National Society of Film Critics

For the films of 2018
nightwingnova
Assistant
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by nightwingnova »

Why I use the NYFCC as my guide for the best of the year. Sometimes the National Society’s “out of left field” choices are questionable.
The Original BJ wrote:
Uri wrote:You haven't seen it on the big screen, have you?. I guess it's the kind of film that draws you in once you see it in the theatre.
I saw it on DVD, and you may be right that it’s the kind of movie that really has to envelop you to work most effectively. (Though I’m definitely higher on the film’s merits than Reza — I didn’t think it was a bore so much as limited in its impact as a story.)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Sabin »

nightwingnova wrote
Regina Hall's not a fluke. Looks like I'll have to see Support the Girls.
I didn't write about it in the Official Review Thread but she's wonderful in it and the movie is very good.
"How's the despair?"
nightwingnova
Assistant
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by nightwingnova »

Regina Hall's not a fluke. Looks like I'll have to see Support the Girls.

Sabin wrote:Winners are coming in...

BEST ACTRESS: Olivia Colman, THE FAVOURITE (36 points)

RUNNERS-UP:
Regina Hall, SUPPORT THE GIRLS (33 points)
Melissa McCarthy, CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? (27 points)




WINNERS EN MASSE
BEST FILM: The Rider
BEST FOREIGN-LANGUAGE FILM: Roma
BEST NON-FICTION FILM: Minding the Gap
BEST ACTOR: Ethan Hawke, First Reformed
BEST ACTRESS: Olivia Colman, The Favourite
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Steve Yeun, Burning
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Regina King, If Beale Street Could Talk
BEST DIRECTOR: Alfonso Cuaron, Roma
BEST SCREENPLAY: The Death of Stalin
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Roma
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Reza »

Uri wrote:
Reza wrote:
The Original BJ wrote:That said, I can't say I loved The Rider the way so many critics (and some folks here) have. I found it beautifully shot, with rich portraits of the South Dakota landscape, and full of humane individual moments. And the sense of verisimilitude is very strong -- here the casting of non-actors as essentially versions of themselves pays off quite well in terms of giving us a lived-in sense of place. But I thought the story was pretty thin -- there just wasn't enough incident for the narrative to fully engage me as it clearly has so many. I essentially found it a well-made version of a kind of movie that just isn't quite in sync with my sensibilities.
That's a rather diplomatic way of saying the film was a f*#king bore :P

Frankly it was. Couldn't sit through it.
You haven't seen it on the big screen, have you?. I guess it's the kind of film that draws you in once you see it in the theatre.
Actually I did. Found it just too slow going and the story didn't hold my attention.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by The Original BJ »

Uri wrote:You haven't seen it on the big screen, have you?. I guess it's the kind of film that draws you in once you see it in the theatre.
I saw it on DVD, and you may be right that it’s the kind of movie that really has to envelop you to work most effectively. (Though I’m definitely higher on the film’s merits than Reza — I didn’t think it was a bore so much as limited in its impact as a story.)
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Uri »

Reza wrote:
The Original BJ wrote:That said, I can't say I loved The Rider the way so many critics (and some folks here) have. I found it beautifully shot, with rich portraits of the South Dakota landscape, and full of humane individual moments. And the sense of verisimilitude is very strong -- here the casting of non-actors as essentially versions of themselves pays off quite well in terms of giving us a lived-in sense of place. But I thought the story was pretty thin -- there just wasn't enough incident for the narrative to fully engage me as it clearly has so many. I essentially found it a well-made version of a kind of movie that just isn't quite in sync with my sensibilities.
That's a rather diplomatic way of saying the film was a f*#king bore :P

Frankly it was. Couldn't sit through it.
You haven't seen it on the big screen, have you?. I guess it's the kind of film that draws you in once you see it in the theatre.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Reza »

The Original BJ wrote:That said, I can't say I loved The Rider the way so many critics (and some folks here) have. I found it beautifully shot, with rich portraits of the South Dakota landscape, and full of humane individual moments. And the sense of verisimilitude is very strong -- here the casting of non-actors as essentially versions of themselves pays off quite well in terms of giving us a lived-in sense of place. But I thought the story was pretty thin -- there just wasn't enough incident for the narrative to fully engage me as it clearly has so many. I essentially found it a well-made version of a kind of movie that just isn't quite in sync with my sensibilities.
That's a rather diplomatic way of saying the film was a f*#king bore :P

Frankly it was. Couldn't sit through it.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by dws1982 »

Sabin wrote: BEST PICTURE: THE RIDER (44 points)
How did it not figure into Cinematography with this much support?

