I'm somewhat surpise that The Hunger Games wasn't nonimated for ether Best Costumes or Best Make Up. Since I thought the make up for The Hunger Games was great.
Oscars 2013
-
-
I'm hoping Silver Linings Playbook wins something. I haven't seen most of the best picture nominations, but from a technical standpoint I'm afraid the people will think Silver Lining Playbook might be "schmaltzy" when comparing it to other films (I thought it was sweet and the message of the film, but still). I don't expect Best Picture from it but I'm hoping it wins something (though the high # of nominations is impressive)
Also, how does the fact that there's a lot more historical-esque films this year affect things? I haven't seen Lincoln, Argo, or Zero Dark Thirty but I'm guessing the comparison of the three is some aspects might hurt it when comparing them to other films? (The three could be radically different in tone so I could be completely off)
I'm also with Nobodyman in that I'm surprised/slightly disappointed that Havier Bardem didn't get nominated. I thought he played one of the best, if not the best villain this year.
-
Only actually seen Beasts of the Southern Wild and I know that it won't win Best Picture but Quvenzhané Wallis was a revelation! For a nine year old (she mightve been eight for the filming I'm not sure) to hold a film together like that with such a depth of character was astounding and props too to Benh Zeitlin for getting that kind of performance from her so I guess I'd like to see him take the Director nod. Hope to see most of the films on the list before the actual awards (gonna see Les Mis tomorrow) but I absolutely loved Beasts so I hope that does well.
Surprised that Amour got both a best picture nod and a foreign film nod (is that unprecedented??) and on the topic of best foreign language film I'm a little sad that The Raid didnt get nominated, I know that it was never gonna get nominated in a million years but for me it was my film of the year and that's not just because it was written by a Welshman.
-
Another year has me seeing not enough films (no Avengers as well). But even with that, I am rooting for the girl from Beasts of the Southern Wild. Who else if not her? I am sorry, but not even you, miss Lawrence.
Looking at the "Animated Feature Film" category…um yeah, I really don't know what to say about that category. A part of me wants to think Brave will win SIMPLY because it is Pixar, but I really despise the movie and there is no real contender in that category.
Brave and Burton aside, the other three film are quite good each in their own right.
Of the three, I'd prefer Lincoln to win if only because it was such a wonderful depiction of a man who had to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders, but still managed to do it with a sense of (hilariously vulgar) humor and the realization that the country had to move forward. The film itself reflected that.
Sounds wonderful. I am barely familiar with Lincoln's life, so how accurate of a portrayal would that be?
-
Surprised that Amour got both a best picture nod and a foreign film nod (is that unprecedented??)
About that, I'm really confused on the Academy's foreign film policy. I mean, the Oscars are supposed to be for American films, right? Hence, why the majority of films are American-made and they have a Best Foreign Film category. But then they do stuff like nominate Spirited Away and Triplets of Belleville for Best Animated Film.
-
About that, I'm really confused on the Academy's foreign film policy. I mean, the Oscars are supposed to be for American films, right? Hence, why the majority of films are American-made and they have a Best Foreign Film category. But then they do stuff like nominate Spirited Away and Triplets of Belleville for Best Animated Film.
It does seem odd, I always imagined that Best Picture was for english language films (or films that are atleast primarily English Language ie Inglorious Basterds) and that's why there's a foreign language film catagory but this nomination seems to counteract with that. If all films are eligible for Best Picture then surely Amour should win best foreign language film by virtue of being considered one of the nine best films of the year, if another film wins best foreign language film then surely it seems odd that that film wasnt nominated for Best Picture. We often have a similar issue at the BAFTAs as the best british film catagory often overlaps with Best Film for example in 2009 Slumdog Millionaire took home the BAFTA for best film despite it not taking home best british film even though it was nominated in that catagory aswell(that went to Man on Wire) where as in 2011 The King's Speech won both the best film award and the best british film award. It's inconsistent and it's confusing.
On the topic of the animated films. I guess because they don't have a separate catagory for foreign language animated film its ok, also it's a lot easier to dub animated films and not lose the quality of the film making as opposed to live action films where dubs often look and sound terrible.
-
About that, I'm really confused on the Academy's foreign film policy. I mean, the Oscars are supposed to be for American films, right? Hence, why the majority of films are American-made and they have a Best Foreign Film category. But then they do stuff like nominate Spirited Away and Triplets of Belleville for Best Animated Film.
"are cartoons even like real movies anywyas check out this sweet ollie into an endo"- Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President hawk koch
-
My heart will weep if Paperman does not win the Best Animated Short category.
