Good Oscars omen for 'United 93'
"It's one of the most reliable bellwethers of the Academy Award for best picture," insists L.A. Times Oscarologist John Horn about a certain critics' group. "If you are really interested in who has their fingers on the pulse of Oscar voters, you need to travel to north Texas, and canvas the 35 members of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Film Critics Assn. In the last five years, they've correctly foretold the best picture winner four times — missing only 'Crash,' a movie everybody underestimated."
The Lone Star State journos just named their champs. "United 93" took off in the best-pic race. Like most other critics' groups, they voted Forest Whitaker ("Last King of Scotland") best actor and Helen Mirren ("The Queen") best actress.
See more — CLICK HERE!
Sorry to disagree publicly with my Times colleague, but, frankly, I don't think "United 93" can fly at the Oscars. Many academy members don't want to watch the DVD, so they won't. The memory of 9/11 is just too painful to revisit for them.
Sorry, if I was rude. But I did not made an accusation, I simply wouldnt be surprised because everytime I get to read a post of yours regarding the film I get the feeling that you are in someway bashing it. Maybe its because I have never read in this website a positive remark about the film, could you at least do that? I am not complaining about your remarks about the facts of the the stupid Academy members who refuse to see a film because of its content forgetting the excellence of it.
Could you denounce the Academy members because of their childish and foolish attitudes when its time to make a decision of which film is best? If you do like United 93, can you do it? Besides it will be your opinion, and you post your opinion in basically all of your posts.
What do you think?
Posted by: Devin | December 21, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Why does everyone always rag on Tom all of the time? In the few years i have been visiting this site i have noticed sometimes Tom will play "devil's advocate". I never take everything he says literally. I have never found myself getting all bent out of shape over his comments. What i do find interesting is that he is able to bend on an opinion where other bloggers stay hell bent on something to the point of annoyance. No one is right all of the time.
As for the subject of this post, i find it rather distasteful that the celebrities take all that they have for granted. When hearing Sara Jessica Parker didn't watch her screener of "Brokeback", but her little boy watched some of it made me mad. Can't they take this seriously? You hear them going on about their "craft" or how a film they saw or worked on had a profound effect on them. If all this is so important to them then they should take more commitment to awarding the finest films (in their opinion) produced in that year. I'm glad they did away with the obnoxious gift baskets. If they want to give them gifts, how about a charitable donation to a charity of their choice.
By the way, i think United 93 was a wonderful film and i hope it makes a slot for Best Picture at the Oscars. The Oscars are not "everything", There are many other awards of ackowlegement from others who often seem more impassioned about film than those who make them.
Posted by: Kim S. | December 21, 2006 at 09:47 AM
Tom, if academy voters admit they don't watch films that are nominated why aren't you and your cohorts attacking them? The least worthy film won best picture last year. There's something wrong with a system which honors those who "market" wisely. Why do you let them continue to deceive the public? As a member of the press don't you have a duty to inform people that this is nothing more than a sick game? A lot of money is made off of this charade and it's all at the public's expense.
Posted by: SCM | December 20, 2006 at 10:23 PM
Too many voters refused to watch Brokeback last year because it was a gay love story. That's why it didn't win. But enuf of them watched it to get it nommed. The others just refused to watch it, that's that and there was no arguing with them re Brokeback.
The problem is far worse for United 93 b/c it tells a story they REALLY don't want to see -- that is, relive. These are selfish, pampered Hollywooders and you can't make them do anything.
I do think that O'Toole will pull out the victory in the end because he plans to move to LA in mid January and start his campaign a-fresh. Meantime, Forest Whitaker will win the Globe after sweeping the critics' kudos.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | December 20, 2006 at 07:40 PM
Tom, don't be surprised if Peter O'Toole gets his actual acting Oscar over Whitaker. Must be for...I don't know...gee..being overlooked 7 seven times before...and obviously for sentimental reasons a la Al Pacino...
