That same argument has been made over and over from Silence of the Lambs, Braveheart, Schindler's List, Gladiator, etc. Sure SL didn't win butttttttttttttttttt

It's just the box-office that makes me wary. I can't see them giving it to a 30 mil film.

I agree with this. While I could see it being nominated, There Will Be Blood and Atonement should be far ahead of it as far as frontrunner status goes.

I fail to see why There Will Be Blood or Atonement are more frontrunners Lecter, although you could argue that they are neck-and-neck.

3 high pedigree films, each (as I see it) aiming for low box office numbers (There Will Be Blood likely the lowest)... Atonement probably the highest.

I do think No Country will be nominated and There Will Be might not (same studio I think).

Not because I'm looking forward to either of them any less.

I do think the Coens have a bit more of a name, and Bardem has a great shot at winning, Cormac McCarthy books are kind of hot right now, and Jones could be nominated... although I see TWBB scoring some major nominations like Actor/Score/Adapted screenplay.

I don't think we can really argue with the critical reception of the three. All three are getting extremely high marks which place them among the best of the year, so it's going to come down to promotion, box office, etc. It's feasible that No Country doesn't win or even nominated to me, but when I stack the movies side by side against each other, it's honestly my #1 with Atonement being a slight #2.

It's all subject to discuss, I know. Here's how I see it:

Atonement has more pedigree. It's an adaptation of a more well known novel than the other two films (wow, I just realized that all three of them are adapted screenplays!). Keira Knightley gives this more of a "star-pedigree" than anyone in NCFOM. It'll almost certainly be the biggest box-office performer.

It started early out of the gate and kept the monumentum going. We're also due for a big British contender by now and this film simply fits the "classic Oscar formula" the most by far.

Now between There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men...it's harder and more of a feeling thing on my side (and I expect to be corret with that one ). There Will Be Blood seems like a more epic achievement and I expect Day-Lewis to dominate the critic awards even more than Bardem.

its reviews are simply amazing. 95% + Coen Bros + so many disappointments this year = lock for a nomination.

Considering "Atonement" has ended its perfect RT streak [it's at 95% now], maybe the BP race is more up for grabs than we originally thought. but "There Will Be Blood" and "Juno" are also gonna be major contenders looking at how their reviews are shaping up.

I don't know their plans for expansion but $40m BEFORE nods seems highly unlikely for me.

By the way, who else has seen the film so far?

The box-office issue is why I think Charlie should maybe not be underestimated

For a while I thought There Will Be Blood could be a pretty solid hit, a historical piece with a headling grabbing performance. Maybe 70 mil or something, and that would propel it. But after the latest trailer and early word on the film being more twisted and non-audience friendly than I thought, I'm not so confident in it at all. It could probably get 30-40 like Atonement and No Country. Since the academy caught shit for Crash when it was a 50 mil grosser, I dunno. If Charlie delivers quality wise and gets 150 mil, it could take BP and let one of the others cash in on a director's award. I don't see Nichols having any chance at director though, unless the film really really dominates.

I still think Blood's the frontrunner but the race is getting interesting to say the least.

I never thought Blood would be in a very good chance to win because I think rewarding it Best Picture might be one of the best calls the Academy will have ever made and we all know how good the Academy is with making great calls

I don't think Nichols has no chance. I think what could give CWW the extra edge in quality is the direction, so if they choose to go that mainstream, I'm not so sure they'd be willing to give up awarding Nichols again.

Funny how all nonsense talk of Ridley Scott winning has suddenly halted

I wouldn't have put No Country in my top five a month ago. Too small, too indie, not a crowdpleaser in the conventional Oscar sense.

But the reviews are way too strong to ignore.

It's going to have to work for a higher profile and box office success, though. The average moviegoer would be much more inclined to see something like The Departed than they would something like this.

Low box office is near the bottom of the list of reasons Crash was getting heat for its win. And in that crop, it had the only genuine impressive box office run outside of BBM.

I guess I'm the only one that thinks Atonement making $60M+ is perfectly reasonable? It's the current frontrunner for BP, had an excellent run in the UK and is Focus' main push this holiday. It's also probably the most audience-friendly of the three current contenders (The two being too dark/violent), and has plenty of female appeal, something that I just recently noticed was lacking among BP nominees in the last few years. The English Patient made $78 million 11 years ago, why not?

Back on topic, NCFOM currently has a 9.1 on IMDB with 1,400 votes and is already at #196 int he all time chart.

Yeah, Scott ain't winning, but a nom is still very likely and will push him more and more towards the status of the most overdue director out there. Maybe he'll get another nom for Body of Lies and if that happens whatever he does after it will likely mean a win.

I dunno...in Germany as well as in the UK, Atonement is somewhat smaller than Pride and Prejudice. Even with the awards push, I don't see why it should be much bigger than that one in the US.

it has joined "Atonement" as a lock for a nomination.

Next up: "There Will Be Blood" or "Juno."

After seeing the film, I wouldn't call it a lock but the closest thing to it.

Twenty-nine reviews, seventeen 100s, 95 average. Only Ratatouille and Pan's Labyrinth have higher scores this decade. Flippin' nuts.

It's also now up to #177 on IMDb, but dropped a bit to 9.0. The influx of 1s are probably coming in now.

That's a pretty dangerous strategy for this type of film depending on what "full expansion" means.

Beside the fact that it's way too quick to go wide and it will falter, next friday is thanksgiving weekend and it's going to be dominated by other films.

If it enters into December with weak box office, it could lose alot fo the momentum it has gained with its reviews in the previous weeks.

They should keep it in slow expansion until at least mid December.

is this a film that a broad audience can appreciate? Or is it more a confusing, deep movie that'll leave mainstream audiences stumped and unhappy?

It looks like a great entertainer on top of its terrific style/acting/plot, so I'm guessing it's the former.

Washington Post's 2 star review drove it down to 93, but it's now up to #120 on IMDb with only 2,600 ratings.

Correction - - it's the latter.

This one's only a critic's darling and therefore vastly overrated. WOM from regular audiences is going to kill this at the BO, and later at the awards...

I agree.

I'm putting out there a "no guts, no glory" prediction.

I predict that 'No Country for Old Men' absolutely will NOT be nominated for Best Picture. I'm basing it completely on gut instinct. It just doesn't scream Oscar to me. I'm not saying this film isn't good enough. Some films are great, even masterpieces, and don't get nominated for the Oscar.

So there you go. It's November 15, 2007 and that's my prediction. We'll see what happens.

Peace,
Mike

MC score is dragged down to 90 by Chicago Reader's 30, but 18 out of 32 are 100s, only trailing Ratatouille by 2 now with 5 fewer reviews.

But traditional oscar bait this year is so far being panned.

I like the way the oscars are shaping up this year. Looks to be quite a different lineup than usual.

OMG you posted here!