Archive
Final 2013 Oscar Predictions with Analysis
Only a couple hours left to go. Below, you can see my predictions for this year’s Oscar winners, finally set in stone. I’ve included a bit of insight and reasoning for each category.
Make sure to also check back for live updates as the awards are announced.
BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR
Will Win: “Argo”
Could Win: “Lincoln”
Analysis: This year’s Best Picture race is, without a doubt, the most upside down it’s been in recent memory. All logic (and good judgment) would point to “Lincoln,” as not only the year’s best film, but also the most nominated and a genuine perfect storm of concept and execution. However, the combination of a sweep of all four guilds, the BAFTA, the BFCA and the Globes, along with (and perhaps the cause of the former) the sympathy vote for Affleck and his lack of a Director nomination, one would have to be a fool not to predict it for the final showdown. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for an upset, but not my predictions.
Oscar Winner Predictions: The Impossibility of Reason
I’ve taken somewhat of a backseat to much of this year’s Oscars and how they’ve unfolded. Maybe I don’t have as much time on my hands anymore, or perhaps I’m getting a little bit lazy. However, there’s also the immutable fact that this is, without a doubt, the weirdest Oscars I’ve ever bore witness to. Pundits like myself have bitched and moaned for years about the Oscar race becoming a predictable formality. Now, we’ve had so many wrenches thrown into the works that all of the precedents, reason and logic have just gone clear out the window. 2012 is the ultimate crapshoot.
Perhaps it’s a good thing, overall. Because while this year’s awards season has spiraled into an enormous whirlwind of indecision and confusion, I believe we can all find a consensus in the overwhelming class and quality that was on display in filmmaking during the past year. I can’t have enough good things to say about 2012 and I believe it will go down as shining star in the chronology of cinematic history, up there with the likes of 2001, 1980, 1976, 1960 and, of course, 1939. I also believe that, in some way, the less focus on awards and accolades, we can foresee that it’s ultimately the movies that we’ll remember decades from now, while fiasco over the gold will simply be an afterthought.
Nevertheless, at it’s roots, this is an awards site and it’s time to get down to business. Bottom line, the award for Best Picture (and more than a few others) was completely thrown for a loop the morning that the nominations were announced, when two of the year’s biggest heavyweights were absent from the shortlist. Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow being left in the cold was perhaps the strangest occurrence in this category since Ang Lee and Ron Howard failed to receive nominations for their respective work back in 1995 (“Apollo 13” and “Sense and Sensibility”). Yet, this may have overall worked in Affleck’s favor, for since that morning, every critic, actor, producer, director, grip, PA and their mother has seemed to fall head over heels for the film. At this point, it seems that enough voters will sway towards “Argo” for the Best Picture, out of sheer sympathy, more than anything else. It doesn’t hurt that it’s also a fantastically entertaining and uplifting piece that pulls at Oscar’s heartstrings like a toddler on a hoop earring.
Meanwhile, there’s a flip-side to every equation. “Argo” may have taken every award since that fateful morning, yet that doesn’t change the fact that the snub still happened. Affleck missing out on Best Director makes a huge statement. It has to be more than just a fluke or the notion of the Academy leaning so heavily on what the guilds have done in the past. Plus, while one can compare the strangeness of this year’s circumstances to ’95, it’s important to be reminded how that year turned out, with neither Lee or Howard taking home the big prize at the end of the night. For now, I’ll go with the odds-on favorite, but can easily see the winds shifting. This weekend’s WGA will may be a largely determining factor.
Alas, my first round of winner predictions for the 85th Academy Awards:
BEST PICTURE: “Argo”
alternate: “Lincoln”
NEW “J. Edgar” Trailer
Well, it’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for…well at least I have. Perhaps the Oscar season’s biggest contender has finally shown its face. Now that we have a glimpse, from this point in the game, anyone not putting this film at the head of the pack for practically every single award should take a good long look in the mirror and rethink themselves.
This trailer does not disappoint. It displays absolutely phenomenal performances by DiCaprio, Dench and the man who I have said will be the key to this film all along, Armie Hammer. On top of that, the lavish costumes, production design, cinematography and, surprisingly, the music, if that is in fact the film’s score, appear to all be top notch.
At this state of the race, this is not only the film to beat, but the film to see as well.
Check out the HD trailer below or watch the gorgeous Apple version below that.
