The Hot Blog

Do you really think Catherine O'Hara doesn't have much of a chance? I would expect her to have a better shot than Sylvia Sims or Adriana Barraza or Maggie Gyllenhaal or Shareeka Epps or Emma Thompson, and this award can only help.

No one is disputing Dreamgirls for a nomination. Of COURSE the NBR misses a given number of the eventual nominees each year. But if you don't see the cracks in the "win" armor fro "Dreamgirls" at this point, something's wrong.

Yeah, ROTK missed and won (though no LOTR film made the list those three years). A Beautiful Mind missed and won. Then you have to go back to 1988 and 1984 for such a scenario. Not that these are hard and fast rules, but with the giant Dreagirls-gasm of the past three weeks, it's weird the NBR didn't cozy up to the film. This is a group that awarded a Condon film a win and seemed to be high on musicals in 2001/2002, after all.

Indeed, the NBR sucks. This top ten list is ghastly. Most of the winners are just lame. I certainly didn't predict this kind of thing to happen. But a bug on the windshield, eh...not so sure about that. The first suggestion that the race is a bit more wide open? Maybe.

Regardless, I think the real story is the fact that only three studios (if you wrap the dependants up into the parent companies) are represented in the top ten list. Did Paramount, Warners and Fox add more toward the catering bill? WB always seems to be nicely represented. Remember Zwick winning Best Director for "Last Samurai?" What the fuck?

O'Hara's chance were probably ruined by two factors: a) it's Guest's worst film to date (relatively speaking), and b) her performance and dialogue in the film after the plastic surgery are completely forgettable

While their awards did make me a bit more curious about Letters from Iwo Jima, I've never bothered taking them seriously (much like most awards season buffs).

So while it may be unnecessary to lodge a complaint against an atypically flawed review board, I'd still like to voice my disagreement over their failure to include United 93 in their Top 10.

Moniker, I think O'Hara's performance and dialogue after the plastic surgery are what elevate the performance into greatness. But it might also hit too close to home for the Oscar voters, so too bad.

But agreed about it being Guest's weakest film.

Aren't these the same voters from whence the NBR began in 1909? They haven't added anyone, right?

LOL at Dreamgirls not making the NBR top ten.IMO
the alleged BP "frontrunner" should have been able to at least make the NBR top ten.

The Departed did very well making the top ten, winning best director and best ensemble.

Jeff,

Perhaps I should see FYC again, but I don't recall much of anything O'Hara said or did after her facelift in the film. I'm not saying she was bad, but I just don't recall it adding much to the film, aside from the initial, obvious hilarity of seeing her undergo monstrous reconstruction in order to curry favor with the voters.

Maybe I just thought the film itself lost much of what little steam it had during the final 20 minutes or so... Still, I love O'Hara and wouldn't be at all upset to see her get some overdue recognition. The irony alone might all but guarantee her a nomination come January.

I'm glad to see some widespread love for The Departed, though it somewhat pains me that Scorsese might win for this after having been dismissed for my three personal faves: Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas.

Of course, if Scorsese's going to lose to anyone, it will be an actor like Eastwood (after the Redford and Costner upsets in 1981 and 1991). Hell, even Polanski's done some acting. Marty's cursed.

One more amusing note: There was no Charlie Kaufman film this year, so they decided to just give the Original Screenplay award to his latest imitator. Not a bad film, but hardly worthy of winning what's probably my favorite category.

Kris - Your argument is exactly the self-abuse of which I speak.

"the NBR sucks" and "if you don't see the cracks in the "win" armor for "Dreamgirls" at this point, something's wrong" explains it. You are selling your wares. Fine. Do it. But don't rationalize what even you don't believe to do it.

Moniker, sounds like what you're talking about is weakness in the film's writing or structure. When O'Hara was on screen after the face lift, she owned the movie and managed to be ridiculous and heartbreaking at the same time.

One quick question: is there a way to find out which major upcoming releases (if any) the NBR has not seen? For example, have the viewers seen The Pursuit of Happyness or The Good Shepherd?

Ray wins.

"Hell, even Polanski's done some acting. Marty's cursed."

Marty's done his fair share of acting. Taxi Driver and Shark Tale just off the top of my head.

Kris can say that the NBR's taste sucks and still make a point that their selections are illustrative of the less-than-bulldozer-momentum that Dreamgirls may have at this stage. They are not mutually exclusive. This whole 'if you don't agree with me you're a hypocrite' thing is puzzling.

Don't the NBR try to split up awards, too? So maybe after giving breakthrough to Jennifer Hudson and actress to Mirren, they figured The Queen and Dreamgirls shouldn't be in the Top 10. Does anyone know how NBR pick their awards?

David, you're the king at that stuff, I tell you. Stretching someone's words to fit this or that "truth" you claim, or to somehow twist the entire conversation otherwise.

By saying "NBR sucks," I'm stating something subjective, I disagree with them, a lot. But that doesn't change the fact that they are a precursor that makes the first waves in the Oscar race, for better or worse. Moulin Rouge, Halle Berry, Good Night, and Good Luck (your personal "it isn't that likely" bet for most of the season that year). History is what it is. I assume we don't have to have the "subjectivity has no place in Oscar prognostication" discussion again.

Regardless, I didn't need the NBR to tell me "Dreamgirls" was not indestructable as a frontrunner in this year's Oscar race.

Everyone keeps on talking about how THE LORD OF THE RINGS was left off of the NBR's list and what a big deal this is. But come on guys! Those films, especially RETURN OF THE KING, were not ready in time for the NBR to screen them. If THE GOOD SHEPHERD was the last film to screen this year for the NBR (last Friday, according to Mr. Tapley), then there was no way in hell ROTK screened for these people since the film was not ready until the day of the world premeire in Wellington, NZ, December 1st.

The funny thing about Catherine O'Hara getting the award is that she obviously was doing an impression of an actress giving an "overblown Oscar performance"... if other actors realize it's that easy, we might start seeing more Oscar-worthy performances in Jackass 3.

"Regardless, I didn't need the NBR to tell me "Dreamgirls" was not indestructable as a frontrunner in this year's Oscar race."

Kris, with all due respect (the one thing I learned from Talladega Nights), you are NUTS if you don't think Dreamgirls is a frontrunner. The movie has had people applauding throughout the movie, Jennifer Hudson's key moment even got a standing ovation at the film's premiere at the Ziegfield... a standing ovation IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MOVIE!

