"Close your eyes And forget your name Step outside yourself And let your throughts drain" - Slayer, Seasons in the Abyss
 

ADVERTISMENTS:





call us:
206-350-1082

support killoggs!
  Wed

reggie




Juno

I'm going to say this now just to have it on record. Don't be surprised if Juno wins the Oscar for Best Picture.

This isn't really a prediction but just me preparing you for what could be the biggest Oscar upset since at least Shakespeare In Love. I know all the press and critics and even some of us here on this very site have declared No Country for Old Men to be this year's cinematic triumph. Yet as I sit here one day removed from seeing Juno I can't help but notice how much I'm still thinking about it. This plucky little comedy about a sixteen-year-old pregnant hipster-to-be could very well be the best movie I've seen all year.

The Academy Awards haven't even been announced but if you've followed the clippings (or saw the list of Golden Globe noms) then you know who the favorites are and Juno is among them. While it seems to occupy the Little Miss Sunshine slot which means there's no way it should, win my thought process says that we've seen big plodding dramas like Atonement or the looks freakin' brilliant There Will be Blood before and we'll see them again. Those kind of movies always do well come awards time while the little indie darlings like LMS or Sideways are destined to walk away with no better than Best Screenplay.

So why could it be different this year? Why should it be Juno? It should be Juno because unlike previous Best Picture winner American Beauty this movie uses cynicism as a front for the sentimentality coursing just underneath the surface of its early moments. Unlike Beauty or Sunshine the focus isn't on the dysfunction of the families but on the function. For a country in which the phrase "family values" is little more than a campaign slogan, here's a film that puts them on full display but does so with hidden grace rarely seen in American cinema.

It's fairly easy to watch this movie and listen to the words coming out of Juno's (soon to be Oscar winner Ellen Page -- that, by the way, is a prediction) mouth and feel like it's just the screenwriter (a.k.a. my newest crush Diablo Cody) cranking out all the one-liners she could think of. It's easy to say that no teenager really talks like that but if you really look at the movie and look at the character, her wise-beyond-her-years speech is a mask for the naivete with which she acts.

This movie should win Best Picture because of the suprising attention to detail given to the dynamics of the relationship between not only Juno and her own parents but also the relationship she forms with the couple she chooses to adopt her baby. First of all, her parents react with just the right amount of suprise and disappointment when Juno tells them of her pregnancy but more importantly they react like...parents. As in they recognize that she may have a smart mouth but she's still a teenager and teenagers tend to do really stupid things. Throughout the movie it's obvious that Juno's father and stepmother genuinely care for her and support her through what is a life-altering screw up. Look at the scene where Juno goes to get her ultrasound: The scene starts off very tender and sweet but quickly turns nasty when the ultrasound tech makes a condescending remark. Juno's stepmother (Allison Janney) steps right in and puts the woman in her place. In my experience that's what parents do, they stick up for you even when you're in the hottest of waters. (May I also note that in most other movies the filmmakers would play up the whole stepdaughter-stepmother rivalry but at no point does that come into play here. A wise choice.)

The biggest surprise to me was the fascinating relationship forged by Juno with the Pennysaver-selected couple who will be the baby's adopted parents. On the surface they appear to be your typical yuppie couple with their nice uppity suburban house and carefully selected furnishings. As we get to know each of them, though, they reveal themselves to be quite different from our initial interpretations. Once Juno discovers that the husband (Jason Bateman) is a reformed rock-n-roller the two bond over punk rock, horror movies, mix CD's and comic books. Meanwhile Bateman's wife (Jennifer Garner!) appears to be stuffy and a bit controlling at first glance. As the movie progresses, however, we not only learn that Bateman may not be as cool as he initially appeared and there's a very tender scene with Garner and Page in a mall that reveals just how much she's ready for motherhood. I'd like to get into this a little bit more but I'll wait until more of you have seen it.

In the end, it's easy to look at the hipness of the film's dialogue, soundtrack choices and pop culture references and dismiss it as another Garden State or Ghost World but it's more original than the former and sweeter than the latter. Yes I said it. It's a sweet movie but don't worry, it never really overdoes it. It's a feel good movie but at no point does it attempt to overwhelm you with sentimentality. Juno works because it properly replicates human nature's tendency to produce unnecessary drama and the levity we could all use to guide us through our mistakes.


[ posted by reggie at 12/19/2007 07:57:01 AM ]
[ trackback ]



Threaded Responses [ bottom ]
huddo [email] said at 9:32 AM 12-19-2007:
do not see this film if bands like the moldy peaches bother you like they bother me.
brandon [email] said at 9:50 AM 12-19-2007:
This opens soon here. I've seen a bunch of cartoons that supposedly appear in the movie. I'm intrigued, yet cautious, with a hint of enthusiasm, followed by an apathetic finish.
kara [email] said at 9:55 AM 12-19-2007:

You're a great writer Reggie.