-
Argo wasn't even that great. It's ok when you're watching it but the more i thought about it the worse the movie got. It's not bad but it doesn't deserve to win anything compared to the other films up for nomination.
I voted for Lincoln cause obviously Lincoln is going to win. DDL is going to win. Im ok with both of those.
-
Lincoln was the only one I didn't see, so having seen it might make me factor it in better in my thoughts. I can only sort of guess based on responses I've heard
I kinda didn't want to after initial hype because I thought it would be hammy (trailers are always misleading but damn did Lincoln's eventually just lead me away) and I never got into the mood to give it a shot
-
Another year has me seeing not enough films (no Avengers as well). But even with that**, I am rooting for the girl from Beasts of the Southern Wild. Who else if not her**? I am sorry, but not even you, miss Lawrence.
Brave and Burton aside, the other three film are quite good each in their own right.
Sounds wonderful. I am barely familiar with Lincoln's life, so how accurate of a portrayal would that be?
Even though i am also rooting for the little Wallis, Riva would definitely also deserve it.
Best Picture was never a category just for American movies, off the top of my head, i remember Last Emperor, Gandhi, Slumdog Millionaire, The King´s Speech, The Artist and so forth which are all not American movies. -
If the girl from Beasts of the Southern Wild win I will never watch the Oscars again.
Most overrated movie of the year.
Emmanuelle Riva ftw!
-
A Chilean movie got nominated ("No"). Bravo for my country!!! And yeah, Even tho i would love to se Django getting the oscar, Argo or Lincoln is where the fight is going to be IMHO.
-
No Hans Zimmer for score….hmmmm
No Howard Shore for score.....ok now I can't take the oscars seriously.
Thought Judi Dench should've been nominated possibly Bardem aswell but thats a tough category. Tarantino got snubbed again huh...
DDL and Hathaway are locks. Hope Leo wins for once, he deserves it. Hope Ang Lee wins as well, you know what I hope Life of Pi wins best picture...something different for once instead of these "historical american dramas" which tend to ham it up and glorify themselves a little too much.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Whoops just realized Leo wasn't nominated...wtf man! The old bastards who run the acadamy seriously have something against him...
-
Critics' Choice Award winners.
http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/01/m-critics-choice-awards-2013-the-full-winners-list.html -
Oh wow, what are these Critic Choice Awards? A category for action movies? A larger variety of good movies nominated? Directors like Tarantino and Afflect not getting snubbed? These are way better than the stuffy, sticks up their asses Oscars.
-
Just watched Silver Linings Playbook, i can see why it would get this many nominations but it´s still not a movie where i would scream "Oscar", especially due to its genre (the only 2 romcoms winning an Oscar that i can think of are "Shakespeare in Love" and "Annie Hall"). First of all, thank you for David Russell for making such a movie and of course Matthew Quick, both showed that romcoms can still be creative. Next, this movie upped Bradley Cooper into the A-list of actors if he was not there already, though i doubt that he will be able to climb the mountain called "Daniel Day Lewis" or even Joaquin Phoenix who seems to be overlooked here. Although it is kind of unfair to explicitly say this since she also showed a very good performance but still, holy fuck is Jennifer Lawrence hot. Her outfits for dancing were kind of distracting but i guess that was the purpose^^. I saw her in X-Men and Hunger Games before but she did not really catch my eye in those, i guess i have to watch Winter´s Bone for which she got an Oscar nomination before. Besides that, the overall cast was amazing. Of course Robert De Niro (whether his performance deserves a nomination more than Leo is debatable but i think both deserve it more than Tommy Lee, the latter did not really convince me, though it is naturally hard to shine when you plan besides DDL). The humor was good, the writing was cunning and crafty and the OST was very fitting. Definitely a very good movie which should make Russell after this and "The Fighter" one of the most wanted directors.
-
@Thousand:
Oh wow, what are these Critic Choice Awards? A category for action movies? A larger variety of good movies nominated? Directors like Tarantino and Afflect not getting snubbed? These are way better than the stuffy, sticks up their asses Oscars.
Oh wow, what are these MTV Movie Awards? A category for Best fight? A larger variety of movies i like nominated? Actors like Kristen Stewart and Channing Tatum not getting snubbed? These are way better than the stuffy, stick up their asses Critics Choice Awards.
-
huong dan ca cuoc tren mang
huong dan ca cuoc online
huong dan ca do bong da
huong dan ca cuoc bong da
huong dan ca do tren mang
huong dan ca cuoc tren mang
huong dan ca cuoc bong da
huong dan ca do bong da online
huong dan ca do bong da tren ma -
I still have to see Lincoln, Django and Argo , but will do so in the coming weeks.
