Los Angeles Film Critics

[anonymous1980]

I do think what Magilla said, about this being a generational thing, has some merit, though I'd put it differently from the way he articulated it. It's not that people grew up on video games, but that they've grown up in a world where "action movies" -- movies where action itself seems to supersede story -- not only exist (they didn't, in the same way, when I was younger) but completely dominate the Hollywood landscape. It's also a world where people don't stop reading comic books when they reach adolescence (as I did, and I was a voracious Superman fan as a kid); they graduate to graphic novels. This combination has many people younger than me immersed in fantasy genres, and when they come across a superior example within it, they're apt to see it as serious art, where I -- and my age compatriots -- are more likely to see it as just a tastier version of junk food.

To elaborate more on the food comparison, Mad Max is a really tasty burger. But a burger made with care with the finest, freshest ingredients. It's still not steak, caviar or foie gras. Some people would still say, "It's still JUST a burger" while some people would say it's tastier and superior to mediocre steak and should be evaluated on par with all the other fancy foods and deserves room in the table. That said, I'd rather have a delicious burger on the table than mediocre steak.

[Mister Tee]

You could have watched multiple NFL games in the time it took LA to plow through all this.

Highlight of the day for me was without a doubt the Fassbender pick. Prior to that, it had seemed like critics would try anything (a supporting performance! a space movie star!) to avoid this highly-praised and seemingly obvious choice. Did other critics not want to be associated with the flop-stink from the film's commercial failure? I'm delighted LA rescued this outstanding performance from oblivion.

I also took heart in Mad Max falling short at the end. As I said, I'm not in Magilla's class regarding this film: I thought it was solid work within its genre. I just don't take it in any way seriously as the year's best film. Yes, it got very strong reviews, but I thought those reviews were of the "great for what it is" variety -- in their day, Speed, The Matrix and The Bourne Ultimatum got similarly excited response, but no one brought them into year-end best film discussions; they were strictly (and deservedly) honored with tech prizes. Which I'd be fine with Fury Road winning.

I do think what Magilla said, about this being a generational thing, has some merit, though I'd put it differently from the way he articulated it. It's not that people grew up on video games, but that they've grown up in a world where "action movies" -- movies where action itself seems to supersede story -- not only exist (they didn't, in the same way, when I was younger) but completely dominate the Hollywood landscape. It's also a world where people don't stop reading comic books when they reach adolescence (as I did, and I was a voracious Superman fan as a kid); they graduate to graphic novels. This combination has many people younger than me immersed in fantasy genres, and when they come across a superior example within it, they're apt to see it as serious art, where I -- and my age compatriots -- are more likely to see it as just a tastier version of junk food. There are obviously now a certain number of that younger crowd old enough to be critics, and they seem to be exerting influence this year. But apparently there were just enough of my generation to draw the line at the end there.

I will be interested to see what happens at Globes with Fury Road. As BJ says, the HFPA has been most averse to such genres, so if they swing for it, the door could open wide. I still think it's an iffy prospect above the line.

Spotlight would have to be viewed as front-runner now, but it seems a kind of low-flame front-runner. It's not truly breaking out commercially, either, and, though it'd make a worthy enough winner, it feels like it's vulnerable to challenge. Also, it seems like a movie begging for a film/director split in this (Tom Hooper aside) somewhat auteurist period in the category.

So, why isn't Cate Blanchett showing up anywhere in the critics' balloting? A feeling she got enough two years ago? Split affection with her co-star? Or just too much competition? I'm really stupefied a performance I found so outstanding -- in a film otherwise scoring well -- could have so little electoral impact. (And I'd guess Harvey Weinstein would feel this blackout of his actresses by critics justifies his decision to split them for campaigning purposes.)

Not that I'm not perfectly happy for the long-deserving Charlotte Rampling. I do, though, wish we could have had a few of these stellar best actress candidates last year, when we really needed them. Someone really good is going to be left off this year.

I guess when you give critics truth serum (i.e., not let them indulge in category fraud), you get Vikander for a movie not likely to carry over to AMPAS, and Kristen Stewart right behind. Does Stewart actually have a chance, or is the film just too outre? If Mara and Vikander -- at least Mara -- are promoted to lead at the Oscars, I think we'll have almost no idea who'll be nominated in this junior category.

Shannon's notice here is, as discussed, probably a one-off. Mark Rylance has been sort of dominant in these early rounds (runner-up here, and several wins), but he doesn't feel juggernaut-y the way Jared Leto did (to say nothing of J.K. Simmons). Notable: there were some loud voices in LA pushing the Stallone/Creed scenario. That they weren't able to make a showing here makes one wonder how big a thing that's really going to be. (Add in that Creed dropped fairly strongly this weekend at the box office. It's doing well, but it's not such a behemoth AMPAS can't ignore it.)

I thought Carter Burwell was cruelly denied for his Gods and Monsters score, and would be hugely pleased to see him get a nomination this year.

I'm thinking the SAG Ensemble on Wednesday and, especially, the Globes on Thursday are going to bring a whole new batch of films onto the field. The late-arrivals probably need to show up with HFPA (Joy and Big Short have the advantage of competing under comedy, so they damn well better not miss) I think we have a long way to go before things come into better focus.