Pete Hammond Analyzes the Oscars by Studio
As I roll out my first predictions of the year, one of the best analysts in the awards industry asks an important question: will budget be a major indicator of this year’s Oscars? In recent years, the Academy has made a sizable shift away from awarding Best Picture to big budget studio films and giving credence to smaller projects with big themes and touching stories. “The King’s Speech,” “The Hurt Locker” and “Slumdog Millionaire” all had budgets of 15 million dollars or less. Quite a change from the days of “Lord of the Rings,” “Gladiator” and “Titanic,” which had a combined budget of nearly 400 million.
So now the question is will the Academy continue to show love for David in the fight against Goliath, and if they do, will the public continue to care about the Oscars at all? I do believe it’s healthy for low budget indies to get noticed by an organization like the Academy, for in turn, the public begins to open their eyes to them, as well. Yet, overall, I wouldn’t feel bad if the studios fought their way back into the fray, especially if they’re packing as much potential as they seem to be.
Hammond has written two pieces on the subject, outlining a heavy portion of this year’s contenders and mapping them out by studio. Here’s an excerpt about which company may have the strongest potential:
“Sony (Pictures) is a partner on Spielberg’s “Adventures of Tin Tin” as well, distributing internationally where the property is much better known. The studio has its own domestic animated entry this fall with “Arthur Christmas,” a holiday-themed ‘toon that I hear from at least one animation uber-expert could be a real spoiler in that race. We’ll see. On the live-action front, Sony is coming back strong with a slate of potential contenders to avenge its “Social Network” Best Picture loss, starting with “Network” director David Fincher’s apparently very intense English-language version of the Swedish phenomenon “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” starring Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara. That doesn’t get unveiled until Dec. 21. Sony’s three other hopefuls are all hitting the fall fest circuit beginning with the Venice fest opening of George Clooney’s political drama “The Ides of March” co-starring Ryan Gosling. Buzz is already major on this Oct. 7 release, and Clooney is an Academy darling (and just a few weeks later, he’s back starring in Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants”). Brad Pitt, who has earned some Oscar talk earlier in the year for “The Tree of Life,” is back in the baseball yarn “Moneyball,” which debuts at Toronto and will try to overcome Oscar’s aversion to most things baseball. Soderbergh was originally to direct but came to a parting of the ways with Sony and “Capote”’s Bennett Miller took over. Finally there’s Roland Emmerich’s 17th century costume drama “Anonymous,” opening Oct. 28 but playing Toronto first. It already sounds like a front-runner for Costumes at least.”
Here are the links to Hammond’s articles about Big Studio Fare and Independent Film Potential. You can also find them at Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood.
EW 25 Movies They “Can’t Wait to See”
I really do enjoy Entertainment Weekly’s periodic lists. Last year, they announced what they felt were the ten most undeserving Best Picture wins of all time and I offered my own up for comparison. Also, I’ve thought that their piece on the 25 most controversial films ever made is worth taking another look at every once in a while. Every year, I look forward to their categorical opinions on filmmaking.
Recently, they released a preview list of some of their most anticipated films of the upcoming Oscar season. The article features some exclusive photos and info that I haven’t come across for certain features. In particular, my excitement towards Clint Eastwood’s Hoover biopic “J. Edgar” has reached a fever pitch. News that Leonardo DiCaprio will be donning a large amount of prosthetic make up to portray the crime-buster in his later years is highly enticing.
EW hasn’t ranked their list, and I definitely can’t say that all of these look very appetizing (“Abduction”? Really?), but I’d say my top five from these selections would look like:
5. “Drive”
4. “Contagion”
3. “J. Edgar”
2. “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
1. “The Ides of March”
I will try to come out with a list of my own must-see list, soon. In the mean time, check out some of the new photos and tidbits over at EW’s official site, here.
Oscar Voting: Revamped and Reconfigured
Two years ago, the film awards community was rocked when the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences announced its plan to increase the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten. This takes us back to the Academy’s roots, nearly seventy years ago, before the Academy cut its nominee count in half. Many people were appalled by the shift in policy, but I was one of the few on the supportive side of things.
This wasn’t just because of the “Dark Knight” snub debacle or that a top ten list is more rounded and proper than a top five, though both of those are good reasons. The truth is, there have been far too many snubs for a shot at the grand prize over the years and two many great films overlooked. I still have nightmares over the fact that brilliant work like “United 93,” “Children of Men,” “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and “Mulholland Dr.” never appeared on a Best Picture ballot. Overall, ten was just a more efficient number to catalogue the best films of the year.