I think Daniel Day-Lewis will win for sure best actor, because i have no doubt his performance will be as always amazing and the competition is weak.
And iam also sure that he will be the first actor becoming 4 times winner of best actor in the end, so he has to get here his 3rd one ^^
Christopher Waltz receiving his second Tarrantino-movie Oscar would be stunning, but have to see first what he has done this time.For best picture i think Lincoln will be the favourite but my prayers go to Life of Pie, because that one is a masterpiece and would deserve it.
But i also would be okay with it receiving 2-4 technical Oscars in the end. -
Oh wow, what are these MTV Movie Awards? A category for Best fight? A larger variety of movies i like nominated? Actors like Kristen Stewart and Channing Tatum not getting snubbed? These are way better than the stuffy, stick up their asses Critics Choice Awards.
Speaking of people with sticks up their asses.
-
The Golden Globes take place tonight (unfortunately without Gervais). Since they are often taken as pre-Oscar awards, i think it could be relevant, here the nominations:
-
Mhm I saw those… was surprised at some of the films that only got a few nominations yet were quite awesome...
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
The Golden Globes take place tonight (unfortunately without Gervais). Since they are often taken as pre-Oscar awards, i think it could be relevant, here the nominations:
[/scrolls down ; sees a '2010' ; derps ; sees who it's for]
GO FORTH AND WIN, BENEDICT!
And Downton Abbey… anything it has been nominated I swear it DESERVES wins...
I got into it sometime last year and oh my gooooooood <3 -
I chuckled a bit when I saw both Leo and Waltz on best supporting Actor in Motion picture. Though, once again Django's soundtrack is overlooked. C'mon…
-
So I saw Silver Linings Playbook and IDK what to think of it.
I think it's probably the barest minimum something can be before being "good" (or on a more general level, achieve a very high score on RottenTomatoes). I liked the acting a lot and the two leads were very strongly relatable to me, but my god was it riddled with flaws, just riddled with flaws. It was so frustrating because it kept taking me out of scenes that I'd be really loving for a few seconds. I know that probably sounds negative, but I did like it, just wow, haha, when it ended I was just unsure what to think.
At least there have been better movies about neurotic/"crazy" individuals and the way it suddenly takes its too-poorly-packed narrative and tries to streamline it all at the end into a goofy generic RomCom ending was silly (amongst a lot of other things).
Also relevant is I had the realization that the reason the Oscars expanded their Best Picture nominations to 10 or so movies is because they want more patrons to the movie theater. I wasn't even gonna go see Silver Linings Playbook out of general current disinterest, but what pushed me was my dad wanting to see a movie and hey! I haven't seen all the movies up for best Picture yet. It's probably the only reason there's 10 movies up for nominations, just movie industry help/jerking. This is probably very understood by the public, I just didn't realize it until tonight.
-
Mhm I saw those… was surprised at some of the films that only got a few nominations yet were quite awesome...
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
[/scrolls down ; sees a '2010' ; derps ; sees who it's for]
GO FORTH AND WIN, BENEDICT!
And Downton Abbey… anything it has been nominated I swear it DESERVES wins...
I got into it sometime last year and oh my gooooooood <3the 1st season was great. the second season was ok. this third one is kinda testing me. But Maggie Smith remains a treasure and she deserves all the awards.
-
Here the Golden Globe winners http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/9798792/Golden-Globes-2013-winners.html#
My opinion to the winners:
Argo was good but not deserving of a "Best Picture", same with "Les Miserables" (well, i never was a musical fan to begin with). DDL was the most obvious choice for Best Actor Drama, i did not see 0 dark 30, so i don´t know what kind of performance Chastain showed. Hugh Jackman did not deserve the award in my opinion, on the other hand i am happy that Lawrence won in her category. Waltz also deserved his award, Hathaway was also good but the most deserving award has to be the one Damian Lewis got for his role in Homeland.
-
@The:
So I saw Silver Linings Playbook and IDK what to think of it.
I think it's probably the barest minimum something can be before being "good" (or on a more general level, achieve a very high score on RottenTomatoes). I liked the acting a lot and the two leads were very strongly relatable to me, but my god was it riddled with flaws, just riddled with flaws. It was so frustrating because it kept taking me out of scenes that I'd be really loving for a few seconds. I know that probably sounds negative, but I did like it, just wow, haha, when it ended I was just unsure what to think.
At least there have been better movies about neurotic/"crazy" individuals and the way it suddenly takes its too-poorly-packed narrative and tries to streamline it all at the end into a goofy generic RomCom ending was silly (amongst a lot of other things).
Can you name some of these flaws (in danger of effecting my positive view of the movie ) ?
