but it is encouraging that it is getting great reviews.

Memoirs, Kong and New World are all fighting for the same spot IMO.

You like pretentious films?

Dolce rules

If you look up pretentious in a dictionary... there is a picture of dolce's avatar.

Well, there's really nothing about the Anglo-American frontier I would be comforted by thinking could be delivered in a "for the masses" movie. Even Fenimore Cooper remakes (which have their own issues) are considered pretty elevated as far as "action" films and romances go.

Think about it. Would you have been happy to hear a review that said "*(&%*(^%(*(8 Pocahontas was so hot I purchased a poster of Q'Orianka Kilcher and kiss it every night before I go to bed. Man, those battle scenes are so popcorn chomping fun I thought it was swell when the entire nation gets their guts ripped out and the few remaining guys die of smallpox infected blankets. Pass the gummi bears please."

Dolce, I don't think you should necessarily write that off.

Cinema functions on two levels, artistic and entertainment, one without the other rarely works.

Some of the most interesting artistic statements are expressed in moments in massive 200 million dollar productions.

If you go back and watch Goblet of Fire, there is the scene were Moody is performing the three curses in front of the kids who become absolutely terrified. Afterwards one of the kid is watching a stained glass window on the staircase which begins to cry. That set up and one image, in the middle of this gigantic film, expresses more about the loss of innocence than an entire film like Thirteen.

Even though I really dislike The Thin Red Line, I've been saying all along people are underestimating this. I'd say it has a better shot than Memoirs.

Hmmmm.

1. Walk the Line - lock
2. Brokeback Mountain - lock
3. Munich - Pretty damn sure thing
4. Good Night, and Good Luck. is close to being 100% for me, but there is a chance it will be replaced by another small movie like Capote.

What's left is Memoirs, which is sliding off the charts a bit.

I think the Memoirs slot is really the "epic" slot of the year, the film that will be pushed by the technical awards and will not rely on its acting awards chances to nab a best picture. We have three competitors in this category:

1. Memoirs lack of buzz is incredibly troubling to me, because there's just NOT that many raves. I think Ziyi's chances are really sliding (which before I would have though impossible) and Rob Marshall is no guarantee even if the film gets in. Whoever pointed out Cold Mountain may be right here... it is definately starting to feel like that. It's going to be a tough road for Geisha although it's far from being dead. It needs reviews, it needs NBR, and it needs it now.

2. King Kong has screened like once (maybe more?), but by the US Today count went off pretty well. The most negative review (CHUDs) seems to think it has a lot of problems, but he himself says that he could see it with a Best Picture nomination. Kong has to overcome the remake factor and the fantasy factor but Jackson has done it before. The thing that Kong has that the other two probably won't is the public vote (among the available candidates) and if we follow stereotypes, might be the most attractive candiates for Visual Effects and Sound voters who tend to vote for blockbuster fantasy effects films more often.

3. The New World like King Kong just started screening. Looks like a tech powerhouse, doesn't look much like a script candidate but it looks strong if this word can keep up. How late is too late? I don't think there is any doubt that if it had been released in early November it would probably have done more box office and not be buried in the pile of other films. Public reaction will have no pull over its Oscar chances, and for a film like this that might be a bit dangerous.

That's my take.

So is there a consensus that The Producers is DOA?

If there's only room for one popular film, it's Kong for sure. Which leaves The Producers (which I predict will break $100 Mill with good-great reviews) stranded.

In defense of Kong, it's worth taking another look at Titanic's reviews:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/titanic/

It only got 70% in the cream of the crop, some raves and some like "you get your money's worth" which while positive were hardly raves. And negative reviews from a few major outlets like LA Times and Time magazine.

I've been comparing Kong to Titanic for some time.

I think they are brothers from another mother.

One thing they have in common, among others, is they are FX heavy blockbusters that are female friendly, which is hard to do. Titanic did it and so did Spider-Man. I'm still skeptical about a few things, Naomi Watts and the subject matter itself, but it is looking better.

I agree there are similarities, but I don' think you can't use the RT score for Titanic. The average was higher before it went on to sweep the oscars and gross all that money. At the time the praise was pretty unanimous, but Rottentomatoes didn't exist back then. Overtime, it became "overrated" in some's opinions, and the reviews changed.

And Titanic was, you know, the biggest film ever made.

No longer think Cameron has a pretty face?

Kong is one of the biggest films ever made.

Big deal, stop highjacking threads.

Gonna take mroe than three reviews to turn me back around. I've already moved all my chips toward Kong...and I've got a lot of chips. :wink:

But i,m still looking straight ahead towards it like whoa.

So you are saying that many of the reviews up on RT for Titanic are not the original reviews for the movie? That seems a bit strange. Not saying you are wrong but where did you hear this? I've never heard of critics redoing their reviews after the movie becomes a hit.

Anything released before 1998 or 1999 is suspect because Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist back then, and a lot of the "online reviewers" didn't exist either. Some go back years later and add reviews to increase their portfolio and also it doesn't really "map" to how RT works now because there are a lot of current reviewers who are not represented there.

It's one of those things where... many people who liked the movie have taken the time to fill in a back-review for Titanic, but it only represents the people that have actually taken the time to go back and fill in the data, vs. a new movie, which EVERYONE takes the time to fill in (if they can).