Oscars 2020

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Dhreview16, Dec 2, 2019.

  1. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    I've always enjoyed Sam's movies...It would have been nice for him to win sometime...
     
    Ghostworld likes this.
  2. GMfan87'

    GMfan87' Forum Resident

    Location:
    CT.
    "Pitt was better than Pesci..", disagree.
    He was charismatic in it, did as much as he could with the role.
    The Academy often votes without having seen all the films,not right but they have admitted to it. Hollywood Reporter has done that feature last few years talking to a voter in secret.
    I saw OUATime.. last night and besides its attention to detail of the era I absolutely hated it. It has literally no story or plot. IMO it's a best pic because he has said its his last and it's about Hollywood.
    So far of what I've seen The Irishman even with it's faults is the one I liked and at least has a story.
     
  3. He won supporting actor for Four Billboards
     
    LilacTeardrop and Ghostworld like this.
  4. James Connolly

    James Connolly Member

    Location:
    Romania
    The Joker can repeat the success of the "Titanic", which awarded 11 Oscars (although there were 14 nominations)
     
  5. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Hope The Joker wins just to run theme park dirt onto MS face.:D
     
    James Connolly and Ghostworld like this.
  6. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Like TV movies myself, favourite Centennial.
     
  7. Pines Brook

    Pines Brook That sums up Squatter for me

    Location:
    New York, NY
    He was talking about Marvel movies. I'm not sure what he thinks of Joker, but an R-rated, disturbing psychological character descent heavily influenced by Scorsese's films, can't really be considered in that same genre, despite the source material.
     
  8. And gave a good acceptance speech.
     
    Mazzy likes this.
  9. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Forum Resident

    Location:
    US


    I thought it was very good and blissfully free of war film cliches, like those old WWII films full stock characters. I know the young kids in my audience dug it, because they’re happy with the stories in most video games and this technique mimicked a first person shooter game — you know that’s a thought behind this. And it might also be a way of making films more “Immersive” for a new audience. Who knows, maybe this will become the predominate style of filmmaking: ‘One Shot” (ala the Deerhunter). I actually saw this in Lie-Max. what a dope. $14 dollars and through my glasses I absolutely can’t tell a diff anymore. Oh well. No more IMAX for me. So maybe more than IMAX and resolution is needed to make film immersive for a new generation. They grew up on video games, this style of filmmaking maybe be the future to hook them in.

    That said, I think the film totally works. I enjoyed it much more than Nolan’s bore and even more than Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, just because the “game’ aspect of the film make it a little lighter and more enjoyable as an ‘immersive’ experience, where as the other two just bummed me out. Maybe that lighter touch makes it weaker as a war film, but it also make it quite watchable and I didn’t have to suffer through any tough young cigarette smoking Dogfaces with Brooklyn accents, thank god.

    Is it an effective “anti-war” statement. Eh, yes and no. Most war movies are pretty exciting, I hate to say. You can’t win.
     
  10. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Forum Resident

    Location:
    US

    He so good. funny as hell.
     
    LilacTeardrop and unclefred like this.
  11. He was hilarious in ' Galaxy Quest ' as 'Guy' and stole every scene he was in.
     
    unclefred and Ghostworld like this.
  12. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Forum Resident

    Location:
    US

    Oh, yeah. Watching that movie and Sam for the first time, you knew there was a new comedic star around the corner. Just so funny.
     
  13. GMfan87'

    GMfan87' Forum Resident

    Location:
    CT.
    Correct but he didn't sound like he saw it in its entirety nor was he too impressed, as he's been down that road before.
    He also said he hasn't seen most of the best pic nominees.. Ha, I think he isn't interested.
     
  14. Pines Brook

    Pines Brook That sums up Squatter for me

    Location:
    New York, NY
    Agreed, but the OP referenced throwing "theme park dirt" in Scorsese's face, so it was directly in reference to Scorsese's Marvel movies comments. Scorsese may have little interest in Joker but I would doubt he would put it in the category of what he called "theme park rides."
     
  15. clashcityrocker

    clashcityrocker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Great White North
    IMO:

    Just saw 1917 last night and I'm pretty mixed on it. The technical aspect cannot be denied with amazing production details and camera work. However Mendes is no auteur, no Kubrick. Well who is? but the way people are reviewing this film ya think he was the second coming. Similar to the wayyyy overrated American Beauty (which I booed when it ended, a total travesty which has withered away thank goodness in critical acclaim), 1917 is way more style and substance.