[The Original BJ]

I'd say the big news from this announcement is that between NBR, NY, and LA, not a single above-the-line winner picked up a prize from the other two -- opinions this year are all over the place, and I hope they stay that way. (The places where repeats occurred were Foreign Language Film, Documentary, and Animated Feature -- and it wouldn't be hard to see Son of Saul, Amy, and Inside Out being the ultimate winners of those categories on Oscar night, should they continue being the consensus choices.)

The Mad Max love doesn't at all surprise me from this group -- it WAS an exceedingly well-reviewed film, and it's not shocking the critics went to bat for it now after doing so this summer. But we'll see how far that affection goes with other groups.

The Picture/Screenplay mentions were solid gets for Spotlight, which has been viewed as something of a frontrunner, but hasn't dominated prizes as of yet.

I was quite happy for Fassbender -- and glad to see his movie picking up a big win, which it needed. (I can't believe Aaron Sorkin hasn't been more in the discussion in these screenplay votes.)

I'd say the biggest boost for any candidate came for Charlotte Rampling, who had seemed like she could very easily become a victim of her movie's way-late release date and simply be forgotten. Of course, it remains to be seen whether she'll be able to crack that fierce Best Actress lineup, but she's been a respected actress for a long time, and I imagine a lot more voters will now make sure to take a look at this work. (Re: the runner-up, I'm pretty surprised Ronan did so well with both NY/LA -- I'm with Mister Tee, in that I think she's perfectly lovely in her movie, but well below the sensational level of Larson and Blanchett.)

Michael Shannon is probably too far out of the conversation to get in it at this point, but I guess you never know. (Haven't seen his film.)

As Mister Tee wrote, Ex Machina presents an interesting option for those who might want to honor Vikander for her year, but not indulge in category fraud. (I've been reading comments, here and elsewhere, from people arguing that she's a lead in Ex Machina too, but I don't see that -- Gleeson is the protagonist, and Isaac has plenty of screen time too. There are pretty decent chunks of the movie without Vikander, even if it does end on her.) The tough thing, though, is that I don't really see Ex Machina as the kind of movie that gets acting nominations, particularly when one is playing a robot. It is amazing, though, with the lead/supporting brouhaha, and now multiple films winning her prizes, just how much confusion there is over what/where she might be recognized.

In my mind, I think of Carol's below-the-line team as the Far From Heaven team, so I'd forgotten that obviously Elmer Bernstein didn't write Carol's score. And so I hadn't put it together that Carol could finally give Carter Burwell his long-awaited first nomination! Similarly, upon hearing the overture for The Hateful Eight, I wondered if this could finally be 87-year-old Morricone's first Oscar win...although the mix tape sampling of other pieces of music and songs throughout the film made me less confident as the movie went on. We haven't really discussed the score race much yet, but I'm finding it pretty hard to come up with an idea of what the nominees might be -- that seems to be yet another category that's completely wide open.

[Big Magilla]

It's finally over!

[dws1982]

Son of Saul winning Foreign Film tells me it won't be winning Best Film. So...Mad Max?

[Okri]

Director went to George Miller, with Todd Haynes as the runner up.

Anomalisia won for animated, Inside Out as the runner up.

[Big Magilla]

I'm just seeing Michael Fassbender won best actor here? Saints be praised: for a while it seemed he was such a obvious pick that critics were avoiding him on principle.

I think he had to win L.A. to stay viable.

[Mister Tee]

At least that placement won't be controversial since he doesn't have a shot at a nomination in either category, and hardly anyone has seen the film anyway.

Agreed: Shannon is (by all I've heard) deserving, but not truly in the running.

But I think you could write a thesis this season about the number of acting candidates with category ambiguity, either genuine (Dano, Keaton) or campaign-manfactured (Mara, Vikander, Tremblay).

And I'm just seeing Michael Fassbender won best actor here? Saints be praised: for a while it seemed he was such a obvious pick that critics were avoiding him on principle.

[Okri]

Fassbender won for Steve Jobs, ru Geza Rohrig

Spotlight for screenplay, ru: Anomalisia

[dws1982]

At least that placement won't be controversial since he doesn't have a shot at a nomination in either category, and hardly anyone has seen the film anyway.

[Big Magilla]

Shannon is excellent in 99 Homes, so I'm glad he's getting some recognition, but he's lead, along with Andrew Garfield.

Don't start! LOL.

[dws1982]

Shannon is excellent in 99 Homes, so I'm glad he's getting some recognition, but he's lead, along with Andrew Garfield.

[Big Magilla]

And may I say, it seems perverse in the extreme to vote Mad Max multiple prizes (with maybe more to come) but deny it editing, the one category in which it seems the obvious pick.

I don't know, maybe the anti-Mad Max contingent just found a "cooler" film with which to get enough support to trump it.

[Mister Tee]

And may I say, it seems perverse in the extreme to vote Mad Max multiple prizes (with maybe more to come) but deny it editing, the one category in which it seems the obvious pick.

[Mister Tee]

Giving Vikander a supporting actress award for Ex Machina is a good way to sidestep the category fraud question over The Danish Girl, but an argument could be made for her being a lead in Ex Machina as well.

I'll take a slightly different slant: I think she's fairly solidly supporting in Ex Machina, but I think many who voted for her were voting by proxy for her entire year, but were too embarrassed to highlight Danish Girl because 1) Ex Machina is a "cooler" movie and 2) there's been too much talk about the category fraud. This does probably improve Vikander's chances of a Danish Girl nomination, I fear in support.

Someone said elsewhere that it's worth discussing whether Harvey's category manipulation has cost both its actresses support in critics' voting.