Posted by: Frankie R. | December 20, 2006 at 04:20 PM
i can't for the life of me understand this bizarre notion that U93 is "too hard to watch," or "too painful." it's become more of a media-fed attitude than one actually accepted by the public. (the movie has now made over 5 times it's negative cost...making it profitable). entertainment writers and other journalists tend to ape one anothers' copy and use these strange catch phrases in regard to a film or news event. stephen king summed it up really well in his article about U93 in entertainment weekly, calling the media response to the movie as "infantilizing the american public." how true. even the government does that by sheltering us from pictures of coffins and violence from Iraq. i loved U93 specifically for the way it treated me, the viewer, as an adult. hopefully the academy will recognize this element of excellence and nominate it next month.
Posted by: Bill F | December 20, 2006 at 04:01 PM
It was reported that Samuel L Jackson got his maid to fill his Oscar ballot form.
The Oscars don't matter unless it is voted by the general public who have seen the films!
Posted by: numberina | December 20, 2006 at 02:56 PM
Tom, I understand that until United 93 becomes a nominee it's not an issue however I'm curious if you'll voice an opinion if we learn the film is not being watched after it's nominated. Don't you think it's about time for people like you to "call out" the Academy on this issue? I only vote for the PGA awards and as unimportant as that is I still make sure I watch each film before voting. Why shouldn't the Academy do the same? It's only the most recognized award on the planet.
Posted by: SCM | December 20, 2006 at 02:33 PM
Tom - I think its a fair question. I've thought, for sometime when reading through several of your articles that you have some axe to grind with United 93. I think your writing is (for the most part) even-handed.
My question is only related to this film -you seem to be going out of your way to make negative comments which don't seem warranted.
I'm a New Yorker and this film was horrific to watch but beautiful and brilliant.
Personally, my choice for Best Film would be “Volver” or “The Queen”. However, I do think United 93 is one of the top 5 films of 2006 and most critics would agree.
Posted by: Jason | December 20, 2006 at 01:41 PM
How ridiculous. Because I report something negative about a film's Oscar chances, you assume I must have a secret agenda against it. HAAAAA. Obviously, according to your logic, I hate "Venus," too, because I report that Peter O'Toole's chances are slipping while the Forest Whitaker surge continues. And I must be out to get Beyonce and Jamie Foxx because I say they probably won't be nommed at the Oscars. Clearly, I hate "The Queen" because I warn you over and over about how gals over age 50 almost always lose to Babes.
Yep, darn it, you've unmasked me as the secret fiend out to destroy "United 93's," "Dreamgirls'," "The Queen's" and "Venus'" chances at the Oscars. Rats! I've been caught!
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | December 20, 2006 at 12:16 PM
I have to re-ask the question that Jason asked Mr. O'Neil. What do you have against United 93?
I really find really unprofessional to use the manipuation when giving information contributing to the disgusting subjective kind of media that we are used to see everywhere. Personally, I come here to read about what is happening out there rather than know opinions. I, like many Oscar fans, would not be surprised if someone mention you as part of those who campaign against United 93... I really hope it isn't true
Posted by: Devin | December 20, 2006 at 11:47 AM
What's the point of giving out awards such as the Oscar if you refused to watch all contending films? By this refusal, the award should be deemed meaningless and the academy irrevelant. It's bad enough that Brokeback Mountain suffered this kind of fate but now United 93. Isn't it an academy rule to watch all films released before making your final choices? It's time that all studios/industry people spoke about this. It's this childish behavior amongst academy members that winds up screwing over such good cinema works because "they just can't watch that kind of film"...talk about being oversensitive or just plain freaking bias--it's stupid & disgusting!
Posted by: Frankie R. | December 20, 2006 at 09:21 AM
What I think of a film doesn't matter a hoot. Only what kudos voters think. And what I'm hearing from them all over Hollywood is that many of them are not watching the DVD screeners. 9/11 is such an unpleasant memory that they don't want to revisit it and that hurts the film's award chances.
You ain't gonna get any namby-pamby gushing out of me when it comes to films -- unless, of course, we're talking about "Moulin Rouge," "Dreamgirls" or "Peggy Sue Got Married."
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | December 20, 2006 at 08:54 AM
Tom - What do you have against United 93? Every time there is any article related to the film you make some snarky comment.
Have you even seen the movie? I find your responses comical.
Jason
Posted by: Jason | December 20, 2006 at 07:47 AM