Oscars 2019

is_that_so

murpho999 wrote: »

It's a lot more than kitchen sink drama. There was a lot more going on than that and also the cinematography was amazing, from the panning across the house to the forest fire and the view of civil unrest from the shop window.

Maybe you should accept that it just wasn't for you.

I said the cinematography was good. I was very disappointed when I sat down to it. The scene from the window is a long way into the film and that really is where my problem with the film was; that historical segment was interesting and worth a watch from there on. A lot of the rest of it just felt like padding and IMO just not much of a story, definitely not over 2 hours of one.

murpho999

is_that_so wrote: »

I said the cinematography was good. I was very disappointed when I sat down to it. The scene from the window is a long way into the film and that really is where my problem with the film was; that historical segment was interesting and worth a watch from there on. A lot of the rest of it just felt like padding and IMO just not much of a story, definitely not over 2 hours of one.

Depends on your viewpoint.

I just enjoy the artwork, acting and storytelling. I'm often not in a rush and just enjoy scenes where nothing really happens and mundane life is shown. Don't always have to be in a rush.

I was totally absorbed by it and really enjoyed it. Will watch it again shortly.

is_that_so

murpho999 wrote: »

Depends on your viewpoint.

I just enjoy the artwork, acting and storytelling. I'm often not in a rush and just enjoy scenes where nothing really happens and mundane life is shown. Don't always have to be in a rush.

I was totally absorbed by it and really enjoyed it. Will watch it again shortly.

Artistically I wouldn't argue but story was far too slight for such a film length. It needs to be worth the 2 hours and I never felt it was and bar the last 45 minutes did not engage me at all.

El Duda

El Duda wrote: »

Liev Schreiber has never been nominated for an Oscar

but how many times has he been nominated for a Golden Globe?

Rjd2

is_that_so wrote: »

Roma is a Netflix production and only in cinemas briefly to get a nomination. It's a TV thing and I have the TV for it! Still didn't help! Yeah heard that mentioned. Also saw Cold War mentioned as being better than Roma.

Cold War was great, much more of an emotional punch than Roma which left me cold despite how well made it was.

Green book is a middle of the road film, but it was a bland list of selections so can't get that outraged by it winning. The rather over the top meltdown on twitter to it winning by many who I assume did not see it was somewhat amusing also.

is_that_so

Rjd2 wrote: »

Cold War was great, much more of an emotional punch than Roma which left me cold despite how well made it was.

Green book is a middle of the road film, but it was a bland list of selections so can't get that outraged by it winning. The rather over the top meltdown on twitter to it winning by many who I assume did not see it was somewhat amusing also.

Yeah thought it was a run of the mill bunch this year and it was fairly easy to point at what might win.

expectationlost

gmisk wrote: »

It looks bad.
Plus Dexter Fletcher is directing who took over the reigns of Bohemian Rhapsody after Singer was kicked off it.

you can't land borap on fletcher

shamrock55

Green book is a good film, no more no less, I thought a star is born should have won, but they are the only ones I've seen so can't comment on the others

El Duda

Deleted User wrote: »

but how many times has he been nominated for a Golden Globe?

I can't read

Dades

The utter outrage over Green Book winning is bemusing.

People think they have such a right to demand other people appreciate certain movies more than other. God forbid you make a movie that deals with racism but not the way twitter demands it be done. And it's alright for a movie to be enjoyable - not every movie has to be 12 Years A Slave.

expectationlost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_RTnuJvg6U

ali nominated for best supporting, nuff said

JohnCreedon81

murpho999 wrote: »

I found the opposite. I had loads of people in work, social media etc saying with a great film it was whilst I had just read awful reviews about it.

It's a film that appealed to the non-thinking film type masses. Ticked all their boxes whilst the likes of Roma would be viewed as boring, slow, and terrible by them.

This post couldn’t be more pompous if you tried. “Non-thinking film type masses” eh?

