|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Nov 20, 2018 1:48:09 GMT
i wouldn't mind him loosing coz he is not even the best performer in his film. Lady Gaga outshone him tbh. So you have to be the best performance in your film to deserve to win?
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Nov 20, 2018 17:32:48 GMT
i wouldn't mind him loosing coz he is not even the best performer in his film. Lady Gaga outshone him tbh. So you have to be the best performance in your film to deserve to win? It's just that i wouldn't want to see someone winning best actor/actress when his/hers is the 2nd or 3rd best performance in the film.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 11, 2018 2:42:55 GMT
Reviews on letterboxd are so so.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 13, 2018 21:16:51 GMT
The only contender with no reviews.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Dec 17, 2018 17:45:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 17:50:22 GMT
The embargo broke today, and the word is . . . well, something. Time Magazine calls it "exhausting," says it makes Cheney "a cartoon villain."
Bradshaw at the Guardian dug it, says it " brilliantly captures the former vice-president’s bland magnificence in Adam McKay’s entertainingly nihilist biopic."
The Globe and Mail was not a fan, saying it "assumes you’re as stupid as Ron Burgundy."
Collider calls it an "unfair" biopic, praises the performances while calling it "cartoonish."
Slate praises Bale, but says "it fails not just as comedy, but as history."
SlashFilm liked it, calls it "funny and infuriating."
Variety raves Bale as "virtuoso," but thinks the film is too obtuse and fails to show what makes Cheney tick.
The Film Stage calls it "lethargically glib."
The Playlist calls it "blistering angry and funny."Vanity Fair says it's as "subtle as a shot to the face," says McKay doesn't know what to do with a "beguiling" Bale.
IndieWire calls Bale "perfect," says the film is too messy.I'm getting mad American Hustle vibes from this (and not just because of Bale/Adams). It feels like something that people are super-stoked about for, like, a week . . . and then they start to realize maybe they (in this case, HFPA) over-lauded it.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Dec 17, 2018 17:53:46 GMT
Seems like they made a mistake in letting the film "settle".
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 17:54:51 GMT
Seems like they made a mistake in letting the film "settle". I wonder how many of these critics are slyly deleting their initial reaction tweets from a couple weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Dec 17, 2018 17:55:13 GMT
Great. AMPAS snubbing it completely would be a welcome surprise.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 17, 2018 18:05:27 GMT
Seems like they made a mistake in letting the film "settle". I wonder how many of these critics are slyly deleting their initial reaction tweets from a couple weeks ago. They're also probably being harsher on the film after the Golden Globe nominations.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Dec 17, 2018 18:09:50 GMT
I'd still predict it. We all know how much Hollywood likes to pat themselves on the backs...
Also, it's quite odd to see such a difference from tweet to page in a matter of, what, 3 weeks?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 18:10:01 GMT
I wonder how many of these critics are slyly deleting their initial reaction tweets from a couple weeks ago. They're also probably being harsher on the film after the Golden Globe nominations. The thing is, the film was projected to do well with the Globes. It didn't overperform, and I don't know if critics would give a damn about that anyway. But its divisive nature would explain why it missed a SAG Ensemble nod overall.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 17, 2018 18:19:06 GMT
They're also probably being harsher on the film after the Golden Globe nominations. The thing is, the film was projected to do well with the Globes. It didn't overperform, and I don't know if critics would give a damn about that anyway. But its divisive nature would explain why it missed a SAG Ensemble nod overall. It was projected to do well, just not that well. It's the Director nomination that took most everyone by surprise and made the critics sharp their blades for the reviews.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 18:29:42 GMT
The thing is, the film was projected to do well with the Globes. It didn't overperform, and I don't know if critics would give a damn about that anyway. But its divisive nature would explain why it missed a SAG Ensemble nod overall. It was projected to do well, just not that well. It's the Director nomination that took most everyone by surprise and made the critics sharp their blades for the reviews. If that's the case, what do you think it means for the guilds and for the other industry prizes yet to be announced for this film? I still don't know how Vice will play with the British bloc, certainly not to the point where I think Adams is the favo(u)rite to win with them . . . but if Vice loses critical (both in a crucial sense and a film reviewers sense of the word "critical") momentum here, does that mean King can back from her SAG snub? Or does it open the door for a Favourite lady (Weisz, my predicted BAFTA winner, for example).