I really liked Letters a lot and I highly recommend it, but Oscar contender? Sure, for Clint and the screenwriter maybe.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, Edouglas. You sound like you're only talking about her performance within 'Home for Purim' which makes up maybe 1/5 of her screentime in the movie. The rest of her performance ranges from the naturalistic realism of the beginning of the movie to the hysterical absurdity of the end.

Holy shit - I just saw a for your consideration ad for We Are Marshall tht read:
"Best Director - McG"
Who the fuck decided that was a good way to spend ad money!?!

As Kris points out above, since "Rain Man" in 1988, the only films not in the NBR's Top 10 to WIN the Best Picture Oscar have been "A Beautiful Mind" and "Return of the King." The latter, however, won the NBR's Best Ensemble award.

Sure, the correlation between the NBR's yearly top 10 and the Oscar Best Picture NOMINEES is not great (although still significant), the correlation between the NBR's yearly top 10 and the Oscar Best Picture WINNER is quite high.

Furthermore, musicals have done pretty well with the NBR recently, including Moulin Rouge winning and Condon's Chicago being in the top 10.

Aside from Clint Eastwood and his movie's general acclaim, Ken Watanabe put in a pretty outstanding performance in Letters from Iwa Jima as well.

Me, LOL. No kidding. The film might be better than his other efforts, but I don't think he'll be smelling Oscar anytime soon. When that happens, he'll be running against Brett Ratner! :x

EDoug, forgive me - how long have you been in the Oscar game?

I know you've got this Oscar Warrior thing at your site, a site geared around anything BUT Oscars, but guys like you and Devin from CHUD popping into the mix this year and claiming to know what's what in the game - it's just all a bit hard to take with anything more than a grain of salt.

And then I see your Best Actor predictions at The Envelope, containing Hugh Jackman from "The Fountain" in your predicted five, and well...

But hey, you're entitled to your view as much as the next guy. I guess I'll just settle for being "nuts" and not seeing this thing so cut and dry like so many have seen it for so long.

So Kris... was Return of The King destructable or not?

You're right. You didn't need NBR or anyone or anything else to tell you that Dreamgirls was not indestructible as the frontrunner. You decided that all on your own, even before you saw it.

And your position has not been that Dreamgirls is not indestructible. Your position has been more like Anything But Dreamgirls. Or do you really thing that The Queen has a better chance of winning. (And where is your indestructibility statement on that film, which on Monday you had ranked at #2.)

But at least you have answered the central question for the small, but passionate, group of Dreamgirls bashers out there... an alternative winner. And yes, this will be - as I wrote last weekend - the story for a while... Letters vs Dreamgirls... The serious Eastwood movie vs the frivolous musical.

You know where I am on this… Dreamgirls wins, Letters in (distant) second place, followed by The Queen, The Departed, and #5.

And what’s the horror scenario for a lot of people? Eastwood cockblocks Scorsese and Condon wins Director. Personally, I don’t think it happens. But it’s already floating out there.

Hey, that was my line, DP (re: 'cockblock') which doesn't seem to be related to anything else in the above post.

And of course, the obvious response to the main body of the post is to remove the word 'not' from the second paragraph and turn it back to DP.

"Marty's done his fair share of acting. Taxi Driver and Shark Tale just off the top of my head."

To quote the late and lamented "Home Movies": "You call that acting?"

"EDoug, forgive me - how long have you been in the Oscar game?"

Five years.. this is my fourth year doing it at ComingSoon.net.

"And then I see your Best Actor predictions at The Envelope, containing Hugh Jackman from "The Fountain" in your predicted five"

Hey, when someone else steps up, then I'll replace him, but so far, this year has been bad for actors if all we have left is trying to decide which movie Leonardo DiCaprio was better in (answer: neither). At this point, it may as well go to Ryan Gosling since there just haven't been that many great actor performances unlike the last two years.

I'm sorry Kris, but who cares how long someone "has been in the Oscar game"? Who are you to stand up on your little soap box and assume others' opinions aren't as informed and correct as yours because of "how long they have been in the Oscar game".

I've been "in the game" for years on and off, and I don't presume to have the magic formula either. Perhaps you should try to remember that "nobody knows anything".

It's just so rude and so typical and so self-important. Let's remember what we are talking about here - predictions and discussions for an AWARD SHOW. It's not rocket science or world peace. It's supposed to be fun.

End of rant.

"And what’s the horror scenario for a lot of people? Eastwood cockblocks Scorsese and Condon wins Director. Personally, I don’t think it happens. But it’s already floating out there."

This is what I'm worried about. Not that Condon deserves it any less than Scorsese.. heck, I liked Dreamgirls better than The Departed (but I won't rehash what I've already said on that matter)... but that Marty is nominated again and he loses again. I mean, it's starting to get cruel. He should have won for Aviator, since it was an ambitious project unlike anything he had previously attempted.

haha, Tapley taking a weird shot at me is hilarious. I'm in no way trying to usurp anybody's role as "online Oscar guy no one cares about."

Standard disclaimers: Still haven't seen Dreamgirls, still think David is biased, still think the Oscars are a tawdry sham, etc.

...But I think the scenario he describes above-- Dreamgirls wins, Letters is second, then Queen the Departed then something else-- is the most likely scenario when all is said and done. If I knew how or where to do any online gambling, I'd put some money on it.

David, I shouldn't expect even you to stoop to writing things that are patently false. Usually you at least attempt to twist them to APPEAR true, but, well:

"You decided that all on your own, even before you saw it."

Never once. Not until I saw it, and I took my own council on that. The proff is in my clearly archived Oscar charts. If you think otherwise, you have no basis anywhere to think as much.

Continuing:

"So Kris... was Return of The King destructable or not?"

Foolish. The NBR had been fairly clear from 2001 that they weren't buying into that franchise. There is no comparison here. They went for "Chicago." They went for "Moulin Rouge." They went for "Gods and Monsters." They didn't go for "Dreamgirls." But hey, at least they gave the film Best Breakthrough Actress, just like they gave the unstoppable Oscar giant "The Phantom of the Opera."

"And your position has not been that Dreamgirls is not indestructible. Your position has been more like Anything But Dreamgirls. Or do you really thing that The Queen has a better chance of winning. (And where is your indestructibility statement on that film, which on Monday you had ranked at #2.)"

