Here's an interesting article by Sasha Stone at Oscarwatch. It's a few weeks old (Phantom?) but it makes a lot of great points as to why Sideways can win.

http://www.oscarwatch.com/Ed_Sez/edsez.html

Can Sideways Go All the Way?

At first, it didn't seem likely that the little [engine] that could would have the necessary stuff to make it all the way the Best Picture, and indeed that might be the case. However, there is something significant happening with Sideways that shouldn't be ignored; it is a film that touches people in the heart. For whatever reason that may be - they secretly wish they were traveling wine country and sleeping with Virginia Madsen, or Sandra Oh for that matter; they believe they themselves live in the kind of prison of their own making Miles has gotten himself into; they know someone like the Thomas Haden Church character who is exactly the wrong person to be handing out lectures; or they just plain felt good watching it - laughed, were moved, wanted to immediately go back and see it again.

At first I thought Sideways would be one of those films that comes along, we fall briefly but passionately in love with it, throw awards at it and then forget it in a few years. I'm not so sure that's case in thinking it through. In fact, I think it may be a film for a generation, much like Five Easy Pieces was back in 1970 (of course, Patton won Best Picture that year...). Sideways may be more than just a fun-loving wine country romp, as the ads would have you believe. It very likely speaks to men (some women but mostly men) in their late 30s, early 40s, men who were once labeled gen-xers but who had to grow up, get married, perhaps have children (though believe me, if you have a kid you just don't the time nor the inclination to naval gaze as Miles does) but all in all, your life never quite became what you wanted it to be.

And even when the film doesn't speak to you personally or your generation, there is enough there to entertain most adult audiences. But one has to wonder, is it really the masterpiece Schindler's List is? Otherwise, how could every major critics group from here to kingdom come be naming it best picture?

Well, part of what's happening, if you shove aside the passion of the Sideways for a moment, is the typical critics "groupthink." That is, it's kind of an Emperor's New Clothes situation where no one wants to look stupid so they look over at what the "respectable" groups are saying and they follow suit. It happens every year - they glom onto one thing that seems like the "right" pic - be it Mulholland Drive or American Beauty. It would seem that there's a fair amount of personal identification as well - choosing a film says a lot about who you are - if you choose, say, a movie the critics thought was bad you yourself seem less intelligent. If you choose the critics film you are in the smart person's club.

I hear a lot of people saying various things about the Sideways phenom - from one lover of the film who said "it's a masterpiece" to others who scratch their head and say, "it was good but it what gives?" Most of the people who aren't in the Sideways camp are in another camp. I was accused of being in The Aviator camp, for instance. Others are in the Eternal Sunshine camp and still others are in the Million Dollar Baby and Kinsey camp. And anyone who isn't in the Sideways camp, I can assure you, is going "what the fuck?"

So, I decided to do what I always do when I can't figure something out - I build a chart. I wanted to see how many films won both the LA Film Critics and the New York Film Critics Circle and then went on to win the Oscar. According to my research (which, I'll admit is sometimes a tad flawed) since 1975 (the formation date for LAFCA), eight films have won both critics groups. As follows:

1979 - Kramer Vs. Kramer*
1983 - Terms of Endearment*
1986 - Hannah and Her Sisters (Platoon)
1990 - Goodfellas (Dances with Wolves)
1993 - Schindler's List*
1995 - Leaving Las Vegas (Braveheart)
1997 - LA Confidential (Titanic)
1998 - Saving Private Ryan (Shakespeare in Love)

As you can see, three of the eight went on to win Best Picture. Of those three, two were comedies, or dramadies, like Sideways. And, of course, they were big money makers. Terms of Endearment's total domestic gross was $108 million, but that probably includes all of that post-Oscar win money. Kramer Vs. Kramer made $106 million, again, probably includes all of that gold - but hey, that's pretty damned good for 1979. (source-boxofficemojo)

Sideways has a long way to go yet. It is still playing in limited release and has yet to really break out big time for awards money. Although Lost in Translation topped out at around $45 mil, which isn't high enough for the usual Best Pic material.

The films that went on to beat those critics darlings appear to be big, giant, fat epics, with lots and lots of box office clout. Shakespeare in Love is the only one that wasn't.

