It's Complicated

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7364
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:50 pm

This movie gave my dick hot flashes. I didn't like it [movie or sensation].

Only this movie would think this movie is French.




Edited By Sabin on 1264722723
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12539
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:41 pm

Except that Streep has twice now been up for critically lauded performances and failed to win. Granted, 2002 presented a poor opportunity against Catherine Zeta-Jones, but when compared to her nomination for Doubt, Julie & Julia indeed seems like fluff. The only reason she lost last year was a last-minute surge by Winslet.

And for comparison, Julie & Julia merits a 66 from Metacritic. Blind Side only has a 53. Sure it's not exceedingly close, but it's also not miles apart, either.

And imdb can also be a great barometer. It pains me to think that Crash has an 8.0 rating and is ranked 203 on the top 250 list, but it shows how "common" folk can like a movie and still do well at the Oscars. Julie & Julia has a 7.4. The Blind Side has a 7.8. So, while critics may not be warm to the film, there is evidence to suggest the public IS, so it's not nearly out of the realm of possibility here.

My point is let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:54 pm

You guys astonish me. You seriously think Bullock is more likely to win best actress than Streep? Bullock is personally popular but not viewed as anything like a heavyweight; Streep has the adulation of her peers, almost more this decade than even prior. I think voters have been looking for a way to honor Streep again for some time, and a lackluster opposition opens the way. For Bullock, a nomination alone is more than she'd ever seemed destined for.

To top it off, Julie and Julia was better regarded critically (it's not out of the question Streep could win or at least place for one of the critics' awards). I don't think it's any more fluff than Blind Side. And I don't even concede the beauty contest to Bullock: she's cute enough, but mostly rides her personality. Streep has aged spectacularly well, and was considered some sort of beauty when she was younger.

Of course, talk of winners is premature. I'm just describing what I see as the current lay of the land, which puts Streep in a far stronger position than I imagined when I saw her film.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:54 pm

Big Magilla wrote:The case for Streep is that long-time favorities tend to do better in years when there is no clear winner.

But that can always change. This time last year, there was no clear winner. Only when the Oscar nominations were announced and Winslet was nominated for the Lead category in "The Reader" did a front-runner emerge.

And that's the other point I was making. Even if there's no "It's Complicated", it's way too early declare her the frontrunner as if it's a foregone conclusion, however sound a theoretical argument we can make for her.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15660
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:05 pm

The case for Streep is that long-time favorities tend to do better in years when there is no clear winner.

Mullgian may have had the best reviews of the year, but as Mister Tee points out, the film has not performed as well as expected and Mulligan remains a one-shot lucky lady who pretty much fades into the scenery in her other 2009 films, Public Enemies and Brothers.

The case against Streep is that although she is likable in Julia & Julia, she's playing Julia Child for crying out loud, she really doesn't have all that much to do. I haven't checked out the E.W. on-line review of It's Complicated on their site to know if it contains the little sidebar that the print edition has, but that little box indicates as everyone else has, that Alec Baldwin is the best bet for an Oscar nod in the film, not Streep, so her best Oscar hope would still seem to be Julie & Julia.

Of course, there is another long time favorite that as of the moment seems to have a better shot than Streep at winning on as much on her personal charm as her performance and that's Sandra Bullock who gets this week's E.W. cover story.




Edited By Big Magilla on 1260479369
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12539
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:36 pm

Without seeing how the critics prizes all go, it's hard to say, but I think Mulligan has a better shot than Streep. She's been compared many times to Audrey Hepburn. I could also see a murky race benefiting Sandra Bullock were she nominated. She's been in the field a long time, she's generally likable, she's had a string of box office successes.

Matter of fact, I might almost liken her to Julia Roberts. Granted, the two aren't entirely similar as Roberts had plenty of people clamoring for her prize when she unfortunately triumphed over the brilliant Ellen Burstyn. And of the past 10 years, look at the rolls of Oscar winners: Roberts, Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron, Reese Witherspoon, Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet.

Aside from Hilary Swank x2 and Helen Mirren, these are beautiful actresses with strong careers (not really Theron or Cotillard) and many of them critics darlings or box office draws. Bullock fits more into this roster than does Streep and I have a feeling that Streep may suffer the "well, we're sure she'll give a better performance later" mentality, because, let's face it, Julie & Julia's pure fluff. Whether you like all the Best Actress vehicles of the past decade or not, they each had a bit of Oscar clout behind them to begin with.

