The Oscars are tonight and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World-my pick for best movie of the year-has zero nominations. Travesty! Here's what it should have been nominated for.
Editing
Scott Pilgrim is so frenetic and crazy it could easily have been turned to mush in editing. But it wasn't, if anything the editing improved the movie and made it all the better. Should have at least got a nom.
Visual Effects
Okay, so it didn't have the folding city from Inception, the giant dragon from Alice in Wonderland or...whatever was in Hereafter, but Scott Pilgrim did something different. Rather than using visual effects to distract the audience, they were used directly to make it more like a comic book, and improve immersion. I don't think it should have one, but it shows a lack of vision that didn't even get nominated.
Best Supporting Actor-Kieran Culkin as Wallace
Scott Pilgrim didn't have any oscar-worthy performances, aside from Kieran Culkin as Wallace. The first third, before things really get wild, he pretty much carries the film. Toward the end he basically disappears, which is sort of a shame, because he brings so much to the role. Snubbed!
Best Adapted Screenplay
Okay, so it wouldn't win, but a nomination would have been nice.
Best Director-Edgar Wright
The day after the Oscar Noms were announced, the internet was flooded with the whining rants of Christopher Nolan fanboys. For those of you who don't know, the internet is full of those idiots. Christopher Nolan is not one of my favorite directors. He makes good movies, but he's not a fantastic director. Memento is probably his most balanced work. Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Inception all have pacing issues in the last third. His shots aren't particularly inventive, and he doesn't really do anything new from a directorial standpoint. Edgar Wright on the other hand, puts forth a revolutionary film, with literally dozens of shots a second that all need to work perfectly and flow from one to the other. And they all do. Much of this is due to the editing, but you can't deny that Wright does stuff that hasn't been done before, and he is vastly superior to Nolan on the directing front. This is probably the biggest snub of all.
Best Picture-Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Well, duh. Screw 127 hours. To heck with Winter's Bone. Fooey on The Kids are All Right. Forget about the King's Speech. Drop dead Inception. Bug off True Grit. Go punch yourself, The Figher. Molt and die Black Swan. Ignore friend request, Social Network. Burn and die Toy Story 3.
SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD is the BEST PICTURE 2010!
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Money-Wasters: The Most over-budgeted movies of 2010.
Movies cost a lot of money in hollywood. these ones cost a lot even considering that.
10. Iron Man 2-$200 Million
Should have been: $170 Million
Arguably this one's not really overbudgeted, but I didn't see $200 million the screen. What do I expect for $200 million? Innovation. What did I get? Boredom.
9. Alice in Wonderland-$200 million
Should have been: $150 million
Okay, so it was a huge visual effects extravaganza, I get it. But $200 million demands more. Again, probably not that overbudgeted, but still, a waste of $200 mil.
8. The Tourist-$100 Million
Should Have been: $80 Million
Okay, to be fair, this was an action drama. With big stars. But $100 million is a big price tag, especially considering the movie came nowhere near reaching that mark domestically.
7. Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader-$155 Million
Should have Been: $100 Million
All of the Narnia movies have been overbudgeted in my book. Prince Caspian cost $225 million, so this is a bit more reasonable. But still, there was nothing here that made it reasonably cost that much. No big stars, nothing. Just sad really, because if they'd kept the budget down, they would be swimming in the money at this point.
6. Tangled-$260 million
Should have Been: Around $150 million
Tangled has an excuse. Production started way back in 2004, and in 2008 they threw it all out and started over. The preliminary 4 years of work is included in that. Excuses though, don't get you far with me. This stands as the second most expensive movie of all time.
5. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time-$200 Million
Should have Been: $100 million
Yet another $200 million pricetag. This shows how naive Disney is. You just don't invest $200 million in a movie that's supposed to be a franchise starter. It's just bad form. Not to mention that it could have been made for much, much less.
4. Sex and the City 2-$100 Million
Should have never been made!
This is self-explanatory. Whether you saw the movie or not (I did not) you can see that this is a gross example of Hollywood excess. Just horrible.
3. The Wolf Man-$150 Million
Should Have been: $75 million
$150 million thrown at a movie nobody saw. Universal is pretty stupid for doing this.
2. Robin Hood-$200 million
Should Have been: $80 Million
I didn't think this one could be topped. $200 million on a movie that looks like it was made for five bucks. No big effects shots, nothing really epic, mostly just people riding horses through the woods. Sure, Russell Crowe probably took $20 million, Ridley Scott upwards of 25, but that still leaves $155 million to make a movie. Also, the movie sucked.
1. How do you Know-$120 Million
Should Have been: $40 million
When I saw the budget for this one, I was convinced it was a type-o. It wasn't. Haven't seen it, but unless there's an epic helicopter chase half-way through that I don't know about, there's no reason it should be this much. Sony must be down in the depths of despair, since it only made back a quarter of it's massive overbudgetedness.
10. Iron Man 2-$200 Million
Should have been: $170 Million
Arguably this one's not really overbudgeted, but I didn't see $200 million the screen. What do I expect for $200 million? Innovation. What did I get? Boredom.
9. Alice in Wonderland-$200 million
Should have been: $150 million
Okay, so it was a huge visual effects extravaganza, I get it. But $200 million demands more. Again, probably not that overbudgeted, but still, a waste of $200 mil.
8. The Tourist-$100 Million
Should Have been: $80 Million
Okay, to be fair, this was an action drama. With big stars. But $100 million is a big price tag, especially considering the movie came nowhere near reaching that mark domestically.
7. Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader-$155 Million
Should have Been: $100 Million
All of the Narnia movies have been overbudgeted in my book. Prince Caspian cost $225 million, so this is a bit more reasonable. But still, there was nothing here that made it reasonably cost that much. No big stars, nothing. Just sad really, because if they'd kept the budget down, they would be swimming in the money at this point.
6. Tangled-$260 million
Should have Been: Around $150 million
Tangled has an excuse. Production started way back in 2004, and in 2008 they threw it all out and started over. The preliminary 4 years of work is included in that. Excuses though, don't get you far with me. This stands as the second most expensive movie of all time.
5. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time-$200 Million
Should have Been: $100 million
Yet another $200 million pricetag. This shows how naive Disney is. You just don't invest $200 million in a movie that's supposed to be a franchise starter. It's just bad form. Not to mention that it could have been made for much, much less.
4. Sex and the City 2-$100 Million
Should have never been made!
This is self-explanatory. Whether you saw the movie or not (I did not) you can see that this is a gross example of Hollywood excess. Just horrible.
3. The Wolf Man-$150 Million
Should Have been: $75 million
$150 million thrown at a movie nobody saw. Universal is pretty stupid for doing this.
2. Robin Hood-$200 million
Should Have been: $80 Million
I didn't think this one could be topped. $200 million on a movie that looks like it was made for five bucks. No big effects shots, nothing really epic, mostly just people riding horses through the woods. Sure, Russell Crowe probably took $20 million, Ridley Scott upwards of 25, but that still leaves $155 million to make a movie. Also, the movie sucked.
1. How do you Know-$120 Million
Should Have been: $40 million
When I saw the budget for this one, I was convinced it was a type-o. It wasn't. Haven't seen it, but unless there's an epic helicopter chase half-way through that I don't know about, there's no reason it should be this much. Sony must be down in the depths of despair, since it only made back a quarter of it's massive overbudgetedness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)