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 17, 2018 18:37:59 GMT
It was projected to do well, just not that well. It's the Director nomination that took most everyone by surprise and made the critics sharp their blades for the reviews. If that's the case, what do you think it means for the guilds and for the other industry prizes yet to be announced for this film? I still don't know how Vice will play with the British bloc, certainly not to the point where I think Adams is the favo(u)rite to win with them . . . but if Vice loses critical (both in a crucial sense and a film reviewers sense of the word "critical") momentum here, does that mean King can back from her SAG snub? Or does it open the door for a Favourite lady (Weisz, my predicted BAFTA winner, for example). The Big Short did well despite the divisiveness, but this one is extremely polarizing. Let's wait a few days to see the final Metascore but with such a mixed critical reaction, I don't see them nominating McKay for Director, and honestly it would very anticlimactic to see Amy Adams win for being Lynne Cheney after the frontrunner has been taken down by SAG. So Supporting Actress either goes back to Regina King or it goes to Rachel Weisz, unless something huge happens with A Quiet Place and Emily Blunt.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 18:40:15 GMT
If that's the case, what do you think it means for the guilds and for the other industry prizes yet to be announced for this film? I still don't know how Vice will play with the British bloc, certainly not to the point where I think Adams is the favo(u)rite to win with them . . . but if Vice loses critical (both in a crucial sense and a film reviewers sense of the word "critical") momentum here, does that mean King can back from her SAG snub? Or does it open the door for a Favourite lady (Weisz, my predicted BAFTA winner, for example). The Big Short did well despite the divisiveness, but this one is extremely polarizing. Let's wait a few days to see the final Metascore but with such a mixed critical reaction, I don't see them nominating McKay for Director, and honestly it would very anticlimactic to see Amy Adams win for being Lynne Cheney after the frontrunner has been taken down by SAG. So Supporting Actress either goes back to Regina King or it goes to Rachel Weisz, unless something huge happens with A Quiet Place and Emily Blunt. That's something else to consider: Blunt. Mary Poppins Returns isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with its critical acumen. Could A Quiet Place gain momentum for that fabled fifth slot in Supporting Actress? I think it's a big threat for a PGA nod, which would see it potentially getting into Picture with the Academy (they've been leaning further and further into genre of late), and it might also score in Original Screenplay as well. If Best Supporting Actress can't garner a consensus, and if Blunt gets that spot . . . especially if she's double-nominated, she might find that an easier path than Best Actress.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 17, 2018 18:51:21 GMT
The Big Short did well despite the divisiveness, but this one is extremely polarizing. Let's wait a few days to see the final Metascore but with such a mixed critical reaction, I don't see them nominating McKay for Director, and honestly it would very anticlimactic to see Amy Adams win for being Lynne Cheney after the frontrunner has been taken down by SAG. So Supporting Actress either goes back to Regina King or it goes to Rachel Weisz, unless something huge happens with A Quiet Place and Emily Blunt. That's something else to consider: Blunt. Mary Poppins Returns isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with its critical acumen. Could A Quiet Place gain momentum for that fabled fifth slot in Supporting Actress? I think it's a big threat for a PGA nod, which would see it potentially getting into Picture with the Academy (they've been leaning further and further into genre of late), and it might also score in Original Screenplay as well. If Best Supporting Actress can't garner a consensus, and if Blunt gets that spot . . . especially if she's double-nominated, she might find that an easier path than Best Actress. I think A Quiet Place is locked for a PGA nomination. Actually, I would find it a travesty if it weren't nominated, and I'm not saying this because I loved the film. It was made on a small budget and made 15x as much. Not sure it opens a spot in Best Picture, especially with Bohemian Rhapsody being the populist choice, but it will do well with a few guilds and Blunt showing up twice at SAG means an awful lot. BAFTA might follow suit, and in that case we might have a potential winner on our hands. Supporting categories are total clusterfucks this year, and Blunt doesn't have as many problems as King (with the SAG snub and her movie underperforming) and Adams (with Vice being called the worst movie of the year by some critics, and an unknown box office response), plus she can easily win SAG there, given her double nod.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 19:06:03 GMT