Hopefully I'll be seeing this movie on new years eve.
jeremy [email] said at 10:04 AM 12-19-2007:
The advertisements for this movie made me want to pass on this movie, but I think I will check it out on your recommendation.
reggie [email] said at 10:16 AM 12-19-2007:
Jeremy please ignore the ads and go in with an open mind. It's a really sincere little movie underneath its cutesy "hip" exterior, especially in the second half.
josh [email] said at 11:18 AM 12-19-2007:
i think juno will fit into that classic "indie" slot and get a few noms and possibly/probably a best original screenplay for diablo cody.

i doubt no country will win best picture. best adapted screenplay? maybe. best picture seems like a stretch just based on the subject matter.
    reggie [email] said at 12:57 PM 12-19-2007:
    Based on the subject matter? Like last year's winner was a light-hearted romp?

    Only The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has received as high a score on Metacritic as No Country.... It's about the only film I've seen this year in which the word "masterpiece" appears somewhere in the majority of most its reviews. It could be one of those deals where the Academy wants to make up for the Oscar for Fargo that many feel The English Patient should not have won almost a decade ago.

    As for Juno I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying don't be suprised if it does. Mainly because it's so well done and is a largely feel good story in a field with few others.

    There seems to be a pretty crowded pool as far as heavier themed films this year and they could all cancel each other out. It's exactly the kind of situation where people are looking at their ballots, trying to figure out if they liked Atonement more than American Gangster, can't decide and vote for Juno not thinking it stands a chance anyway and next thing you know it's Shakespeare in Love all over again.

    For the record the last time I said, "don't be surprised if X happens" I correctly intuited that Crash could walk away with Best Picture even though everyone was gushing over Brokeback Mountain.

    Here's a bonus, my super darkest of a dark horse pick is a Best Pic nom for Zodiac. Con: it came out really early last year. Pro: Fincher's director's cut will be hitting DVD shelves right around the time the ballots go out. But I'd bet on Dennis Kucinich winning the Democratic nomination before betting on Zodiac.
      josh [email] said at 1:44 PM 12-19-2007:
      last years winner was an entertaining and traditional cop/crime thriller that was very watchable, appealed to a mainstream audience, starred 3-4 of the biggest stars in hollywood, featured a rocking soundtrack and had a satisfying ending. it was tailor made for the oscars, basically. not to mention the lifetime achievement/he was robbed 3 times before aspect for marty.

      no offense to juno, but it opened on less than 10 screens and is currently playing on 40 screens. when is the last time a movie with that little exposure won best picture? has it ever happened? the academy is very conservative, they generally reward big movies. shakespeare in love is the closest in the last 10-20 years and that was a $100 million dollar hit film (which had some star power). crash was a "serious" film, and it had stars and a wide release (almost 2000 screens).

      if juno breaks $60 million, it has a shot at the best picture, but unless it achieves that sort of market awareness, it won't win. nom, perhaps/probably. there is always that "indie darling" slot but traditionally as you said they get screenplay awards. i would be suprised if juno was not nominated for best original screenplay, diablo cody has the zietgeist behind her at the moment.
        reggie [email] said at 11:33 PM 12-19-2007:
        when is the last time a movie with that little exposure won best picture? has it ever happened?

        Well, let's find out shall we?

        Best Picture winner Shakespeare in Love opened on 8 screens to a box office total of $224,012.

        Juno opened on 7 screens for a box office total of $413,869.

        Best Picture nominee Little Miss Sunshine also opened on 7 screens for a box office total of $370,782. It winded up grossing just under 60 million. Looks to me like the PG-13 Juno is well on its way to at least matching that.

        This is fun! Best Picture winner The English Patient didn't even break the $100 million mark, grossing only $78,651,430. It opened on 10 screens for a total of $278,439.

        In fact, Juno is tracking better than previous Best Pic nominees Babe, Shine and The Full Monty all of which had the exact same level of star power as does Juno.

        Even if you account for inflation Juno is still basically at the same pace as all of these other movies.
          josh [email] said at 3:38 AM 12-20-2007:
          yeah i looked at all these stats before i made my post...

          Best Picture nominee Little Miss Sunshine also opened on 7 screens for a box office total of $370,782. It winded up grossing just under 60 million.

          uh yes, nominee. you'll note i said:

          "when is the last time a movie with that little exposure won best picture?"

          i then went on to say the closest was shakespeare in love, which made $100 million, had a star, and it had the weinstein brothers at the height of their powers. SIL was launched small to build buzz because they wanted to. when they went wide they went to more than 2000 screens, with the accompanying huge media push that goes along with that. this was a standard miramax move (and still is). start small to build buzz, then drop the hammer and the big bucks and go wide, get the picture in every market. this worked well for miramax when the weinsteins were on point because their movies generally struck audiences postively, as opposed to tha average hollywood movie which would probably do WORSE with that strategy since the small markets would be like "that movie wasnt so great". this is part of why so many movies movies make 30-50% of their box office in the first week. this was also the strategy they used for the English Patient.

          juno, in contrast, started small because fox searchlight does not have the marketing budget to place a movie wide in the marketplace out of the gate.

          In fact, Juno is tracking better than previous Best Pic nominees Babe, Shine and The Full Monty all of which had the exact same level of star power as does Juno.

          and none of them won. lots of movies have been nominated. im talking about winners.

          again:

          when is the last time a movie with that little exposure won best picture? has it ever happened? the academy is very conservative, they generally reward big movies. shakespeare in love is the closest in the last 10-20 years and that was a $100 million dollar hit film (which had some star power).

          i'm sure juno will be a success, i doubt it will break big in the way it would need to win best picture, however.

          i cant think of anything else that would win best original screenplay though, and im fairly certain that ellen page will get a nom based on the buzz in the mags.
          josh [email] said at 3:54 AM 12-20-2007:
          last 10 best picture winners:

          the Departed
          Crash
          Million Dollar Baby
          Return of the King
          Chicago
          A Beatiful Mind
          Gladiator
          America Beauty
          Shakespeare In Love
          Titanic

          Every single one of those movies was a major release with marketing music behind it, and stars.

