Golden Globe nominations- Page 5

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:02pm

I agree Munk--I usually love the globes, but this is just weird. Someone tell me--are Match Point, constant gardener, and history of violence even all that great? I've heard good things, but nothing like the buzz of king kong, munich, geisha, cinderella man, crash, etc. etc. etc. what's going on?

And how do possible front runners like Jake for supporting and Uma for supporting get completely left out. I'm also kind of sad that no one seems to have liked Jarhead.

You know it's an incredibly strong year in film when movies like Jarhead, North Country, and Munich come up short.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:05pm

North Country, Munich and Jarhead all got less than stellar reviews though. At least North Country managed a couple of acting nods.

And while I am no fan of History Of Violence or Goodnight and Good Luck, I will say Constant Gardener deserves every last one of its nominations.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:07pm

Thus, I will rally in and say that Good Night and History of Violence got great reviews and were each front runners when they opened due to such notices. Both are highly deserving.

It was a GREAT year in film.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:09pm

Sooo happy that Cillian's work is being recognized, even though the film got less than great reviews.

Depp for Chocolate Factory?? Err...ok. As much as I love him, that wasn't the greatest film.


Harry Potter should have gotten a best score and song nomination dammit!

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:12pm

yeah, I knew that Jarhead and North Country got less than stellar reviews, and that was kindof my point. I thought those were both pretty great movies, just hard to compare with others this year. Does anyone else think that, had they not come out in such a crowded year, they would have got better reviews? It's just funny to me that these movies were the 'less the stellar films' of 2005, because they were pretty darn stellar imo.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:15pm

From what I have actually seen and the reviews and buzz on those I have not, every single one of the films nominated for either Best Picture category deserve their nomination. It's a tough year. King Kong is the biggest snub. And, I, personally, was hoping Crash would make it in. (cue Munk )

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:16pm

I don't see any producing credit listed for Clooney for Good Night and Good Luck (he is listed as Executive Producer of Syriana, though).

Munich's buzz and early reviews are very mixed at this point. Geisha has gotten more pans than raves (29% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes; 55 on Metacritic).

History of Violence (81 on Metacritic) and Constant Gardener (82 on Metacritic) received some of the strongest reviews of any films this year. Match Point doesn't open until Xmas Day, but early word has been great (a score of 78 on metacritic with just 6 reviews on Metacritic so far). Munich gets an 85 from Metacritc with only 4 reviews so far.

Updated On: 12/13/05 at 02:16 PM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:17pm

Does metacritic have posted anywhere how they arrive at their scores?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:18pm

I really liked A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, but for me, there are better films out there. I don't se HOW it scored a best picture nod - it's not THAT GOOD.

I'm not surprised about JARHEAD - I didn't like it at all.

Popculture: Not surprised, just disappointed. Surprised that Danes didn't score a nod, yes. The rest were a long-shot - but I'm still disappointed. But surprised, no.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:20pm

Metacritic scoring:

http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:21pm

MetaCritic is concerned solely with major critics (it's debatable what that means), unlike Rotten Tomatoes, which pretty much polls anyone with an article online.

KING KONG has a MetaCritic score of 9.5 after seven reviews.

UPDATE: Make that a score of 9.0 after 19 reviews.

Updated On: 12/13/05 at 02:21 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:21pm

I actually dont even think KING KONG was a snub. It screened so late for HFPA, its a wonder it got in at all for director and score.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:23pm

Match Point, oddly, has gone from a wide release on Christmas Day to a limited release on 12/28, with a wide release early next year, I think 1/20.

[Liz_Bennet]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:25pm

I believe that the Munich snub was due to the due date of the ballots- it was before some of the voters got a chance to see it, so they didn't vote for it. So maybe it doesn't mean as much as you think. We'll see.

Otherwise, well, some kind of weird choices. But I love recognition for low-budget independent film, so I'm happy even though I haven't seen most of the nominees.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:26pm

Thanks for pointing that out Popcultureboy. I had already penciled in Match Point for Xmas Day and hadn't noticed they'd changed the date. Odd.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:29pm

I don't for one second buy this notion that not all of the critics got to see KK and Munich, thus no BP nom. They got DIRECTING nods. There are films nominated for BP that did not. And there are way more BP noms than Directing noms.

I think one COULD argue that the buzz didn't hit the HFP in time to gang behind these two films, but the HFP likes to lead the buzz---and you would think as good as KK apparently is, it would have gotten a nom on its own merit.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:30pm

I just double checked, NY and LA on the 28th, wide release Jan 20th, two weeks after it opens in the UK. Only fitting, as it was shot there.

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:36pm

WTF? No mention for Bewitched? Shee-it

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 2:40pm

LOL, tommyboy! "Shee it": Brilliant!

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 3:06pm

Gutted that Tilda Swinton was overlooked too.

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 3:07pm

Danes perhaps deserved a nod, but I'd have bumped Parker before Knightly.

Exactly.

Also, I just noticed that Amy Adams was missing. What the f*ck?

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 3:11pm

Are you surprised?

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 3:12pm

Very surprised. One of the best and most critically acclaimed performances of the year.

And Claire Danes' performance was vastly superior to that of Keira Knightley...

Munk, didn't you vote for Knightley on your page?

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 3:16pm

But they screwed up their campaign for awards by doing too little too early though, which is why I asked if you were surprised.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/13/05 at 3:16pm

Amy Adams is surprising to me, as well...as she seems to be a clear front-runner. The Globes are weird this year. It's freaking me out.