To the generich RomCom ending, i think it was fitting. The movie never tried to be more than a RomCom, the movie still moved in that genre, meaning that two young, likeable people who, from the point of view of the audience, are clearly meant to be together, yet they are kept apart by their past and previous experiences until the happy ending. The point that separates this from your generic romcom is definitely the unusual main characters and coupled with that, the unusual setting (someone returning from the mental hospital to his parents home + everybody around him helping him to move forward). -
So I finally managed to strike off one of the Best Pictures in my list and saw Argo and I might as well put my thoughts on it here.
Honestly, and I hate to say this but, I was NOT impressed. I liked the movie, I thought it was good. But one of the best of the year…?
Let me tell you how I went into the movie. I didn't know anything about it other than the premise. I didn't even watch a trailer for this movie, I went into this completely open-minded to the point that I did not even know what the tone of the film was going to be. I was actually expecting something akin to Entourage tone-wise but the movie clearly went for a more Munich feel which is fine. My problem is that the movie was too...actioney.
Now I'm fully versed with the whole Hollywood "based on a true story" bullshit. The filmmakers take dramatic license, rewrite history, give the version of events with a biased tinge. Fine but there is such a thing as taking it too far to the detriment of the film (the worst offender for this that I've seen has to be American Gangster, the liberties that movie took were just offensive). When the movie stuck to the history, just trying to depict events as realistically as possible, it was really, really good. The opening scene with the Iranians storming the embassy, the drive through the rioting protesters as they beat on the van, those were masterfully directed. But then silly, cliche action stuff happened that just took me completely out of the movie. the government pulling the plug, the one asshole who gives problem to the team who gets redeemed in the end, the whole climax of the film was just too much, it shattered my suspension of disbelief. I mean seriously, was I expected to believe that the mission was SECONDS from failure? That Bryan Cranston managed to get approval of the tickets just in the nick of time? That John Goodman managed to pick up the phone to verify Ben Affleck's story to customs just in the nick of time? That the plane managed to take off just in the nick of time as the Iranians were chasing it with machine guns on their jeeps and police cars (that scene was just hilariously stupid really, like the control tower wouldn't notice them and direct the plane to not take off, like anyone, even hardcore zealots would chase and even drive under a jumbo jet). Hell even the confrontation in customs was apparently bullshit and I had actually bought that that had happened.
Now you can cite dramatic license all you want but the problem is that those scenes, for me at least, detracted from the movie. When the movie just stuck to the history, it was so much more engaging and riveting. When it didn't, it just felt like your standard caper film which is bad because of how much it clashes with its more realistic tone. And I don't want to hear about how the movie wasn't trying to be realistic. The opening riot scene, the scene where embassy prisoners were mock executed, the guy hanging from the crane, the ENDING CREDITS were pictures from the movie were directly compared to their real life counterparts including aforementioned guy hanged onto the crane and then we got an audio recording of the president talking about the mission! The movie could have been so much better, in my opinion, if it did away with the caper antics and instead focused on depicting the history and the emotions and psychology of the characters especially the Americans which, in all honesty, were barely explored. You didn't really get to know anyone in detail except Ben Affleck, we got a glimmer of the other characters, their hopes and dreams, their history, what it really feels like they're going through. But in the end, it only felt like we were rooting for them just because we know they're based on real people instead of us actually feeling that they were real people.
In the end for all the talk this movie had, it didn't really amount to anything more than a pretentious popcorn flick. A movie that on the surface looks like it's going to really explore a troubling part of history but, in the end, all that stuff was just secondary to the cliche action scenes.
I liked the movie, it kept me invested, I was in suspense during the suspenseful scenes, the acting was great…but I didn't love it. It was just an action movie with some history sprinkled in. There just wasn't anything special about it.
I'll give it to Ben Affleck at least. He's come a long way from Pearl Harbor acting wise and he's shown his gumption in directing as well. So I guess this was technically my favorite Ben Affleck film?
-
If you're familiar with the horror genre, you'd know they have been abusing the "based on a true story" phrase for decades.
-
Argo definitely does not deserve all that praise, just like Zero Dark Thirty, Hurt Locker and the rest of those "patriotic" movies
-
@Thousand:
stuff
exactly. It's a good ride. The suspense and action keeps the movie going forward but if you stop to think about half the stuff it just seems completely blown out of proportion. It's a movie you could only watch once. Personally i had problems with the directing as well. Ben did a lot of close ups of his own face as he stared meaningfully off into the distance but overall it was shot well, not great, but well. Really I just think they're throwing all this praise on him because they feel like after all this time he's owed something and then he finally made something half decent so they feel obligated.