The idea with this film is to never say never - Sideways is funny enough, entertaining enough and touching enough to make the bucks necessary to take this baby home. But the other contenders out there have a real shot at stealing its thunder - follow the money.

Right now, the Best Pic win is down to three - Sideways, Million Dollar Baby and The Aviator. But could there be a last minute rally? A steal by some film that becomes the people's choice? Could it be Phantom perhaps? Or Ray? Hard to tell just yet - but it looks more likely that it will be wine, boxing and Howard Hughes.

There was a bit of a "showdown" last night on Jay Leno. Mystic River made the rounds last year as well, so there was no historical precedent set last night. Just the same old, same old. In fact, Alda will be on Thursday, so I'm sure his film will become Leno's favorite for the night.

Last night has already been covered in ad nauseam in this forum but what I would like to add is that Jay Leno doesn't run the AMPAS. So unfortunately, no matter how much you gush over a film for a night, it doesn't really change the race. It does change box office however.

Thomas was gracious and funny and the entire show was great, though I'm a Letterman fan. Anyone who hadn't seen Sideways and watched Thomas last night, I'm sure will run out and see the film.

Sideways is a film everyone can relate to. It's not over the top or melodramatic. It doesn't beat you over the head to bring a message home.

To use a popular phrase, Sideways isn't about special effects. It's about life, love, and healing. A great movie and the best film of the year.

Another win for Sideways

London Film Critics
From MCN:

Film of the Year
Sideways - Alexander Payne

British Film of the Year
The Attenborough Award
Vera Drake - Mike Leigh

Actress of the Year
Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake)

Actor of the Year
Jamie Foxx (Ray)

Director of the Year
Martin Scorsese (The Aviator)

Screenwriter of the Year
Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

British Director of the Year
Mike Leigh (Vera Drake)

British Actress in a supporting role
Romola Garai (Inside I'm Dancing)

British Actor in a supporting role
Phil Davis (Vera Drake)

British Actress of the year (tie)
Kate Winslet (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
Eva Birthistle (Ae Fond Kiss)

British Actor of the Year
Daniel Craig (Enduring Love)

British Screenwriter of the Year
Mike Leigh (Vera Drake)

Foreign Language Film of the Year
The Motorcycle Diaries – Walter Salles

British Newcomer of the Year
Natalie Press (My Summer of Love

I am seeing Sideways either on Sunday or next Thursday.

Lec, I hope you enjoy it.

Yeah??? I Echo those sentiments and that's why I think "Ray" would be that unexpected, out of nowhere surprise to win BEST PICTURE that would have critics talking for days over it because of too much overfocus on MDB and The Aviator and it seems like peole are just brushing "Ray" aside as though it shouldn't be in the same league as MDB or Aviator...

You still haven't made clear WHY you think Ray will win, ya know.

Maybe it does belong in this "same league", but, still, why would it possibly have an advantage over Sideways and Finding Neverland? Hell, Hotel Rwanda almost beat it out for the fifth spot.

"Ray" should win because it would be in Full Tribute and Full Rembrance of a Great Man, a Great Singer like Ray Charles and that the Aacdemy has a soft spot in their hearts for things like this... It deserves to win BEST PICTURE over the other 2 over touted and overpraised movies and besides, it isn't like Eastwood has never won an Oscar before and if MDB lost, it wouldn't be no skin off the Man's ass over it.. Better luck next time.. That Ladies and Gentlemn is WHY I feel "Ray" will pull the upset and win BEST PICTURE..

I hope so too. For what I've read about it, though, it's not exactly targeting my age group...

How old are you Lect?

More wins for Sideways

From IMDB.com Studio Brief

Fox Searchlight's Sideways, currently up for five Academy Awards including Best Picture and Director, captured four of the five awards at this year's awards ceremonies of the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen. The awards included best feature (producer Michael London), best director (Alexander Payne), best performance (Paul Giamatti), and best screenplay (Payne and Jim Taylor). A sixth award went to Zach Braff who received the best first-time director award for Garden State. The festival is due to wind up on Sunday.

Congrats to Garden State as well.

Just turned 19.

I don't know which of the five films would relate to most 19 year olds.