I've never seen "The Queen" as a winner, but I did see it as more likely to get a nod over "Dreamgirls" when I saw the latter film. But now, I'm rethinking that logic because Frears's film seems vulnerable. Much more vulnerable than "Dreamgirls," which has guild support coming its way. But then, all it takes is the NYFCC and LAFCA to revive "The Queen" this weekend. I somehow doubt "Dreamgirls" will go over like gangbusters with those two organizations by reasons of genre alone, but I'm welcome to being proven wrong.

As for "anything but 'Dreamgirls,'" basically - yeah. And something looks to have come along...

"And yes, this will be - as I wrote last weekend - the story for a while... Letters vs Dreamgirls... The serious Eastwood movie vs the frivolous musical."

And there it is. As you wrote last weekend? Or as I wrote five days prior to that inkling? You just caused me to win a few bets...thanks.

"You know where I am on this… Dreamgirls wins, Letters in (distant) second place, followed by The Queen, The Departed, and #5."

I do know where you are. And am glad you're making your stand. This is what makes it all fun, or at least, this is what CAN make it all fun.

Your cockblock scenario is interesting, but I think Clint wins director before Condon does. Which would be the REAL horror scenario - Clint stealing it from Marty yet again.

Ed, not to pull the one-year-more game, but in the six years I've been doing this, I never ran across your work. Wish I had, so I'd have som context. In any case, I think you'd do well to go with Gosling in your last slot. The guy's got a passion base.

Finally, Devin, I wasn't taking a shot at you. Truthfully. You just came to mind when I was outwardly pondering Ed's sudden place in all of this, because you guys have been much more vocal on various message boards this season, especially in relation to the Oscar race. It is what it is.

However, the award for "online Oscar guy no one cares about" is seemingly always up for grabs. You and Ed are making fine plays at it this year, so good luck...

I'm just a dude who thinks it's interesting to bullshit about this stuff, and because of my job at CHUD I happen to see all the films and have at least a personal opinion on them to offer. Since my self-worth is in no way tied up in any of this, I don't feel I'm qualified to be anything but a yapper on the sidelines.

Fair enough. Really am not trying to measure dicks, it's just interesting to see where the landscape of Oscar prognostication has gone in recent years.

I love Online Oscar Prognosticator Pissing Matches. They're fun!

Actually, I've always found it kinda-sorta funny (and a classy move on Scorsese's part) that Scorsese gave an absolutely first-rate cameo performance in Quiz Show, a film directed by the guy who "robbed" him of his Best Director Oscar for Raging Bull.

I would like a chance at winning my office Oscar pool, though.

"You know where I am on this… Dreamgirls wins, Letters in (distant) second place, followed by The Queen, The Departed, and #5."

It's in writing. :-)

Dreamgirls getting left off the list isn't a big deal BUT what IS included is a lot bigger of a deal. Marty winning director, Departed ensemble. Both Flags and Letters -- WAY COOL. I knew you would come out swinging against the NBR and you can do that - just like you can do it to the HFPA - everyone already knows they are dubious establishments but it doesn't change the fact that for whatever reason their tastes often reflect AMPAS' - a hell of a lot more than the tastes on the web, mind you. I believed you and those like you were dismissing Flags prematurely - now you're overpraising Letters prematurely - yes, both are very much in the race (how cool is that?) and yes that means there's a chance Eastwood could once again rob Marty of the Oscar but hey, I can't predict any other way -- Departed for the Big Win. It's time. Dreamgirls will still get a lot of noms, as well it should, and Jennifer Hudson could very well win her category. I could also see Condon winning best director and Departed taking screenplay and pic (the opposite of what everyone else is predicting). The *only* reason Chicago beat The Pianist is because of Weinstein, and perhaps the timing. Departed is quietly kicking ass and taking names. Watch out for it. Just saying.

"Ed, not to pull the one-year-more game, but in the six years I've been doing this, I never ran across your work. Wish I had, so I'd have som context. "

Yeah, well, just cause you don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (A triple negative!) :)

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/oscarsnews.php?id=2859
(I even think that Sasha linked to it since I've probably been reading Oscarwatch about that long)

p.s. to Joe Leydon, I love that scene with Scorsese. It's so funny.

"Blood Diamond"?

That is hilarious.

What a biased look at the NBR. They might be a little off this year, but 10 out of the past 14 years they've mentioned 4 or more of 5 Best Picture nominees. You simply pointed out all the worst parts, and didn't even care to look at what the NBR gets right. This is all a vile attempt to keep Dreamgirls and The Queen in Best Picture lock status, when they might ACTUALLY be vulnerable.

I totally don't understand the attitude that the worth of non-Oscar award shows begins and ends with their ability to predict Oscar.

NBR probably does suck, but if I didn't already think so, this Hot Blog post would not convince me of it. So some big Best Picture winners haven't made their top ten. SO WHAT? What's the point of awards shows that only serve to predict another awards show? What if the NBR just plain old, old-fashioned, wants to recognize something else??

From my perspective, the only point to a non-Oscar award show is if they DON'T try to be Oscar prognosticators. If it's about some group of people -- whether respectable or not -- legitimately selecting movies they genuinely care about, then the award means something and is honorable to some degree. If it's "hey, we want to recognize you for tracking well for this other award," then THAT is what I would argue makes it irrelevant.

You're not irrelevant just because you don't line up with Oscar.

Certainly if I were a recipient of an award, whether as prestigious as the Oscar or as ridiculed as the NBR, I would be honored if it genuinely reflected the love and enthusiasm of some group of people...and not so much honored if I simply happened to have the best odds for some future event.

It's confusing as heck to me, time and again, that other awards groups are criticized here, time and again, for being bad Oscar prognosticators. Criticize them for billing themselves as Oscar prognosticators, sure -- even if they are the rare awards body that *is* good at predicting the Oscars. But just the fact that they're different doesn't make them irrelevant or laughable.

"online Oscar guy no one cares about"

I would say that's an all-way tie between every online Oscar guy (and gal). The past few years, my mom and I, in our informal family contest, have had as good a track record as the "professionals."

Give your mom a cookie for me.

Is Fox's Sasha Baron Cohen campaign alive or dead? How's Prada stacking up? When's the last time Twentieth Century Fox had a good awards year? I'm so lame, I need help.

I have to ageree with Sam. Back when I was prez of the now-defunct Society of Texas Film Critics, I was proud when, in 1997, we voted The Sweet Hereafter for Best Picture, Errol Morris' Fast, Cheap and Out of Control for Best Documentary, In the Company of Men for Best Original Screenplay, L.A. Confidential for Best Adapted Screenplay,
Robert Duvall (The Apostle) for Best Actor, Helena Bonham Carter (Wings of the Dove) for Best Actress, Kevin Spacey (L.A. Confidential and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil) for Best Supporting Actor, and Joan Cusack (In and Out) for Best Supporting Actress. If anyone who have told us "Hey, you guys aren't accurate Oscar predicters," I can assure you -- we would have told them that we had several asses they could kiss.