I wouldn't lump it in with Hurt Locker though, that had a lot going on character wise if anything by the end the main character is clearly not a patriot and just a man seeking a dangerous thrill for selfish reasons. I haven't seen Zero Dark but from I'm hearing its not as pumped up as Argo. Argo itself doesn't seem patriotic until you read the real story and find out that there was a lot more Canadian involvement and in the movie they just give all credit to the US.
-
@Thousand:
But then silly, cliche action stuff happened that just took me completely out of the movie. the government pulling the plug, the one asshole who gives problem to the team who gets redeemed in the end, the whole climax of the film was just too much, it shattered my suspension of disbelief. I mean seriously, was I expected to believe that the mission was SECONDS from failure? That Bryan Cranston managed to get approval of the tickets just in the nick of time? That John Goodman managed to pick up the phone to verify Ben Affleck's story to customs just in the nick of time? That the plane managed to take off just in the nick of time as the Iranians were chasing it with machine guns on their jeeps and police cars (that scene was just hilariously stupid really, like the control tower wouldn't notice them and direct the plane to not take off, like anyone, even hardcore zealots would chase and even drive under a jumbo jet). Hell even the confrontation in customs was apparently bullshit and I had actually bought that that had happened.
?
This is my only reason for not liking argo as it killed the movie for me, it was way too much. You forget to mention the amount of time that the worker at the airport took to put a car into gear just to add to suspense. They could have taken about the half of the scenes to add suspense and it still would be too much (not forgetting the people putting together the photographs). And yeah it bothered my when I watched it for the first time.
-
Argo definitely does not deserve all that praise, just like Zero Dark Thirty, Hurt Locker and the rest of those "patriotic" movies
You clearly have not seen Zero Dark Thirty if you thought it was "patriotic"
-
You clearly have not seen Zero Dark Thirty if you thought it was "patriotic"
That you did not even detect it as such already proves that they did a good job in doing it, i have seen the movie btw as a complete objective viewer since i do not have a personal relation to the USA whatsoever. First of all, just like in Hurt Locker, the protagonists are portrayed as human (that´s the important part) heroes. They struggle with what they are doing (at least towards the ending when she cries) but hey, since they are protecting the USA, they choose to do it. Second, the torture scenes are ugly but still portrayed as something necessary since that ultimately led to Bin Laden (which btw is apparently not even true). The movie completely ignores the moral dilemma in torture but depicts it as something necessary: "Yes, it´s ugly but it´s necessary to protect our country". That´s pretty much what the movie offers on that topic. I don´t even want to accuse Bigelow of anything (unlike some critics who called her a sadist or a propagandist for example) but as a film maker, she should be aware of what her movies convey.
-
If they didn't even use torture IRL to capture Bin Laden but they used it in the movie how does that drive home the point that torture is necessary. If anything it emphasises that torture is something the US does (and it does) but it isn't necessary. Also there is nothing heroic about the protagonist in The Hurt Locker. What he does, he does at a great risk to himself but the movie makes it very clear that his reasons for doing it are not even slightly heroic. It's like calling the ending of The Wrestler heroic.
-
I think Taggerung raises a really good point here let's all watch the Wrestler again and not any of these movies
-
That you did not even detect it as such already proves that they did a good job in doing it, i have seen the movie btw as a complete objective viewer since i do not have a personal relation to the USA whatsoever. First of all, just like in Hurt Locker, the protagonists are portrayed as human (that´s the important part) heroes. They struggle with what they are doing (at least towards the ending when she cries) but hey, since they are protecting the USA, they choose to do it. Second, the torture scenes are ugly but still portrayed as something necessary since that ultimately led to Bin Laden (which btw is apparently not even true). The movie completely ignores the moral dilemma in torture but depicts it as something necessary: "Yes, it´s ugly but it´s necessary to protect our country". That´s pretty much what the movie offers on that topic. I don´t even want to accuse Bigelow of anything (unlike some critics who called her a sadist or a propagandist for example) but as a film maker, she should be aware of what her movies convey.
And what was so horribly objectionable about Argo lol.
-
Argo definitely does not deserve all that praise, just like Zero Dark Thirty, Hurt Locker and the rest of those "patriotic" movies
Argo started with a pretty clear capsule statement that the situation in Iran was largely a reaction to faulty American interference. It also emphasized the lacking support of the government in pursuing the eventual rescue operation. Add in the fact that it made sure to add in at least one heroic Iranian figure and it doesn't fit too well in that uber-patriotic model.
From what I understand, the only real issues with it besides the usual Hollywood-ization was that it somewhat slighted Canada's involvement, and Affleck tried to fix that a little in post-production.
