Back up to 91 on Metacritic with the addition of two more 100s, bringing the total to twenty.

And with 3,000 votes, it's not up to #104 on IMDb. Only Ratatouille is higher among films from 2007.

Atonement
There Will Be Blood
Sweeney Todd
Charlie Wilson's War
Juno
The Kite Runner

I could see all of those getting in and NCFOM getting snubbed.

I won't go so far as to declare it a non-contender as Mike has but I'm inclined to say I have serious doubts about its Academy potential after seeing it.

I'm almost willing to rank Sweeney higher than NCFOM at this point.

A mistake that shall not happen again.

After this 2nd mistake.

Realistically, only Atonement and There Will Be Blood have a better chance at getting an Oscar nod. I mean Kite Runner? It stands at a 60% on RT right now. Juno is an immense underdog, it wont get the critic awards, it'll need to catch major buzz an attention from the audience. Sweeney Todd? Who the hell knows how thats gonna turn out and Wilson's War is already being questioned.

Unless theres some HUGE surprises coming up i'd say Country has a nod in the bag. IMO theres really only 2 spots left up for grabs.

i agree. the only "normal" nominee at the moment is "Atonement:" Other than that, we have a comedy about a teenage pregnancy, a Coens Bros film, a PT Anderson film, a throwback-to-the-70s crime drama, possibly a musical about a man who murders for vengeance, and a modern-day crime thriller. It's gonne be a sweet lineup for sure.

I think you guys are trying too hard to paint all the films as being "not normal" for the Academy. I think perhaps we're mixing up the terms "Oscar bait" and "not normal". Musicals are musicals, and are especially Oscar bait when they come from award winning Broadway shows that legitimize them as being "real art". Plus early word is showing the movie is actually really good! *shocker* Charlie Wilson's War is absolutely a "normal" film, especially with big Hollywood stars. Juno would ordinarily be passed off as "too weird/quirky" for the Academy and we wouldn't even be talking about it right now if it wasn't for Little Miss Sunshine, but that film has now set a precedent.

There's also Michael Clayton (90% RT / $36mil BO and still chugging), 3:10 to Yuma (87% RT / $53mil BO), American Gangster (79% RT / $88mil BO and plenty more coming), and of course Atonement.

And that's not to say that No Country for Old Men CANNOT get in, because it can and could (and probably will, knowing my luck, heh). But my gut instinct is that it won't, hence my prediction (trying to capitalize on it now in case I am right). And I think it's false to say that there aren't any suitable films to fill the space if 'No Country' were to miss.

Anyhow, once the films start narrowing down further, the picture will become a little clearer. And I will renounce my stance and eat my crow pie if I am looking wrong. Cheers.

Peace,
Mike.

Yeah what's up with The Kite Runner being on everyone's high contender lists? The word on it is mediocore. I'd be shocked if it goes anywhere.

I don't know, from what I've heard it's pretty amazing. Coming from a couple things I read (forgot where) and one person who actually saw it. Plus, I hear it's a VERY faithful adaptation.

All I know is, personally, if it has as much power as the book did, it will be hard to count out.

I agree with you Mike, but not with your No Country not getting in. Not to say it's a 100% lock but...

The only "normal Oscar bait film" coming out this year looks like Charlie Wilson's War, and that leaves 4 other pictures to be nominated.

But it looks like, for the most part, the top 5 will get there for merit this year, and it looks like an interesting year. With Scorsese's award out of the way and no particularly needy directors this year it looks like it could be a fun toss up

I'm more of a spectator this year.

It sickens me that this film will be released over here in April (!!!)

By then you will be able to import a Region 1 DVD.

It did get some good inks from Variety and THR, as well as Levy and Eberts, but now with 11 reviews at RT, the average is still stuck at 5.9, so it needs to improve a lot there. The good thing is out of the 5 negative reviews, 2 are from Slant writers (Ed Gonzalez and Nick Schager), so there is hope.

It has now passed Ratatouille on IMDb all the way up to #85 to become the highest 2007 release this year. With only 3,400 votes. Christ.

I kind of get the feeling word-of-mouth will become a bit more severe when it expands further. Some of the audience I saw it with last night seemed to hate the ending.

Hairspray is the best movie of the year so far, and it's getting in ahead of all of the above movies, so that list will need to be trimmed by at least two...




There was outright booing in the theatre I saw it in, when the non-ending happened...

Even though I hated the ending myself, I understood why the Coens made the mistake of doing it that way - - but Average Joe Moviegoer is definitely going to feel ripped off and angry, and since it happens at the end, it's going to taint his memory/review of the whole movie - - WOM is going in the toilet on wide release...

lmao, talk about overreacting.

if the WOM was as bad as you said, I could absolutely guarantee you that it would not have had a $20K PTA in 150 theaters this weekend. I mean, if a film has bad WOM, it drops over 50%, right? If it stayed in 40 theaters, instead of over tripling it, and its WOM sucked, its PTA would've been around $20K. Considering that was its PTA in way more theatres, the WOM must've been really good. Like really good.

It's still just in the fancypants theatres, where some of the viewers consider themselves to be cinéastes or some such nonsense - - once it gets to yer average date movie megaplex it'll be a different story...

well sure, if they send it into like 2500 theatres it won't do well since it just doesn't have as much widespread appeal, but in 800 theatres, I think it's gonna do as well as Michael Clayton did in like 1400. If it was only doing well at a "fancypants" theatre, why was everyone booing it?

The theatre I saw it in was so ultrafancypants, that the audience were not just faux cinéastes, but were in reality true cinéastes, who saw through the Coens' foolishness.

Anyways, these are only my opinion and observations - - only time will tell how WOM turns out on wider release, and then it's effect on BO and awards...

(But just remember - - you heard it here first.)

i guess basically every critic wasn't able to see the Coens' foolishness? A 95% on RT does not ever go to bad movies, or movies that get tepid responses from audiences. The ones that receive false praise [Crash, Babel, etc...] never get grades over 80% for the most part.

As I already said in this thread - - it's a critic's darling...

(BTW, I don't see your review in the other forum - - is this just a theoretical obssession you have with this movie, or have you actually seen it?)

it's more of an All-I've-Heard-From-People-Who-Saw-It-Was-That-It-Was-Extremely-Good sort of thing, and this includes two of my [teenage] friends. So when I hear that AND i see its reviews, I can't see how this terrible WOM thing sticks.

Supposedly the Academy screenings are bringing mixed reactions. Of course I should also note the writer of this (Kris Tapley) has been eagerly going against the grain in not predicting it for Best Picture, so grain of salt, obviously.