Chicago Film Critics Jump on the Coen Bandwagon
Critical accolades are piling up for No Country for Old Men. I’d be bored with the whole thing if I didn’t already believe it was the best movie of the year.
- Picture: No Country for Old Men
- Foreign Language Film: 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days
- Director: Joel & Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
- Original Screenplay: Diablo Cody, Juno
- Adapted Screenplay: Joel & Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
- Actor: Daniel Day Lewis, There Will Be Blood
- Actress: Ellen Page, Juno
- Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
- Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett, I’m Not There
- Original Score: Glen Hansard & Marketa Irglova, Once
- Cinematography: Roger Deakins, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
- Documentary: Sicko
- Animated Feature: Ratatouille
- Most Promising Performer: Michael Cera, Juno and Superbad
- Most Promising Filmmaker: Ben Affleck, Gone Baby Gone
It’s strange how the Foreign Language vote is divided between those who saw The Lives of Others in 2006 and those who saw it this year. I’m guessing those who saw it this year, haven’t seen 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days yet. They’re both great movies, but it would’ve been nice to see some kind of national consensus for each year. Oh well.
Besides more love for No Country I’m glad to see a little recognition for Once. I begged people to see that movie and didn’t get many takers.
You may have noticed I haven’t said a peep about the elephant in the room, the Golden Globes. These are exactly the kind of awards I was thinking of the other day when I lamented looking into the awards abyss and being frightened by what I saw. They are where I draw the line. The awards show itself is a fun celebration of movies and it’s always nice to see movies you love getting recognition, but what do they mean really? It’s true, the Globes are interesting tea leaves to read before predicting which way the Oscar winds will blow. For the record, Oscar tea is served hot at Awards Daily 24-7. Check it out.
Filed under: Awards, News
Related Posts: - ‘Juno’ Gets Knocked Up at Indie Spirit Awards
- London Critics Drop Crumpets, Grab Cattle Guns
- The Golden Globes Announced
- Actors Award Their Own
- Local News Douches Agree: ‘No Country’ Tastes Great!
Good to see Deakins’ work in Jesse James finally getting recognized.
You said it brother, though Joel said something in one of the other awards threads about one shouldn’t underestimate the great work he did in No Country even though it’s more subtle to the untrained eye.
I think we can all agree: Deakins is the man.
But yeah, JJ needs all the praise it can get even if it’s too late to do any good.
I was so glad to see Deakins’ acknowledgment for Jesse James. AND a win for Once. The HFPA really stiffed that film completely - not even a best song nomination.
As a huge fan of No Country, I never get bored of seeing all of these accolades bestowed upon it.
And, of course, I’m thrilled to see Daniel Day-Lewis receive more critical acclaim, as well as Cate.
Ellen Page was a surprise. But then, as I commented over at Awards Daily, isn’t her champion Ebert part of Chicago? :-p
I assume he is. He may be getting soft, but the man still knows a star when he sees one.
Oh, I still have a lot of respect for him. He’s an excellent writer and I’ve always admired his passion for film. And, of course, he’s the guy who championed the smaller, independent films.
Considering I haven’t seen Juno, 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days, There Will Be Blood, or Sicko, I can enthusiastically get behind all of these other picks. Excellent work, Chicago critics.
I am especially heartened to see Deakins getting respect for Jesse James and Once getting Best Score. Glad to see movies that are being forgotten by some haven’t been ignored by all the critical masses.
I have to say, some things I’d like to see recognized are getting mostly overlooked…Zodiac being biggest among them and it’s really too bad Once isn’t making a bigger splash…but so far there haven’t been any really bad choices.
As has been said elsewhere, it’s been such a remarkable year for movies, you’d almost have to TRY to make a bad choice to not hit something worthwhile.
Stil…NBR…Bucket List….Wwaaaahh??
True, this has been quite a year for films thus far. It does make the inclusion of Bucket List all the more weird.
I almost want to see it now…
ZODIAC is like an intricate, obscenely detailed piece of jewelry. And all that implies.
some would take that as a bad thing, fairly enough. Me? I could stare at it for hours, though I admit it lacks a certain emotional resonance people look for in a movie experience.
I’m just cold to Fincher. Always have been. ZODIAC is about the surface not the depth.
Altho i liked the script for FIGHT CLUB and the movie was subversive, it’s just so smug. And when I read an interview with Fincher talking about the FC musical and how he thought it ridiculous that people would be driving from Jersey to pay 100 bucks for a FC musical, the glimpse into his ad-man psyche was revealing.
Don’t beat me up.
I would probably have a more exciting blog if I punched you in the nose right now, but you’ve opened my mind to Skidoo. I like to think we can disagree peacefully and boringly.
I have a lot of ambivalence about filmmakers who are tainted by advertising. Michael Bay is the most obvious one, but even Ridley Scott gives me pause.
There’s a cynicism to advertising, but there’s also a beauty to it when it’s done well. Of course there’s also an essential emptiness to it which gets us right back to where this conversation started.
I think i can see what you’re getting at Christian, although I liked the film a lot more than you (I assume). Fincher has an obsession with the technical details that can easily get in the way of his storytelling. Exhibit A: Panic Room.
But I think Zodiac has a lot more going on than any of his previous films (most of which I like) and I’ll be really curious to see the longer cut of Zodiac. I think they may have stripped more of the incidental character development and narrative meat from the movie to par down the running time, which makes Fincher’s technical eccentricities more obvious.
And I do think ZODIAC is Fincher’s best film. The loving attention to detail is there, but if you want grit, the CG don’t cut it. And there was far too much.
Digital blood looks just like…digital blood.
I think I was so uncomfortable and horrified during the scene that you’re thinking of, the blood was just…well…gravy. CGI gravy perhaps, but extra and not required for maximum horrific effect. Assuming of course we’re thinking of the couple by the lake scene.
I was thinking of the shooting. It pulls me out of the movie to see the digital. The same way it didn’t work for me in LAND OF THE DEAD.
You’re talking to the guy who’d rather see a model of the Bismarck getting sunk in a giant tank or a guy in a latex monster suit stomping on Tokyo than a carefully detailed CGI rendering of the same.
Yes, the model looks fake too…but it’s tactile. Something CGI still hasn’t pulled off.
OK, I’m lost as to the reference of the fake blood and I just rewatched this on DVD a month or so ago. But I concur that when Fincher gets tweaky with the CGI I appreciate the effort but find it distracting. There are a few impossible shots in Zodiac that looked really cool but pulled me right out of the movie because I was fixated on momentarily mentally congratulating the CGI. I do have to admit though that I think the time-lapse construction of the Transamerica Pyramid was a brilliant visual cue.