The Sweet Hereafter. Great call. One of my all-time favorites.

I love the Sweet Hereafter too.

"From my perspective, the only point to a non-Oscar award show is if they DON'T try to be Oscar prognosticators. If it's about some group of people -- whether respectable or not -- legitimately selecting movies they genuinely care about, then the award means something and is honorable to some degree. If it's "hey, we want to recognize you for tracking well for this other award," then THAT is what I would argue makes it irrelevant."

Absolutely true. But there are two distinct schools of thought here. One is, what i got into the game for: accurately predicting the Oscars as a game, for fun, you know. The other is the "serious" way they're approached as if they're there to award the truly deserving. Obviously, they aren't now nor have they ever been. Poland and I have been arguing this for years. The Oscar race is always a letdown. It's always heartbreaking. But for every so often when the truly deserved gets it. Most of the time, it is a popularity contest that is all but meaningless both to film history and to the artists who contribute to it. I am happy to discuss the merits of great films (I do it often on Hollywood-Elsewhere, a blog I now love) - but if you're going into the Oscar game you sort of have to have an idea of what it's all about. It is ultimately pointless and worthless endeavor but there are things about it that prove true year after year.

You all can hate us and what we do. That's okay. But please, at least see it for what it is - just a game of sorts that tries to figure out what will win, not what SHOULD win. This site, MCN, seems to continually be about what should win. That takes it into a different category entirely. It's started to make me rethink this whole Oscar blog situation. If Oscar bloggers are to the Oscar race what, say, Daily Kos was to the presidential election, then indeed, the blog SHOULD be about what should win.

Anyway, I think Poland does a good job of sussing out the winners from the bullshit.

The problem is, Sam, NBR is not a group of well intended people getting people work they love and or respect. They are a bunch of nobodies who don't even control the vote. Ultimately, 12 people in a room decide what gets nominated and spread it around so they can sell tables.

In John Sayles' Matewan, there's a great line: "They got you fightin' white against colored, native against foreign, hollow against hollow, when you know there ain't but two sides in this world - them that work and them that don't. You work, they don't. That's all you got to know."

In 1959, The 400 Blows, Wild Strawberries and North by Northwest were nominated for Best Origial Screenplay. But the Oscar went to Pillow Talk. That's all you need to know. (And, mind you, I like Pillow Talk.)

THE SWEET HEREAFTER: Atom Egoyan's last great film. God, I miss that guy.

I was going to take a shot at the 1988 Best Original Screenplays on MATEWAN's behalf to further hammer home that well-hammered-home point, Joe, but they did pretty good that year: MOONSTRUCK, BROADCAST NEWS (shoulda won), HOPE AND GLORY, RADIO DAYS and AU REVOIR, LES ENFANTS. Woody's obligatory nom wasn't deserved, but RADIO DAYS is RASHOMON compared to most of this year's script competition.

So what's the pinnacle for a Professional Oscar Prognosticator? An invite to Elton John's viewing party *and* Vanity Fair's after-awards shindig? Enshrinement as "Hollywood's Mel Kiper"? A private screening of A STAR IS BORN '76 with Frank Pierson?

Joe, take it a step further - Hitchcock's Notorious, arguably among the best films ever made wasn't even nominated for best picture OR director. The nominees instead were:

* Best Years of Our Lives (winner)
Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France
It's a Wonderful Life
The Razor's Edge
The Yearling

I have no problem with Capra getting anything; he was the best. But come on. I know people love Best Years of Our Lives and all, but for Notorious not even being nominated?

Ingrid Bergman wasn't even nominated for Best Actress. Can you imagine?

Half the time, it seems like it's more of an honor to be snubbed by them than to be honored by them. They're not film critics.

They haven't even announced the nominations yet! For Chrissakes. Who really gives a fuck?

It's no fun to be the adult when the boys get into pissing contests. (Devin, you were dragged in for no real reason that I can figure.) But I am afraid I must put away my dick, resist the urge to send Kris for his shinebox, and play my role.

Please do us all a favor, Kristopher, and show us your BOLD, Poland-baiting prediction of Iwo Jima from however long ago... cause I can't find it.

"Ultimately, 12 people in a room decide what gets nominated and spread it around so they can sell tables."

Exactly. What bothers me about NBR and this year's winners kind of proves it is that they always seem to be wanting to honor every movie or studio in some way, so they split the awards up. I mean check out the Top 10 and we see that The Queen and Dreamgirls aren't in there, but they obviously must have liked them enough to give Mirren and Hudson awards. And then they have best screenplay for Stranger Than Fiction, but that's not one of the top 10? Letters is their top pic and Flags is in their Top 10, yet Clint isn't their top director? And neither movie has gotten any other award?

They haven't even sent out ballots yet, sean... not for another two weeks.

At the risk of sounding catty, or bitchy, or whatever: I don't think the NBR is the only group that can be accused of trying to sell tickets for tables.

David, are you serious?

November 27, 2006:

http://www.incontention.com/2006/11/switching_gears.html

Chart rankings listed clearly at the bottom. The column states plainly what you claim to have manifested "last weekend" by stating the following:

"It seems to me the race is opening up wider, and with Clint Eastwood’s “Letters from Iwo Jima” leaping into the fray, supposedly to save the hide of “Flags of Our Fathers,” maybe an entry of social importance and relative “prestige” can take the top prize away from a thin and emotionally distancing musical like we almost saw happen in 2002."

The whole column is about "Letters" being a likely spoiler of the "Dreamgirls" thunder. And it's ranking at #4 is about nominations, not wins, so don't go down the "I put it at #2 route" or some such nonsense. You can't predict winners before nominations.

And on your own fucking Gurus of Gold chart I had the film in my predicted five, while you had it at #6, the very same week:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/2007/gurus_061128.html

Not to mention yesterday's column where I more clearly pegged "Letters" as the winner:

http://www.incontention.com/2006/12/monthly_winner_predictions.html

NBR Predictions that placed both "Flags" and "Letters" in the top ten:

http://www.incontention.com/2006/12/here_come_the_precursors.html

Even your pal Jeffrey made an obvious notation:

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/12/tapley_was_firs.php

It isn't "Poland-baiting," give me a break. Maybe you should stop going around saying "Kris isn't my competition" and actually READ THE COMPETITION.

