criterionforum.org

I don't have the best memory, because I recall The Reader was a somewhat fluffed film at the time. It seems to enjoy a high audience rating around the net. I disliked it very much though for reasons I have long forgot. What did rule change was made in response?

"Dull" is obviously subjective. The example I had in mind was last year's Judy. It's not a bad film IMO, certainly nothing offensive; just nothing really memorable or remarkable aside from her performance.

My first reaction was Sandra Bullock in THE BLIND SIDE. But I see now that movie has an average-ish Metacritic score and actually a surprisingly high IMDb rating, so I guess that was much more warmly received than I remembered. I still think it’s a stain on the Academy but whatevs.

Yeah Brian that was actually my first reaction too before I looked it up and was equally surprised with my "research!"

I remember Siskel and Ebert didn’t like the Fisher King but praised Mercedes Ruehl winning the Oscar for it on the grounds that they felt the Academy should do more to support good performances in bad movies

aox wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:51 am I don't have the best memory, because I recall The Reader was a somewhat fluffed film at the time. It seems to enjoy a high audience rating around the net. I disliked it very much though for reasons I have long forgot. What did rule change was made in response?

"Dull" is obviously subjective. The example I had in mind was last year's Judy. It's not a bad film IMO, certainly nothing offensive; just nothing really memorable or remarkable aside from her performance.

The expansion of the Best Picture category and arguably the ranked choice voting.

How would The Reader be responsible for the expansion of the category to other nominations? Pretty sure articles surrounding the decision cited Wall-E and The Dark Knight as examples where a more diverse range of films could be included, like great blockbusters and animated films. I can see how it might affect the ranked voting, but I think the expansion of nominees was clearly painted as a solution-focused decision rather than a problem-focused one.

Brian C wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:03 am My first reaction was Sandra Bullock in THE BLIND SIDE. But I see now that movie has an average-ish Metacritic score and actually a surprisingly high IMDb rating, so I guess that was much more warmly received than I remembered. I still think it’s a stain on the Academy but whatevs.

The Academy has awarded so many awful films and performances over the past century that it might be more apt to say that the Academy is a stain on the few honestly good films that do wind up with Oscars.

therewillbeblus wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:40 am How would The Reader be responsible for the expansion of the category to other nominations? Pretty sure articles surrounding the decision cited Wall-E and The Dark Knight as examples where a more diverse range of films could be included, like great blockbusters and animated films. I can see how it might affect the ranked voting, but I think the expansion of nominees was clearly painted as a solution-focused decision rather than a problem-focused one.

My understanding is that it was a mix of the two with people going, “how could that be nominated over those!?”

Just came back from this ... it was, possibly, the most miserable film I've ever seen. I don't even know that I'd say it's a bad move. It's not great, but it's passable. But man is it a miserable slog. I guess you're supposed to pity these characters, and hope they climb out of their pitiful circumstances, but I didn't. I didn't care. I hated the characters, I hated watching and I just wanted it to be over (but I've never walked out of a movie and wasn't about to start tonight). And the hate started pretty goddamn early, and only lessened marginally by the end. You have to assume that Amy Adams and Glenn Close were attracted to the material as Oscar bait, but if so, Adams is going to keep waiting. It's a nothing part that didn't show any real skill or talent. Close ... maybe. Especially in this weird award season, Close could get nominated and maybe even get that "we owe her" win. She has a few decent moments in the last half hour, so you never know. But this movie as a whole? Look, I can appreciate a good film about miserable people (Monster's Ball would be a good analogy here); but Hillbilly Elegy is just audience torture.

(I haven't been to a bar or restaurant since February, and the only public indoor places I go are the two single screen independent theatres in Ottawa, both limited to 50 people (out of 325 and 650 seats respectively). I feel safer there than going to the supermarket. But if by some small chance I managed to catch COVID-19 tonight from seeing Hillbilly fucking Elegy, I'm taking it as a sign from a higher power)

knives wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:56 am

therewillbeblus wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:40 am How would The Reader be responsible for the expansion of the category to other nominations? Pretty sure articles surrounding the decision cited Wall-E and The Dark Knight as examples where a more diverse range of films could be included, like great blockbusters and animated films. I can see how it might affect the ranked voting, but I think the expansion of nominees was clearly painted as a solution-focused decision rather than a problem-focused one.