Sideways is the funniest, The Aviator is the most exciting, FN and M$B, the sappiest. Ray, the most accessible.

Who knows though, everyone is different.

I just hope it's worth your time. Let's us know.

Well, in my personal opinion (and I'm pretty sure a number of people agree with me), Ray is *not* in the same league as Million Dollar Baby or Sideways. It probably wasn't as good as The Aviator, either. If you ask me, the only reason Ray has received this acknowledgement at all is squarely due to Jamie Foxx. Without a lead performance that marvelous, it would have probably been overlooked.

BKB, you haven't actually seen the two "overpraised" movies you're bashing.

So, shut up.

Well, not really. Just don't judge without "proof".

alright people

<----grabs broom

you don't have to take this talk to BKB's tread but you can't discuss it here :wink:

Best Supporting Actress Nominee Viginia Madsen



For a long time, Hollywood didn't really know what to do with Virginia Madsen. She was one of those great screen beauties who commanded plenty of respect but never had that crucial breakthrough role that propelled her to superstardom. After topping out as a box office draw with the 1992 horror flick Candyman, Madsen took work where she could find it, on TV and in forgettable movies like The Rainmaker and The Haunting. She could easily have given up somewhere along the way, but thankfully she stayed in the game, because with her mesmerizing portrayal of Sideways' Maya - the sad-eyed waitress who falls in love with Paul Giamatti's depressive Miles - Madsen, 43, pulled off one the most remarkable career turnabouts of the year.

What's so compelling about her performance is what she doesn't reveal. We're never told all that much about Maya - she works as a waitress, she loves wine, she's divorced, she's studying horticulture - but in just a few scenes, with her kind face and quiet strength, Madsen gives us a sense of a woman with a rich interior life and stories to tell. We don't know how much of herself Madsen poured into Maya, but in the end it doesn't really matter. "It's those mysteries that are so attractive," she says. "We don't get somebody's bio before we meet them. Some things we don't want to know."

In her most moving scene, Madsen delivers a poetic soliloquy about how a bottle of wine is a living, growing thing and takes some time before reaching it's peak. She could have been talking about herself. Just as Maya sees past Miles' shlubby exterior to the man he could be, it seems the Academy has seen past Madsen's beauty to the fine actress she clearly is. - Josh Rottenberg

Best Supporting Actor Nominee Thomas Haden Church



There's nothing quite as satisfying as a good come-from-behind story, and this year Thomas Haden Church was the acting equivalent of Seabiscuit. After eight years of sitcom stardom on Wings and Ned and Stacey, the actor (who was once edged out by Jim Carrey for a spot on In Living Color) saw the air go out of his fame. Most of us might never have heard from him again had he not been cast in Sideways as Jack, a commitment-phobic, sexually omnivorous man-child whose acting career has slid from soaps to commercial voice-overs.

Though major stars like George Clooney had lobbied for the part, director Alexander Payne put his faith in Church, 43, and the result is one of those mergers of actor and character that seem fated. For the better part of Sideways, Jack is like an un-housebroken puppy, a bundle of insatiable id in search of a good time, and Church invests him with just the right blend of rakish, skirt-chasing charm and pure, hilarious flakiness. ''Tom himself is nuts,'' says costar Paul Giamatti, who plays his dyspeptic friend Miles. ''He's completely out of his f---ing mind, and it's all right out there on the surface.''

But when Jack's desperate hunger for sex and freedom finally collides with the responsibility of growing up, he breaks down in one of the great tears-of-a-clown scenes in recent movie history. ''You don't understand my plight,'' he tells Miles. Suddenly, what had seemed like just the goofy horndog-sidekick role - the middle-aged version of Seann William Scott in American Pie - becomes something deeper, and Jack's booze-fueled pre-wedding sex romp is revealed to be a lurching journey toward self-knowledge. -by Josh Rottenberg

Best Director Nominee Alexander Payne



Presented with a film like Sideways - a small, unglamorous chamber piece about midlife drift, with awkward love scenes, long monologues about wine, and characters moping about their many failings - a lot of directors would have run the other way. As he's shown in earlier movies like 1996's Citizen Ruth, 1999's Election, and 2002's About Schmidt, though, Alexander Payne has always had a fascination with human weakness, with the way we stew in our own delusions and sabotage our own lives.