          The ten before that...

          Braveheart
          Forrest Gump
          Schindler's List
          Unforgiven
          Silence of the Lambs
          Dances With Wolves
          Driving Miss Daisy
          Rain Man
          The Last Emperor
          Platoon

          Honestly, Driving Miss Daisy, the Last Emperor and Platoon had the smallest star power in the last 20 years. However, they are also the oldest and I can't really remember if they were hyped or what when they were released (DMD has morgan freeman but he wasn't MORGAN FREEMAN yet, i don't think). i was prepubescent and didnt follow such things. Also i probably wouldnt have been allowed to see tle or platoon anyway!
            rickochet said at 3:59 AM 12-20-2007:
            I'm watching platoon right now!
            [Reply To this] [#256917] [ip: logged]
            reggie [email] said at 8:25 AM 12-20-2007:
            Shakespeare In Love
            The English Patient

            Which I mentioned above.
              reggie [email] said at 8:28 AM 12-20-2007:
              Wait, this isn't supposed to be a response to Rickochet.
                ed [email] said at 9:20 AM 12-20-2007:
                'Tisn't. It only looks like it is because he didn't use his head and you did.
              josh [email] said at 10:25 AM 12-20-2007:
              i mentioned shakespeare in love in my INITIAL POST so why do you keep bring it up?

              i dunno if you dont rememember when SiL came out or something, but I do... it had a HUGE, INSANE, CRAZY marketing campaign. i lived in baton rouge louisiana, not a very cultured place as these things go, and there were tons of ads and everyone i knew was anticipating seeing it. this was not a movie like juno that is under the radar.
                brandon [email] said at 10:34 AM 12-20-2007:
                I remember that. It was weird. All those girls suddenly had a moist-on for Joseph Fiennes.
                reggie [email] said at 11:03 AM 12-20-2007:
                I keep bringing it up because you asked me what movie with limited release WON Best Picture.

                I don't know about Baton Rouge but I know that when SiL opened here it wasn't initially in wide release. It played in DC and THEN hit the suburbs.

                You keep calling Juno under the radar when the movie's been nominated for three Golden Globes, Ellen Page was on the Today Show just moments before she received the news of her own nomination, Diablo Cody now writes a column for Entertainment Weekly and I basically knew the trailer by heart because it was on TV all the durn time. Not sure if you've been paying attention or not but Juno's not exactly "under the radar."

                ALSO I like how you're basing your argument on facts and figures and you haven't even seen the movie! I'm basing my reaction on actually having viewed the film. Not reviews. Not statistics but an actual emotional response.
                  reggie [email] said at 1:18 PM 12-20-2007:
                  Josh, are you sure Juno's "under the radar?" Do a quick search on Facebook and YouTube (both of whom I think you'll admit have a pretty substantial impact as far as marketing goes) for "Juno." Also, there are banners for the movie all over MySpace.
                    josh [email] said at 1:31 PM 12-20-2007:
                    2girls1cup has a lot of hits on youtube also, but it will not win best picture.

                    juno is under the radar in the same way that many of the artists on your best of 2007 list are under the radar. you and i know alot about juno because we read the trades, listen to the podcasts, read the blogs, etc. most younger people may have heard of it because they saw an ad or an interview. but those people are not in the academy, and that level of exposure does not win oscars... or even produce box office. hell, look at snakes on a plane... not that it would win anything, but the movie underperformed and it was hyped online more than any movie in recent memory. it did not do well in the marketplace.

                    once they are juno jokes in david letterman's monologue (when he comes back), or other cultural touchstones like that, then it in the mainstream of american consciousness.

                    part of the reason why the screenwriting category is a bastion of indie movies is that screenwriters are hipper than academy members and any film writer in the WGA gets a vote. that category is voted on by a completely different TYPE of person than best picture, a way more in touch sort of person.
                      reggie [email] said at 12:19 AM 12-21-2007:
                      juno is under the radar in the same way that many of the artists on your best of 2007

                      For the record, my Best of list is right in tune with 90% of the year end lists, including Rolling Stone and Spin.

                      Also, I believe I mentioned that Ellen Page was on the TODAY SHOW two minutes before the Globe nominations were announced. The Today Show is not small time.

                      I refuse to say one more word (probably not) until this movie hits a wider release.
                        reggie [email] said at 12:24 AM 12-21-2007:
                        And one more thing...it's your turn on Scrabulous.
                        josh [email] said at 9:01 AM 12-21-2007:
                        pissed jeans may be on a spin best of list, but they are not a mainstream aware group.
                          reggie [email] said at 9:54 AM 12-21-2007:
                          Siskodekaphobia:
                          n. The fear of losing an argument on the internets.

