It may be because there were too many movies out there that people thought need to be nominated
It may be because people may not like Tim Burton
It may be because the subject matter was a bit bizarre.

But I think when it all comes down to it, it was probably because the movie wasn't all that impressive to begin with.

yes ... yes .. its true.

It was just a hard sell and wasn't exceptional enough to overcome that obstacle.

I mean it is an R-rated musical...c'mon! And it didn't do too well at the box-office.

It isn't a bad film, it is a good film in fact, this is not Memoris of a Geisha, but it was just kind of a non-event. But I think that description fits with most of the potential nominees this year.

It would have gotten nominated in 2006 probably.

Not enough scenes with actual hair dressing was the clear reason for failure.

Well, let nobody say you aren't being a good sport about this.

THIS IS MY PEACE OFFERING. TAKE IT INTO YOUR HEART.

he was a barber but he never cut hair. he just shaved. i thought shaving was a bonus.

Who cares about Sweeney? Clint wasn't nominated. Thus preventing me from rubbing it in to Loyal for the next month.

Loyal doomed it

Well if you were to ask me, I don't think the musicals have been overly good to be quite honest. There was 2001 with Moulin Rouge! and Hedwig and stuff but otherwise... all of them I've had quibbles with...

Chicago is brilliant compared to the musicals that followed it, in a way.

Loyal, at last, you can fully join me in my TWBB support.

It wasn't good enough.

Once again, 80% of the people disagree with you.

Umm...what thell? That made no sense the first time you said it, and it makes no sense now. I gave positive reviews to both Sweeney Todd and Atonement. As did approx 80% of the critics. That doesn't mean 80% felt they were good enough for BP.

Umm...what thell? That made no sense the first time you said it, and it makes no sense now. I gave positive reviews to both Sweeney Todd and Atonement. As did approx 80% of the critics. That doesn't mean 80% felt they were good enough for BP.

nothing went wrong, as I said when the film was released, the film was not an oscar movie.

It was a musical about a serial killer barber. From Tim Burton.

I liked, but didn't love the film, but I'm at least be happy that Burton can finally take credit for directing a Johnny Depp performance to a nomination, something he deserved so dearly for Ed Wood.

Too self consciously stylized for it's own good. Plus it was a musical and the leads weren't particularly good singers.

That's pretty much it. It needed to be a masterpiece. When NBR and the early reviews came it looked like that might be the case, but it fizzled.

It's the same as Kong, a movie about a giant ape needed to be an all-timer to get in.

As for Dreamgirls... I just don't think it was good enough. I gave it a good grade when it came out, but over time I look at it more and more forgettably, really the story, characters, and music was all stuff we've seen before. If Nine is a 90%+ musical, it'll get in.

Should I even bother? Heck...why not?

Hmm.. let's just count the number of scores as high or above 83/B+ (which I believe is a good indicator of really loving the flick, not just liking) at metacritic for both cases:

Atonement: 24/36=~67%
Sweeney Todd: 25/39=~64%

ok, so it's not exactly 80%. But it's a large majority for both cases. You can replace 80% for 2/3 if it really bothers you.

Gory as hell. It's lucky it even got something. Kill Bill got hosed, The Passion wasn't nominated for much, and while 300 wasn't Oscar bait, it didn't even see any techs.

The Academy might like There Will Be Blood, but when there is blood they cry and cry and cry.

That still makes no sense. You don't understand what I'm arguing.
80% of critics may have liked these two films, but 80% would not call them top 5 of the year.
Take, for example, your beloved Atonement.
80% critics liked it. About 120 put it on their top 10 lists of about 550 lists counted. That's about 20% of critics had it in their top 10. Now, assume half had it in their top 5 (makes sense mathematically). That's 10% who felt it was among the top 5 films of the year....a far cry from your 80%.

The movie was obviously TOO excellent for regular movie goers and the academy to understand. That's what went wrong, its own genius.

Sad.

Snack, I get what you're saying. But the 80% I was talking about was people who wouldn't mind seeing it there i.e. who think "it's good enough". For instance, I loved No Country but it's not in my top 5, though it's close, but I don't mind seeing it there. I didn't love Return of the King as much as many here, but I didn't mind seeing it being nommed (and even win!) 'Cause if we're going for our personal top 5, damn, every weird would be bad bad bad


You seem to be pretty pissed for Atonement being there and you gave it the same grade I'd give to ROTK, I think. That's probably a matter of personal expectations.

Loyal, quick, text Libs and tell her Sweeney Todd got the most nominations!

It wasn't good enough to get nominated.

It was good, but not great.