This is awesome.

JeffMCM, stay out of this. Go back to torturing Jeff Wells. :-) And Joe, you got it. Totally. But the NBR does have a rather sleazy rep - there have been many articles over the years about it - Roger Friedman had one as I recall. But like the Globes, for whatever reason they seem to have at least 50% of AMPAS' number. Maybe it just gets down to three things: old, white, mostly male.

Gee, as a 54-year-old Caucasian guy, does that mean I can apply for NBR membership?

You need to know the secret handshake.
And I'm happy to stay out of the running argument - simply because there's no need for me to join in.

54 ain't old, honey. We're talking....80s and above I think. I don't know for sure. They liked Quills, though. What does that tell you?

They like to wallow around in their own feces?

Well, as a younger guy, I was in a production of The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charanton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. Would that help?

BTW: Speaking of Clint Eastwood... well, OK, just click on my name.

Well, it seems cooler heads have moved on.

I just clarify that what I believe I wrote in a private e-mail was "I'm not in competition with Kris." And Kris, I’m not.

You haven't earned your arrogance in your 18 months out of North Carolina. Sorry.

And BiPed - Any monkey with 10 guesses can hit 4 nominees. That doesn't mean you put the chimp in charge of the space program. You are a very kind - too kind - person to established groups in that regard.

Wow, I know this won't mean anything to David coming from me, but that North Carolina comment is one of the most petty snaps I've ever read from him.

David: I have been out of New Orleans for 30 years. Can I be just a teeny bit arrogant? Puh-leeeze?

Not being arrogant in the slightest, David. I'm being clear...and expectedly, you disavow knowledge of any pretenders and their work. That is the very definition of the word.

And in 18 months, including a stint under your banner, you'd think I'd have at least earned your respect. You save that for some majestically towering bar that seemingly no one can reach, for reasons that remain your own prerogative.

Who IS your competition, by the way? Because that's just...fascinating to me.

My top picks!!

Best director: John Stockwell (Turistas)

Best actress: Kate Beckinsale (Click) -- so pretty!

Best supporting: Keri Russell (Mi:3)

Best actor: Ben Stiller (Night at the Museum) -- looks pretty scared in trailer...

Best supporting actor: Adrien Grenier (Devil Wears Prada) -- he's hot!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?!

I took a cue from Poland and looked back at the old Top 10 lists of Andrew Sarris, Jean Luc Godard and Cahiers du Cinema from the 1960s.

Those clowns missed on almost all the Oscar noms!!!! What kind of Oscar Prognosticator did that hack Sarris think he was! They all missed on 'Doctor Dolittle' for example. Godard have been embarassed when he heard about 'Dolittle's' BP nomination.

Firstly, this entire thread is pretty much the silliest thing I've read all week.

Secondly, Barely any of us have seen Iwo Jima so it's all pretty boring reading you guys say who said what first. Boohoo, someone typed something a day early. Get over it.

Thirdly, I agree with Sam and I have been saying this all year. It amazes me when people like Dave and Kris say these awards shows are irrelevant because they don't conform to what the Academy nominates IN THE FUTURE!! I'd much rather see an awards group with a bunch of crazy nominees than one that reads identical to the Academy who then parade around how closely they resembled Oscar (hi BFCA!!!)

Lastly, I can only hope that The Devil Wears Prada gets more love this season. It deserves it.

They're irrelevant because we're in the business of predicting what is and ISN'T relevant to the Oscar race. Why is that so hard to understand? What is your point otherwise?

And "silly" or not, there are small pieces of real estate you have to stand up for in this game, or else you suffer the loud mouth, bombastic falsities of others forever.

Oh, and Camel, why do you always cry about the fact that you haven't seen the films in discussion? If it's such a nuisance, why do you bother reading and posting everywhere?

I didn't say I don't respect you, Kris.

That's what you don't get. It's not black and white. It's not respect you or disrespect you. As you point out, I hired you. And with the exception of one disputed thing (as I recall), I didn't edit your ideas at all.

I have, in my view, shown you much more respect than you have shown me. But you want more. And I am telling you... you need to earn it.

Am I supposed to apologize for being 25? Is your definition of "earning it" to somehow pass a certain age barrier? Maybe I should crawl into a hole for however many years and resurface when I've got a touch of gray?

I don't get it. I really don't, but I should certainly stop trying to. But if it is "disrespectful" to be passionate in defense of ideas...aren't you the landlord of that turf?

KCamel has a point, which is that these awards should not just be seen as milestones to the Oscars - that just feeds into the media-industrial complex and makes the whole thing into a big feeding frenzy, which denigrates any notion of actually rewarding art for art's sake.

This is perhaps the funniest thread ever at this blog.

You guys are seriously arguing over whose crystal balls are bigger.

Please... keep it up. As more and more people enter this insane, bizarre, disturbingly inbred field of "Oscar prognostication" and fight over who owns what bit of unreal estate, it just gets funnier and funnier.

And, Kris, don't bother, man. Poland doesn't respect anyone. Anywhere. Ever. Only he is ever right. Only he knows how to do things. Only he is allowed to make sweeping declarations. Only he knows what is right and wrong. Only he is ethical. Only he is prescient. Only he is worthy of respect. Only he is allowed to be arrogant.

Haven't you noticed yet?

Again... no one has suggested that being pasisonate in defense or in support of ideas is a problem. And it's no I who is angry at the reality of your age... it's you. You don't need to go into hiding. You just need to do the work we all have had to do and to get a little perspective. Your disrespect in responding to the issue of disrespect is self-evident.

And to the rest of y'all... I agree, I would love the awards to just be awards. Then we could have most of them in the new year and actually vote after all the films are in theaters. I've been making this case for years. But when the organizations contort themselves into Oscar precursors, I'm sorry, but calling them out for it isn't really where the problem lies.

The only reason we are talking NBR at all is that it is first into the game every year. If it wasn't - and if studios didn't indulge that status year after year after year seeking marketing advantage - it would as important as the Akron Film Critics Society. Well, less really.

There is very little in the way fo film awards that are arts for arts sake. But I do think, when all the fury passes, that the 5800 Academy voters are at least registering their real opinions... no matter how often I and others disagree with it.

"There is very little in the way fo film awards that are arts for arts sake."

True, but I've never really seen you (DP) doing anything about this, including 'making this case for years' about moving awards later or whatnot. I could easily be mistaken, but it's certainly not something that has ever come up with any regularity.