Well, as of this year, the debate over whether it be five nominees, ten nominees or six and three quarters no longer exists, because no one will have any idea until the morning of. Sources report that, this winter, the Academy will have a to-be-determined number of nominees, and that amount will be subject to change on a yearly basis pending on how many votes each film receives. According to Academy executive director Bruce Davis, all films garnering at least five percent of the vote will be nominated. Based on former numbers, that would include somewhere between five to nine selections.
While, I will miss the uniformity and satisfaction of having an Oscar top ten list, this could be a much more efficient way of honoring the films. It’s not entirely logical that if seven films receive upwards of five to ten percent of voting and three more films get about one to two percent a piece, that they should be mandated for inclusion.
However, this policy is a bit of a double-edged sword. Just like the expansion to ten nominees was meant to allow for blockbuster films to make the cut, vote percentage regulations may hinder the chances of smaller indy films from making the cut. Sadly, this is not due to disdain for the films or bad marketing. It’s simply because voters don’t get around to seeing them. Using hypothetical numbers, let’s look at the case of a small film like “Winter’s Bone.” Fifty percent of voters who see the film might choose to nominate it. However, the amount of people who see the film may only be a small fraction compared to those who went to see something like “Avatar.” So even if only five percent of “Avatar” viewers choose to nominate it (compared to “Winter’s Bone”‘s fifty) that number may still dominate over the tiny indy. “Bone”‘s percentage might have been enough to gain its place in a top ten, but five percent of the vote is unlikely.
Meanwhile, on top of percentages, the Academy has chosen to revolutionize Oscar voting by taking steps to providing online ballots. This would be the first time that an awards show with as much history and prestige has made such a shift (the Emmys refuse to commit). Online balloting may help reduce the possibility of error and could help expedite the process, bumping the broadcast up to January. However, it raises the very real concern of computer hacking.
The Oscar results are one of the best kept secrets in the world up until the names are read out on live television. And while the services of PricewaterhousCooper is are beyond reproach, there is always an “if” factor. With hacking groups such as “Anonymous” breaking into everything from Sony to the CIA, the possibility exists. What self-repecting, however disrespecting to the public they may be, hacker wouldn’t want the opportunity to crack the Academy’s database and announce to the world Hollywood’s best kept secret.
Will it happen? Someone like me worries about a situation like that with the same fear of nuclear terrorism. I suppose only time will tell. In closing, I leave you with one of my favorite Oscar speeches.
“The King’s Speech” Wins – Welcome to Reality
All right, it took some time to process what has happened, but I’m ready to say my piece.
I’d like to preface this article by stating very clearly that I do not dislike “The King’s Speech.” I think that it is at least a solid film and a “good” film. The film at least deserved a few nominations, as even I gave it in the Edgy Awards last week. Try to keep that in mind, even if everything I am about to write flies in the face this statement.
Furthermore, I’d like to state a disclaimer. It is my dream to do this for a living. I want to be a professional film critic and awards pundit and I would very much hope this blog to be a launching point for that goal. However, it is important for all of my readers to remember that this IS a blog. If I was to write for a syndicated newspaper or established professional website, I would do my best to keep my opinions dutifully in check and maintain an even-keeled view on the world of cinema. Yet, on this blog, I reserve the right to tell it like it is, as they say, and let slip my own dogs of war upon the current situation.
I’ll just start things off by just coming out and stating it: “The King’s Speech” winning Best Motion Picture of the Year has got to be one of the worst decisions that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has ever made. I do not say this only because the film is grossly undeserving of such a distinction. I say it because of the audacity in picking what is obviously the safest route among a crop of much edgier and, ultimately, better films.
I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again, and I know you all never get tired of hearing it. “The Social Network” is the best film of the year. In my opinion, this statement is indisputable. It deserved the Oscar perhaps more than any other film in at least the last decade. Last night was a proverbial snub, one of the very worst kind. However, it’s much more than that.
i don’t know about everyone else, but I think that it’s the goal of human civilization to move forward with the times. We should always be advancing as a people. The Academy it seems, does not see it that way. Filmmaking is always a changing medium, constantly progressing and reinventing itself. Many films this year, including “Black Swan,” “Inception,” “Toy Story 3,” “127 Hours,” and above all else, “The Social Network” are indicative of this notion. “The King’s Speech” represents a backwards-moving logic; filmmaking of the most basic, uninventive and insipid quality.
