Film critics love Blanchett and Christie tooOver the weekend, the National Society of Film Critics announced its 2007 honorees. Here are some of the winners:
These aren't exactly blockbusters. (Not a peep from Sweeney Todd, and no awards for Old Men either.) In fact, I've seen exactly one of these films: Away From Her. I'm glad Christie won for her mesmerizing performance.
And even though I'm not sure about I'm Not There, I do want to see Blanchett as Dylan:
The Savages looks pretty great too. Here's writer and director Jenkins with stars Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney:
I don't know anyone who has seen There Will Be Blood, and I couldn't even find any comments about it in the AfterEllen.com forums — and we're quite a moviegoing bunch! But I just checked IMDb, and it looks like there are very few women in the movie. No wonder we're skipping it. The Envelope has the full list of honorees, as well as the second- and third-place winners. (Members of the society ranked three choices via a weighted ballot; winners had the most points and also appeared on a majority of the ballots.) Here are some notable silver and bronze placements:
Oh, right, Persepolis — that's another one I wanted to see. Enough ballot-counting; I'm off to the movies! Submitted by on January 7, 2008 - 10:00am. |
Recent blog posts
New forum topicsActive TopicsNew Comments
|






Paul Thomas Anderson
There Will Be Blood
I saw There Will Be Blood this past Friday, and boy was the theater packed. The movie is quite something to experience and a must see for any serious film buff, or fan of Daniel Day Lewis, or fan of PT Anderson's work, or just really cool looking movies. Anyway, it's true there are no female characters in the movie. Well, I think there is one woman with some lines, but it's still quite striking that a movie over two hours has such intense masculine energy throughout. It seems like a detraction to the film, and something that will likely be lamented, but not really criticized since that's what usually happens in male dominated industries. Well, it's a shame the movie doesn't care about women at all, but the movie is still good, so what are you going to do? Which is always an irritating stance, and so status-quo.
On the other hand the movie is also very out there, that I'm not even sure what I think of it. It's either too pretentious and too in love with itself and for that reason sort of disappointing in the end, or it's totally awesome and the lack of women in the movie is part of the point of the story (which is a harsh look at greed and men and religion in the early American 20th century).
I could ramble on further, but my point is this: It's a behemoth of a movie and I'd have to see it again and talk to even really have an opinion. But the lack of women in the movie is VERY striking and I'm not sure what to make of it.
i found the film...
... a little too indulgent on paul thomas andersen's part as the director. Although it was shot beautifully and the first 15-20 minutes of no dialogue was an interesting choice, I didn't find the story intriguing, and actually quiet dull in sections with the timbre of the film set too low.
i did, however, find daniel day lewis' performance stunning and the most worthy of an oscar.
i can't fully explain why i didn't connect with the film, but perhaps some of it lies in my need for character growth and how they intertwine with one another. this story was 100% about the DDL character; the quasi-good, the bad and the ugly, which to his credit he handled magnificently.
due to the lackluster films this year, it might crack my top 10 but wouldn't get close to the top five.
I love her
I love Catte Blanchett , she's the better actris than ever know
ughhh...
Ok, Persepolis