As Rose noted in comments on another post, A.O. Scott of the New York Times has deemed Sideways the most critically over-rated film of the year. I tracked the article down through a search engine at the library (since it’s crossed over into pay-to-view territory at the Times), and it’s interesting reading:
“In ‘Sideways,’ a good many critics see themselves, and it is only natural that we should love what we see. Not that critics are the only ones, by any means, but the affection that we have lavished on this film has the effect of emphasizing the narrowness of its vision, and perhaps our own. It both satirizes and affirms a cherished male fantasy: that however antisocial, self-absorbed and downright unattractive a man may be, he can always be rescued by the love of a good woman. (What’s in it for her is less clear.)”
And, over-rated or not, it did pretty well in this year’s Oscar nominations, announced this morning: best picture, achievement in directing, best supporting actor (Thomas Haden Church), best supporting actress (Virginia Madsen), and best adapted screenplay. Interesting that Paul Giamatti didn’t get a best actor in a leading role nomination, considering how much love he got for the movie. Not surprised that Sandra Oh didn’t, given that her character actually objects to the way she’s treated by the lovable shlubs.