I agree to the letter

Posted by · 11:45 pm · October 21st, 2009

Q: Why Did Amelia Earhart disappear in 1937?
A: To avoid being embarrassed by the movie about her 72 years later.

Q: Can three horrible fake accents equal one irredeemable movie?
A: You bet ya.

Q: What’s the difference between Amelia and two hours of uninterrupted sleep?
A: The latter is uninterrupted.

From David Poland’s skewering of “Amelia” following a screening this evening.  I’ll dig into the film in Friday’s Oscar Talk, but the only movie I’ve seen this year that is worse is “Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li.”

→ 59 Comments Tags: | Filed in: Daily

59 responses so far

  • 1 10-22-2009 at 3:50 pm

    Baxter said...

    I didn’t mean to start anything up with my comment earlier. I wasn’t trying to take a jab at the site; I just always like seeing every year how the season changes, and how our expectations and opinions of certain films so quickly shift.

    The reason I don’t even think about predictions early on is because usually until this point of the year, all one can do is point out which already-known-about-and-hyped movies they think won’t end up making the cut. But if you have to make predictions in the summer, you don’t have much else to put down other than something like Amelia. Like I said, even then it didn’t seem like a great call, but what else are you going to predict? This was before we knew much about A Serious Man, Up in the Air, or An Education (or had even heard of A Single Man, if I remember correctly), and Amelia was a baity biopic to be regarded with a wary eye.

  • 2 10-22-2009 at 3:51 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Baxter: FWIW, I have no problem with what you wrote.

  • 3 10-22-2009 at 10:03 pm

    Georgie said...

    Someone mentioned Marion Cotillard, and after hearing the songs from the musical (and knowing that they wrote another song for her character) I definitely think she’ll get a nomination, even for Best Actress instead of Supporting.

    But wow, I didn’t think it would be that bad.

  • 4 10-23-2009 at 12:44 am

    Glenn said...

    Gregel, bringing up other critics (or a site like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes) as evidence for a point is the weakest and the silliest thing to do. So other critics like it more? What does that prove to Kris? If everybody had the exact same opinion (and, let’s be honest, many have very similar feelings about this film as Kris does) then what would be the point?

    Kris thought it was one the worst movies of the year, you didn’t. He’s not going to give you a lecture on why your favourite movie of the year is the wrong choice, is he? How about you step back from it and realise just because your great aunt was inspired by the woman doesn’t make it a good MOVIE.

    gah! Who cares if he didn’t see “New in Town”?

    Some people…

  • 5 10-23-2009 at 4:13 am

    Eric said...

    ‘It’s ignorant comments like yours that make running a site like this such a chore.’

    Kris: that’s a bit rich, don’t you think? Have you ever considered that your comments might be a chore to read, to get to the good stuff (i.e. Guy Lodge). And I don’t mean your articles, but your general attitude in the comment section, where you are lecturing people left and right.
    As long as I’ve been reading this site (I started commenting just very recently), you have been smug and patronising to comments you didn’t like.

    ‘This is my job. If you can do it better, do it. I doubt you’ll last a week.’

    With regard to that aggressive statement: I might not do a better job (although I just may – funny that you haven’t addressed any of the points I was making. Anyone could see that Amelia was not what you hoped it would be, *from the very beginning*, for the reasons named above).
    Regardless of the quality of my predictions, I would certainly run my site with less smugness.

  • 6 10-23-2009 at 8:13 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Then please, go do so. I think my work and my capacity to properly track the awards season has spoken for itself this decade, Eric.

    Regarding your “points,” it’s not that “anyone could have seen” anything. You think I had a blindspot to the troubles? As I mentioned in my response, there was word FROM THE STUDIO that this wasn’t an Oscar film. The film has been slowly falling off my charts for weeks. I’m not sure what else I could have done and, frankly, it certainly hasn’t been totally absent from other prognosticators’ guesses.

    Please, make an actual point, but don’t stand on the sidelines and go nah-nah-nah-boo-boo when you had no knowledge base on the film or what was going on behind the scenes other than a trailer that was actually pretty good and made a few people (myself not included, mind you) think the film could turn the corner.

    You also seem to think that I “hoped” the film would be something it isn’t. I never felt one way or the other about “Amelia.” It only ever seemed like an Oscar prestige pic that might miss but could make it if handled well enough. That’s hardly a “lack of professional eye” (talk about smug).

    And sorry if my comments rub you the wrong way. Infantile silliness rubs ME the wrong way and I’m not shy about confronting people on it. Never have been.


  • 7 10-23-2009 at 8:45 am

    Hans said...

    Alex: YES! Despite NATM:BOTS being a dreadful movie, I said months ago that Hillary Swank better knock her performance of Amelia out of the ballpark to merit a nomination over Amy Adams’. Yes, it’s campy to the nth degree, but it sure kept me entertained and shone vigorously among the crap that was the rest of the movie.

  • 8 10-23-2009 at 9:57 am

    JFK said...

    Sorry to hear about Amelia, I was looking forward to it.

    I’ve had the opportunity to see “A Single Man” while in Chicago this week and loved it–Firth should get a nomination, if the film can pick-up steam.

    On the contrary, I really did not enjoy “A Serious Man,” I am curious to go back and read all that was said about it, but to me, it was an unfinished piece and I found myself irritated with nearly every facet of the film.

  • 9 10-23-2009 at 2:17 pm

    Matthew said...

    Wow. People are angry on here. Anyways, the movie looked like shit from the trailers. Oh and please don’t go looking into that Sandra Bullock movie. I’m suggesting this because, frankly, it looks like one of the most racist pieces of filmmaking since… Well, since “Transformers 2” I suppose.