Says me.

Who in her age group has the same kind of critical praise and (soon) has a suprise 100+ million grosser, which she carried on her shoulders?

Nobody. Hollywood tends to notice things like these. I'm 100% certain that right now she is getting more big offers than anyone else in her age group.

Shia LaBeouf is a very close second. The only difference between the two will be the Oscar nomination and that Juno will most likely make more than Disturbia's $80 million domestic take.

It didn't come off clearly in my post, but I was talking about female stars - who are Page's competition. In the end she doesn't have to fight with male stars either for roles, audiences or awards.

The double strike of Disturbia and Transformers was such a massive success for Shia, that Page can't compete. Except with critical and awards attention.

The two should make a movie together.

Hey, we could play the 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game here: Shia LaBeouf starred in Transformers with Megan Fox who is going to star in Jennifer's Body written by Diablo Cody, who wrote Juno which starred Ellen Page.

No one then. These two though are in a league of their own right now.

You can't call them even at all. You really can't even compare. When someone gives Juno a , for example, 9/10, they're comparing it to teen comedies. Away From Her is being compared to serious filmmaking. Genre difference is way too big to make such a direct comparison.

So when a big number of critics put Juno in their top 10 of the year, they were comparing it only to a handful of teen comedies that came out in 2007, and not to other films? Like when Ebert had it as his #1 movie of the year, what he really meant was that it was his #1 teen comedy of the year?

That argument doesn't make any sense at all.

If anything, a film like Juno struggles more to get high reviews because a teen comedy isn't *supposed* to get great reviews. It had to fight 40 years of critical stigma to actually get those raves.

Where as it's easy for critics to rate a film like Away From Her highly - After all, critics are *supposed* to rate films like that highly.

It's always more impressive for a non-critic-friendly genre film to get big raves, as opposed to an artsy high brow drama film to get big raves. The other has an uphill battle among critics, the other does not.

I didn't say all critics. Roger Ebert mking it his #1 means it's his #1 of any type of film this year. Although, he did also include The Gread Debaters, La Vie en Rose and Across the Universe in his top 10 this year, and gave the Golden Compass 4 stars...so I don't know how much you can say for his current credibility.

But I stand my point....the two types of films are judged on different types of criteria. Superbad has an 87% on RT...There Will Be Blood has an 89%. Even if someone enjoyed themselves more in Superbad, there's no way in hell anyone can make the case that it's that close to being as good of a movie as TWBB. Enchanted received a 93%. No one is calling it a modern masterpiece like TWBB, or even as good as Juno. But it's a family comedy, judged on a different criteria than teen comedies which are judged on different criteria than [insert genre here]/

However, Metacritic is actually a decent tool at comparing between genres, since it takes into account what the reveiws said rather than a simple fresh or rotten (and works much better than RT's avg score).



Juno doesn't even make the top 20.
Yes, something like 93% of critics liked Juno...but they didn't like it ENOUGH to have it even rank among the top 20 films of 2007.

Apparently you are not aware of the fact that Rottentomatoes DOES give the average critic grade for each film.

Juno 8.0 / 10
Away From Her 8.0 / 10

And just to comment that observation of yours:

There Will Be Blood 8.2 / 10
Superbad 7.4 / 10
Enchanted 7.3 / 10

...As you can see, the critics at Rottentomatoes gave TWWB a MUCH better grade than Superbad or Enchanted. And that shoots your argument down.

Another thing to consider is that immediate review doesn't reflect how good the critic thinks the film is in comparison to other movies of the year. After all, their opinion of a film can change after repeat viewings, or after they have seen many even better movies during the year. Thankfully, we have top 10's from 505 critics, collected by Criticstop10.

http://criticstop10.com/

Juno is at #4, Away From Her is at #16.

...That's definitive proof that critics in general considered Juno a better film than Away From Her in comparison to EVERY movie made in 2007. Because those lists are not just for romantic comedies.