You know it’s possible to love big beautiful brain dead productions and at the same time appreciate a deep thinking slow burning art house flick at the same time?

It’s also possible for deep thinking slow burning art house flicks to be total and utter dog turd too though.

I hate the majority of the most recent marvel copy and paste jobs for what it’s worth. I also love Birdman and Y tu mama tambien. I just found Roma an absolute bore. Like one critic called it, a bloody home movie. It’s deeply personal yes, but did absolutely fvck all to move or inspire or entertain me.

If you wanna cream over it, fair enough, but don’t imply people who don’t like it are non-thinking masses. Take your own advice and accept people won’t like it.

Agent Coulson

#Oscars So Bland with a need to be seen to be everything to everyone.


They might as well just create a Twitter voting app now and let the everyone who has a Twitter account vote as the seem to have bowed to the pressure of those who complain on Twitter anyway.


Then Twitter and eat itself up with the complaining.

AllForIt

Agent Coulson wrote: »

#Oscars So Bland with a need to be seen to be everything to everyone.

As a shows that's supposed to be entertaining it was the worst Oscars ever.

The only performance I enjoyed was the orchestral piece where they did a John Williams number from his Superman score during the In Memoriam section, a nod to Margot Kidder.

AllForIt

murpho999 wrote: »

Hard to take you seriously if you didn't know that Mahershala Ali won 2 years ago for his role in Moonlight.

.

You need to go back and read my post a bit more carefully.

Mahershala Ali 2
Glen Close 0

JP Liz V1

Did anyone else feel there was a lack of "movie stars", I mean looking at the audience which always is jam packed with stars that the camera always zooms in on, to some presenters who themselves were presenters or hosts, SNL alum or tv stars etc.,

lbc2019

I thought Gaga and Cooper were brilliant

Dades

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Did anyone else feel there was a lack of "movie stars", I mean looking at the audience which always is jam packed with stars that the camera always zooms in on, to some presenters who themselves were presenters or hosts, SNL alum or tv stars etc.,

You might have a point. A bunch of the old guard were missing. Hanks, Cruise, Streep, Nicholson, DiCaprio, McConaughey, Hathaway... At least I didn't notice any of them. Might have been the directors focussing on the nominee crew, or maybe there was a "diversity friendly" seating plan that had them a few rows back. :pac:

gmisk

expectationlost wrote: »

you can't land borap on fletcher

I think you partially can.
When Singer was taken off the project he was brought on.
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2461302/what-scenes-dexter-fletcher-added-to-bohemian-rhapsody-after-bryan-singer-left
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/05/bohemian-rhapsody-director-dexter-fletcher-bryan-singer-exclusive-1201962712/


As per that article he came in and principal photography was only 2/3rds complete.


Eddie the eagle and Sunshine on leith didnt exactly blow me away either, but hey its just a trailer for rocketman so lets see.

expectationlost

gmisk wrote: »

I think you partially can.
When Singer was taken off the project he was brought on.
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2461302/what-scenes-dexter-fletcher-added-to-bohemian-rhapsody-after-bryan-singer-left
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/05/bohemian-rhapsody-director-dexter-fletcher-bryan-singer-exclusive-1201962712/


As per that article he came in and principal photography was only 2/3rds complete.


Eddie the eagle and Sunshine on leith didnt exactly blow me away either, but hey its just a trailer for rocketman so lets see.

yes but the ambition of the film was already set.

Elmo

expectationlost wrote: »

yes but the ambition of the film was already set.

That could be down to the remaining members of Queen, Sacha Baron Cohen left after many of the more salacious aspects were dropped.

Wombatman

Hannah Bleacher and Jay Hart accept the Best Production Design Oscar for Black Panther.

Hannah grabs the mic and goes off on a long, rambling speech all about how good she is. Surly she is aware time is limited.

Eventually she hands Hart the mic and the get off the stage music starts to play as he begins to speak.