You are mistaken, J Mc.

Funny Drew... I could come up with, conservatively, 90% of the journalistic community and film industry that would consider much of AICN's history unethical. But it must just be me.

That said, you are right. Discussions like this are as stupid as any in the situation and they should be done privately, if they need to be had at all.

Oh thanks DP, I was worried. I don't know how I could have missed that weekly feature on your front page, "Twenty Weeks to an Appreciation of Art for Art's Sake Free from Nedia-Induced Hype". Perhaps a larger graphic?

Sorry for the typo...Media-induced hype.

That's right, Rabbi Dave. I'm the one who has trouble working and playing with others. I'm the one who spends all his time pounding the bully pulpit about why everyone else is stupid.

Oh, wait... no, I'm not. Just look at this thread. Tell me again how it's just me who has a problem with the way you act towards everyone else who writes about films.

Go ahead. Keep telling yourself that it's all just people with perspective problems. It's always someone else with the issue. Always.

Right?

No, Drew... mostly you.

I actually have good relationships with most of the media... even some of the people who I criticize.

And yeah, Wells has taken his banishment hard. But he earned it the hard way.

Kris is fine. He and I will work through this as we have before.

You? It seems you will just continue with the high drama until you figure out that morality is not just doing whatever you want whenever you want to.

The difference between me and most of the rest of the media is that I'll actually tell you how I feel about you, and most people won't because they know you'll come here and whine about it and try to turn them into villains.

Your form of "journalism" is about tearing down others to build yourself up, David, and if that makes you happy, then keep it up.

But if you think for a second that you aren't loathed by most of the people you deal with, and that they aren't vocal about it when you're not around, then you're far more delusional than you've ever accused me of being.

I'm off to be unethical and immoral now. Have a great night, Dave.

how do we know they have seen all the films? Like "Lives of Others?" For example, they only nominated "Downfall" last year, one year after its Oscar season as Best Foreign Film.

However, they do include Pan´s Labyrinth which won´t come out until end of December. Yet, they can´t possibly have seen all the foreign films that were submitted by their countries of origin, can they?

Plus, Lives of Others with its political context and freedom of speech issues should have so alluded to NBR, it is totally odd it was not included in its top5 foreign films

bacio, in terms of Downfall, it didn't even play (let alone screen) in New York until early 2006, so most people (including my own critics group) couldn't include it in their 2005 picks like the Academy could. There are a few movies like that this year, too. Lives of Others has screened but it didn't actaully open in NY and won't this year. (Just an Oscar consideration opening.) It's a tried and true method by the studios to extend the shelf-life of these movies because they won't appear in theatres until the nominations are in and will be helped by that. Oddlly, they've done this with the German consideration the last three years in a row (not to mention Tsotsi and others).

My! This has been an entertaining thread!!! Sounds like there are quite a few overly-defensive people out there! Yikes! Lower your doses of caffein guys!!! Or was that just the testosterone levels? I guess men will be boys after all... ;o)

To prove I'm completely out of the loop... I've never even HEARD of the NBR!!! :p

To put my two cents in, I prefer awards to recognise works of art they admire, for whatever reason, than for trying to approximate another awards body. Let's face it, in a decent movie year there aren't enough prizes in the Oscars to distribute to ALL the deserving, so I think it's great other people are out there to even things up a bit (am glad to see SOMEONE giving Prada some love!). And I for one think more highly of critics awards than small groups (such as the NBR appears to be) or even the Oscars. Critics (supposedly) know what they're talking about, are +/- objective (one would hope) when judging a film/performance etc... Whereas it has been stated many times over that the Oscars are in general people voting for their buddies (with a few exceptions when there is an unavoidable frontrunner everyone admires).

In any case, for a self-confessed movie-nut, I find all this quite amusing! (and I can see I'm not the only one) :o)

I'm not going to lie and say I never read AICN, or that I never agree with Drew's reviews, but it is hysterical to see someone from AICN attempt to take the high ground on, well, anything. How long until Bruckheimer lets you visit the POTC3 editing room Drew?

I guess I can agree that this thread is entertaining--to a certain extent. At the same time, it is rather off-putting to someone like me who simply enjoys visiting these sites to see what people have to say about the potential nominees instead of seeing everyone make so many personal attacks against each other. And yet, still I read...

I'd have to align myself with Sam and crazycris, by the way. I thought the NBR made some fun choices. And I don't see anything wrong with the bulk of their choices, based on either the movies I've seen, the reviews I've read, or the gossip I've encountered on sites like this. I have to say, I really do miss Alex Ng's site--his opinions were always so well thought out and he seemed to be so much more civil than others whose sites I've visited. But maybe that's just one Canadian giving love to another...

Joe Leydon, Eastwood's Unforgiven - NICE! What a movie, eh? I remember walking out of the theater feeling that certain high you get when you know you've just seen something exceptional. Your writing about it reminds of how great it is. Thanks for the heads up.

As to the rest of this thread - what can I say. What can anyone say?! We've finally and completely devolved into a snake eating its own tail (my favorite, albeit overused, metaphor).

I disagree about the monkey/chimp metaphor DP threw in re: the NBR. Despite everything, they have, save one or two or three exceptions, picked decent films over the years (as have the HFPA - their track record, Pia Zadora notwithstanding, is BETTER than AMPAS - granted, that's not saying much but still)...

Kris,

"They're irrelevant because we're in the business of predicting what is and ISN'T relevant to the Oscar race. Why is that so hard to understand? What is your point otherwise?"

*sigh* I don't deny that you're in the business of predicting Oscars, but if every single critics group had the exact same winners, the contest would be over by, oh, December 6. If you want all the organisations to have the same field of nominees and winners and not have a personal voice of their own then that's all well and good, but it seems a lot of people want diversity. What fun is it seeing someone like Phillip Seymour Hoffman win every prize making it a foregone conclusion that he will win the Oscar? What fun is it knowing that Helen Mirren is going to win every prize and eventually take the Oscar? Not fun. I want some sparks. I want surprises. I want groups to have an opinion of their own (even if the NBR are dubiously "opinionated"). Irrelevent for Oscar? Fine. But in this day and age it appears the only organisation relevant is the BFCA because they actually want to be relevant and make it their goal to be such (or, that's how it appears, anyway)

"Oh, and Camel, why do you always cry about the fact that you haven't seen the films in discussion? If it's such a nuisance, why do you bother reading and posting everywhere?"