I'm not sure it's Oscar-worthy–it's another one of those movies that I think is great to watch and well-made but will largely be forgotten in two or three years--but it shouldn't really be criticized for being a flag-waver.
-
That you did not even detect it as such already proves that they did a good job in doing it, i have seen the movie btw as a complete objective viewer since i do not have a personal relation to the USA whatsoever. First of all, just like in Hurt Locker, the protagonists are portrayed as human (that´s the important part) heroes. They struggle with what they are doing (at least towards the ending when she cries) but hey, since they are protecting the USA, they choose to do it. Second, the torture scenes are ugly but still portrayed as something necessary since that ultimately led to Bin Laden (which btw is apparently not even true). The movie completely ignores the moral dilemma in torture but depicts it as something necessary: "Yes, it´s ugly but it´s necessary to protect our country". That´s pretty much what the movie offers on that topic. I don´t even want to accuse Bigelow of anything (unlike some critics who called her a sadist or a propagandist for example) but as a film maker, she should be aware of what her movies convey.
Wether or not the movie made a point that torture is necessary is debatable but they portrayed the scenes with such brutality and realism that it left me at least sickened and disgusted that that kind of thing went on. The movie revolves around a women's obsession to find this one man and how she has hardened herself to everything else in order to find him. Once Bin Laden was killed the movie makes a clear point by her reaction to seeing his face and her crying afterwords that this whole thing was almost pointless. 10 years of her life to track down this one guy and now that its over there doesn't even seem to be a meaning behind it.
The movie could have been a America ra ra piece that got the audience standing and cheering patriotically by end credits. Instead it left me at least, cold and slightly sickened with humanity, which is what Bigelow was going for.
-
Wether or not the movie made a point that torture is necessary is debatable but they portrayed the scenes with such brutality and realism that it left me at least sickened and disgusted that that kind of thing went on. The movie revolves around a women's obsession to find this one man and how she has hardened herself to everything else in order to find him. Once Bin Laden was killed the movie makes a clear point by her reaction to seeing his face and her crying afterwords that this whole thing was almost pointless. 10 years of her life to track down this one guy and now that its over there doesn't even seem to be a meaning behind it.
The movie could have been a America ra ra piece that got the audience standing and cheering patriotically by end credits. Instead it left me at least, cold and slightly sickened with humanity, which is what Bigelow was going for.
Yet of course, invariably there will be some douchebags who interpret it to suit their xenophobic warmongering. I've seen disgusting tweets about people who watched the movie and said how it inspired them to want to kill Muslims.
I haven't watched the movie yet but given Kathryn's track record, I really doubt she'd make such an overly simple, 'MURICA sort of film. It's just not her MO. She's the type that likes to go for the morally ambiguous, take it for what it is stories.
-
I really loved Silver Linings Playbook. >_>
-
I also watched Silver Linings Playbook and what to say.
I wouldnt have give it a shot when it had no nominations and afterall i think it
s a movie who is worth checking out but in no way a movie that would deserve winning best picture.
The cast was really good, i loved deNiro, but him getting a supporting actor oscar would be..well, he had stronger supporting roles in the past.
Jennifer Lawrence was a pleasure to watch but a nomination is all she should get for this, because in the first half she almost acted without emotions (show that her character has a hard time, so let her have almost the same face for the whole first half isnt what i consider an Oscar-worthy performance^^)but in the second half she was way better in my eyes. Bradley Cooper did a well job overall. It had some funny moments but became more and more predictable and over the top. It had a typical ending and somehow i felt they totally lost the whole "it
s about "crazy" characters who have to deal with hard times in their lifes after their previous relationship ended horrible" -concept they had.
"We make it about dancing (with the result we all knew it was coming…mehh) and about american football", so everyone will enjoy it, thats what they did with the second half to have a crowd pleaser. So it had a good beginning but ended like the typical RomCom, which is okay for such a movie, but not worth an Oscar. (It
s sure not "The Graduate", which also didn`t deserve a nomination at that time)6.5 out of 10
-
Argo started with a pretty clear capsule statement that the situation in Iran was largely a reaction to faulty American interference. It also emphasized the lacking support of the government in pursuing the eventual rescue operation. Add in the fact that it made sure to add in at least one heroic Iranian figure and it doesn't fit too well in that uber-patriotic model.
I thought this for the longest time but I've heard some Iranians talk about how the 50's meddling (which was more British than American meddling) while definitely a bad thing…wasn't really a generator of the social problems that led to the Ayatollahs. That that was a bad thing that had been welling up in the country for awhile as it approached modernization, the usual tension in countries on the periphery of the Western modern zone like in Turkey and Russia. And like in Russia the crazy dudes won out (though not at all the same kind of crazy dudes). Even in Turkey where sensible pragmatists won out, that tensions STILL exists.
