‘Amour’ Wins 3 Nods From Of National Society Of Film Critics

COMMENTS (20)

• Amour should be recognized equally by all other awards entities. Well deserved.

  Comment by FTCS — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 2:05pm PST  Reply to this post

• Overall these three films have been seen primarily by film critics and film festival attendees. Amour’s box office is $251,415 domestic and international, $1,986.833. The Master has made Dom,$15,969.473 and internationally,$2,964.771 and Zero Dark Thirty has only domestic thus far at $2,535.00.If these films are so outstanding why don’t they have larger audiences? Please none of those Joe and Joan Popcorn theories, you know the great slobbering movie mass theory. Did the critics pay for admission to see these films? These films reflect current film critic taste.

  Comment by jepressman — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 2:25pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Jepressman, I think you make an excellent point. I think the truly great movies: The Godfather, Casablanca, etc. Had both popular and critical support. Critics are often very articulate about their point of view, but it must be said, they tend to have very different tastes than even sophisticated mainstream audiences. My two favorite movies this year were Argo and Lincoln, both of which had box office success and critical acclaim. Would love to see many more of these movies made, but it is indeed a rarity.

    Comment by Brad — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 3:16pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Sophisticated mainstream audiences? That’s about the greatest oxymoron I have ever seen in print.

      Comment by CynicalCritic — Monday January 7, 2013 @ 10:43am PST  Reply to this post

  • I agree with you. They are critics choices. Amour is ok. Not a crowd pleaser. The Master is just an awful mess. When I saw that more people walked out than those left in their seats snoring .And as for Zero- same crap another day , nothing new or interesting here. Bigelow needs to move on and try her hand on another subject

    Comment by rob — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 4:04pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Can’t speak for the others, but until last week “Zero Dark Thirty” was only playing in 5 theaters.

    Comment by Victoria — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 4:54pm PST  Reply to this post

  • What’s “great” is what stands the test of time, regardless of critics or the general public.

    Here’s some famous box office flops/ for you: “The Wizard Of Oz” (yup, didn’t break a profit until 1949); “Citizen Kane;” “It’s A Wonderful Life;” “Blade Runner;” “Raging Bull;” “The Shawshank Redemption”and many, many more. On the flip side, I doubt people will be talking about “Twilight 2″ or “Ted” (heck, i liked it) 20 years from now. Also, there was a time when foreign films competed well at the US box office, particularly in the 60s.

    What we as a society end up etching into our collective, aesthetically fulfilled subconscious is far from an exact science.

    Comment by KOF — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 11:38pm PST  Reply to this post

  • It’s called the National Society of Film Critics Awards. Of course the winners reflect current film critics’ taste.

    Comment by Skippy — Sunday January 6, 2013 @ 7:46am PST  Reply to this post

• Ummmm.zero dark thirty has yet to open on more than 60 screens. That may explain its low box office to date. However, its per screen is through the roof. I believe it opens wide next week. Save box office judgement until then.

  Comment by dan — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 4:02pm PST  Reply to this post

• You sound bitter jepressman. I’m not a critic and Amour and all the other three films where some of the best of the year. What is popular doesn’t make something better it just makes it commercial not necessarily a quality film… awards go to quality not quantity. sorry.

  Comment by joe schmoe — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 4:04pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Actually, awards go to “quantity”, not quality.

    Witness:

    “Crash”
    “The Hurt Locker”
    “Million Dollar Baby”
    “Chicago”
    “A Beautiful Mind”
    “Gladiator”
    “Shakespeare in Love”
    “Titanic”
    “Forrest Gump”
    “Rain Man”
    “Terms of Endearment”
    “The Social Network”

    Comment by CynicalCritic — Monday January 7, 2013 @ 10:57am PST  Reply to this post

• Nice of them as film critics to exclude film editors and art directors/production designers. All the films selected as their best benefit greatly from outstanding design AND film editing.

  Comment by S — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 4:22pm PST  Reply to this post

• This is a bunch of wank film critics needing to be contrarian and special.

  Comment by JJ — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 5:18pm PST  Reply to this post

• It bums me out that Denzel isn’t getting recognized, when his performance in ‘Flight’ is at least as masterful, if not moreso, than DD-L (because DD-L is technically proficient but not emotional. Denzel’s work feels deeper). Is it because voters don’t care for Denzel as a person? Or maybe because ‘Lincoln’ makes people (i.e. mostly white voters) feel good while ‘Flight’ becomes an AA movie by its end? This puzzles me. His work deserves recognition.