                          Bruce Springsteen
                          Radiohead
                          The White Stripes
                          Jay-Z
                          Kanye West
                          Common
                          NORAH JONES(!)
                          Feist (once you make an iPod commercial and have an MadTV spoof of that commercial, you're mainstream)
                          Arcade Fire

                          Yeah, none of them are mainstream at all! Yet many of them are not only on my list but also on Rolling Stone's Top 50 (I didn't read the whole list.) Can you get more mainstream than Rolling Stone? I think not.
                            josh [email] said at 10:34 AM 12-21-2007:
                            i actually didnt look at your list specifically before posting that above, but as i recall you had a bunch of artists on there that are not very mainstream, like pissed jeans and panda bear and !!!, right? of course, who is going to say that norah jones or the boss aren't mainstream? but i dont think !!! or panda bear or even LCD Sounsystem is mainstream. that is why i said "many of the artists" you listed and not "all".

                            many is not the same thing as all, reggie.
                            josh [email] said at 10:35 AM 12-21-2007:
                            also you are choosing to comment on the minute details of my comment, rather than absorb my main thrust which is that you are someone that is clued in to pop culture, and the critical edges of it at that... you are not "joe sixpack". your view of what is popular is not the same as what "john and jane smith, average american" thinks is popular.
                            josh [email] said at 10:45 AM 12-21-2007:
                            my definition of mainstream is something that the average mallgoing american can and does buy at target or best buy.

                            artists on your list i think aren't mainstream, for the record:

                            panda bear*
                            MIA (she is getting there though but her music/politics are pretty out there for the true mainstream but i kind of think she will become more approachable with both on her next record)
                            battles*
                            pissed jeans
                            pharoahe monch*
                            !!!
                            liars

                            bands i don't think are probably quite big enough yet to be called mainstream but i could buy it if someone says they are since i dont follow music as in depth as i used to:

                            animal collective*
                            feist*
                            lcd soundsystem

                            bands i have never heard of so i have no idea but i assume they arent that mainstream because i have never heard of them:

                            kings of leon*
                            k-os*
                            dr dog*
                            king wilke*

                            as a fun bonus, i have put a * next to every artist on this list i have never (knowingly) heard a song by.
                              brandon [email] said at 11:06 AM 12-21-2007:
                              My dad listens to Kings of Leon, he got it from a CD club.

                              Otherwise, despite most of these bands gracing the covers of many a indie rag, they're not pushing too many units at Wal-Mart.

                              It's the difference between being well-known among fans and enthusiasts and being either iconic or recognizable part of pop-culture, which is really what we're talking about when we refer to the mainstream - mass-produced, massively consumed media. In that sense, none of these are maintstream. But none are obscure.

                              You could also say that some of these are massively broadcast through college radio play, Feist and MIA have been on everybody's playlist. That's true, but college radio doesn't have a huge audience.

                              That's all.
                              reggie [email] said at 9:21 PM 12-21-2007:
                              Wait, you totally have to have seen the iPod Nano commercial with the chick singing "One-two-three-four..." That's Feist.
                                josh [email] said at 9:40 PM 12-21-2007:
                                i haven't watched tv since the first half of season 2 of lost. was it on tv then?
                                  reggie [email] said at 11:01 PM 12-21-2007:
                                  I saw an ad for it like literally the day after they announced the new iPod lineup (fat Nano, Touch, Classic) and it's been playing steadily since then.
                                    josh [email] said at 11:50 PM 12-21-2007:
                                    that was well after the middle lost season 2, which is the last time i watched tv. i dont have an antenna so i dont get any channels at my house. i watch all my shows i like via illegal download.
                                josh [email] said at 9:42 PM 12-21-2007:
                                but i have heard OF feist before. "dr dog", or "king wilke", i have not ever heard of them before your list.
                              reggie [email] said at 11:34 PM 12-21-2007:
                              Dude, I put a Battles video on the front page months ago. And I clearly indicated that it was Battles.
            reggie [email] said at 9:33 AM 12-20-2007:
            And yes all things must always go according to plan. There can never be any deviation ever. Because we've NEVER seen anything unexpected happen at the Oscars.

            Going back to Shakespeare in Love it was NOT initially that big a film, it only became big once word of mouth (and the power of the Miramax publicity machine) got out. It also benefitted from having Gwyneth Paltrow and Ben Affleck (in a supporting role) in it when they were still an item.

            Saving Private Ryan was the favorite going into the ceremony that year, which is why Spielberg buddy Harrison Ford couldn't hide his surprise as he announced Shakespeare had won Best Picture.

            As I also mentioned above (and you seemed to ignore) BEST PICTURE WINNER THE ENGLISH PATIENT never cracked the $100 million mark. Most critics loved/favored Fargo and the movie that had the most star power was a little comedy called Jerry Maguire. The English Patient starred Ralph Fiennes -- who spent a good deal of the movie under burn makeup, Juliette Binoche and Kristin Scott Thomas. Not exactly household names, the biggest name in the cast was Willem Dafoe who played a small character (fun fact: on the first AFI 100 Years 100 Movies list Fargo was included but not The English Patient?)

            Now here's Juno (by the way I like how you're trying to turn my simple caution into a flat out prediction. For the record I never said it will, I just said I won't be surprised if it does) a nice little comedy with strong dramatic moments whose main message speaks to family values. Even American Beauty was a vulgar and cynical take on the American family in which the main character wanted to sleep with his teenage daughter's best friend.