I felt for the guy and couldn't believe how breathtakingly selfish Bleacher was. I'm not into gender or race politics, but is the shoe was on the other foot, and the black woman was left no time to speak by her male co-winner, there would be uproar.

Oafley Jones

Dades wrote: »

You might have a point. A bunch of the old guard were missing. Hanks, Cruise, Streep, Nicholson, DiCaprio, McConaughey, Hathaway... At least I didn't notice any of them. Might have been the directors focussing on the nominee crew, or maybe there was a "diversity friendly" seating plan that had them a few rows back. :pac:

Were any of those involved with a nominated picture? Otherwise why bother, I’d imagine it’s a balls of a day to attend.

AllForIt

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Did anyone else feel there was a lack of "movie stars", I mean looking at the audience which always is jam packed with stars that the camera always zooms in on, to some presenters who themselves were presenters or hosts, SNL alum or tv stars etc.,

I was looking out for Glenn Close in the audience as she is a particular favorite of mine and I didn't see her in camera shot once during the whole proceedings until the best actress segment. I though it didn't bode well for her receiving an award. I had actually thought she wasn't there. If Streep was in the audience in past events, even if she wasn't a favorite, you'd see her in camera shot multiple times throughout the proceedings just cause she was there. I'm not sure if big stars weren't there or it was just a new policy to not focus the camera on them, which would be a bit weird. So yeah, good point.

murpho999

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

This post couldn’t be more pompous if you tried. “Non-thinking film type masses” eh?

You know it’s possible to love big beautiful brain dead productions and at the same time appreciate a deep thinking slow burning art house flick at the same time?

It’s also possible for deep thinking slow burning art house flicks to be total and utter dog turd too though.

I hate the majority of the most recent marvel copy and paste jobs for what it’s worth. I also love Birdman and Y tu mama tambien. I just found Roma an absolute bore. Like one critic called it, a bloody home movie. It’s deeply personal yes, but did absolutely fvck all to move or inspire or entertain me.

If you wanna cream over it, fair enough, but don’t imply people who don’t like it are non-thinking masses. Take your own advice and accept people won’t like it.

I don't think there's any pomposity in my post at all.

Films are all about perception and also what mood you are in. Sometimes you're just in the mood for a brain dead action flick and sometimes you want a film with a deeper meaning or different production values.

Who doesn't enjoy the likes of Die Hard or Con Air, or a stupid comedy such as Borat?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying Bohemian Rhapsody but it does not mean it's Oscar worthy.

I enjoyed Roma. I thought it was an exceptional piece of work with a lot of content and by no means boring.

It certainly had me thinking about the film over the next few days after I saw it unlike Bohemian Rhapsody which you've almost forgotten about by the time you get home from the cinema but you know you've enjoyed yourself.

JohnCreedon81

What the hell are you on about bohemian rhapsody for? it was the “non-thinking type masses” line that reeked pomposity.

Die hard is one of the greatest films of all time, genius.

Con air is also fantastic. Borat hugely intelligent comedy.

Your post is all over the place.

You enjoyed Roma yes, but accept many didn’t and don’t accuse them of being too stupid to “get it” which is what some of your previous posts blatantly implied.

murpho999

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

What the hell are you on about bohemian rhapsody for? it was the “non-thinking type masses” line that reeked pomposity.

Die hard is one of the greatest films of all time, genius.

Con air is also fantastic. Borat hugely intelligent comedy.

Your post is all over the place.

You enjoyed Roma yes, but accept many didn’t and don’t accuse them of being too stupid to “get it” which is what some of your previous posts blatantly implied.

Now it's not what I implied it's how you interpreted it.

I'm talking about Bohemian as that's what people were talking about.

I would call Die Hard one of the greatest films of all times in any way, no where near it.

But if you think so: go ahead enjoy it and let me enjoy Roma.

JohnCreedon81

Dades

murpho999 wrote: »

I would call Die Hard one of the greatest films of all times in any way, no where near it.

It's arguably the greatest film of it's genre, ever. It certainly laid the template for action movies since.