The Blind Side

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Glad to see that some Americans here are dismissing this schmaltzy, unbearably sweet, and truly, truly embarassing (from a social and political point of view) "movie" (in Italy it would be a tv movie, and not a major one). And glad to see that NOT all American children must be like this one, judging from the reactions in this thread (though I am afraid that many are). I know that this movie doesnt represent ALL Americans, yet its commercial success means, I guess, that it represents a relevant part of them.

So, just an advice. Please dont show it abroad. If you dont want anti Americanism to become even bigger than it already is, dont show this movie abroad. Keep it for yourselves, for your packed movie theatres, for those of you who still want to believe in the "American dream", but dont let this to be seen abroad. You were doing fine with Obama, etc, why this mistake now?
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

flipp525 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:Ah, Magilla. Months spent in vain denying Streep's chances at a nomination, and now a quixotic "Bullock, not Streep" campaign.
Yeah, these kind of 11th hour arguments would carry a lot more weight if you'd occasionally cop (gracefully) to be being WRONG (see: Mo'Nique).
I may be wrong in my predicting but not in my questioning.

With Streep, I'd seen her give so many mediocre, over-praised performances over the years that I now approach everything she does with a skeptical eye. I have to admit, though, that she completely won me over with Julie & Julia. Enough to give her an Oscar Shouldabeen nomination but not the award. At the moment I'm leaning toward Tilda Swinton in Julia.

I may give Mo'Nique one as well, not because I think she deserves it but because since everyone else seems to think she's so wonderful there must be something lacking in me that I just can't see it.

Streep has won my Oscar Shouldabeens three times including last year for Doubt since I've now gone back to my original thinking and given Kate Winslet my supporting actress award for The Reader.

I still think Winslet's performance is superior but the problem I have is that there were six deserving best actress performances and only four supporting ones so Winslet's performance which is borderline lead/supporting is rewarded in support at the expense of Taraji P. Henson. Oscar winner Penelope Cruz, who I was never crazy about in Vicky Cristina Barcelona is the nominee who gets dropped.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Mister Tee wrote:Ah, Magilla. Months spent in vain denying Streep's chances at a nomination, and now a quixotic "Bullock, not Streep" campaign.

Yeah, these kind of 11th hour arguments would carry a lot more weight if you'd occasionally cop (gracefully) to being WRONG (see: Mo'Nique).

I think Bullock's nomination is slam-dunk at this point, but I don't think a win for her is entirely impossible. Streep is dependably wonderful in Julia & Julie and even if it's mid-tier Streep, that's still better than more than half the female performances that usually come out in any given year. But, a strong campaign for a hit film can also go a long way in just a couple months. I'll give it a little more time before I declare Bullock totally over.

Has anyone offered the possibility of Streep's It's Complicated performance somehow coming out on top a la DiCaprio/Blood Diamond?




Edited By flipp525 on 1260990306
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Stranger things have happened and a lot closer to 2009 than 1970. :O
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Ah, Magilla. Months spent in vain denying Streep's chances at a nomination, and now a quixotic "Bullock, not Streep" campaign.

I just don't see anything in Academy history that suggests Bullock would be a stronger candidate than Streep this year. Literally, not one factor -- critical support, lifetime history, even popularity. Streep's performance isn't one for the ages -- or even her own top tier -- but Bullock, in that cheese-fest? She could win the People's Choice Award, but voting her an Oscar would be the equivalent of Ali MacGraw winning in 1970.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Caught up with it today.

Even as inspirational sports movies go, it's only fair to middling, but Bullock is at the top of her game. She gives a fine restrained performance, leaving the scenery chewing to the kid playing her son, Kathy Bates and various other supporting players. Even when she's angry, she's calm.

As has been noted were it not for the fact that this is a weak year for lead actresses, at least lead actresses in Hollywood films, we wouldn't be talking about an Oscar nomination for Bullock. If the film had come and gone in a week or two we wouldn't be talking about an Oscar nomination for Bullock. But in these days when stars, particularly female stars, can no longer be counted on to "open" a movie, Bullock struck not once, but twice this year - first with The Proposal and then with this, years after Hollywood pretty much gave up on her as a money magnet. She'll get a career recognition nod for sure.

Can she win, though? As has also been pointed out she has no big scenes, but neither really does Meryl Streep who has been collecting critics' prizes for her half of Julie & Julia. It wouldn't be a conventional win if she does, but it would be a popular one. I say watch the SAGs. If she beats Streep there, she could very well beat her at the Oscars.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

One main reason why Bullock won't win is because she doesn't have any big dramatic scenes. I don't think it would really be a win-worthy performance (I'd rank it ahead of at least three of this decade's winners, though), but while the film seems to have a self-congratulatory tone about it, I do think it's a big credit to Bullock that, in my opinion, this tone isn't carried over to her performance. The scene where she shames her lunchmate after an openly racist comment is excellent to me, because Bullock speaks from a inherent decency, rather than from a righteous indignation, or from someone who has discovered her racial tolerance. (The way Jane Fonda discovered her radiacalism in so many films.) Some small touches like that give me a reason to support the nomination on the basis of the performance itself. It's not her best performance, but I can't say I'm unhappy to see her get some recognition.

I saw that kid, the long-lost twin of that banjo-playing boy from Deliverance on an episode of Special Victims Unit that I had on in the background this afternoon. He was every bit as annoying there. He was also one of the few sore thumbs of the nearly pitch perfect first season of Friday Night Lights.




Edited By dws1982 on 1260678119
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

I saw Blind Side yesterday much the way Damien saw Paul Blart -- because it fit an opening in my schedule -- and my reaction was remarkably like BJ's...not just in thinking it a forgettable movie, but in how it made me realize my own movie-going is so different from so many others.

The movie's totally by-numbers. The opening Lawrence Taylor anecdote for a brief second raised my hopes for something more sharply observed, but the film quickly descended into TV movie mode: a heroine who'll always get the last word (unless she needs to learn a "lesson"), opposition characters clearly demarked as villains (whether racist football fans in the stands, or drug dealers in the projects), and a completely sympathetic black man-child who can be a Credit to His Race, at the same time elevating his white-lady booster to near-sainthood (except for a few endearing/redeeming flaws). I found the characterization of Michael Oher close to insulting. He makes Sidibe in Precious seem a model of aggression. He's a 17-year-old kid -- the age of near-constant erections -- but he doesn't even seem to notice women, and in fact seems to prefer hanging out with a boy quite a bit his junior (a boy who is, as dws and BJ have noted, spectacularly annoying). It's as if the filmmakers were afraid we'd have no sympathy/identification with Oher if he showed the slightest human frailty.

And yet...when he had his inevitable successes, I couldn't help responding some. The reason there are so many movies like this is, they work on audiences. Obviously what most of us here look for is something that works on a different level – something that tries to engage us by approximating genuine human experience – but for many audiences, a life that's cooler, neater, with more glibly satisfying climaxes is their ideal subject for film. I'd guess that many of us were raised on that sort of stuff -- we didn't exactly watch art as children -- and can't help giving into it a bit now, too...even if we hate ourselves for it once the credits are rolling. (I except those not raised in the USA, since their movie cultures are less hokum-based – to them, maybe this has always seemed silly)

As for Bullock...she's being promoted as a best actress nominee because 1) the movie's making a ton of money; 2) there aren't many candidates; and 3) she's popular star Sandra Bullock. If you can say she does anything beyond her norm, it's that she's not playing a love object, meaning her endearing/clumsy moves are in the service of something more serious than gaining the affection of her leading man. This helps make her seem more grown-up in the role (as does the fact that most of the scenes are played with serious intent, not for slapstick laughs). But to compare this performance to Julia Roberts' in Brockovich is to demean not just Roberts' achievement, but Soderbergh's. Erin Brockovich wasn't a film on a deep subject, but it did exist in real-life territory, which is what made Roberts' performance worthy of Oscar consideration (even if many here didn't support her win). Blind Side doesn't offer Bullock that opportunity. I think she'll be nominated, and many people will be made happy by this (not least the folks at Access Hollywood, who can promote a real star in their Oscar coverage, and ignore Carey Mulligan). But I see no scenario in which she's a winner.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

I haven't even seen The Blind Side yet, but I don't find the idea of a nomination for Bullock to be particularly repellent. She's been a consistent and entertaining presence on film for a number of years now turning in some fun performances. She's also, by all accounts, a likable, well-spoken and seemingly intelligent person who fits the star mold without the attendant diva-line antics. I resisted the talk of a nomination for her Infamous work because I thought that Catherine Keener's interpretation had been far superior, but here, it doesn't seem as objectionable.