            If I had to pick a favorite -- as in the film I think will probably win -- then I'd lean towards No Country, Charlie Wilson's War and maybe Atonement. The latter film, however, has too many echoes of Patient and seems to be trying way too hard. Charlie Wilson's War is lighter in tone and has three Oscar winners in the cast and another one in the director's chair, probably the safest bet of any. And as I mentioned already, No Country could benefit by just being a work of genius and by the Academy not wanting to snub the Coens yet again (i.e. The Departed.)
              reggie [email] said at 9:39 AM 12-20-2007:
              ...now that I think about it, Paltrow and Affleck had broken up by the time SiL came out...
                josh [email] said at 10:44 AM 12-20-2007:
                i think thats true... part of why she was a big name at the time was she was a rising star "it girl" actress AND she was in the papers/mags alot based on her personal life. she had been with brad pitt, then was with ben affleck, etc etc
              josh [email] said at 10:43 AM 12-20-2007:
              As I also mentioned above (and you seemed to ignore) BEST PICTURE WINNER THE ENGLISH PATIENT never cracked the $100 million mark.

              i never said a movie had to crack the 100 million mark. in fact i specifically said "if juno breaks $60 million, it has a shot at the best picture". so why do you keep mentioning the fact that the english patient had less than $100 mill?

              the english patient was a hugely exposed film. there was even a seinfeld episode about it. do you think there will be a gray anatomy (or whatever is a big tv show now) movie about Juno? maybe... if it gets WAYYYYY more exposure than seems likely right now.

              my whole point was that a movie needs a lot of EXPOSURE to WIN. exposure could be either at the hands of a big marketing campaign, like one that the brothers Weinstein used to unleash - they were famous for their ability to, year after year, more than any other distributor, shepard movies to the Oscar. They won for the English Patient and Shakespeare in Love, for example, when most people did not think they would pull it off. This is because of their huge marketing campaigns and their aggressive courting of Academy voters. Every year Miramax would anoint one picture from their slate and go hogwild trying to make it the best picture winner... that was a big part of their strategy as a studio. It even pissed off some of their artists because people who didn't happen to be on whatever was "the one" that year would feel slighted. Surely you remember all the articles written about this in the 90s?

              Jerry Maguire

              no one who follows the oscars seriously thought jerry maquire would win best picture. i won my friends oscar pool almost every year in the late 90s, and the English Patient was crucial to my victory that year. because i bet with buzz, while they would based on what movies they liked the most (and rick would bet based on weird criteria i still dont understand). Oscar rarely rewards comedic films with best pictures, which is why I bet against SiL and lost that year, to be honest. that WAS a suprise, but the movie did have a lot of buzz and huge exposure. i just simply thought it was too "slight" for the academy to reward it... i felt the same way about maguire as well, and it was a correct intuition that year. Ralph Fiennes was coming off Schlinder's List, so he was a rising star at that time. Now he is an also ran, but then he was well known.

              by the way I like how you're trying to turn my simple caution into a flat out prediction

              I'm not. I'm simply defending my statement that Juno would need to break out into the mass consciousness WAY more than it looks likely to do so at this point to win. I said that, then you trucked out a lot of weird arguements that have NOTHING to do what I said ("what about THESE films (that didn't win)", "well, THIS movie made more money ten years ago then you said Juno would need to make in todays dollars", etc) so i am clarifying my statement and reinterating it.

              my statement is simple, and consistant: the academy is lazy and conservative (in their choices, not their politics). juno will need to get way more exposure if it has any shot of winning. diablo cody, however, should probably start thinking about how she wants to reorganize her mantel.
                reggie [email] said at 11:25 AM 12-20-2007:
                Please tell me that you are aware that by the time the Academy ballots go out in January that Juno will have received a much wider release. In fact, I can give you the exact date: December 28th, 2007.

                You're talking with this finality like it will never open wider than the few screens it's playing on now.
                  reggie [email] said at 12:44 PM 12-20-2007:
                  As for all of my comments about this movie and that movie. I named movies that fit the same profile as Juno only to roll on to bigger better and unexpected things at the Oscars. I was responding to the vibe you were giving off that Juno's time in the theater was already done when the film hasn't even hit its full release schedule yet.

                  On top of that, you're inserting unnecessary facts into a hyperbolic statement on my part that was designed to bring attention to the quality of the movie I just saw.

                  I still stand by my statement that I, Reggie, would not be surprised if it won. I DO NOT EXPECT IT TO, I just wouldn't be surprised if it did. The fact that the dramatic side of the field is kind of crowded (example: the 7 Best Drama Globe nominees) suggests that it's possible that a well-done quirky little film such as this could jump up and surprise everyone.

                  I continually bring up Shakespeare because I've always thought it won Best Picture in the first place due to people expecting Saving Private Ryan to win so they sympathetically threw their vote to SiL.

                  There is no Private Ryan, there is no Million Dollar Baby there is no Titanic. All of those were behemoths going in yet only two of them actually won the whole shebang. Why? Some say it was a combination of SPR-backlash in addition to Thin Red Line being amongst the nominees.

                  Look at the contenders. I've seen only a handful of these(*) yet knowing what I know about all of them, there's not a single film listed below that strikes me as an unstoppable force.

