New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

David Mumpower: I agree with Kim and Reagen. I strongly suspect that Up in the Air is the title that benefits the most from a lackluster bunch of awards contenders. It speaks volumes that titles such as Star Trek and District 9 are being bandied about as potential Best Picture nominees. Even though both are long shots, no one has this discussion if all of the "pedigreed" features are legitimate candidates. Most of them are of the Nine variety, pyrite. For this reason, the closer we get to the Oscars and the more Up in the Air is elevated as a co-contender for Best Picture against Avatar, the more its box office total is inflated due to the failings of other productions.

Nine is shaping up to be the worst nine/9 movie of the year

Kim Hollis: Nine expanded into 1,412 locations over the holidays, but earned only $4.3 million this weekend. With a running total of $14 million, do you see this as a bomb? Also, do you think it's been taken out of the Academy Awards race?

Josh Spiegel: There's no question that Nine has not made nearly as much as Harvey Weinstein hopes it would have, and that it's going to pale in comparison to Chicago. I always hesitate to say a movie is a bomb, but again...the result is what it is, and it's not what Weinstein would want. Does that mean it's got no Oscar chances? Last year, there was a movie called The Reader, also from Weinstein. It made $34 million, but only had about $10 million when the Oscar nominations were announced. Never count out a Harvey Weinstein movie at the Oscar nominations. Nine certainly isn't a frontrunner, its nominations may end up being all technical, but don't be surprised if it still gets a Best Picture nomination.





Reagen Sulewski: The important difference with The Reader is that it wasn't hyped a year in advance. Nine was one of those films that people had on their radar all though 2009, and the perception was that this was a big film to watch. It's okay to be the small film and not make a lot of of money, but when you're the big spectacle and are greeted with yawn? That's a death knell right there. It's true that you can't count out Harvey's lobbying ability, but he's better served to put his weight behind Inglourious Basterds.

Kim Hollis: Reagen, I think you're right on target here. The Weinsteins will focus their attention on Inglourious Basterds because it's well-positioned to be nominated in a number of top categories. It's also made plenty of money, which is more reason for Oscar to smile upon it. They've got A Single Man attracting some buzz as well, and I can't imagine them putting a lot of energy toward a movie that isn't making the money expected and that also has been critically ripped.

Matthew Huntley: Yes and yes. I just saw the film tonight and it's a hollow achievement at best. It just doesn't have the emotional weight or meaning that the filmmakers think it does. Did we really need a remake of Fellinin's 8 1/2? The film may still earn some technical award nominations (costume design, cinematography, etc.), but I wouldn't be surprised if its lackluster box office will prevent it from winning them.

Continued:       1       2       3       4