I just think talk of winners is premature at this point, especially since so much can happen between now and then and an Ellen Burstyn or a Renee Zellweger can turn into a Julia Roberts or a Nicole Kidman.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4184
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Postby The Original BJ » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:01 pm

I agree with Mister Tee that Meryl Streep could definitely win this year. The way I see it, if either Mulligan or Sidibe (more likely Mulligan) run away with the critics prizes and a Drama Globe, I could see an Oscar win. (Sort of the way unknown Hilary Swank was able to triumph in a strong field in '99, simply because she dominated the entire season -- though to be fair, her level of accomplishment was greater than any actress this year.)

But if it's a murky race, one without a clear frontrunner, I'd say that only benefits Streep. In the '00's, she's won three Golden Globes, two SAG awards, and an Emmy -- there's certainly the feeling that it's time for her to be rewarded again, and if there isn't a strong favorite, I think she could pull it off. Personally, I'd rather voters wait for a real career capper for Oscar #3 (which, at this rate, seems more than likely to come along soon), but it might be that she wins like Katharine Hepburn did in '67 -- not remotely the best choice, or even a top choice, but because voters couldn't otherwise decide on a winner, and chose the vet overdue for another win based on career points.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:00 pm

Sonic Youth wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:Maybe this will put a halt to all this "Streep is winning for 'Julie & Julia'" nonsense?

I don't understand this quote either, Sonic. Based on this review, and the trailer, I think the chances of It's Complicated being a box-office success are strong -- which means that, over the last half-decade, Meryl Streep has morphed into a movie star in addition to being The Greatest Living Actress. This hurts her Oscar chances how?

I'll actually go flipp one better: I think there's a hell of a chance Streep wins for Julie and Julia, though as much for the accumulated career points of "27 years since Sophie's Choice", being seriously in the running recently (losing largely because of juggernauts for Mirren and Winslet) and the sudden aforementioned box-office strength. The field just isn't strong, when the other two seeming contenders are young women of whom most had never heard three months ago, in mid-range films. (If An Education had been a strong earner I might think Mulligan's chances were better, but the film really hasn't done as much as many expected) Julie & Julia obviously isn't Sophie's Choice -- I'm not even sure it's The Devil Wears Prada -- but I think it's possible the year and the actress could come together.

Um... because she could be nominated for this instead?

Sorry -- didn't get that that was your meaning.

It's possible, given Diane Keaton's Meyers-directed nod. But I think the Julie reviews were on the whole more Oscar-y than this.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:57 pm

Mister Tee wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:Maybe this will put a halt to all this "Streep is winning for 'Julie & Julia'" nonsense?

I don't understand this quote either, Sonic. Based on this review, and the trailer, I think the chances of It's Complicated being a box-office success are strong -- which means that, over the last half-decade, Meryl Streep has morphed into a movie star in addition to being The Greatest Living Actress. This hurts her Oscar chances how?

I'll actually go flipp one better: I think there's a hell of a chance Streep wins for Julie and Julia, though as much for the accumulated career points of "27 years since Sophie's Choice", being seriously in the running recently (losing largely because of juggernauts for Mirren and Winslet) and the sudden aforementioned box-office strength. The field just isn't strong, when the other two seeming contenders are young women of whom most had never heard three months ago, in mid-range films. (If An Education had been a strong earner I might think Mulligan's chances were better, but the film really hasn't done as much as many expected) Julie & Julia obviously isn't Sophie's Choice -- I'm not even sure it's The Devil Wears Prada -- but I think it's possible the year and the actress could come together.

Um... because she could be nominated for this instead?
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:37 pm

Sonic Youth wrote:Maybe this will put a halt to all this "Streep is winning for 'Julie & Julia'" nonsense?

I don't understand this quote either, Sonic. Based on this review, and the trailer, I think the chances of It's Complicated being a box-office success are strong -- which means that, over the last half-decade, Meryl Streep has morphed into a movie star in addition to being The Greatest Living Actress. This hurts her Oscar chances how?