That's absolutely not definitive proof. That's proof that MORE critics considered it in their top 10, and that more critics saw it, but overall, Away From Her had higher averages.
And the RT average score is a joke Metacritic is the only compilation of reviews that really takes into account the content of the reviews, and has much higher standards than RT as to whom they consider a critic (aka they don't let the nobody's on the internet who know nothing about movies in).

The difference between Metacritic and Rottentomatoes is that Metacritic has a smaller pool of critics. Only 37 critics were counted for Juno in there, where as RT has so far counted reviews from 158 critics. Obviously a bigger pool of critics is a better indicator of general consensus than a smaller pool of critics.

Or are you REALLY trying to argue that a smaller sample is a better indicator of general consensus than a larger sample? Is statistic data really more reliable the smaller the sample?

That's nonsensical.

Whatever YOU consider a proper critic doesn't matter. You are entering the world of "Only critics who agree with me are real critics" here. And that's hardly a debate worth taking part in.

Your comment:

"And the RT average score is a joke Metacritic is the only compilation of reviews that really takes into account the content of the reviews"

...Is nonsensical. RT average score is a "joke"? RT gets the grades from the critics themselves and then counts the average. That's a 100% accurate method. It's the only method that makes any sense.

And what do you mean that only Metacritic takes the content of the reviews into account? Are you saying that when RT receives the grades from critics, the critics are actually lying and RT should instead *guess* the grades based on written reviews? That sounds like a pretty unreliable method.

So your argument still doesn't have any substance to it.

I'm also interested how do you explain that Juno fared better in critics top 10 lists? Are you trying to insist that the critics are lying? Or are they not real critics because they disagreed with you? Who decides who is a real critic? You? Some anonymous guy at Metacritic? Is either one of you the true, ultimate judge of which movies are good, and which are not?

It's also worth noting that unlike RT, Metacritic gives more weight to some critics and publications. Meaning that not every critic is equal in their eyes. You just said about Roger Ebert: "I don't know how much you can say for his current credibility". Well, Ebert's grades affect the average grades more than the grades from lesser known critics. How's that for a fair and accurate depiction of general critical consensus, huh?

Not only that, critics who write for publications that have more prestige and weight in the industry affect the average grade more. Meaning that a bad critic who just happens to write for a famous publication affects the average more than a much better critic who writes for a less famous publication. I guess this also is in your opinion a more accurate depiction of general consensus?

It's also worth noting that for more elitist readers Rottentomatoes offers it's own "cream of the crop", which only has critics with high pedigree.

Among them, Juno is 100% with 8.4 average.

Away From Her is 100% with 8.2 average.

...So Juno wins again.

This "which is more acclaimed"-debate is in the case of Juno and Away from Her per, freaking nonsense, considering they are both pretty much equal. At RT, Juno has a slight advantage and at MC Away from Her beats its ass. As far as the critics Top 10 lists go Juno beats it: http://criticstop10.com/ However, it is more likely that more critics have seen Juno considering Away from Her is pretty small.

So, this debate is just stupid. Both are very cllaimed. Fact is that Christie has won more awards by now, by far, but Page poses a formidable thread. To call either a lock at this point is stupid stupid. I predict Page to ull an upset at the Oscars, but she's no lock and neither is Christie.

The only solid acting locks are DDL and Javier Bardem.

I agree with this.

I disagreed with Esnack's point, which is: Critics didn't really like Juno that much, they simply gave it great reviews because they compared it *only* to other teen comedies. According to Esnack, Juno would have gotten considerably worse reviews if it would have been compared to other movies in general.

Which is bullshit, as I have proven in my posts.

Well, fact is that Juno topped more critics Top 10 lists than Away from Her. Definitely.

Then again, as I said, I bet less critics have seen Away from Her. However, since being a critic is their job, I'm sure most of them have, so even with all of them seeing it, the discrepancy would be there. But really, there's no point aruing this. It's like arguing whether 300 or I Am Legend was a bigger surprise hit last year since both did tremendous and surprising business.

I don't think she'll win, but I'll hope for it. It's not impossible. I preferred her more in Hard Candy but she does show great range for Juno.