My understanding is that it was a mix of the two with people going, “how could that be nominated over those!?”

Yeah I believe it as far as an igniting thought-process, but the very act of expanding is essentially caving into the realism that The Readers of the world will continue to get nommed, and making an effort to include more worthy films rather than doing anything about the weaker oscar-bait dramas' inclusions

Harvey Weinstein had to eat too.

willoneill wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:57 am You have to assume that Amy Adams and Glenn Close were attracted to the material as Oscar bait, but if so, Adams is going to keep waiting. It's a nothing part that didn't show any real skill or talent.

I hope you're right, I don't want to have to see this out of obligation for an overdue Adams win, especially since I suspect it'll strike my Achilles' heel of insensitive 'wrong' depictions of addiction via overdramatization.

There were only like three movies this year, this one will definitely be nominated

therewillbeblus wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:27 am I suspect it'll strike my Achilles' heel of insensitive 'wrong' depictions of addiction via overdramatization.

In that case, consider me your trigger warning.

Thank you for your service

aox wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:33 pm Have the Oscars ever rewarded an acting role in an otherwise abysmal and universally panned film (not just dull or unremarkable)?

Rene Zellweger for Cold Mountain? Maybe not universally panned, but reception was very lukewarm, and Zellweger's performance was a total slice of Oscar-bait ham. Personally, I despised that movie.

Really? I've never heard a negative word about that movie from critics, friends, or family until now, and a quick visit to metacritic proves it to be far from lukewarm. But this is a good reminder that I still need to see it!

Monterey Jack wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:09 am

aox wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:33 pm Have the Oscars ever rewarded an acting role in an otherwise abysmal and universally panned film (not just dull or unremarkable)?

Rene Zellweger for Cold Mountain? Maybe not universally panned, but reception was very lukewarm, and Zellweger's performance was a total slice of Oscar-bait ham. Personally, I despised that movie.

Sorry you couldn’t masturbate to it, but she was widely tipped to win going into the awards season and for good cause

Brian C wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:03 am My first reaction was Sandra Bullock in THE BLIND SIDE. But I see now that movie has an average-ish Metacritic score and actually a surprisingly high IMDb rating, so I guess that was much more warmly received than I remembered. I still think it’s a stain on the Academy but whatevs.

I remember A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips were hosting At the Movies during this time and did a Q&A section one week. They mentioned how they had received more backlash from their pan of The Blind Side than any other movie that season.

Well, I was under the impression that hardly anyone--perhaps even literally no one--enjoys The Iron Lady for any reason other than Meryl Streeps performance. Im almost positive there must be other examples...come on, brain, all youre good for anyway is memorizing movie trivia!!!

domino harvey wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:27 am Sorry you couldn’t masturbate to it, but she was widely tipped to win going into the awards season and for good cause

Sorry, but Zellweger played that role like she had wandered in from a 1950's Chuck Jones cartoon ("I'm gunna citch me a ra-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-bit! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE...!"). It was embarrassing.

Fun fact, Zellweger is the lead photo on the “Academy Award for Best Actress” Wikipedia page. So she’s pretty much literally the dictionary definition of a Best Actress winner.

Brian C wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:29 pm Fun fact, Zellweger is the lead photo on the “Academy Award for Best Actress” Wikipedia page. So she’s pretty much literally the dictionary definition of a Best Actress winner.

I assume that's because she's the most recent winner ... i.e. keeping the spot warm for heroin-addict Amy Adams.

domino harvey wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:27 am
Sorry you couldn’t masturbate to it, but she was widely tipped to win going into the awards season and for good cause

What exactly is preventing him from masturbating to Renee Zellweger? :-k

Randall Maysin wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:26 am Well, I was under the impression that hardly anyone--perhaps even literally no one--enjoys The Iron Lady for any reason other than Meryl Streeps performance. Im almost positive there must be other examples...come on, brain, all youre good for anyway is memorizing movie trivia!!!

Charly was not a particularly well liked film but Cliff Robertson won Best Actor for it because he ran arguably the most successful campaign targeted at Academy voters in the history of the awards. And then Robert Aldrich was such a dick that he refused to let him away from the set to go collect his award on Oscar night, threatening legal action if he tried to leave, so he didn’t even get to enjoy his moment of glory firsthand