I mean it kind of goes to show that the Shah, while a motherfucker, did not create the radicals.
When he fell, it was pretty much all of Iranian society glad to see him go. Liberals, communists, reactionaries, religious nuts etc.
Liberal types were moving to start up a new type of government, and the religious nuts came down on them. Which suggests that even if the Shah had not been around, and Iran had had a liberal democracy, it still would have been under attack by radicals. -
I generally hate romcoms and how formulaic the entire genre has become but I loved Silver Linings Playbook. It probably wasnt the best movie of the year but it was the one I had the best time watching.
-
Saw Life of Pi so I'm posting a review of it here.
Life of Pi: There are three movies I greatly desired to watch as soon as possible that I'd traverse to the less local theaters (opposed to my local theaters which shows three month old movies). They're Lincoln, Django Unchained and Life of Pi. The last one I wanted to see in 3D and there was only one cinema in the country still showing it in 3D. I hate 3D as a rule, it's a cheap gimmick forced onto us by studios in order to inflate the cost of tickets. It's especially infuriating where in this country, we're not given a choice between 2D and 3D versions of the movie so if there's a film we really want to see, we have no choice but to fork over the extra four euro. For this movie, I made a huge exception however as this was a movie meant to be seen in 3D just from the very way it was shot and put together. Now the question is "Was it worth it?"
For me, it's a resounding yes. In terms of visuals, I was blown away. The 3D was perfectly integrated into the story giving a dazzling and enriching experience. It truly feels like you're on that boat exploring all the different wonders of the ocean.
But of course, visuals aren't everything about a movie or otherwise Avatar would have actually been a good movie instead of a derivative bore. What about the story? The story in terms of plot is as simple as it can get. Boy and tiger get stuck on a boat in the middle of the ocean, boy tries to survive. A simple plot which is what it should have been. The thrust of the movie is the journey of self exploration that the boy goes through as he reflects on the meaning of truth and the existence of God. The journey with him as we try to unravel the answer to the deepest questions about life. These questions about the role of religion in our lives are the main draw of the movie. And personally speaking, being someone less religiously inclined, I was very impressed with the answer the movie came to.
Getting into spoilers, Pi gave two stories about what happened to him after the ship sank. One was fantastical and practically unbelievable with tigers and meerkats and floating islands that devour animals. The other is more sensible and reasonable. The question is which story is true? The answer is it doesn't matter. regardless of which is true, the ship still sank and Pi still lost everything especially his family. Some claim that the movie (and by extension the book) tries to convert people into believing in God, others claim the opposite that it is designed to turn people away from God. I believe it's neither. I believe the story is about it's up to you to choose what you want to believe. I believe the story is about questioning "What is truth?". Does a story really need to be "realistic" to be acceptable? Faith cannot by definition be proved or disproved as neither of Pi's story could be proved or disproved. But regardless of which is true, they're all in effect telling the same story, they're all sides of the same coin, they're all different paths that are diverged yet eventually intertwine into the ultimate conclusion. What you choose to believe is up to you, there's nothing wrong with picking the story you're most happy with and we should all respect each others decision on which story to believe in. If more people acted like this, the world would be a much happier place.
-
I hope Django Unchained wins best picture but I don't think that's likely. I'm thinking it'll be either Lincoln or Zero Dark Thirty since they seem like Oscar-bait. I don't know very much about the other ones.
Your signature should be nominated too.
-
I think both the Oscars and golden globes are overly politicized, worthless celebrations . However I am excited for the Oscar nomination of 5 Broken Cameras (a great doc made by both a Pail and Israeli). I really hope it wins. I'm rooting for it all the way.
-
Saw Zero Dark Thirty. Since they're close enough i'd say it's a much better film than Argo and not at all what i expected when i first heard someone was going to make a movie about killing Osama Bin Laden.
-
Lincoln: I've been looking forward to this movie more than any other all year. I hadn't been that excited to see a movie since Avengers. The thing about expectations is that it follows the law of diminishing returns. When you put so much of it into something, it could result in giving back a lower yield, all that hype and tension surrounding a movie could cause you to lower your enjoyment of a movie when those expectations are not met even though it was a fine movie on its own but not the perfect movie you wanted.
Not so here, the movie was fantastic. Forget meeting my expectations, it rose above them phenomenally. I was so surprised at how much I loved the movie, not that I thought it would be bad but I was just expecting that I might have hyped myself too much for the movie, that my expectations were a tad unreasonable and would sour my impression of the movie. Again, I reiterate, not the case.