Last night’s events were not only a disappointment for cinema and those who believe that the Oscars should reflect the best that the industry has to offer. They were not just a slap in the face of some of the finest filmmakers at the top of their game producing some of the greatest work of their careers. What it is, however, is the setting of a dangerous precedent. The Academy has made it very clear that the award for Best Picture does not have to be based on what’s the best film, but rather what is the best film for them, so to speak.
“The Social Network” had practically a monopoly on all critics’ awards for Best Picture. This was not a fluke. These are individuals who know about film. They are paid for their opinions because their opinions are intelligent, educated and respected. They are also people who take great pride in their work. They are not influenced by outside parties and they are not in cahoots with each other. With one voice, these critics from dozens of different outlets and cities almost universally declared “The Social Network” as the best film of the year.
So what happened? David Fincher’s film was on a winning streak like has never been seen before up until the awards shifted from the critics to the industry itself. “The King’s Speech” captured awards from the Producers Guild, the Directors Guild and the Screen Actors Guild. So why is that the people who make movies have such a unified opinion against “The Social Network”? It’s because “The King’s Speech” is the epitome of Hollywood’s ideal movie. It’s low-budget. It was a huge box office success. It has an enchanting cast and a heartwarming story. It’s noncontroversial. It’s likeable. Bottom-line: it’s easy. This is the type of movie that Hollywood wants to make: ones that the audience will eat up hook, line and sinker. Not the best, just good enough. That’s the reality we live in.
Well, speaking as one of the hundreds of critics in the country who were just informed that we were flat-out wrong, I consider this a disgrace.
If that’s the present world, then I guess all that’s left is the future. And what will the future tell about the current situation? I personally can’t wait. I can’t wait for the day, maybe twenty years from now, when “The Social Network” is considered a classic; an artful and original masterpiece that is completely indicative of our time and culture. And what will “The King’s Speech” be? It will be forgotten. It will go down as a second-rate “Shakespeare in Love,” remembered only in passing simply as the film that, quite oddly, beat “The Social Network” for Best Picture. Like it or not, only one of these films will truly stand the test of time.
In the meantime, we have to accept reality and just hope that next year will bring better results. Only twelve months to go, and you can bet I’ll still be here writing about it. Hope you all are, too.
The ACE and BAFTAs…A Shift in the Winds?
Last week, I reported that “The King’s Speech” cleaned up at the British Academy Awards. However, this was to be expected. Records for acting awards and the first film to win both of their Best Film and Best British Film. Go figure, considering it’s the most widely popularized British film since “Shakespeare in Love.” However, on the whole, I almost have to say that “The King’s Speech” underperformed at the BAFTAs, and if one film had an equal, or possibly better night overall, it would have to be “The Social Network.”
No, this is not favoritism. No, it is not just just wishful thinking. I think at this point of the race, it is now more neck and neck between the two big contenders than it ever has been. For the first two weeks after nominations were announced, it was all all about “The King’s Speech,” especially after picking up its trio of key guild awards. However, after the BAFTAs, the WGA, and now the ACE victory, “The Social Network” has shown that it could very easily take home the big prize. One simply has to look at the past and the science behind it all.
Yes, it’s true that the PGA, DGA and SAG are all very heavy hitters when it comes to inducing a Best Picture win. However, in the long run, it looks like “The King’s Speech” will be down several big awards on Sunday night. This takes us back to why the BAFTAs were such a key event. While taking them for a sweep, “The King’s Speech” managed to lose Director and Editing, perhaps the two key awards in the Best Picture race. After winning the American Cinema Editors top prize, “The Social Network” seems to have Best Editing in the bag, along with the obvious Best Adapted Screenplay. And one has to wonder that if the Brits won’t even bestow Tom Hooper with the big director’s prize, how willing will the Academy be to snub David Fincher for what is quite possibly his finest work to date and maybe ever again.