    With CGI, Mendes can make us see the horrors of WW1 but the viewer does so in a passive manner. Are those real rotting horse carcass'? Of course not. Those floating dead soldiers, nah. It has as much reality as a video game. Even the premise is ridiculous. Only two men are sent to save 1600 men? Yes stealth is important but how about sending another group of two men just in case? Then the plot contrivance of having to save his brother (hello Saving Private Ryan, gahh) is so dishonest and manipulative. Whatever we are on the amusement ride and the film starts and the beginning is tenseful and quite effective.

    That is all lost with the ridiculous plane crash (I think every action scene is in the trailer) and the meeting up with the other Tommys' (with the highlighted visible minority among them). Note to Mendes there was no motorized troop transports in WW1, oh well it gets him to the end quicker. The use of famous Brits in cameos is off-putting, if Mendes was wanting a more realistic film he could've used any unknown actor. There are other incongruities but 1917 does work as entertainment. We get the payoff and a emotional denouement for the main character but to me it ended as a soulless venture.

    I brought up Kubrick because of Paths of Glory is my favourite WW1 film. In that film Kubrick uses the WW1 stage as the folly of our world, of our beliefs, of our leaders. There are many scenes superior to anything Mendes could muster up. Mendes even rips off Kubrick with the singer at the end. In Paths of Glory the song ends the film in a devastating manner, the brutality of war can be saved by the beauty of a song for a few minutes while in 1917 it is used as a breather before the climax, with no context from the previous scenes. So bravo to Mendes' technical ability but add this film to the dustbin of mediocrity.
     
    GillyT likes this.
  16. Squealy

    Squealy Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Vancouver
    How is this different from any other war movie? None of them use real corpses.
     
    Stormrider77 likes this.
  17. Johnny Action

    Johnny Action Forum President

    Location:
    Kailua, Hawai’i
    Why not DiCaprio??
     
  18. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Best supporting male actor ?
     
  19. Johnny Action

    Johnny Action Forum President

    Location:
    Kailua, Hawai’i
    No, best actor. For Once Upon A Time.
     
    James Connolly likes this.
  20. clashcityrocker

    clashcityrocker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Great White North
    Really? They weren't real? So typical but I'll respond to you. It's the overuse of CGI I meant, seeing a dead horse with a thousand CG flies around it makes it seem more unreal. Similarly they show a dead dog but it seems so fake because you know it has to be CGI. I hope you can see my point. There are many cases of this in 1917. I really believe it's dishonest filmmaking (IMO if that makes you happy)
     
  21. clashcityrocker

    clashcityrocker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Great White North


    If this doesn't break your heart, you are not alive. If anything from 1917 is better than this feel free to disagree
     
    smilin ed, GillyT and wolfram like this.
  22. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Best film?

    1917
     
  23. Squealy

    Squealy Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Vancouver
    Even if these things were physical props rather than CGI creations (and I would think some of them, like the dog and the dead soldiers, were).... every movie is fake, ultimately. You can't "honestly" go to a real WWI battlefield and film it.
     
    Stormrider77 likes this.
  24. balzac

    balzac Forum Resident

    I think it's taken seriously enough; it's just not a substantive enough story/film to warrant nominations. I don't think any of the individual performances are Oscar worthy. It got a technical nod as many films of this sort do. "Endgame" isn't bad, it's just not Oscar-worthy in any non-technical categories (and where it is worthy due to effects and whatnot, so are other similarly okay films like Star Wars flicks, etc., that also achieve those technical nods). I'm sure Disney is fine making 27 quadrillion dollars off of "Endgame." I don't think Disney expected any major noms, which is why they said "eff it" and submitted seemingly nearly every single cast member in the film for acting awards.

    If "Black Panther" can acheive a nomination (not deserved in my opinion; again another just fine film that was not nearly substantive enough to be "Best Picture" material), I can't imagine anybody is not taking "Endgame" seriously enough.
     
    alexpop likes this.
  25. balzac

    balzac Forum Resident

    I dig "Joker", I think it's awards-worthy, and I'm happy to see it take home a bunch of Oscars. But I don't think it will. Its best shots are probably the same two that it won Golden Globes for, Best Actor and Best Score. Not sure it has a great shot at much of anything else. In the eyes of many voters, "Joker" is not so head-and-shoulders above other films like "1917" that it would get anywhere near a sweep. I would imagine Mendes is much more likely for Best Director. It's probably safer for the academy to give the Best Pic win to "1917" as well.

    Most of the Joker's other nominations are safer or more advantageous to give to others. Many felt Gerwig was snubbed in the Best Director category, so she'll probably snag the Best Adapted Screenplay award.
     

Share This Page