                  Atonement
                  No Country for Old Men*
                  There Will be Blood
                  Charlie Wilson's War
                  American Gangster*
                  Sweeney Todd
                  The Great Debaters(?)
                  Eastern Promises*
                  Michael Clayton*
                  The Diving Bell & the Butterfly

                  Sure there are some that are probably more likely than others but as I sit here now, not knowing what the nominees will be I personally could see any one of these films taking home the big trophy next year. I do believe that No Country is the favorite but I would not be surprised if it did not win.

                  Now add Juno to that list and it sticks out doesn't it? That's all I'm saying.
                    julie [email] said at 1:13 PM 12-20-2007:
                    I don't know why you guys keep arguing over this. I'll say it one last time: THE DOGS IN JUNO ARE TOTALLY NOT CGI, OBVIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!
                    josh [email] said at 11:39 AM 12-21-2007:
                    i don't think juno sticks out as much as the diving bell & the butterfly does... though i guess it has "it's ARTISTIC" going for it. the movie sounds amazing as an achievement of something difficult to depict onscreen, but it seems like one that would have trouble getting nominated based on the people who nominate just not getting around to see it... french language, first half is POV from a hospital bed, etc... tough sell. i'm looking forward to seeing it, though.

                    i would also kind of be suprised if eastern promises was nominated for best picture, based on having seen it and being underwhelmed. i thought it was decent but not an amazing movie. some great performances though. definitely not as awards-worth as HoV was. i wouldn't nominate it for the 2007 Joshcars.
                  josh [email] said at 1:34 PM 12-20-2007:
                  no i am not. i flat out said above, IF it finds success in the marketplace, say around $60 mil, it has a shot. do you think i meant it will make $60 mil from 40 screens?
                    reggie [email] said at 12:13 AM 12-21-2007:
                    How about the 200+ that Julie mentions below?
                      josh [email] said at 8:59 AM 12-21-2007:
                      it wont make 60 million on 200 screens. or, it would take like 4 months. it needs to break 1000 to make big money, just because there arent enough showings in a day and enough seats in the theater.

                      again, i never said it couldnt do it. i doubt it will, but all im saying is it has to really make an impression on the marketplace to win. just being a critics darling does not generally get you an oscar.
                        reggie [email] said at 9:57 AM 12-21-2007:
                        So to recap: you're arguing against a prediction that I never actually made for a movie that you haven't seen.

                        Does that about sum it up?
                          josh [email] said at 10:26 AM 12-21-2007:
                          im not arguing that... i said it has a chance of winning IF it gets out in the marketplace and makes some money/gets way more mainstream awareness.

                          you, for some reason that i don't understand, took that as some insane affront against you and went on a tirade.

                          again, i remain saying the same thing i have always said on this post...

                          juno will not win best picture unless it really gets out there and makes some dough.

                          is that an arguement against your prediction?

                          is it?

                          go back and really look at what i said.

                          if juno breaks $60 million, it has a shot at the best picture, but unless it achieves that sort of market awareness, it won't win. nom, perhaps/probably.

                          i am saying, in response to your statement that it might win, that i think it could win IF it makes $60 million or so, because box office is the best indicator (of course) that a lot of people have seen a movie and were at least interested in the concept (ie "it has buzz").

                          how, in any realm of the english language, is me saying "to win, it needs to be popular and make money" the same thing as "it can't win"?

                          it's simply not.

                          i have no idea why you think i am arguing against your statement.
                            reggie [email] said at 9:57 PM 12-21-2007:
                            im not arguing that... i said it has a chance of winning IF it gets out in the marketplace and makes some money/gets way more mainstream awareness.

                            Well then what's the point of saying anything since I never actually made a prediction? Why comment on it? That's what bugs me.

                            if juno breaks $60 million, it has a shot at the best picture, but unless it achieves that sort of market awareness, it won't win.

                            This is where I messed up because the way I should have responded to this comment was with: "Thank you Captain Obvious."

                            Do you get it now? In other words OBVIOUSLY the stars have to line up just right for Juno just to get there so why point that out? Especially when I never even made an actual prediction that Juno WILL win. I just feel the movie's strong enough on its own artistic merit to warrant legitimate consideration for the biggest prize in Hollywood. Period.
                              josh [email] said at 10:36 PM 12-21-2007:
                              why did you bother posting it if you didnt want someone to respond?

                              again, i have no idea why you took my comment as an attack or even as an arguement. isn't the whole point of blog comments to DISCUSS and perhaps even ELABORATE on what was said?


                              you said it might win the oscar, i posted what amounts to "yeah, but it has a ways to go before that could happen" then you flipped out. don't get mad at me!
                                reggie [email] said at 11:20 PM 12-21-2007:
                                why did you bother posting it if you didnt want someone to respond?

                                I can't seem to find it but I answered this a while ago. But if I now must do the reiterating...the statement was made out of an emotional response to the quality of the movie. Not to spark a debate, just to make people aware that this little movie has a lot more going for it than meets the eye.

                                Somewhere in the muckety muck I know I mentioned something about "hyperbole."

                                you said it might win the oscar

                                No, not really. As I see it, the phrase Don't be surprised if Juno wins the Oscar for Best Picture is not me saying it might win. It's me saying that it's good enough to win. That's not a prediction, it is an appraisal of the artistic quality of the film. That is all. Now, if you have not seen the film you cannot debate me on the manner of its artistic quality can you?