Now, let’s look at the stats. Best Director and Best Editor are more engrained in the blood of a Best Picture winner than any other awards. An example of how important the editing honor is, no film has won Best Picture in over thirty years (not since “Ordinary People” in 1980) without being nominated for Best Editing. Many people believe that aside from the homophobia, this was the bane of “Brokeback Mountain,” being that “Crash” had the fervent support of the editors with both Oscar and ACE awards under its belt. Now, granted, both “The King’s Speech” and “The Social Network” have been nominated for that award, so the race does not end on this stat.
However, here’s some other info to chew on. If “The Social Network” does win Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Editing, however loses Best Picture, it will be only the 3rd film in the history of the Oscars to do so. The other two were “Traffic” in ’00 and “A Place in the Sun” in ’51. Furthermore, in the situation that “The Social Network” wins Directing and Editing: Only 2 films in the last 20 years have won Best Picture without winning either of those two awards (“Gladiator” in ’00, “Shakespeare in Love” in “98). Going back even further, only 5 films in the last 50 YEARS have accomplished that task. In this regard, precedents for “The King’s Speech” winning peg it at only about 1 in 10.
If ancient history is too flimsy for some, let’s look at the last decade. Three of the last four films to win Best Picture (“The Hurt Locker,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” and “The Departed”) all took home Director, Screenplay and Editing. Also, in regard to the recent American Cinema Editors award, 7 out of the last 10 films to win Best Picture also won the ACE, and in the years that they didn’t, the winner of the ACE went on to take Best Editing at the Oscars, which speaks well for “Social Network,” as well.
There are a few big precedents to support a “King’s Speech” victory, most glaringly would be “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan.” However, one event is strangely alike to the present year that stands behind a “Social Network” upset and that is 1995. Before Oscar night, “Apollo 13” had taken the PGA, the DGA and the SAG. “Braveheart” had taken the Golden Globe for Best Director, the BFCA for Best Director, the ACE and the WGA. Freakishly similar. “Braveheart” came out victorious. Perhaps the only thing that separates it would be that Ron Howard was not nominated for Oscar’s Best Director, while Tom Hooper is. However, “Braveheart” also did not have the added incentive of having won practically EVERY SINGLE BEST PICTURE AWARD THAT EXISTS up to the PGA.
A lot of jargon, right? What does it all mean? It means that I have made a decision to support “The Social Network” to the final moments in regards to my Best Picture prediction. Hope may be a dangerous thing in this game, but if ever there was a year that I had to hold on to it, it would be this one. Will I be wrong? Possibly. Probably. Yet, I imagine a scenario in which “The Social Network” won and I predicted against it. I’d never forgive myself.
And in all honesty, I really think it’s going to happen.
Well, I’m off to work on the Edgies. Stay tuned for the winners’ announcement on Thursday evening, while my final Oscar predictions will have to wait until Saturday night. I spare not a second.
EW Ranks the Top Ten Worst Best Picture Wins
It’s no doubt that “The Social Network” is the unanimous choice for Best Picture by this country’s critics. Entertainment Weekly’s own Lisa Schwarzbaum and Owen Gleiberman were united for the first time in years by both placing the film at the top of their lists. Therefore, it’s hard not to chuckle at the timing of this article: less than two weeks before “The King’s Speech” takes the home the gold at this year’s event.
I know. I’m such an opportunist. But let’s be serious. The 2011 Best Picture will eventually make it to this list. Just a matter of time. Meanwhile, let’s take a look at the past. This is a really good list. I’d almost like to make one of my own, except it would probably mirror this one quite a bit. Here’s the list:
10. “Forrest Gump” over “Pulp Fiction”
9. “The Last Emperor” over “Broadcast News,” “Fatal Attraction” or “Moonstruck”
8. “Around the World in Eighty Days” over “Giant”
7. “Gandhi” over “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial”
6. “The English Patient” over “Fargo” or “Jerry Maguire”
5. “Dances with Wolves” over “Goodfellas”
4. “Chariots of Fire” over “Reds”
3. “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan”
2. “How Green Was My Valley” over “Citizen Kane”
1. “Crash” over “Brokeback Mountain”
The only one on this list that I really cannot concur with is “The Last Emperor.” While it’s certainly not an amazing film, neither was any of its competition. None of the other three films listed are any more deserving of the prize. 1987 on the whole was a pretty horrible year for cinema. My favorite was “Full Metal Jacket,” but even that film I have a difficult time calling Best Picture-worthy. Also, while the excruciatingly long and uneventful “Gandhi” was a shameful choice, “E.T.” would not be my pick from the nominees. For as much of a Spielberg whore as I am, his cuddly alien movie is not one of my favorites. Personally, I would have picked Sydney Pollack’s in-the-moment comedy, “Tootsie.”