That's a stupid thing to say. Just because distributors in my country release movies months and months after you guys, doesn't mean I should have to sit back and not be involved.

It's all well and good for you to bemoan the fact that you didn't get to see Infamous before other critics, or to have a fight about who predicted what movie first based on the screening you got to attend, but try being a filmlover (which you obviously are) and not getting to see movies for 1, 2, 3, 4 months, sometimes over a year after their initial release.

BTW, Infamous (I mention that because of that spat we had a while back involving it) isn't released down here until March 22. Lovely, huh?

Know what I love about all of this?

Poland's gonna throw up his 20 Weeks column this morning, stick a note in the blog about it, and all of this is going to start over again.

But please folks, keep the pissing match going. I need something to read while I'm bored at work.

I'm in complete agreement with KCamel there!

And I too hate having to wait months for certain movies to hit the screens in my neck of the woods (if they ever show up, and if they last more than a week, at that). But hey, here's a cheerful thought (for me, and maybe for you too KCamel) at least this year I got to see Marie Antoinette, Volver, Indigènes (Days of Glory) and best of all Children of Men (yay!!!) before people in the US! :o)

Okay, here's how I predict Poland's column to go, top ten talking points:

1. The NBR sucks. They told us nothing.
2. I told you so about Letters. Told you so. Flags sucks. Letters is in.
3. Dreamgirls still very much in the race.
4. The Oscar season is boring right now and all but over.
5. I still don't want to see Helen Mirren naked.
6. Everyone is waiting like hungry lions for the next piece of meat so they blow everything, even the smallest thing, out of proportion (he'd be right about that)
7. Oscar blogging has reached a new low.
8. P. Goldy this, Risky Thompson that, The Woz the other.
9. Re: Letters, don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
10. I do want to see Penelope Cruz naked.

Can we please skip #1 - 9 and get straight to 10? Thanks.

I still don't understand the dismissal of the NBR as an Oscar predictor. Sure, as many people have pointed out, there have been plenty of films not in the NBR's Top 10 that have been nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars.

But in the 17 years between 1988 ("Rain Man") and this year, there have been only 2 cases where films not in the NBR's top 10 have won the Oscar for Best Picture. Those were "A Beautiful Mind" and "Return of the King."

What this means is that "Dreamgirls" and "The Queen" still have great shots of being nominated for Best Picture, but their odds of actually winning are pretty low. That is, unless this year is very different from most years, which is actually probably the case considering that the rest of the crop of Best Picture candidates are generally perceived as weak (as in 2003, where ROTK was against "Mystic River," "Lost in Translation," "Master and Commander," and "Seabiscuit" and 2001, where "A Beautiful Mind" was against "Gosford Park," "In the Bedroom," "LOTR," and "Moulin Rouge!").

But we'll just have to see what happens this year. But as far as the NBR being an Oscar predictor in the past, in the last 20 years, 85% of the films that have won Best Picture at the Oscars were in the NBR's top 10.

Colin you are right, no doubt. Like it or not, the stats speak for themselve. There have been years where only one or two film made it over. But this probably isn't one of them, being that it's such a weak year for Big Oscar Movies overall.

EDouglas, LOL.

You are all missing the significance of the NBR choices. They are definitely no longer awards of merit.
Just list the STUDIO next to the winners ... do it for the last 4 years. See a pattern? Don’t you get it?
This years Top Ten is just so blatant. Two Clint Eastwood epics ... 5 Warner Bros releases ... 3 FOX releases?
And forget worth of performance ... What do the Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director,
Best Film, Best Ensemble Cast and Best Adapted Screenplay have in common? They are ALL Warner Bros releases!
Come on!

You are all missing the significance of the NBR choices. They are definitely no longer awards of merit.
Just list the STUDIO next to the winners ... do it for the last 4 years. See a pattern? Don’t you get it?
This years Top Ten is just so blatant. Two Clint Eastwood epics ... 5 Warner Bros releases ... 3 FOX releases?
And forget worth of performance ... What do the Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director,
Best Film, Best Ensemble Cast and Best Adapted Screenplay have in common? They are ALL Warner Bros releases!
Come on!

Hilarious thread. For so many reasons. Great, great stuff.

I must say, the NBR list certainly is puzzling. Maybe they're just spearheading the anti-Dreamgirls movement, which is definitely growing. It has nothing to do with the film -- just that so-many folks were crowning it best picture winner before they had seen it.

Yes, Drew. Everyone hates me. Everyone loves you. I've been listening to you carp out this tune for a decade already. Could you be any more playground than "people are talking behind your back?"

Someday, someone will explain to me how one can built themselves up by tearing down others. Perhaps it works on a weak ego, but being tough doesn't do shit for one's career, as far as I can tell.

And we haven't gone completely Ouroboros, BiPed. We have devolved into the same not-that-old Kris/David conflict and the same old Drew/David conflict. Boring, it's true. But at least Wells isn't here... well, I guess he is... in the comments of both Kris and Drew and in response, of mine.

But as someone wrote, we'll move past it today and it will be forgotten until the next time the same old discussion resurfaces again.

Does anyone else out there think this year was a weaker year than usual? Even last year, the "slump" year, had a great bunch of films that I love. This year I have to reach into the second tier for my top ten.

David: Why wouldn't you want to see Helen Mirren naked?

It's Roger Friedman, so take it with a grain of salt, but according to him, "Dreamgirls" was No. 11 with the NBR:

"However the Top 10 was arrived at, one thing is certain: "Dreamgirls" was No. 11.

'It almost made it,' sighed a frustrated insider."

Joe 30: I have seen her naked, haven't you?

palmtree, I agree that it's been a pretty weak year. Granted, I haven't yet seen The Good German, Children of Men, The Good Shepherd, Dreamgirls, Perfume, or Pan's Labyrinth. But I'd say I only have four or five true first-tier "list movies."

One publication I write for is asking for our top ten lists for this coming Monday (some of the other critics get to more screenings than I do). Last year, the list I submitted to them (at the corresponding time) was almost identical to the top ten I made in early January: Despite my queue of unseen December movies, the only difference between my "early" list and my final list was that when I finally saw Munich, it bumped off War of the Worlds (so even then, Spielberg for Spielberg).

Maybe there are just more high-expectation (for me) movies not coming out until late December this year, but I think it's more the thinness of the field so far than unusually late movies, accounting for what will be a pretty weak top ten list come Monday.