Awesome choice; I slightly preferred 2018's other horse movie (Lean on Pete), but I'm really glad to see this movie get some unexpected recognition.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by The Original BJ »

I got quite a kick out of The Rider winning Best Picture -- in an era when so many groups exist and somehow all seem to just rubber-stamp the same choices (which, as Mister Tee pointed out, even this group did in the acting categories), it's nice to have some individuality from time to time.

That said, I can't say I loved The Rider the way so many critics (and some folks here) have. I found it beautifully shot, with rich portraits of the South Dakota landscape, and full of humane individual moments. And the sense of verisimilitude is very strong -- here the casting of non-actors as essentially versions of themselves pays off quite well in terms of giving us a lived-in sense of place. But I thought the story was pretty thin -- there just wasn't enough incident for the narrative to fully engage me as it clearly has so many. I essentially found it a well-made version of a kind of movie that just isn't quite in sync with my sensibilities.

Anyway, on to the other prizes... Ethan Hawke makes a clean-sweep of the big three. Was the last person to do that and miss an Oscar nomination Sally Hawkins a decade ago? (I could easily be wrong about this). He seems to be the strongest candidate of the folks who haven't shown up at Globe/SAG to make the Oscar list, partly because you have to imagine him getting a lot of #1 votes. Still, I'll probably be antsy about his chances until his name is read off. (I'm reminded of the way so many of us were convinced Michael Stuhlbarg would eventually show up on the Oscar lineup last year even without support from the tv percursors, only for those to have been an accurate bellwether of his steep odds.)

The Death of Stalin is a movie a lot of us talked about as a screenplay possibility when it opened, but the buzz has been totally silent since then, and I worried it would just be forgotten about completely. Hopefully this prize will at least encourage a few more Oscar voters to take a look at it, as it seems like the kind of the movie the writers' branch might single out. (The screenplay categories at the Oscars have the potential to be VERY interesting this year, because a lot of the candidates that may well be cited by the WGA -- Black Panther, Crazy Rich Asians, A Quiet Place, Bohemian Rhapsody, maybe even to a lesser extent Green Book and A Star is Born -- are just not natural fits for Oscar's writing categories. And then there's a whole bunch of indies that could conceivably slip through -- The Death of Stalin, Eighth Grade, First Reformed, Leave No Trace -- depending on how much heat they're able to generate despite pretty low box office.)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Sabin »

BEST NON-FICTION FILM: MINDING THE GAP (35 points)

RUNNERS-UP:
SHIRKERS (31 points)
AMAZING GRACE (24 points)
"How's the despair?"
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Sabin »

BEST FOREIGN-LANGUAGE FILM: ROMA (44 points)

RUNNERS-UP:
COLD WAR (34 points)
BURNING (30 points)
SHOPLIFTERS (30 points)
"How's the despair?"
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
For the record, I'd have thought Burning had the better shot at the upset. But, then, I haven't seen The Rider yet.
Well, next up is Best Foreign-Language Film so Burning will have its shot to upset Roma there.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote:
Mister Tee wrote
I didn't realize LA was voting a second time today.
Apparently not.
Another close one. Last year, Lady Bird beat Get Out 41 to 39.

BEST PICTURE: THE RIDER (44 points)

RUNNERS-UP:
ROMA (41 points)
BURNING (27 points)
What's impressive here is, normally when the National Society has a Goodbye to Language-level upset, it's after the proxy voters drop out and you're left with the hard-core locals, who are cIoser in spirit to the rebellious original founding members of the group. But vote totals are so high here that it clearly happened with most voters still engaged (an easier thing these days, with people able to vote remotely by Skype, etc.).

According to Michael Philips, this voting went through five ballots -- and then Cuaron took best director by a landslide. So the fight was seemingly concentrated on this one category.

For the record, I'd have thought Burning had the better shot at the upset. But, then, I haven't seen The Rider yet.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Sabin »

BEST DIRECTOR: Alfonso Cuarón, ROMA (60 points)

RUNNERS-UP:
Lee Chang-dong, BURNING (22 points)
Chloé Zhao, THE RIDER (22 points)
"How's the despair?"
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: National Society of Film Critics

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
I didn't realize LA was voting a second time today.
Apparently not.
Another close one. Last year, Lady Bird beat Get Out 41 to 39.

BEST PICTURE: THE RIDER (44 points)

RUNNERS-UP:
ROMA (41 points)
BURNING (27 points)
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “91st Academy Awards”