My equivalent list would probably look like this:
10. “Chariots of Fire” over “Raiders of the Lost Ark”
9. “The Sting” over “A Clockwork Orange” or “The Last Picture Show”
8. “Going My Way” over “Double Indemnity”
7. “Titanic” over “L.A. Confidential”
6. “Dances with Wolves” over “Goodfellas”
5. “How Green Was My Valley” over “Citizen Kane”
4. “Crash” over “Brokeback Mountain” or “Munich”
3. “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan,” or even “The Thin Red Line”
2. “Rocky” over “Taxi Driver,” “All the President’s Men” or “Network”
1. “In the Heat of the Night” over “Bonnie and Clyde” or “The Graduate”
Masterpieces like “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Taxi Driver” losing out to works of pure mediocrity like “Rocky” and “In the Heat of the Night” are enough to make eyes roll. I still also remember watching Harvey Weinstein and his entourage taking the stage in 1999, not being able to move for twenty minutes, my blood boiling with rage. Same in 2006 with the ridiculous Paul Haggis. It’s enough to make one cry.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the “test of time” question, not many films earn it to the same extent as “Citizen Kane,” “Double Indemnity,” or even after 20 or 30 years, “Goodfellas” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” These films are considered works of art by critics, industry and audiences alike while their competition has faded into the video store walls.
Give it a year and expect to find “The King’s Speech” up on this list. Maybe some day the Academy will realize that history will judge their decisions, and their hindsight is not very kind, and nor should it be, considering some of these decisions.
Check out Entertainment Weekly’s article, with a slideshow and commentary. Also, if you want to see something funny, check out this video of “Shakespeare in Love” winning Best Picture and watch Harrison Ford’s dismayed expression after reading the name. I feel for you, buddy…
My Top Ten List – 2010
Last year, I can remember the huge uproar against the AMPAS extending the amount of Best Picture nominees to ten. I can also remember, that through it all, I was one of this notion’s strongest supporters. I recognize the faults in the logic. It allows for lesser films that have no business being considered one of the year’s best to fight their way in due to endless campaigning and the votes of stupid people. This flaw took shape last year in the form of “The Blind Side” getting nominated for Best Picture.
However, the upsides of the expansion are far greater. It gives the field a more diverse look, for one. It’s nice to see films from a wide range of directors and collaborators. If allows also a mix of both intelligent box office hits and scrappy indy favorites. More than anything else, however, is that five films is just two few to sum up a year in cinema. Had the Academy enacted this ruling ten years ago, one would look back on certain films and think it a crime had they not been nominated, which they haven’t. Imagine a world if films like “The Wrestler,” “The Dark Knight,” “WALL-E,” “Into the Wild,” “Once,” “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” “United 93,” “Little Children,” “Children of Men” and “Pan’s Labyrinth” could have been Best Picture nominees, and that’s only the last five years.
It must be for that reason that critics, for over fifty years, have been issuing top ten lists of their favorite films, rather than top five lists. It’s about that time, therefore, for The Edge of the Frame to release its own list for the 2010 year. I have now seen sixty films from 2010, which is low for me and not quite an respectable amount. Over the years, I’m sure that this list will change a spot or two as I see more, but for now, I believe that I’ve seen an acceptable sum to create an adequate list.
This has been a good year for film, but not really a great one. Out of sixty films, I gave only two films “A” grades. The year has had its high points and low points. For instance, it has been a great year for lead acting performances, but a rotten year for cinematography. For sure, I will always remember 2010 as the year that the Oscars snubbed its nose at great film and went home to their comfort zones. More than anything else, however, 2010 has been the year of the documentary. Never have I seen a year in cinema in which so many documentaries have captured my interest, let alone made it into my top ten.
As always there are a few stragglers that, even though they don’t qualify for my top ten, they still deserve an honorable mention. Therefore, this next selection of films are all very good, but just not good enough. They may be packed with amazing moments, but there’s also one too many flaws that have kept them down. So without further adieu, here are the films that just didn’t quite make it:
THE RUNNERS-UP
“127 Hours”
Directed by Danny Boyle
Written by Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy
Click HERE to see the rest of the list
The Edge of the Frame 