That's something else to consider: Blunt. Mary Poppins Returns isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with its critical acumen. Could A Quiet Place gain momentum for that fabled fifth slot in Supporting Actress? I think it's a big threat for a PGA nod, which would see it potentially getting into Picture with the Academy (they've been leaning further and further into genre of late), and it might also score in Original Screenplay as well. If Best Supporting Actress can't garner a consensus, and if Blunt gets that spot . . . especially if she's double-nominated, she might find that an easier path than Best Actress. I think A Quiet Place is locked for a PGA nomination. Actually, I would find it a travesty if it weren't nominated, and I'm not saying this because I loved the film. It was made on a small budget and made 15x as much. Not sure it opens a spot in Best Picture, especially with Bohemian Rhapsody being the populist choice, but it will do well with a few guilds and Blunt showing up twice at SAG means an awful lot. BAFTA might follow suit, and in that case we might have a potential winner on our hands. Supporting categories are total clusterfucks this year, and Blunt doesn't have as many problems as King (with the SAG snub and her movie underperforming) and Adams (with Vice being called the worst movie of the year by some critics, and an unknown box office response), plus she can easily win SAG there, given her double nod. It certainly would be the perfect place to reward Blunt, and it's a pretty good performance to boot. So much of it is silent, expressive work that may not be fraught with Oscar-friendly monologues, but she definitely goes through the wringer in it. Adams in Vice has been compared to her previous work in The Master in more than one review (and most of the time, the reviewer making the comparison favors the PTA performance), and combined with playing not just a divisive historical figure (who McKay seems to intimate is partly to blame for Cheney's demonic rise, judging by how some of the reviewers frame her storyline) but also starring in a very divisive movie . . . I think she'll have her devotees for sure, but I'm more convinced now that this isn't quite the winning role for her. I still don't think she wins BAFTA, BFCA may back King hard in response to her SAG snub (like how SAG sealed the deal for Elba when he missed the Oscar). The Globes may go with Adams because they like her and the film but she's already won twice with them, but if Vice continues to polarize on the awards trail, especially with early critical adulation simmering drastically during the embargo, I don't think she's anywhere close to a secure bet for the win.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Dec 17, 2018 19:40:42 GMT
Apparently this movie is pretty bad. Hopefully it makes people retroactively realize that The Big Short is shit.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Dec 17, 2018 19:45:52 GMT
This is McKay's Lady in the Water/Interstellar
Dude should just go back to making bro comedies. He alienated his audience so this will probably bomb
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Dec 17, 2018 19:49:14 GMT
The embargo broke today, and the word is . . . well, something. Time Magazine calls it "exhausting," says it makes Cheney "a cartoon villain."
Bradshaw at the Guardian dug it, says it " brilliantly captures the former vice-president’s bland magnificence in Adam McKay’s entertainingly nihilist biopic."
The Globe and Mail was not a fan, saying it "assumes you’re as stupid as Ron Burgundy."
Collider calls it an "unfair" biopic, praises the performances while calling it "cartoonish."
Slate praises Bale, but says "it fails not just as comedy, but as history."
SlashFilm liked it, calls it "funny and infuriating."
Variety raves Bale as "virtuoso," but thinks the film is too obtuse and fails to show what makes Cheney tick.
The Film Stage calls it "lethargically glib."
The Playlist calls it "blistering angry and funny."Vanity Fair says it's as "subtle as a shot to the face," says McKay doesn't know what to do with a "beguiling" Bale.
IndieWire calls Bale "perfect," says the film is too messy.I'm getting mad American Hustle vibes from this (and not just because of Bale/Adams). It feels like something that people are super-stoked about for, like, a week . . . and then they start to realize maybe they (in this case, HFPA) over-lauded it. You forgot to include Kyle Smith's pan. He went HAM with the historical inaccuracy of this film.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 17, 2018 19:59:41 GMT
The embargo broke today, and the word is . . . well, something. Time Magazine calls it "exhausting," says it makes Cheney "a cartoon villain."
Bradshaw at the Guardian dug it, says it " brilliantly captures the former vice-president’s bland magnificence in Adam McKay’s entertainingly nihilist biopic."
The Globe and Mail was not a fan, saying it "assumes you’re as stupid as Ron Burgundy."
Collider calls it an "unfair" biopic, praises the performances while calling it "cartoonish."
Slate praises Bale, but says "it fails not just as comedy, but as history."
SlashFilm liked it, calls it "funny and infuriating."
Variety raves Bale as "virtuoso," but thinks the film is too obtuse and fails to show what makes Cheney tick.
The Film Stage calls it "lethargically glib."
The Playlist calls it "blistering angry and funny."Vanity Fair says it's as "subtle as a shot to the face," says McKay doesn't know what to do with a "beguiling" Bale.