                                So yes, I am going to get mad at you because you're talking facts and figures when I'm talking about nothing more than artistic appreciation.

                                Oh and you haven't seen the movie have you?
                                  josh [email] said at 12:06 AM 12-22-2007:
                                  i dont need to see the movie to opine on its chances to win, or it's ability to succeed in terms of box office - i generally successfully call the oscar winner most years without seeing many, if any, of the films nominated. the last year i recall being totally wrong was indeed the year SiL won, and i had seen that one. being a great movie does not mean you are gonna get nominated. being the "best movie" that year doesn't mean you are gonna win. because those things are subjective. what you or i think about a movie means nothing in terms of oscar. what the academy voters thinks does. and the best indicator... in fact, really the only indicators we have about that are: exposure, buzz, and past voting history.

                                  im not saying the movie is bad. (though i do think it has less of a shot then if it had come out before knocked up, just because some people will think of it as "that other pregnancy movie". the fact that the freaking POSTER mentions knocked up doesn't help and if i was jason reitman i would have told the studio "please dont use that quote")

                                  all i said was "yeah, you are right, it has a shot, BUT the stars need to align right". i dont see why that is so contentious.

                                  and if people responding is a bummer... the whole point of this site is for people to respond to posts, so expect that people will, mannnnn.
                                    reggie [email] said at 1:01 AM 12-22-2007:
                                    i dont need to see the movie to opine on its chances to win,

                                    You see? There you go missing the point again. I don't care about its "chances to win" anything. The point of the statement is that the movie has more going for it than meets the eye. That's not something you're really going to gather from the trailers because the movie is BETTER than what's in the trailers.

                                    For instance, the joke in the ads about Jason Bateman saying that Juno's name is like the city in Alaska and Juno responds with "no." Then Bateman's character looks at her quizzically and says "no?" Well later in the movie, Juno does reveal the true origin of her name. The point is, what works perfectly as a moment that's played for laughs early in the movie is given a little and totally unexpected depth later in the movie. The joke works because it suggests that Juno doesn't know that there is a city in Alaska called Juneau when really she's actually saying "no" that she's named after something completely different.
                                      josh [email] said at 3:21 AM 12-22-2007:
                                      ive never seen the trailer
                                      josh [email] said at 3:22 AM 12-22-2007:
                                      also, again you ignore what i said in my comment and just go off on your own thing
                                        reggie [email] said at 10:05 AM 12-22-2007:
                                        No, not really. Again (deep breath) I DO NOT CARE ABOUT ITS CHANCES TO WIN ANYTHING. THE POINT. OF THE STATEMENT. WAS TO APPRAISE. THE ARTISTIC QUALITY. OF THE FILM.

                                        Your comment about its "chances to win" or its "box office success" is unnecessary because I don't care about HOW it has to get there, all I'm saying (for the last time) is that it's a better film than you would typically expect given the way it's presented to the public.

                                        also, again you ignore what i said in my comment and just go off on your own thing

                                        I just re-read the entire response above [257042] to see if I missed something and no. I didn't. Because your focus remains on a prognostication that does not exist and my focus is simply to say that the film has a surprising amount of depth and nuance that isn't apparent from the outside. So I did NOT go off on my "own thing" because I was giving an example of how the movie works in unexpected ways.
                                          josh [email] said at 4:23 PM 12-24-2007:
                                          the thing is you did talk about the movie's chances to win. it "wasn't a prediction" suppossedly, but then you flipped out about my comments so it certainly seems like it was.

                                          lets just agree to say that i, totally seperately from anything you posted about the movie, decided to post about it's oscar chances, then you can you cease to have your underwear in a wedgie over this?

                                          is that okay, that i - seperately from your pure and anadulterated artistic appreciation of a movie so it should have no bearing on your artistic and thematic discussion - want to discuss it in terms of the business of film?
                                            reggie [email] said at 11:24 PM 12-24-2007:
                                            That's somewhat agreeable.

                                            You're assuming, of course, that I wear underwear. I learned from the atomic wedgie that Sonny gave me years ago.
                                        reggie [email] said at 10:20 AM 12-22-2007:
                                        For instance this right here:

                                        being a great movie does not mean you are gonna get nominated. being the "best movie" that year doesn't mean you are gonna win. because those things are subjective. what you or i think about a movie means nothing in terms of oscar.

                                        Completely irrelevant. Phrases like "get nominated" or "gonna win" or "has a shot" say to me that you did not pay attention to the review. I'm sure you did 'cuz you're a smart dude but it's not coming through in a single one of your responses. I understand what you are saying PERFECTLY. It just doesn't matter.

                                        If I had said in my review that "if Juno makes x amount at the box-office and manages to appeal to enough people to garner a Best Picture nomination then I think it has a chance of winning" that would have been a BORING @$$ REVIEW. Saying "don't be surprised if it wins" catches your eye doesn't it?

                                        Of all the variables you listed that need to occur don't they go without saying? Is it not obvious from my statement that I'm confident that the film is good enough to accomplish these feats?
                                          josh [email] said at 4:27 PM 12-24-2007:
                                          the thing is, your review or whether you liked the movie has nothing to do with if the movie will win (nor does mine). crash was, in my opinion, a piece of shit. i couldnt even finish it. shakespeare in love? tripe, a slight movie. terrible movies win best picture ALL THE TIME. the departed was a fun movie but best picture material? i don't really think so.