I'll actually go flipp one better: I think there's a hell of a chance Streep wins for Julie and Julia, though as much for the accumulated career points of "27 years since Sophie's Choice", being seriously in the running recently (losing largely because of juggernauts for Mirren and Winslet) and the sudden aforementioned box-office strength. The field just isn't strong, when the other two seeming contenders are young women of whom most had never heard three months ago, in mid-range films. (If An Education had been a strong earner I might think Mulligan's chances were better, but the film really hasn't done as much as many expected) Julie & Julia obviously isn't Sophie's Choice -- I'm not even sure it's The Devil Wears Prada -- but I think it's possible the year and the actress could come together.

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Postby flipp525 » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:03 pm

Sonic Youth wrote:Maybe this will put a halt to all this "Streep is winning for 'Julie & Julia'" nonsense?

In what way, exactly? Because she'll be nominated for this one instead? I haven't heard anyone state that Streep might win for "Julie & Julia", especially on this board. It seems to be the fairly typical annual Streep placeholder nod. The closest she's gotten recently to actually winning again was probably last year with Doubt or in 2002 with her supporting nomination for Adaptation




Edited By flipp525 on 1260467239
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:18 am

Maybe this will put a halt to all this "Streep is winning for 'Julie & Julia'" nonsense?

It's Complicated
10 December, 2009 | By Mike Goodridge
Screendaily

Dir/scr: Nancy Meyers. US. 2009. 116 mins.



Nancy Meyers’ latest confection is like a rich dessert that tastes good to start with but gradually leaves you feeling overstuffed. Boasting a glittering fifty-something star trio in Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin, it’s an old-fashioned romantic fantasy about the love problems of the very rich that is tailor-made to win over big audiences and should succeed in its mission.

It’s Complicated is destined for big box office, not just as a result of Streep’s huge pulling power, but because it offers adults a seasonal comic escape along the lines of her hits Mamma Mia! or Julie And Julia. Older women especially will take the movie to their hearts and box office prospects are probably even greater than Meyers’ 2005 hit Something’s Gotta Give ($125m domestic, $142m international).

If any of these films are coming from Meyers’ personal experience, she clearly lives a highly privileged life. It’s Complicated follows the romantic entanglements of Jane Adler (Streep), a successful restaurateur who lives in a lavishly appointed, stunning hacienda-style house in wealthy southern Californian enclave Santa Barbara. It’s hardly a lifestyle that every woman can relate to, but that’s why It’s Complicated is a fantasy that could have been made in the 1940s with Myrna Loy or Norma Shearer.

[Spoilers hidden, although they're probably all in the trailer][color=white]The film begins as the camera pans over the Spanish style roofs of Santa Barbara to a lawn overlooking the ocean where we meet Jane and her husband Jake (Baldwin) in conversation with another couple. We soon discover, however, that the couple have divorced and that Jake is now married to the much younger Agness (Bell). Jane goes home alone to her own house where her youngest daughter (Kazan) is about to set off for college, leaving Jane alone and somewhat bereft.

But when Jane and Jake bump into each other at a New York hotel where they are both staying for their son’s college graduation, the two have dinner, get drunk and end up in bed.

Jake proceeds to fall for Jane all over again and believes that they can reunite and he can escape his troubled marriage with Agness. For her part, Jane enjoys the sex and intimacy with Jake and throws herself into it, while concealing the information from her three children.

Meanwhile she meets an architect called Adam (Martin) who is working on an extension for her house (quite why it needs to be bigger is anyone’s guess). As Adam starts to fall for Jane, she finds herself torn between the two men.


Meyers comes up with several priceless moments – when her son-in-law Harley (Krasinski) spots Jane and Jake together in a hotel lobby, or when Jane and Adam smoke a joint before going to a party – but, as with her previous films, It’s Complicated is far too long and the antics outstay their welcome long before the multiple endings kick in. It’s also a problem that Baldwin is so charismatic as Jake. While Martin has no shortage of on-screen charm, he is somewhat outshone by the newly minted comedy star.

As for Streep, she gives one of her most relaxed, unmannered comic performances as the woman who is not so sure she wants to give up her settled single life for more shenanigans with men. It’s ironic that in today’s youth-obsessed culture Streep has found her box office stride in her late fifties; similarly it’s a testament to Meyers that a film about love among aging divorcees has such box office heat.[/color]
"What the hell?"

Win Butler


Return to “2009”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest