comment #1

4th grade army says ...

I was just reading the script again yesterday and I had the same exact thought and was going to post it here. Matt Damon has the best character in the whole film. His character is hilarious and is going to be a high-point in the film.

comment #2

dogcatcher says ...

If you read the script you'll know that the Matt Damon character is in fact the best one. He's definitely supporting, but you can see (or read) how he could bring life to this film.

I knew if Damon brought his A-game to this project that he could very easily get many raves given the great character he gets to play.

I can't wait to see this film and I still say, without having watched it yet, that the Oscar will come down to this or THE SOCIAL NETWORK.

The Kings Speech will only get Oscar love for its performances. Just my opinion.

comment #3

COCO says ...

''Jason Bourne---Texas Ranger!!"

comment #4

Barnes78 says ...

Yeah, 'The Social Network' DEFINITELY peaked too soon. Enjoy the slide down the hill, boys....

comment #5

HHH says ...

This film delivers. The air was electric at the screening I attended and people were really taken with it in a big way.. Of course, it's the Coens and no one had a doubt about it (except Wells, naturally).

comment #6

crazynine says ...

MATT DAMON!

(Sorry, it's a compulsion at this point).

comment #7

Buk94 says ...

"Yeah, 'The Social Network' DEFINITELY peaked too soon. Enjoy the slide down the hill, boys...."

This only matters to the small percentage of the population that actually cares, or remembers, what movies won Oscars.

Social Network did its job brilliantly and will be remembered as one of the best films of this year.

If the Oscar voters are too moronic to remember a movie that came out prior to October than that says more about them than it does about The Social Network.

comment #8

Barnes78 says ...

Buk94, while I appreciate your criticism, you're talking out of your ass.

If you actually wanna discuss the blowhards who actually care which films win the golden guy, then....hell, I dunno, take this entire site to task. After all, Jeff does maintain an ongoing, thread series solely dedicated to the Oscars. If only a very small population actually cares then why do ALL the sites, this one included, spend so much valuable time, space, and blog space to cover this one topic?

All the same, thanks for providing some disconnected arrogance to the conversation.

comment #9

Mr Hooper says ...

Outside of the film blogosphere very few people do care about what movies win Oscars. So, out of 7 billion people, maybe a couple hundred thousand, maybe less, actually care. The average moviegoer just remembers what movie they liked or hated. So Buk94 is exactly right (assuming I'm interpreting what he was saying correctly). So it would seem that someone other than Buk94 is talking out of their ass and providing disconnected arrogance (whatever that means) to the conversation.

comment #10

Barnes78 says ...

Mr Hopper, but....most of the people that frequent this site (among many others) are the film geeks that actually care as opposed to the average movie going public. Did that detail escape your need to defend and ignore the logic of a film website? Sure, in a "God's whole creation" sort of way, Buk94 is right but...in the blogiverse of film? Really? Are you typically this daft on Monday's? Just by association, does this mean you're criticizing Jeff for his Oscar thread since it (likely) doesn't connect with the greater majority of the 7 billion person population? If the ENTIRE conversation about the Oscars is that irrelevant and not useful, then....why do we even engage with conversations about it at all? What an odd (and yes, disconnected and arrogant) position to run with.

Out of 7 billion people? Congrats, that's the best chuckle I've had all day. When did HE turn in to the Huff Post?

comment #11

LexG says ...

"...why do ALL the sites, this one included, spend so much valuable time, space, and blog space to cover this one topic?"

I am NOT including Jeff in this, since he's a smart-movie person and a great writer whether he's talking about movies or stickball or fat people, and his Oscar coverage is both thorough and extremely sincere.

But when you ask, "Why do ALL the sites" cover this horse race so thoroughly? The cynic in me feels compelled to opine, because those FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION Oscar ads and banners probably pay a goddamn fortune, and talking out of MY ass, I wonder if extensive coverage of this season doesn't mostly pay for the entire rest of the year for a lot of up-and-comer bloggers.

Put it this way: If two upstarts each start a movie blog, and MovieGuy1 talks in all sincerity about Rohmer and Altman with the occasional nod to the new releases, and MovieGuy2 calls his blog "Oh My God What's Gonna Win The Oscar? Academy Fever-dot-com," the second guy's got a massive leg up in terms of attracting ad revenue.

Not putting down any of the fine people we all know and chat with on Twitter, but notable how many year-round sites with extensive movie coverage STILL throw that nod to the OSCARS! right into their title. It's a business.

This post brought to you by LexObvious.

comment #12

Hunter Tremayne says ...

Thank you M. LexObvious. Agreed.

I might add: because it's fun.

comment #13

Barnes78 says ...

Lex, of course it's a business That's a given, but....(not sure how you can deny this as a valid point)....why weren't the likes of Hopper and Buk (maybe they were, noted) giving shit to Wells and the overall entire film blogging world when 'The Social Network' was hailed as the winner for Best Picture before it was even officially released? The companies weren't paying the sites big bucks for the Oscar campaign ads during that blitz.

Why weren't we all waxing philosophically with the ultimate irrelevance of such a conversational exercise? "Oh Jeff, silly Jeff. Why discuss the merits of such a film as it relates to the heavy Oscar as opposed to merely embracing the film as a new, profoundly beautiful addition to the canon of American film? Let us spend our discourse on a more effective train of thought." Blah. It's an arrogant double standard that I'm more than happy to point out.

comment #14

Barnes78 says ...

Hunter, of course it's fun. That was the ENTIRE point of my initial comment. Part of that "fun" conversation, each year, is to discuss which films are trending, which are sliding and which are looking at a late peak.

It isn't my fault that Buk decided to spoil the party by telling me how irrelevant such a fun exercise would be and ultimately is (because hey...the majority of 7 billion people could give a shit, especially the ones dying of starvation and genocide). Lame.

comment #15

Buk94 says ...

"Buk94, while I appreciate your criticism, you're talking out of your ass."

No, I'm not.

"If only a very small population actually cares then why do ALL the sites, this one included, spend so much valuable time, space, and blog space to cover this one topic?"

Ask the average person what movie won best picture in 1996 and they won't know or care. They'll think you're fucking nuts for actually having that information in your brain. Film nerds care. People that spend all day on blogs care. Know how many of my friends/family actually read a film blog?

Obviously some people care enough to watch the show, but once the show is over, nobody fucking cares anymore. It may add to your box office and it will help the careers of those involved with the film but nobody else fucking cares. They aren't relevant because people realize the winners are chosen because of hype, politics, popularity, release date, and the opinions of industry folk that most of us will never meet.

Sports matter to more people because the winner is based on who was better on that day. Not so with the Oscars.

Imagine this. Two guys at a video store when we still had video stores. One guy says to the other "what movie do you want to get" other guy answers "what won best picture in 1993? I'm in the mood for a best picture winner"

Laughable. People do not care the way you care.

"All the same, thanks for providing some disconnected arrogance to the conversation. "

There was nothing disconnected about my comment and the arrogance was all yours.

comment #16

Buk94 says ...

"It isn't my fault that Buk decided to spoil the party by telling me how irrelevant such a fun exercise would be and ultimately is "

I wasn't trying to spoil any party. You seemed happy that The Social Network (which may or may not be deserving of awards based on your taste) would not win simply because it was released too early in the year.

My point was that the Oscars have made themselves less fun, and more irrelevant by having such short attention spans, and by being persuaded by hype and politics and popularity.

I used to actually watch the show every year and I was invested in who would win. But when Zodiac and Into the Wild have to step aside for Juno (just one of many examples) I lose interest.

But whatever, your initial reply to me was out of line.

comment #17

Barnes78 says ...

Buk94,

Once again, THIS site, overall, isn't populated by the 7 billion sports lover that you're praising. Guess what...people who read this blog (and a lot of the others) are the ones that know which film won in 1996. Once again, your criticism of my comments are disconnected. Why? Because you're suggesting that my initial comment was displaced on this site of the specific thread. Sure, if Jeff's post were about the escalating tensions and violence between North and South Korea, you'd have a point. Rightly so.

If you're gonna give me shit for discussing the Oscar status for 'The Social Network' then turn around and give Wells some shit for the months of "Will Mrs. Beatty Finally Win
An Oscar" coverage. Christ alive, the two guys at the video store could give a shit about that conversation and it happens over and over on this site. And guess what...I guarantee you those two guys are not likely to be frequent guests or contributors on here. I don't have to speculate any further. You truly are this daft on Monday's.

comment #18

Barnes78 says ...