In a sea of vapidity, she seems to stand out. I wish her the best and don't begrudge her a career-recognizing nod this year.




Edited By flipp525 on 1260554886
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

One of the strange things about being an Oscar-watcher is that it can often lead you to movies you wouldn't otherwise have ANY desire to see. Some times, as it was for me with The Blind Side, you realize that, for many people, this is the cinema, whereas I'd practically forgotten movies like this exist, I tend to see them so rarely. (And by 'movies like this,' I mean these commercial enterprises that are this generically written, indifferently staged and shot, and in some scenes, nearly incompetently acted.)

I can see why The Blind Side is a big hit. It accomplishes what it sets out to do -- tug at your heart strings, fill you with the joy of the human spirit -- reasonably well. I can't say I found it much more than saccharine, but I'm not immune to falling under the spell of these manipulations myself. (It's a much worse movie than Precious, but in some ways, it's more successful at accomplishing its base-level aims.) And its politics -- noble whites swoop in to save black boy -- have been rather rightfully criticized. (During Bullock's final narration, in which she reads the newspaper article about the murdered black boy and says, "That could have been my son," I practically expected her to say, "...until I stepped in to rescue him!" or some other nonsense.)

If I'd seen this on opening weekend, I NEVER would have thought Bullock would be a Best Actress candidate, but several weeks -- and massive box office receipts -- later I think she's pretty likely. Bullock is appealing enough (though the film really pushes for you to LOVE her saintly, no-nonsense character), but I can't see her awards push as anything other than place-filler. There's just very little that's special about this performance at all. (For what it's worth, though, a number of friends of mine have worked with Bullock recently, and they've said she's a very lovely woman, really sweet and hugely appreciative of her coworkers; in that respect, it's hard for me to root against her career-honor recognition, at least in my personal circle.) But this performance stops at a nomination, people -- there's no way she's winning.

Oh, and that kid dws mentions -- ANNOYING AS HELL!!!!
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

Kathy Bates is stealing roles from Margo Martindale now?! Yet another reason to hate her.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

Bates was good, but given the size and importance of the role, I'm surprised she accepted it, or that the filmmakers even offered it to her. (I spent about ninety minutes of the movie wondering when Kathy Bates was going to turn up.) It seems like the kind of role you'd see Margo Martindale cast in.

And this is going to have a big Thanksgiving weekend. My parents had planned on seeing it tonight, but it was sold out thirty minutes before the start time. Another theatre was already sold out for the 8:30 and 9:15 shows by 6:45. Now this is a BIG football weekend, especially in Alabama, so maybe a lot of people decided after the Alabama/Auburn game to keep the football spirit going. But it's also a good compromise choice for families who want to go to the movies together but don't want to see a kids movie or a chick flick.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Not finished watching it yet, but I just had to comment just how funny Kathy Bates' very brief turn is in the film. The "I'm a Democrat" was perfect.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

Saw it tonight with a big group of friends. Will try to post more about it some time over the weekend, but Armond White may be on to something (haven't seen Precious, however). It's not great, and it has its problems, but it has its strengths too. Wouldn't be too surprised to see Bullock nominated, and honestly: The Academy has nominated (and awarded) much worse in the past decade. Still, I think the best performance in the movie may be Adriane Lennox as Michael Oher's mother. She really only has one scene (and is shown in the background of a few others I think), but she's perfect.

ETA: There's a VERY annoying kid in the movie. He's endearing for about five minutes, but after that he becomes unbearable.




Edited By dws1982 on 1259217514
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Sabin wrote:from white journalists wondering if their instant recoil from the gross figure of Precious was proof of prejudice to a black journalist proposing “There’s a Precious inside all of us.”

I honestly don't understand what is so frightening about this idea. I think anyone who's ever felt like they were on the outside looking in has had a "Precious inside of them". It's really not a revolutionary or racially-electric turn of phrase. Armond White really needs to get a grip.

I saw the trailer for The Blind Side last week and it looks like phenomenally-contrived crap. The Best Actress category cannot be in so much trouble as to start trolling for the Sandra Bullocks out there, can it?

And I used "behemoth" to describe Precious before White did, so ha.




Edited By flipp525 on 1258664053
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Post Reply

Return to “2009”