Houston Film Critics Announce Nominees

2004. Your laboratory has procured and imported
it from New Zealand.

When is the HFCA awards ceremony? And will it still be at the Museum of Fine Arts Brown Theater?

Best Picture
Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel

NOPE. Jesus fucking christ. You give this piece of trash a BP nomination, AND NOTHING ELSE? Seriously, why give it if it doesn’t come on top for anything else. At least they gave Serkis a well deserved nomination that those ignorant fudges at the Academy won’t ever dare to recognize.

No “Into the Woods?” What – Meryl Streep didn’t knock on these critics’ doors, curtsy and hand them a screener?

I guess Houston showed them who is boss!!!

Whaaaaa! What a bunch of babies! Film critics from HOUSTON screaming and screeching and punishing films because they weren’t hand-delivered screeners or had screenings that suited their schedule? Seriously?

Am I the only one who thinks that “Worst film of the year” is a ridiculous category?

David Oyelowo, who I always thought was a sure thing. Is actually starting to look vulnerable. Jake actually looks to have the edge over him right now. Interesting they would nominate Selma for best picture but not nominate him.

@ MSP that was not a press release. I just e-mailed Ryan as I do every year when our nominees come out. I am not sure why he said “press” release. I just noted him an FYI because I knew the question about Gone Girl would come up. To my knowledge there were no other ineligible films. I can see why everyone is saying it’s all about getting the screeners, but I truly don’t think that is the case. The rule was originally enacted so more popular critics in the group, those on TV, doing press junkets, etc weren’t receiving special treatment, and getting screeners that say a new member had no option to review before voting. For instance, until SPC gave in at the last minute, and I am talking like 2 days before voting, all of their films were going to be ineligible, they also said they were refusing to hold screenings for Still Alice or Mr Turner, which means the entire group would have had no way to even watch those films. It really isn’t about getting screeners, we would all prefer to watch them on the big screen. I personally drive an hour to Houston 3-4 times a week just to catch the screenings, and I have had over 220 reviews published as of this post. Each group has their rules, even the Academy, I just clued you guys into ours where most groups don’t tell you.

I have to say, I’ve seen two of ther nominees for worse film of the year… as bad as Transformers: Age of Extinction is, at least has some entertainment value (wasn’t that boring, just loud and dumber than usual in the saga), and is no competitor to “win” over Left Behind, which deserves to break records at the Razzies… it’s the only “0” I’ve given in the last years. Nicholas Cage, hitting rock bottom, he even avoids his over-the-top, histrionic acting trademark to just become a blur in the film that adds little to the whole experience. I’m already worried about his mental health, with career choices like this one. Self-destructive? Bankruptancy? He’s becoming a joke.

Thanks for the clarity and inside knowledge Dustin. I will definitely eat my crow on the worst screenings and that I misread the read the rule.

I get that the studios organize these events/campaigns and agree that all critics should have equal opportunity to view the films, but as you say, it’s likely they saw the wide release of Gone Girl (and they had the opportunity for The Judge). This makes the rule seem excessive as it does not really address the supposed problem. If they saw the movie or had the chance in October, why should it matter if some members did not get a screener? If a rule is in place that is not addressing the problem, then that is the organizations concern and not the studio.

Especially in the light of the worst nominees getting screenings) I would be interested in knowing what the full eligibility/ineligibility list is. Is the press release saying these are the only films released in 2014 that were ineligible or were there others? By including three films in the thick of the race as ineligible at the top of the press release, it comes across like some form of preemptive excuse to the studios and that non.-traditional awards movies were not even considered. Maybe it’s not and I’m reading way to much into it. I’m not the PR gal.

So if ”Gone Girl,” ”The Judge,” etc., HADN’T sent screeners to only the Houston members of BFCA, they would’ve been eligible?
It’s hard for me to imagine any movie critic worth his/her salt who didn’t see ”Gone Girl,” so to disqualify it because some Houston critics didn’t get a screener seems silly. I’ll assume that ”Gone Girl” DID hold screenings earlier in the year, so every member DID have an earlier chance to see it.
Also, can you explain the arithmetic of how ”’Selma” still got a Best Picture nod when only a quarter of HFCS members saw it?

How come they didnt see Gone GIrl by now? more than 15million people went to see that movie by paying for the tickets so these people couldnt find time or money to do that????

Also, only 6 people out of 25 attended the screening of Selma and it made the top 10?? How many votes does it take? 3?

And one dumb question: Is Babadook really scary??? I know it is silly but I cannot watch very intense scary movies:)

MSP you are missing the point entirely! All films are eligible unless the studio sends screeners to part of the group and not all, thats it. It’s a pretty fair rule to make sure all members have the same chance to see the film. To contradict what you said, it was the large studios behind Gone Girl and The Judge that didn’t send screeners, the smaller ones did. The critics saw Gone Girl, I’m betting all 25 of them saw Gone Girl, but due to a by-law rules that the group must follow, they could not vote for it because FOX refused to sent screeners to all the group, only the overlapping BFCA members got screeners.

That rule is bull for Gone Girl and The Judge as they had wide releases. These critics could have seen the movies had they really wanted to. This is a blatant attempt to score free dvds and it’s embarrassing. So any movie without the money behind it to send screener or just doesn’t consider itself an awards movie so no screener is out of consideration? That severely limits your choices and really only furthers whatever narrative the studios and publicists are pushing. You are CRITICS and should accept whichever films you feel are worthy. Not that I take any regional film critic award too seriously (save LAFCA) but this shoots Houston (and Any others with such a bogus rule) to the bottom of the pack.

@ K, I think nearly everyone in the group saw The Judge & Gone Girl, but just like the Academy, Globes, SAG’s etc, the HFCS have bylaws that determine what can be eligible for nomination. Just like last year Sony Pictures Classics refused to send screeners for the group to see. Even though most of them have attended the screenings, the purpose of the rule is to create a fair playing field for all the films, large or small, it’s a rule about fairness.

WW here is the rule:
If a film “screens” and sends no screeners it’s eligible, that’s fair game for all members to attend. (This was the case of Selma, no one got screeners)
If a film “screens” then sends “screeners” later to ALL HFCS members it’s eligible. (this is most of the films)
If a film “screens” then sends “screeners” to only part of the HFCS members it becomes ineligible. (which is what happened with Gone Girl).

Quick note: Screenplay seems to be labeled as Director. Perhaps because all of the nominees were, in fact, also the directors of their movies! Birdman was the giveaway. 🙂