Does Brokeback have to be in wide release to be a shoo-in? It's certainly a critical fave.

I don't think KK or Narnia will win; but I think they are likely nominees and in a different year, would win by default. YMMV.

As far as Brokeback, I didn't even know it wasn't in wide release. Probably my coastal myopia. I went to see it Sunday night after it had been out for three weeks here and the 9:15 showing was sold out at least 30 minutes in advance; the 10:15 looked to be sold out as well.* I looked at a bunch of critics' year-end wrapups to make the list and every one discussed Brokeback. So it seems like it's big here in Chelsea, but maybe NSM in Peoria.

*Not that I'm denying that it being a holiday, the night before a likely holiday, and the only theater showing the movie in Chelsea had something to do with that.

Does Brokeback have to be in wide release to be a shoo-in?

Oh, I agree that it's probably a shoo-in. But I think it's too early to call it a "big movie" when most of the country hasn't had a chance to turn it down.

I saw Brokeback on a random weekday and it was annoyingly full.

Speaking of annoying, I tried to read the Village Voice's critics' poll thingy, but I had never heard of 90% of the stuff they were talking about. Let me see if I can find my "favorite" quote.... Got it!

Andrew Bujalski has got to be the most interesting young director of actors since Apichatpong Weerasethakul

Thanks, J. Hoberman. That was superhelpful.

Speaking of annoying, I tried to read the Village Voice's critics' poll thingy

It was nice to see Charles Taylor's predictably odd-ball selection, though.

BBC's 2005 Best Of which kinda bleeds into 2004.

Brokeback's 4th week:

In limited release, Brokeback Mountain remained the champ as it took in $4.8 million over the four days in just 269 theaters, averaging $17,702 per screen. (Daily Variety observed that the figure was up an "amazing" 61 percent from the previous week, although it added only 52 theaters)

Brokeback only opened here this weekend, at one theater (and not one of the big chain ones.) It was packed at the midday showing. Of course, it was also New Years day.

We went to see Brokeback yesterday, and even after playing here for a few weeks, the matinee shows were selling out about half an hour before the start time.

Speaking of annoying, I tried to read the Village Voice's critics' poll thingy, but I had never heard of 90% of the stuff they were talking about. Let me see if I can find my "favorite" quote.... Got it!

Andrew Bujalski has got to be the most interesting young director of actors since Apichatpong Weerasethakul

I had the same problem as Jesse with Slate's movie club. Usually I really enjoy it, but despite Edelstein's efforts to drag the conversation back to movies actually released in more than one theater this year it was only skimmable. If I wanted a list advising the best movies only that critic saw I'd read their column.

My favorite bit of defensiveness about overpraising movies in limited release was by Scott Foundas, whose comments about LA Weekly follow.

even in my daily interactions with movie publicists, who really ought to know better, I find that many still operate under the moth-eaten assumption that "alternative" papers like the L.A. Weekly give de facto bad reviews to Hollywood movies while offering a free pass to any movie with a low budget, gay cowboys, or one of the Tilly sisters. Well, while I obviously can't speak for everyone out there, I can say that, just in the past year in the L.A. Weekly, we've published favorable reviews of Revenge of the Sith, The 40 Year-Old Virgin and, yes David, even Memoirs of a Geisha (though some have accused me of damning with faint praise on that last one); long negative editorials on those pseudo-indie darlings Hustle & Flow and Brokeback Mountain; and interviews with Steve Carell, George Clooney, Dakota Fanning, and Sydney Pollack—collectively, I would propose, not exactly the stereotypical lineup of a leftie-pinko rag.

Maybe the numbers here are not complete, but if he wants to make the point that the mag treats mainstream and indie movies the same, three positive reviews and two negative ones over the course of a year do not make a persuasive case. Nor does citation to "Steve Carell, George Clooney, Dakota Fanning, and Sydney Pollack" as examples of right wing balance.

Why the fuck would anyone interview Dakota Fanning?