  Comment by puzzled — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 5:20pm PST  Reply to this post

• AMOUR and ZERO DARK THIRTY have just opened and are in very limited release with expansion planned over the coming weeks, especially as Oscar nominations are announced. AMOUR is a foreign language film and most likely its audience will be limited by that in the U.S. But it is an amazing film, as is ZERO DARK THIRTY which deserves to be a big hit and might surprise the pundits and become a must-see movie for female audiences. THE MASTER had a modest release and can be expected back in theaters when the Oscar nominations come out. These are being released by smart distributors who will try to maximize their potential. If they fail I’d suggest it is the audience who is missing out.

  Does jepressman’s theory suggest that only films mass audiences want to see should be considered by critics? That would mean the new TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is a likely candidate for 2013 best films?

  For me the purpose of critics is to open my eyes and lead me to movies I might otherwise miss, while giving me insight that makes my experience the best it can be.

  Comment by Sherlockjr — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 6:24pm PST  Reply to this post

• Sherlockjr,
  I have seen ZERO DARK THIRTY. It’s not a film that is going to be a “must-see movie for female audiences” like Titanic or the English patient or Les Miserables. It’s set in a very mucho world with the lead character played by Jessica Chastain pulling the ‘tough girl who hangs with the boys act’. She has like no personality. This film I assure you is going to appeal to male audiences much more than women. There will be no girls night out to see ZERO DARK THIRTY.

  It’s a good film but very dry and clinical. Kind of lacking in any soul.

  Comment by Lizzie — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 8:00pm PST  Reply to this post

• Thanks for the feedback folks. I assure you I am not bitter at all, just curious. My view is that filmmaking is an expensive art form no matter what the film budget happens to be. So wouldn’t all involved want the film to be seen by as many viewers as possible? Why choose subjects and presentations that alienate rather than draw an audience?I am not advocating for Chainsaw Massacre, that isn’t for me.But so many of the indie/arthouse movies have such a low turnout probably because the gravitas and veritas is laid on too thick.You know,”dry and clinical,kind of lacking in any soul.”

  Comment by jpressman — Saturday January 5, 2013 @ 10:54pm PST  Reply to this post

  • jpressman, you’re out of your depth. First of all, as many others have pointed out, ZD30 and Amour are currently in limited release. THAT is why they’re not making much money yet. But look: this weekend, ZD30 nabbed a whopping $45K per screen average. Amour? $21K per screen. Compare that to Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s $8K per screen, and that was the #1 movie. Audiences ARE flocking to these arthouse movies. But since Amour’s playing on 3 screens right now, how can you compare its reception to a film playing on 4,000 screens?

    Realistically, of course, you’re not likely to get millions of middle Americans lining up to see Amour, even if it’s an exeptional film. (I see no reason, however, why they wouldn’t enjoy the suspenseful and relevant ZD30.) Regardless of the quality of the film, you just can’t convince some people to see foreign or indie films. But jpressman, if these films don’t make $200 million in the box office, does that mean they have “alienated” audiences? And if a filmmaker wants to make something unusual, challenging, or intimate, should they just forget about it once they realize their film won’t play in 4,000 theaters and rake in nine figures?

    Believe me, every filmmaker would LOVE his or her film to make a billion dollars. This includes Michael Haneke, Kathryn Bigelow, and Paul Thomas Anderson. The difference is that they don’t want to kowtow to the lowest common denominator in order to make it.

    Comment by jrose — Sunday January 6, 2013 @ 11:08am PST  Reply to this post

• It’s hilarious how Matthew McConaughey has been touted for his performances in “Magic Mike” and “Bernie”, both prime examples of his typecast, generic acting style as the “aw, shucks, I’m just an all-round good guy”, playing strip club boss or southern attorney when, in fact, his suprising turn in “Killer Joe” is the best thing he’s done in his entire lifetime.

  Comment by CynicalCritic — Monday January 7, 2013 @ 10:38am PST  Reply to this post

  • Totally agree ^^^

    Comment by jf — Monday January 7, 2013 @ 6:39pm PST  Reply to this post