                                          again, i am not harshing on your review or making a value judgement about it or the movie. i am partaking in an ages old killoggs tradition that you may have heard of, it's called a TANGENT.
                                            reggie [email] said at 7:24 PM 12-24-2007:
                                            Crash is one of the most UNDERwhelming Best Picture winners in a long time. I'm not so anti-Shakespeare, I actually enjoyed it but really have never had a desire to see it more than the one time. The Departed was DEFINITELY not BP material.

                                            Whatevs, I'm totally over this discussion.

                                            In other news, PLEASE let's wrap up our Scrabulous game.
                        reggie [email] said at 10:11 AM 12-21-2007:
                        I was going to avoid linking this article but for the sake of my own entertainment...

                        Now, pay close attention to the first paragraph, quoted below:

                        Here's a limb; here's me, going out on it. If the forthcoming comedy "Juno" (opening Dec. 14) secures for itself an Academy Award nomination for best picture, which I suspect it will, I think it has a real shot at winning.

                        That, Josh, is a ACTUAL PREDICTION.
                    reggie [email] said at 12:25 AM 12-21-2007:
                    I, Reggie, would not be surprised if it won. I DO NOT EXPECT IT TO, I just wouldn't be surprised if it did.
          julie [email] said at 1:06 PM 12-20-2007:
          Just FYI, from an industry insider (me): As of this weekend Juno will be on 200+ screens.
    brad [email] said at 3:27 PM 12-27-2007:
    no country played in lake charles one week before it was dropped.
      brianbibbly [email] said at 3:55 PM 12-27-2007:
      Haha. Yup. Its only on one screen here in Baton Rouge too. Ridiculous. I saw it twice and both audiences left mumbling and grumbling about the ending and "how they wanted their money back. Sheep.
rick [email] said at 11:51 AM 12-19-2007:
I'm gonna see this.
josh [email] said at 6:14 PM 12-19-2007:
oh and... why aren't you submitting writing samples to alternative weeklies, reggie? u could get paid 4 dis!
    carla [email] said at 7:48 PM 12-19-2007:
    Seriously Reggie!

    Here is the cranky review I wrote for Juno:

    While I think this movie was cute and amusing at best, I am not sure I understand all the hype surrounding it. The Generation Y laden slang is a little too abundant at the beginning and it takes awhile for the movie to develop actual substance. It sort of reminded me of Napoleon Dynamite and Ghost World all splooged together. Maybe I'm just being an over critical asshole but I was just kinda like "MEH"
      kara [email] said at 10:50 AM 12-20-2007:
      Yeah... like Cody said, yes there are a lot of teens who talk like that. But I don't necessarily want to watch a movie about them, I got my fill in high school.
    reggie [email] said at 11:39 PM 12-19-2007:
    The moment this crap becomes a job is the moment it stops being fun. I need more practice, less typos.
      josh [email] said at 10:45 AM 12-20-2007:
      it would be fun to write movie reviews and get to go to free movies all the time instead of working a day job for a living though, amiright?
      kara [email] said at 10:49 AM 12-20-2007:
      You're contradicting yourself.. why would you need more practice and less typos if you don't want it to become a job?
      Anyway, you could just submit these types of things as freelance. It might not be a good bet doing movie reviews that are probably going to be assigned to staff writers but if there's other things you're interested in writing about, why not submit them? (in my case there's nothing I'm interested in, that's why I don't do this)
      At a certain point, self-enforced practice isn't enough and you need the input of editors.
        reggie [email] said at 11:44 AM 12-20-2007:
        You're contradicting yourself.. why would you need more practice and less typos if you don't want it to become a job?

        If I were to pursue it (and I ain't saying I've never considered) I just think I would need to tighten up my game. Like how Josh is always practicing when he gets a new photography toy, because he's serious about being good at it.

        As for getting paid to go see movies for free. No, I wouldn't want to do that because that means you have to sit through hours and hours of bad ones. For every one Juno I'd have to go see five Ashley Judd woman-in-peril movies or Eli Roth gorefest or Kate Hudson rom-com of the moment. No thanks. I like picking and choosing and I only like writing about movies I like (or wanted to like going in.) I would never CHOOSE to go see Alvin & the Chipmunks unless I had kids or something.
          josh [email] said at 3:02 PM 12-20-2007:
          that is true; you would have to see some seriously terrible movies.
            reggie [email] said at 12:13 AM 12-21-2007:
            I admire critics who've been doing this stuff for years and years on end. Just imagine how many bad movies Roger Ebert has seen (he's seen enough where he's got a whole book devoted strictly to movies he hated.)
julie [email] said at 9:09 PM 12-19-2007:
Reggie, Diablo Cody and her husband Jonny are getting a divorce, so hurry up and make your move before we read that she's dating Quentin Tarantino or some shit.

She had a pin-up tattoo on her shoulder with a banner that said "Jonny's Girl" and recently was seen with big roses covering up the words. She confirmed it on her blog, Pussy Ranch, which you should read if you don't already.

Also, should I post my pic of me & Ellen Page here?