i'll see your Crash and raise you a Shakespeare in Love.

It really is terrific.

You're going to really enjoy it I suspect.

What site did you manage to order THE SECRET OF KELLS from?

This is why I think THE SECRET OF KELLS is a much better film. UP is a well-done PIXAR film but it's too cutesy, sappy, and has the same type of animation as every other CG computer animated film. It's nothing original. THE SECRET OF KELLS is totally original - with its animation, storytelling, and the music, and it's not dumbed down.

Mabuse, what was the best animated sequence in UP?

It's referred to as 'The Married Life Montage' by most.

His marriage and life with Ellie.

I've can't think of anything that equals that in the history of animated films, and very few sequences from any film in general. I'm not alone in that opinion by a damn sight.

Here I'll embed it:

The Critics don't nominate the films, Daytripper.
T'would be fun to see a nom for stuff like Summer Hours, but did you really expect one?

I think what's interesting is that this year there are five movies that definitely wouldn't have been nominated last year. In my opinion, here they are: http://moviesfromeveryangle.wordpress.com/

Thanks for the info. Preferential systems have lots of problems, though in fairness a simple weighting system also has problems (1st place = 10pts, 2nd place =9pts, etc....). I like a top weighted system (something like 1st place = 16pts, 2nd place =11 pts, 3rd =8, 4th=7....),so a 1st place vote is worth something and the difference between 1st and 2nd is more meaningful then 6th vs 7th (and frankly one you get past the first 3-5, most voters probably don't care or put as much effort in)

The opening of the field to 10 movies AND the use of a preferential system could mean "safe" movies (movies that stack up a bunch of 2nd and 3rd place type votes but are not the best picture in anyone's view) could be more prone to winning. I think it will eventually lead to a migration to the bigger box office movies tending to do better.

If anything, I wish they would open up the best Foreign Language film to 10 nominees and along with that change the rules so that more than 1 film from a country can be nominated. So may great foreign films come out each year, 5 nominees simply is not enough.

In 2009 they should've had a Best Foreign Language Film category (5 nominations) and a Best Foreign language Film from France Category (5 nominations), and there would not be one dud among them. Any country that can ignore 'Summer Hours' as their submission deserves it.

I know the critics don't nominate the films. This thread is also about not only critic's circle awards, but how they compare to who's nominated and wins. I was merely pointing out that a Oscar Best Picture nomination wasn't even singled out by one critic.

I think Up tried to balance too many balls in the air and seriously failed at it. Carl's story was interesting enough without having to include talking animals, a totally unnecessary villain, and an action set piece for the climax. The first half starts brilliantly then the second half floods us with kiddie movie cliches. It's just not as emotionally involving when dogs start flying airplanes.

I think I really agree with this. Really loved the first 15-20 minutes, and wish they'd kept that tone more throughout the rest of the film. Had the same feelings about Wall-E, though that was more towards the 45 minute mark.

On the other hand, Ratatouille was 110 minutes of masterpiece.

And I totally agree with you on Wall-E and Ratatouille. I think Ratatouille is going to age really well though and will start to get more recognition later on. It's very close to a perfect film. Probably as close as Pixar has come.

No, it was appropriately not nominated. Having many largely static frames that mimic the superior graphic novel do not make it "great cinematography".

Yeah, it's a shame the following 80 minutes didn't approach its genius.

n/m

from a seller from Amazon.co.uk - I got an email today that it's headed my way.

in regards to Pixar, that's why I simply couldn't stand CARS - it was waaaay to geared (pardon the pun) to mass kid's appeal - the story was predictable, hardly much of a plot and seemed all rather vapid ... oh and the voice casting was grating beyond belief.

is it me, but doesn't it seem a bit unfair that UP is nominated for both 'Best Film' and 'Best Animated Film' - what a wasted opportunity for another completely different animated film to get a
nom, it's so obvious that UP won't win best film but best animated film - it's already in the bag... so what's the point?

that's why I was so charmed by MARY AND MAX which has been winning alot of international awards - the story was very adult and didn't dumb down in thinking they had to appeal to children when ultimately it's really NOT appropriate to kids at all. Even the other Australian animated movie $9.99 - is an animated movie specifically made for an adult audience.

I'm not sure why Inglorious Basterds made your list. It got 8 nominations, including directing, screenplay, and editing, and you really think it wouldn't have made the cut if there were 5 BP nominees?

And as far as historical accuracy is concerned, please. It's Quentin Tarantino, who gave us a tall tale in Kill Bill.

Miyazaki did it better with a talking Avaitor pig in his film Porco Rosso

Not so fast.

I think they should change the rules a bit, like ignoring more deserving films simply because the country of origin didn't think it was their best representative (yes, Sweden, you're still in time out over Let The Right One In) but adding more nominees could be a pain. Goodness, could you imagine flying halfway around the world only to lose?
I suppose a live satellite feed would be nice. They did it for Bob Dylan.

Won't happen. Bridges has been anointed as this year's lock for the category. There isn't enough support in any other direction for a possible split.

Not to mention the "dogs flying airplanes" sequence, which knocked the movie down a couple of notches in my estimation.

And I say this as someone who still loves the film, despite that cringe-worthy sequence.

To be fair I think that largely has to do with the countries committees thinking what is the most awards baity film that gives us the best shot at being nominated instead of what is the best film from our country.

No, what makes it great cinematography is the awesome camera angles and camera movements. Some of the most creative and flat-out awesome camera work I have ever seen.

That's true, but having a ton of nomintions doesn't mean that one of them is guaranteed to be for best picture. Look at The Dark Knight, that was nominated for 8, and best picture wasn't one of them. It probably would have been nominated this year.

As for historical accuracy, I'm not condeming for the movie for it, I know that's part of what made it a hit. But this is the Academy. To them, you're either non-fiction or fiction, not both. I'm not saying I was surprised, again, I just don't think it would have made the cut last year.