IndieWire calls Bale "perfect," says the film is too messy.I'm getting mad American Hustle vibes from this (and not just because of Bale/Adams). It feels like something that people are super-stoked about for, like, a week . . . and then they start to realize maybe they (in this case, HFPA) over-lauded it. You forgot to include Kyle Smith's pan. He went HAM with the historical inaccuracy of this film. I'm three paragraphs into it. Dayum, Kyle.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Dec 17, 2018 20:11:33 GMT
The Big Short did well despite the divisiveness, but this one is extremely polarizing. Let's wait a few days to see the final Metascore but with such a mixed critical reaction, I don't see them nominating McKay for Director, and honestly it would very anticlimactic to see Amy Adams win for being Lynne Cheney after the frontrunner has been taken down by SAG. So Supporting Actress either goes back to Regina King or it goes to Rachel Weisz, unless something huge happens with A Quiet Place and Emily Blunt. That's something else to consider: Blunt. Mary Poppins Returns isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with its critical acumen. Could A Quiet Place gain momentum for that fabled fifth slot in Supporting Actress? I think it's a big threat for a PGA nod, which would see it potentially getting into Picture with the Academy (they've been leaning further and further into genre of late), and it might also score in Original Screenplay as well. If Best Supporting Actress can't garner a consensus, and if Blunt gets that spot . . . especially if she's double-nominated, she might find that an easier path than Best Actress. So far this is turning out to be a really unpredictable awards season. I just hope it doesn't fizzle out like last year did, and all the acting awards end up going to the same 4 winners. I don't really see it at this point because it looks like the Supporting Acting categories will have different winners, but you never know. Anyway, I hadn't really considered Emily Blunt winning for A Quiet Place until now even after her double nominations. I thought that Leading was her best bet even if MPR didn't get the best reviews overall just because she fit the Best Actress mold more than Close, Colman, or Gaga, but unless Vice rebounds review wise, I think Blunt can do it. All she needs to do is win SAG, and I think she can do that since Vice didn't get the Ensemble nomination there, and now that reviews are out, that may hurt Adams. With Malek, I think he could overcome the rotten reviews for Bohemian Rhapsody because he was the saving grace of the film, and that film it's been so successful with audiences whereas I'm not sure Vice will do that well at the box office especially considering the cost of it. Then, there's Stone and Weisz. I think Weisz can win BAFTA, but at SAG, I think that vote splitting could favor Blunt. Finally with Robbie, I think that the nomination will be seen as a reward. Then Best Actress is back to being a 3 way race, and McCarthy should be a solid 4th place with all the critics' support that she's getting now along with the strength of her co-star and on CYEFM? being very likely to get a screenplay nomination. I think Blunt can still get a leading nomination as a way to reward her for passing over for so long and for her banner year. Plus, I don't really see Aparacio or Collette sneaking in. Aparacio really hasn't done well with the critics and precursors the way other recent foreign language contenders who have made it in have, and I'm not sure if many voters are going to watch Hereditary. However, if one of them did manage a nomination in that fifth spot, I think I'd have to go with Collette despite Aparacio being in possible Best Picture winner or runner-up because Collette is so well respected in the industry and has done extremely well with the critics like I thought Aparacio was going to do.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 17, 2018 20:34:41 GMT
I think A Quiet Place is locked for a PGA nomination. Actually, I would find it a travesty if it weren't nominated, and I'm not saying this because I loved the film. It was made on a small budget and made 15x as much. Not sure it opens a spot in Best Picture, especially with Bohemian Rhapsody being the populist choice, but it will do well with a few guilds and Blunt showing up twice at SAG means an awful lot. BAFTA might follow suit, and in that case we might have a potential winner on our hands. Supporting categories are total clusterfucks this year, and Blunt doesn't have as many problems as King (with the SAG snub and her movie underperforming) and Adams (with Vice being called the worst movie of the year by some critics, and an unknown box office response), plus she can easily win SAG there, given her double nod. It certainly would be the perfect place to reward Blunt, and it's a pretty good performance to boot. So much of it is silent, expressive work that may not be fraught with Oscar-friendly monologues, but she definitely goes through the wringer in it. Adams in Vice has been compared to her previous work in The Master in more than one review (and most of the time, the reviewer making the comparison favors the PTA performance), and combined with playing not just a divisive historical figure (who McKay seems to intimate is partly to blame for Cheney's demonic rise, judging by how some of the reviewers frame her storyline) but also starring in a very divisive movie . . . I think she'll have her devotees for sure, but I'm more convinced now that this isn't quite the winning role for her. I still don't think she wins BAFTA, BFCA may back King hard in response to her SAG snub (like how SAG sealed the deal for Elba when he missed the Oscar). The Globes may go with Adams because they like her and the film but she's already won twice with them, but if Vice continues to polarize on the awards trail, especially with early critical adulation simmering drastically during the embargo, I don't think she's anywhere close to a secure bet for the win. I also think that the Arrival snub generated the thought that she should be rewarded for the right role and not just for her perceived overdueness (which I still don't buy as a sentiment in the industry). She's a respected actress and she's proving herself to be versatile, but she's no Glenn Close and I still feel no urge in the industry to go for her no matter what. The Globes are an entirely different matter, and she also has a TV nomination where she could get the award.
Blunt is the unexpected party crasher in the category. The main problem for her is to actually get the nod. If she does (and indication of that will be the BAFTA nominations), all the other four will be in huge danger. Banner years have often worked (and the Blunt year kind of reminds me of the McConnaissance), and it could especially work with her, given that Stone and Weisz are previous winners, and King and Adams are on extremely shaky grounds for a win.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Dec 17, 2018 20:51:18 GMT
I wouldn't trust Kyle Smith's review at all. He worked at Weekly Standard the same newspaper that would push Cheney's propaganda that got us into the war in Iraq. His review is biased as hell...
|
|