Am I wrong in thinking 2005 had a bumper crop of good-to-great movies?
Most year end lists have noted it was a good year to be a movie fan. And usually they're desultory.
'Dirty Girls'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Am I wrong in thinking 2005 had a bumper crop of good-to-great movies?
Most year end lists have noted it was a good year to be a movie fan. And usually they're desultory.
Grizzly Man
Already passed over for Oscar consideration, much to my dismay. (Not that it ever had a chance at beating the penguins anyway, but still.)
What amazes me is how many of bon bon's list I have seen -- 6. Last year, I skipped the Oscars entirely, because I hadn't seen anything that was nominated.
I'm not sure that it's really been a year of Quality, so much as a year where all the blockbusters happened to be crap, so the smaller movies are the only candidates for awards. Usually there is some Saving Private Ryan or some other big feely movie that is considered good (if not by me) and is widely-seen enough to basically become a shoo-in for all the bigger prizes.
I don't agree, Nutty. I think that movie is Brokeback, Narnia or King Kong.
There isn't one obvious Oscar-Blockbuster though, it's true.
I can't see Narnia or Kong winning anything but tech awards, especially after last year's LotR sweep.
I have only seen one of those (Brokeback), and it's not that big a release, is it? I mean, it is playing at the Harvard Theatre, which is usually a sign that it does not have Art House Wait For DVD tattooed on its forehead, but it's not playing on 2500 screens either.
I guess King Kong did have some good reviews, didn't it? I just have exactly zero interest in its subject matter.
I don't think Oscar voters will vote in a children's movie as best picture, whatever its pedigree. Even LOTR, which was often called adolescent fodder, had actual adults as its main characters, which is not the case for Narnia.
I found it too self-aware to be successful.
Oh, I understand. I've seen very little Freaks and Geeks but it had struck me as a conventionally made drama about mundane incidents, rather than a drama striving for a fly-on-the-wall-look-into-the-lives-of-people-waiting-for-bus feel. Do you feel the same way about everything that is aiming for realism, like, say, The Office?
ETA. Sorry for sounding like a questionnaire
I have only seen one of those (Brokeback), and it's not that big a release, is it?
Not yet -- it goes wide mid-January. (It's in limited release right now for Oscar qualification.)
Do you feel the same way about everything that is obviously aiming for realism
No, only the ones that miss. :)
Millie and the basset hound! Love!
I can't see Narnia or Kong winning anything but tech awards, especially after last year's LotR sweep.
That was two years ago, though, right?
I mean, it is playing at the Harvard Theatre, which is usually a sign that it does not have Art House Wait For DVD tattooed on its forehead, but it's not playing on 2500 screens either.
I keep reading reports that it's going to open in wide release soon. Anyone know if that's ever going to happen? [Edit: x-post!] It's gotten so much press, it seems to me, that I'm surprised it hasn't opened everywhere already. Anyway, that's my pick for this year's biggest award-sweeper (unless Kong or Narnia sweep the technical awards).