Pretty sure it's RT, and sometimes they do seem to have an agenda, more so than MC.

I actually skimmed through his review and it does seem to be half and half. He seems to have been very disappointed with the film but points out all the great things about it including techs and the acting. Maybe he should have given it a lower rating because 3.5/5 is not rotten.

I do remember reading that if a critic is not satisfied with the classification that RT gives their review, they can (and have) written in to ask for it to be changed to accurately reflect their review. No critic likes their review to be misrepresented. It usually happens when the reviewer doesn't have a grade assigned. However, in this case, the grade certainly seems "fresh". Perhaps if you guys wrote the reviewer (Jules Brenner) asking him to clarify his review, and mention to him that it is classified as being "rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes - and that despite his disappointment - it doesn't seem right to be classified as such, then he might write in asking for it be changed.

That's a sure fire way to get RT to change it, despite their - in my opinion - obvious agenda.

Jules Brenner's email: jbrenner@filmcritic.com

Peace,
Mike

The review itself appears to be rotten though, and I see not rating for the movie on the reviewer's site itself. So my guess is that, if there IS a mistake on RT's part, it is likely in the 3.5/5 rating that appears on RT and not on the "rotten" rating itself.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if its really 2.5/5

This was never more than a longshot but Love in the Time of Cholera has been panned.

One of the reviews reads: "A movie of such boundless badness that it would take somebody with a Nobel Prize in literature to truly fathom the extent of its wretchedness." ... Ouch.

RT does NOT assign ratings for a reviewer. If a reviewer submits one, great. If not, there is no rating, and they judge "fresh" or "rotten" solely on the written review. Since most people here seem to agree that RT's definition of fresh in this case is inconsistent with how his other reviews were treated, I suggested writing the reviewer and getting him to offer input. You don't have to do it yourself Rod. It could very well be that the reviewer wishes for it to be labelled rotten. I don't really care.

Peace,
Mike

No, what I meant is that he probably did assign some kind of rating (the reviewer) but when entering that rating, the people at RT could have mistakenly put in 3.5 instead of, say 2.5, by accident.

By the whole "I don't see a rating on the site itself" comment I just meant there was no way to confirm if 3.5 was really the rating the reviewer gave the movie.

Oh, okay. Sorry for not reading clearly enough.

Peace,
Mike

I think it's going to get overshadowed by Enchanted's reception, if/when voters are pondering to pick a light but super-fun movie. Enchanted will have a bigger box office, closer release date to Oscar, and a more memorable and defining performance in Amy Adams. The reviews should be on par, probably just a little lower in term of average score and # of 100s, and it will have good showing at GG as well.

I know it sounds crazy, but if there is going to be a blockbuster nominated this year, I'd put Enchanted right up there with the more heavyweight American Gangster.

I think the reviews would have to be really raving. So far the reception is fun, charming, good for kids. Kind of a 3 star movie.

hairspray's oscar chances are a joke. it was a good movie but nothing more

Hairspray really only has a chance if Sweeney Todd is a letdown, which judging from early reports, it won't be.

I thought it was very good, but Travolta's performance (I guess I must have been the only one who thought the guy was just awful in the film) brought it down from near-perfection for me. It was a pretty fun movie, but I must admit that I'm getting damned tired of having to listen to my female classmates constantly singing portions of the songs ("Without Love" in particular).

This year is really quite crowded for musicals. Once got a great reception, but I see it being a longshot in the very best case scenario, Hairspray is also a longshot (but more likely to get the GG boost if for its recognizably more than anything else), Across the Universe has the most miniscule of chances (there is a fan base out there, after all, but it doesn't strike me as being big enough to note in any depth), and Sweeney Todd is supposedly very good. Looks like musicals are indeed resurging.

The Academy should really just give Eastwood his own category. It's not that I don't like his films (since I've loved everything he's done in the last four years or so), but his last-minute release of Letters last year reeked of desperation to win the Oscar.

it turned out to be one of the greatest war films of all-time, so I'd hardly call it a quickly put together, half-assed effort. He put twice as much into it as he put into Flags. I think when he heard about the story, he simply became more interested in it than on the film he was working on originally.

but...Dreamgirls was terrible!

We're not really going to start debating the quality of Dreamgirls *again*, are we?

I'm Not There has picked up quite a bit

80% - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/im_not_ ... ing_dylan/

Probably not gonna be enough to make any type of major push, but who knows, if theres a strong group that is passionate about the film anything can happen.

^what it mostly suggests is that Blanchett is as strong a contender to win Supporting Actress as anyone else is to win an acting Oscar this year.

Yeah, she's as close to a lock for a win as it gets.

when I saw "No Country for Old Men," the trailer for "There Will Be Blood" played right before it, and at the end when DDL said "I can't keep doing this on my own.....with these....people" you could actually hear people have something of an emotional reaction to it. That's how brilliant and chilling the line is. I can't see anyone beating him out for Best Actor. This looks like one of the best performances of the decade to me.

this is what i think's gonna happen with Charlie Wilson's War: While I don't think it'll get major Oscar nominations, that DOESNT mean I think it'll be a bad movie. I see it getting a 70% or so RT, with something like a 6.8/6.9 avg. I think people will like it, but nobody will really love it. It won't be a disappointment, but it won't win big Oscars.

I kinda wonder why The Namesake (Mire Nair) has gotten absolutely no awards attention.

Among first half of the year contender it was one of the bigger success stories at the box office...

I didn't think The Namesake was too strong of a film. I enjoyed it but it was quite uneven for me. I think it tried to do too much. I would have liked to seen alot of the characters and plotlines expanded and dug deeper... something like a miniseries.