Buk94, my comments weren't out of line. If your sensitivity is hovering that low today, then you're on the wrong site. I've seen considerably 'worse' things said by Lex, Gabe, etc. on any given day.

My comments were an attempt to structure some sort of context, which you clearly are confused about.

comment #19

Barnes78 says ...

"You seemed happy that The Social Network (which may or may not be deserving of awards based on your taste) would not win simply because it was released too early in the year. "

Sir Buk, there it is. That statement of yours indicates EXACTLY what derailed this thread. You assumed that I was happy, for one. On top of that, you almost suggest the notion that a film doesn't win because it's released too early in the year as a novel and isolated concept. That angle of conversation comes up every dang year.

With that in mind I'm led to believe this....your criticism was more of a defense for 'The Social Network' since you enjoyed it so fully. Any comment (even remotely) against TSN would have set you off on a philosophical diatribe. So technically, if anyone was out of line, it was you with the assumption of my intent.

comment #20

MechanicalShark says ...

It's fun once you find a way to love movies, and yet follow the Oscars as a spectator sport. This is really difficult for a lot of people to do. But it's a popularity contest/horse race, not a merit-based referendum on film. In that light, it's entertaining.
Anyway, so relieved to hear True Grit does not disappoint. I was getting rather worried.

comment #21

Hunter Tremayne says ...

ScotT Feinberg just busted the TRUE GRIT embargo

Predicts Best Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Cinemtography, says ilts the best Western since UNFORGIVEN

http://scottfeinberg.com/truegrit-2

comment #22

MrTribeca says ...

This of course throws up the real possibility of Jeff Bridges winning a Best Actor award two years running.

If Hanks could do it, why not Bridges?

comment #23

4th grade army says ...

Yowza. Feinberg's post just taken down. Why are they cracking down so much when all the leaks have been OVERWHELMINGLY positive? Why the arbitrary date of Wednesday? Just let it out already.

comment #24

great scott says ...

So is Damon now a serious threat to Christian Bale for the Supporting Actor Oscar?

comment #25

Rashad says ...

John Hawkes should win best supporting actor hands down.

comment #26

ScottMendelson says ...

Hawkes damn-well should win, but at this point he'll be lucky to be nominated. The 'For Your Consideration' banners on sites such as this one don't even mention him, highlighting only the film, Jennifer Laurence, and the screenplay (all of which deserve nominations if not wins). Looks like he'll be the Gordon Pinsent of 2010.

comment #27

Guy Who Wants to Bang Pamela Anderson says ...

Who the fuck is Gordon Pinsent?

comment #28

DiscoNap says ...

John Hawkes could really get a campaign going. He's not a 'name' but he's definitely a face, and I imagine the film and his qualities in it will play really well on a screener. That fucking scene with Garret Dillahunt, man. Maybe the best of 2010.

comment #29

ScottMendelson says ...

For what it's worth, Dillahunt (who also co-starred in a better-than-expected direct-to-DVD horror film Burning Bright) is doing terrific work on the wonderfully witty new Fox sitcom Raising Hope. Darn good show, and it literally gets sharper every week.

comment #30

liu says ...

A
Timberland boots sale, to do. Many scientific.
Timberland boots, it is tank.
ugg sale, people. Neglected.
cheap ugg boots, muscles and tone the whole body.
MBT shoes clearance, mbt shoes physiological.
north face boots sale, regeneration centers.
north face jacket sale, therapists.
Timberland boots sale, and styles to .
MBT shoes clearance, technology. MBT sports.
Timberland outlet, day more.
timberland snow boots, adies uggs .
timberland waterproof Boots, Choosing the right.
north face jacket uk, other small.
ugg boots sale, Apparel ; mbt Footwear such.
cheap Timberland boots, studies not.
Timberland sale, many advantages, they.
ugg boots sale uk, tank of anti.
ugg handbags sale, enni's Raich and.
MBT shoes discontinued, shoes casual shoes.
Timberland boots for women, are every.
north face boots uk, physical health.
north face down jacket, and healthy posture.
Timberland outlet, cheap Ugg boots .
cheap timberland boots, important to know .
MBT shoes discontinued, footwear a positive.
Timberland boots, classic short, colors .
ugg uk, shoes. Doctors and.
ugg gloves sale, effective treatment.
Timberland UK, personality.Choosing the right .
timberland snow boots, suit your .