I've heard diatribes against the movie that it's just the typical period piece Oscar bait movie with a lot of dull politics and stuffy characters. For me at least, that was not the case and trust me, I've had my fair share of those types of movies.
What really sets this movie apart from those two films are two things. One is the amazing screenwriting. The story was well-paced, intriguing and actually managed to get across the complicated politics of the movie without dumbing it down extensively and yet somehow making it interesting and engaging. Though the movie does seem complex and intricate and even gives the impression of being meandering at times, at the root of it, there is a well integrated three act structure, a feeling of things escalating, moments of getting to know the characters, moments of levity, the moment of triumph at the climax. Despite the overly complicated political dialogue, the movie itself was presented very well in an easy to understand manner even if some of the more laymen folk might not understand what was being said half the time (not to be arrogant, I live and breathe movies and even I had some trouble following what was being said at times). My point is though that the movie does a good job of being accessible to the mainstream audience without coming off as being overly simplified, a feat very hard to do for the most accomplished of screenwriters (the screenwriter of the movie was Tony Kushner, a well revered writer in the literary circle).
The second thing that really sets the movie apart is the acting. My god, the acting. It was like a smorgasbord of powerhouse performances by phenomenal actors. Doubly so when they're given such well-written, multilayered dialogue that more than does justice the characters they're portraying because despite what I said with the dialogue being a bit hard to follow at times, it is really, really cleverly and masterfully written. That combined with the sheer emotion and passion the actors delivered gives a movie with such genuine heart and emotion that I could not help but cheer it on the whole way.
Daniel Day Lewis gave his typical six out of five star performance that typically lands him an Oscar every time he decides to actually ever take up a role. But the real surprise was Tommy Lee Jones who gave a performance that just astounded me at what a good actor the man is. I had no idea he had such talent, I guess I've been unlucky to never having seen a lot of his movies other than action movies and silly love comedies. The real treat of the movie was James Spader who was just an absolute joy every time he was on screen. I swear to God, if I had to give my biggest complaint about the movie is that it didn't have enough James Spader. The man hasn't been in a film for three years, he's been criminally underused in the acting world. His presence brought such a sense of humor and levity to the movie, i was cracking up every time his character did anything.
Speaking of, I was surprised at how funny the movie was. All the scenes in congress with actors just hamming it up when giving bombastic speeches for or against the abolition of slavery was comedy gold. Not that I mean it as a slight against the actors, it makes sense that such characters would put on such hilariously exaggerated performances in congress. It was just so fun seeing politicians have gigantic cockfights with political rhetoric and plenty of hand shaking and gesticulating on the big screen.
Whenever James Spader showed up or we transitioned to a congress scene, I was rubbing my hands in excitement. That and whenever Lincoln gave another one of his stories related to his desire for the freedom and equality of men.
Now on to the character of Lincoln. The thing about the character is that it would be so easy to just turn him into a pretentious walking soapbox of ideals Those ideals are admirable but they alone do not make an interesting or engaging character. The real success of the movie is how it managed to HUMANIZE the character to such a degree. Lincoln as a character has pervaded both the popcultural and societal subconcious to such a degree that he's become less a person that once lived and more an ideal, this flawless being of social justice. But once upon a time, that man did live. He was not a perfect man, he had his faults, his flaws, his stubbornness to get his way no matter what the cost, his moments of weakness, his moments of strength, his moments of just relaxing and being with his family or reading a book, his moments of levity, his moments of comedy, his moments of cruelty, his moments of awe-inspiring passion. And that's what we got in this movie. Daniel Day Lewis just did a fantastic job of bringing him to life. Everything I could ask for from the character. Also, I love the voice Daniel gave him. It wasn't the cliche gravelly voice, it was more high-pitched and wiry which according to historical record is actually what he sounded like.
Now the nitpicks. The movie had tinges of Spielberg which might have been to its detriment. I like Spielberg as a director, Schindler's list is one of my favorite movies. He has great prowess as a film director of his calibre. But he does have a reputation of being…overly sentimental. What I mean is that the cheesy, soap operaish drama you find in bucketloads in his movies like E.T. can be detected even in his works where he's looking to be more realistic. Think the best scene to get that point across is the ending where SPOILERS Lincoln gets assassinated. It wasn't done with subtlety to say the least to the point that he might as well have been beating it into our heads. Look for it if you see the movie, I think you'd get what I mean.
With that said, I absolutely adored the movie. Easily in my top ten if not top five favorite films of the year. And personally, I didn't laugh my ass off so much in a theatre since Avengers.