Main Page

7/14/2011

UPDATED : Harry Potter and the Critics


What do  these scores mean compared to recent best picture winners/nominees ?  Hint : it not only looks nomination-worthy based on these numbers, (on paper) it could even win...(probably won't). For now, I think it will be similar to Toy Story 3 : rave reviews + stunning Box Office + last chapter-factor, but the Academy still might not be able to take it seriously enough to consider it for the 'big one'. For what it's worth, the film received excellent - almost identical - scores compared to The Return of the King...and that's definitely a great start.

Updated analysis : The film ended up - for now - with a slightly better RT-score (96 vs. 97) and a slightly worse BFCA-score (95 vs 93)...oh, well, you win some, you lose some...

For now

better RT-score than 10 out of the last 10 best picture winners (beats 90%, equals 10%)
better RTT-score than 10 out of the last 10 best picture winners (beats 100 %)
better MC-score than 6 out of the last 10 best picture winners (beats 60 %)
better BFCA-score than 6 out of the last 10 best picture winners (beats 60%, equals 10%)

better RT-score than 57 of the last 60 (last 10 years) best picture nominees (beats 90%, equals 5%)
better RTT-score than 60 of the last 60 (last 10) best picture nominees (beats 90%, equals 10%)
better MC-score than 42 of the last 60 (last 10 years) best picture nominees  (beats 68%, equals 2%)
better BFCA-score than 44 of the last 60 (last 10) best picture nominees (beats 69%, equals 5%)

Although these are all remarkably impressive on paper, it is important to emphasize that all this does not guarantee a thing (it definitely helps, though). If it were up to the critics, films like Toy Story 3, The Social Network, Up, Sideways etc. would have been crowned in recent years. Critics can't secure a film – especially a fantasy – a best picture win BUT they can be crucial help when it comes to the campaign and all those shiny billboards...

RT = ROTTENTOMATOES
RTT = ROTTENTOMATOES (TOP CRITICS)
MC = METACRITIC-SCORE
BFCA = BROADCAST FILM CRITICS ASSOCIATION (CRITICS CHOICE)

YEAR
TITLE RT RTT MC BFCA

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART II
97
100
87
93
2001
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
78
81
72
94

GOSFORD PARK
86
97
90
78

IN THE BEDROOM
93
90
86
77

THE LORD OF THE RINGS : THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
92
92
92
87

MOULIN ROUGE!
78
66
66
84
2002
CHICAGO
88
92
82
98

GANGS OF NEW YORK
75
67
72
86

THE HOURS
81
78
81
86

THE LORD OF THE RINGS : THE TWO TOWERS
96
100
88
90

THE PIANIST
96
94
85
96
2003
THE LORD OF THE RINGS : THE RETURN OF THE KING
94
98
94
95

LOST IN TRANSLATION
94
98
89
?

MASTER AND COMMANDER : THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
85
93
81
88

MYSTIC RIVER
87
95
84
93

SEABISCUIT
77
80
72
83
2004
MILLION DOLLAR BABY
92
95
86
90

THE AVIATOR
87
82
77
94

FINDING NEVERLAND
83
79
67
91

RAY
81
85
73
92

SIDEWAYS
97
98
94
96
2005
CRASH
76
77
69
88

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
87
90
87
92

CAPOTE
90
100
88
89

GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK
94
95
80
95

MUNICH
78
61
74
89
2006
THE DEPARTED
93
93
86
91

BABEL
69
64
69
94

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
91
93
89
95

LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
91
89
80
94

THE QUEEN
97
100
91
95
2007
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
95
91
91
91

ATONEMENT
83
88
85
87

JUNO
93
100
81
93

MICHAEL CLAYTON
90
95
82
87

THERE WILL BE BLOOD
91
95
92
87
2008
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
94
95
86
92

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
72
76
70
91

FROST / NIXON
92
90
80
94

MILK
94
95
84
92

THE READER
62
54
58
87
2009
THE HURT LOCKER
97
98
94
93

AVATAR
83
95
83
89

THE BLIND SIDE
66
60
53
85

DISTRICT 9
91
89
81
87

AN EDUCATION
94
94
85
95

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
88
74
69
91

PRECIOUS : BASED ON THE NOVEL ”PUSH” BY SAPPHIRE
91
92
79
89

A SERIOUS MAN
89
86
79
86

UP
98
95
88
100

UP IN THE AIR
90
90
83
97
2010
THE KING'S SPEECH
95
97
88
97

BLACK SWAN
88
87
79
89

THE FIGHTER
91
84
79
89

INCEPTION
86
79
74
94

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
94
94
86
85

127 HOURS
93
91
82
90

THE SOCIAL NETWORK
96
100
95
95

TOY STORY 3
99
100
92
97

TRUE GRIT
96
95
80
91

WINTER'S BONE
94
94
90
85

3 comments:

  1. Let me first say that I really like the Harry Potter-series, but I feel that it's biggest flaw is the fact that none of these films can be watched as stand-alone-films. If you go and watch the film without having seen the earlier films, You will have great difficulty following it because you miss a lot of the context (like character introductions and explainations of surden objects like horcruxes). This makes the film completely diffirent from other sequels like Toy Story 3 and The Dark Knight, which don't lean so heavily on the backstory told in the earlier instalments. I personally highly doubt if most of the academy-members will have seen (or will see) the earlier Potter-films before watching the screener for this one. Which would effect it's chances considerably...

    What are your thoughts on my theory?

    Regards,
    The Ghost of Easter

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually your theory makes perfect sense, only I don't think the voters will give it this much thought. Academy-members will probably vote for this not necessarily because they think this is THE best film of 2011, they'll vote because a lot of different group of voters will think of this as their own : actors will probably love it because it features a stunning cast, voters who belong to technical branches will love it because the film is a visual extravaganza, all the British voters will think of this as their own, so they will probably vote for it, as well.
    Although this is also just a theory and obviously I can't say any of this WILL happen, but at this point I think the film will appeal to a lot different demos in the Academy, and all those combined will be probably (more than) enough for a bp-nod and a lot of tech-nods. I think it has a remarkably good shot at bp and technicals, for me Rickman-Fiennes-Kloves-Yates are the long shots...for now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know about it. Maybe it's just me but I prefer to be carefull with predicting such a big summer franchise-movie like that so early in the year.

    Here are my counter-arguments to your points:
    * The Actors branche: It seems that a lot of films this year have great cast ensembles (Carnage, Contagion and Coriolanus come to mind) and a lot of the wellknown actors in those films have a lot more screentime then a lot of the wellknown actors in Harry Potter have (like Oldman, Thewlis, Gambon, Smith and Broadbent).
    * The British vote: There are a lot more academy-friendly British films, which the British voters might be more likely to vote for, Coriolanus and The Iron Lady are for instance much likelier to recieve the British vote considering that both of those have a chance of being Harvey Weinstein's campaign-frontrunner.
    * The Technical Branches: I'll give you these, but I am just wondering how many power they have within the entire voting body (eventhough the new voting system may change that)...

    I also think that we have to take in account the fact that no Harry Potter-film has ever been eligable for any of the top oscar-categories (not even with the 10-slot system).

    I am not saying it's impossible that it will get a Best picture-nod, I am just saying that I personally think it's a lot smarter to wait with putting it on a prediction list (atleast untill after the Toronto Film Festival has come and gone) and see how it's going to position itself in the race...

    ReplyDelete