In some of his earlier work, that fascination came uncomfortably close to cold, cynical misanthropy. But with Sideways, Payne, adapting Rex Pickett's novel with fellow-nominated co-writer Jim Taylor (the two also shared a Best Adapted Screenplay nod for Election), finally struck the right balance of dark humor and warmth. It's his most wise and soulful movie yet - a human comedy in the deepest sense - and that soulfulness comes in no small part from spot-on casting. A parade of big-name stars lined up at his doorstep, but Payne did something radical: He picked actors who were right for the roles, not for the box office bottom line. He made no effort to hide the fact that he was making (eek!) a movie for grown-ups, interweaving gut-wrenching scenes of humiliation and defeat with rollicking, affectionate comedy. And he made it all look easy.

Payne, 43, is unabashed about his desire to make great films - great not in budget or star power or spectacle, but simply in quality. He says he'd like the unlikely shaggy-dog-story success of Sideways to serve as an example for filmmakers who feel pressured to compromise art for the sake of commercial success. ''No more whining!'' he says. ''If you say, 'Oh, the multinational corporations control our cinema' - f--- that! It's our cinema. Who are we, and what are we going to do?'' We'll drink to that. We can't wait to see what he does next. - by Josh Rottenberg

Best Picture Nominee Sideways



Two middle-aged buddies - Miles, a failed novelist (Paul Giamatti) who's still licking his wounds from his divorce, and Jack, a failed actor (Thomas Haden Church) who's blissfully oblivious to his own flaws - go on a weeklong wine-tasting road trip as a last hurrah before Jack's wedding. They drink wine. They bicker. They meet a pair of women and fall awkwardly in love (or at least lust). They drink more wine. They crash Miles' car into a tree and go home. The end.

Barely sounds like a movie, huh? But just as the tastiest glass of wine can be traced back to grapes, dirt, water, and sunshine, Sideways takes simple ingredients and miraculously combines them in a story that's raucously funny, quietly tragic, and deeply humane - sometimes all at the same time. In an era when Hollywood has lost touch with grown-up life in all its messy reality, Sideways feels like a lost film from the 1970s, a rough-around-the-edges character study - superbly directed and co-written by Alexander Payne - that doesn't pander to a childish desire for simplicity or spectacle, in which the only special effects come from the acting of its perfectly chosen cast. It's not a feel-good movie, nor is it a feel-bad one; it reveals its mysteries and surprises gradually, like the pinot noir Miles reveres as life's greatest joy.

There's a lot of drinking in Sideways, but the movie itself is drunk on life - the soul-sapping sting of failure, the ups and downs of friendship, the consolation of love - and you leave the theater with a buzz that lasts much longer than the usual cinematic Big Gulp sugar high. ''It's a movie that really pays watching over and over again,'' says Giamatti. ''It really doesn't spoon-feed you anything.'' And really, who over the age of 2 likes to be fed with a spoon? Much better to sip Sideways slowly and savor every drop. - by Josh Rottenberg

Oscarwatch's Sasha Stone takes a look at new look at Sidways and its Best Picture chances.

The Good--
It's been a while since a film so consumed the critics so that it ended up winning nearly every award available to it. It far outnumbers both The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby - and may seem, in the final analysis, to be the only film that A) makes you feel really good about your vote and B) comes without any baggage. Moreover, Sideways could win in a three-way split scenario. That's assuming both Aviator and Baby draw their passionate fans but the rest will vote like everyone else has and pick Sideways. It won the SAG ensemble, beating Baby and Aviator -- which explains why Blanchett and Freeman and Swank took the other awards. The Oscars don't usually work that way -- if they love a movie, they throw awards at it.

Sideways is a film that makes you laugh so that you may not cry. It's not a straightforward weepy like Finding Neverland or Million Dollar Baby - but it is heartcrushing nonetheless. What fools these mortals be - Miles seeks comfort in cloaking himself with self-deception - he isn't an alcoholic, he's a wine connoisseur; he isn't crippled romantically, he's getting over his wife leaving him; he doesn't let himself be led around by his careless friend, he's simply going on a long, bachelor party journey. What Miles thinks reality is it certainly isn't, not until Maya comes along and rocks his world. It isn't until the truth burrows its way out of their cozy little world of double standards does Miles stop and think about his life.