As with last year, there are a lot of films I liked wholeheartedly -- Little Children, The Fountain, Shortbus, The Science of Sleep, Casino Royale, MI3, Superman Returns -- but wouldn't consider "top ten" quality. For this early list, I'm forced to reconsider some of them.

God, I'm gone for barely 24 hours and A HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN posts on this thread! For something nobody supposedly gives a shit about, there sure is a lotta whining goin' on...

My two cents: Eastwood is not gonna get a third directing Oscar (and his second in three years) at the expense of Scorsese yet again. We all love Clint, but truly, there would be a riot if that happened, and the voters know it.

Nobody wants Scorsese to win more than I do but even I can't not be impressed by Eastwood this year.

P.S. Just one note of interest...

I am looking for to knowing what Mr. Tapley thinks of Letters From Iwo Jima... once he actually sees it... today at 2:30.

David: On the advice of my attorney, I respectfully decline to answer that question.

Are you shadowing me? Do I need to hire a bodyguard? Do you have a direct line to MRC?

Way to reveal your insecurities, Dave. I guess you're in competition with me after all.

Cream Cheese. Chocolate cream cheese. Dreamgirls is delicious.

Wow. That took almost half an hour to read through this thread. Hilarious! I would love to see David, Jeff, Drew, Joe, Kris and Ed have to sit in a room and hammer out a defintive best picture for the year. Would there be ANY survivors?

As for the NBR, they throw out the same easy blanket that the Globes do by picking a top ten. Cut their awards down to five and see how close their choices are to the Academy's. Granted, they are not (allegedly) there to prognosticate the Oscars, but the credit being tossed their way in this instance is ridiculous. How often do their choices of Best Picture match up with the Academy's? Five times in the last 20 years. Although, they had a nice streak in predicting the Academy's horrible taste from 1980-1982, by nailing Ordinary People, Chariots of Fire and Ghandi all in a row!

David, Kris -
Could we take this argument to the "LUNCH WITH DAVID" series?

Mongoose: Food fight! Food fight!

How about a good old-fashioned Three Stooges pie fight? I'd pay to see that.

It would be deeply amusing, though I am afraid all the pies would be coming in my direction.

Cheese cake vs. Sushi and then roll around in it on the floor.

The place is called Ammo after all.

You stay classy fellas!

David, that's the price you pay for being the "grown-up".

Wasn't Helen Mirren naked in Excalibur?

And Eastwood has only won two directing Oscars, plus two for producing as well.

So, who would be Moe? And who would be Curly? Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck?

I think it's more like a brawl amongst an all-new seven dwarves: Geeky, Smug, Rabbi, Stubborn, and so on.

Wells would be Slimey?

Helen Mirren has doffed her knickers in several movies, Jeff. And in real life -- well, once again, I cannot comment. There's the matter of that restraining order, you see.

Personally I've found more movies in 2006 that I was interested in / loved than in 2005 when I just wasn't that fascinated by the cinematic output (i never could figure out why BBM was so great, was too unconvincing for me as a love story, and there were too many dissapointing movies)... There have been some damn good (and often fun) projects this year! To name a few: Babel, Children of Men, Devil Wears Prada, Happy Feet, Indigènes, Little Miss Sunshine, Thank You For Smoking, The Science of Sleep, The Wind That Shakes The Barley, Volver (plus some of the popcorn excitement)...
and I have yet to see / am looking forward to: both Eastwood films, Alatriste, Fauteuils d'Orchestre, The Lives of Others, Prete-moi Ta Main, Pan's Labyrinth, The Illusionist, The Prestige, The Painted Veil, Dreamgirls, The Good Shepherd, The Good German, The Departed (will be seeing in 10 days, just won tickets over the radio for the premiere, yay!!!)

So I'd say 2006 has been a great year for movie fans! :o)

Actually, I also have had a good time this year with a lot of movies that didn't quite make it onto the radar on this blog: The Oh in Ohio, Four-Eyed Monsters, Mutual Appreciation, Don't Come Knocking, Al Franken: God Spoke, The Notorious Bettie Page, The Motel, Wordplay, I Trust You to Kill Me, Cowboy del Amor, and three I caught last month at the Denver Film Festival -- The Host, Chalk and Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (David's right about this one, it's pretty damn funny) that won't open theatrically until next year. There are others I could mention (An Inconvenient Truth, The Departed, Thank You for Smoking, etc.), but maybe have already been mentioned enough.

Hey Joe, I've got a question for you.

When you're making a Best Of list at the end of the year, do you (or your paper) make any rules on what would count as "this year?" I see you mentioned Thank You for Smoking, which was widely released this year, but was apparently first on the festival circuit in 2005.

Just wondering if there's any standards here. I like to put a year-end summary on my blog, but am not sure what to do with movies like Smoking or Hard Candy, which were both made and shown last year but were only widely released in the last twelve months.

I hate that I missed Mutual Appreciation (Funny Haha was great).

It depends. For the first few years I was at the Houston Post -- roughly, 1982 to '87 or so -- I would limit the Top 10 list to movies that had been released theatrically in Houston (not in NY or LA, but Houston) during the previous calendar year. But I ultimately had to change my self-imposed rule because, frankly, I was having to disqualify too many worthy films that were platformed in LA and NY at year's end.

Flashforward to today: I can think of at least two Top Ten-worthy movies that have had ample exposure on the global festival circuit this year, but won't open theatrically (in the U.S., at least) until next year. And there's another that played the fest circuit but premiered on HBO. So what do I do? I'm tempted to simply say, hey, it's my list, I make the rules. But does that way lie madness? (And, for that matter, does anyone out there really care what my Top Ten list might be?)

I remember Ebert has discussed this a bit, having received complaints that his annual list sometimes includes movies that may not be seen in Chicago until the month or two after it is published. He said that it makes more sense to him to include those movies on a list now, when it might encourage people to go see them, instead of next year, when they will be long gone and forgotten from theaters.

But that problem is kind of the opposite of mine. Whereas critics may see movies too soon, I'm seeing them too late. And this is one of those problems that is sort of ridiculous if you take a step back, because a year is just an arbitrary chunk of time anyways and any rules you follow will exclude some films in one way or another.

I guess I was just curious to hear another's perspective. If there's anybody else out there who makes lists like this, please chime in.

"I would love to see David, Jeff, Drew, Joe, Kris and Ed have to sit in a room and hammer out a defintive best picture for the year. Would there be ANY survivors?"

There's an idea! Let's have a Critics' Edition of CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH! "Two Thumbs Off!"

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)