If at the age of 70, Clint Eastwood is directing with an assured hand, Alexander Payne has yet to falter. With the possible exception of Citizen Ruth, Payne has delivered one flawless work after another - and always focusing on men who believe they are a certain way but must ultimately face who they really are and what selfish urges motivate them to do what they do.

Sideways is a crowdpleaser if ever there was one. It's impossible not to love the characters -- Jack, the hedonist who is really just a scared little boy underneath it all - one who craves loves and acceptance -- and still wants to be someone everyone worships - so he must follow women - the kind of women who are easy to impress. Thomas Haden Church's is among the performances of the year. He breaks every rule of what a likeable should be yet somehow we love him, no matter what he does and says in the name of infidelity - that shit-eating grin, his crying fit, his fun-at-all-costs attitude. Then there is Maya, the angelic Virginia Madsen, another great performance. The beautiful Madsen has yet to be fully appreciated in film but now she finally is. She never tries too hard in the film - she simply inhabits the character. We love that Miles has found Maya and we want Miles to not be afraid - to be able to let go of his own pretensions and embrace life, the way a wine lover is supposed to do - not to use his love of wine as a way of isolating himself from and elevating himself above humanity - but to drink life the way wine is ideally drunk: as a celebration.

It is easily among the best films of the year - with stellar reviews all the way around. It took the Critics' Choice award, the Golden Globe and the SAG ensemble. Its box office continues to climb and it stands, so far, to be the film that makes the highest profit of the bunch.

The ever-changing campaign strategy appears to be finally on the right path - the gold motif makes the film look more "important" than it did previously. They needed to de-indie the look of the campaign and they have done that brilliantly.

The Bad:
Payne failed to win the DGA - a necessary step to winning the Oscar. There's still an outside chance Sideways could win director but it's more likely to win just Best Pic. If Madsen or Haden Church win early on that could be a sign. It still has yet to do the kind of box office a best pic winner needs to cross the finish line.

The Ugly:
Despite my early protests to the contrary, the NY Times piece by A.O. Scott calling the film the "most overrated of the year" has perhaps caused some damage. The thing about Oscar season is that we tend to like films that tell us who we are. What we like and what we say we like are often two different things. This is because we crave not only acceptance but a need to be better than other people. The groupthink chokehold that seized Sideways was to the film's determent going into the crucial voting season where the DGA was voted on. The film couldn't possibly live up to the hype - and perhaps that's a timing issue. Either way, the film's status weakened. However, the SAG win has put it in a more powerful position, as Shakespeare in Love won the SAG ensemble and nothing else but went on to win the Oscar.

For the other films http://www.oscarwatch.com/Ed_Sez/

The supporting categories as normally the first to be handed out. If we hear either Church or Madsen, then it's \:D/ =D> time.

St. Louis Film Critics pick The Aviator & Sideways

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Best Drama: The Aviator
Best Comedy or Musical: Sideways

Best Director, Drama: Martin Scorsese
Best Director, Comedy or Musical: Alexander Payne

Best Actor: Jamie Foxx
Best Actress: Hilary Swank

Best Supporting Actor: Thomas Haden Church
Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett

Best Documentary: Fahrenheit 9/11
Best Animated Feature: The Incredibles

Add another win to the Sideways column

A BAFTA award for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Actually, as a matter of fact, I think the nominees this year are overall the least accessible iin a while. I mean last year we had two "epics" with M&C and ROTK, the year before TTT and the pompous Chicago, the year before that FOTR, before that Gladiator etc. This year has a heavy drama (Million Dollar Baby), an epic biopic (The Aviator), another biopic (Ray), a melodrama (Finding Neverland) and an "eccentric film" (Sideways). Ray is probably the most accessible one, indeed.

Anyway, I am during my major oscar-catchup at the moment. Today I saw The Phantom of the Opera and Closer in theatres and rented Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind. Next week, I'm seeing Sideways, Bad Education, The Aviator and Finding Neverland. Oh and Constantine