90th Academy Awards (for 2017 films)

[publicist 4,643]

When will Marshall McLuhan rise from the grave to apologize for being in a Woody Allen movie?

[A24 4,326]

16 minutes ago, Denise Bryson said:

Annie Hall > Star Wars.

 

Well, Annie Hall's advantage over movies like Star Wars is that it isn't a ride. It's less prone to ageing. Allen's movies are about people and people are still the same.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I wish these people would leave Woody alone.

[Glóin the Dark 1,218]

13 minutes ago, publicist said:

...but come on. If you cut these event movies out at the Oscars, who's going to award them?

 

Indeed.

 

14 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

In the rare year that a truly extraordinary film comes along, the industry just embarrasses itself by not recognising that.

 

2001: A Space Odyssey, Jaws, Raging Bull, Ran, Mulholland Drive and There Will Be Blood would be better examples of this than the rather dull Cameron or Lucas films.

[John 2,032]

Here's the "history of the movies" montage that screened during the Oscars last night:

 

 

We really have come a long way.

[publicist 4,643]

Yeah, Oscar's biggest sins are well-made but square dramas - like Raging Bull losing to (i guess) Kramer vs. Kramer. Then came Ordinary People, Chariots of Fire, Gandhi and Terms of Endearment. None of them is that remarkable.

[A24 4,326]

4 minutes ago, publicist said:

Yeah, Oscar's biggest sins are well-made but square dramas - like Raging Bull losing to (i guess) Kramer vs. Kramer. Then came Ordinary People, Chariots of Fire, Gandhi and Terms of Endearment. None of them is that remarkable.

 

Compared to most modern movies, the French Toast scene from Kramer vs Kramer is still remarkable!

 

 

[filmmusic 1,823]

4 minutes ago, publicist said:

Raging Bull

This is a movie I couldn't get into...

[A24 4,326]

That's because none of the characters are trying to win over your heart. It's not Rocky (which I love, BTW).

[KK 3,307]

32 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Sometimes, they get it right and recognise these films (Titanic, Lord of the Rings) and sometimes they just drop the ball (Star Wars, Avatar).

 

Avatar does little outside of its technical achievements. It did not deserve to win Best Picture.

[A24 4,326]

Just now, KK said:

 

Avatar does little outside of its technical achievements. It did not deserve to win Best Picture.

 

Agreed! It was a very long FX demo.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

Another thing, Dunkirk obviously should have won. Not only because it was the best picture, but because if Hollywood wants people to keep coming to the cinema its going to be movies like Dunkirk (and yes, Avatar) that will do it.

 

Most of the other best pic nominees (good as some of them are) could have been on Netflix....which is where smaller, more serious film making is heading anyway. 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Avatar's aggressive greenie message lost me.

[A24 4,326]

5 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Another thing, Dunkirk obviously should have won. Not only because it was the best picture, but because if Hollywood wants people to keep coming to the cinema its going to be movies like Dunkirk that will do it.

 

I liked Dunkirk (I was very surprised to see a very unNolan-esque movie) but I wait to pass judgement until I've seen Del Toro's movie. 

[Mr. Who 919]

Am I the only one who thinks the Shape of Water score is kind of dull and mediocre? I am a big Desplat fan and love many of his scores but I really don't think this deserved to win...

[A24 4,326]

Maybe you're not into Desplat's magical mode.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Avatar is unapologetically broad-strokes in-your-face storytelling and I love it.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

Am I the only one who thinks the Shape of Water score is kind of dull and mediocre? I am a big Desplat fan and love many of his scores but I really don't think this deserved to win...

 

None of the other nominees were much great either.

[Mr. Who 919]

2 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Maybe you're not into Desplat's magical mode.

Listen to Girl with a Pearl Earring, a much better score that I would call magical. Shape of water doesn't go anywhere IMO, musically, it just says something and then says the same thing a few more times in the same way.

[publicist 4,643]

5 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

I liked Dunkirk (I was very surprised to see a very unNolan-esque movie) but I wait the pass judgement until I've seen Del Toro's movie. 

 

It's really one of those quirky Jeunet or Gondry movies and made exactly like that. I dug it but this isn't something that will be etched in your mind, moviemaking-wise (not a patch on Pan's Labyrinth).

 

One thing Del toro fucked up royally are his minority pleas which are treated in such clubfooted manner they would make latter day Spielberg proud (and probably have).

[A24 4,326]

6 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

Avatar is unapologetically broad-strokes in-your-face storytelling and I love it.

 

That's why they call you Not Mr. Big. You like it simple and straightforward. You know, sledgehammer style!

 

5 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

It's really one of those quirky Jeunet or Gondry movies and made exactly like that.

 

Wow, that quirky? I hope not! Jeunet (A Very Long Engagement) and Gondry (Be Kind Rewind) also lose focus quite easily.

[publicist 4,643]

It's not as scatterbrained but it's designed exactly like that. A whimsy!

[KK 3,307]

9 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

I liked Dunkirk (I was very surprised to see a very unNolan-esque movie) but I wait to pass judgement until I've seen Del Toro's movie. 

 

Funny. I find Dunkirk to be honest most Nolan-esque movie to date. His usual pacing formula, the way he plays with time and the familiar third act are all staple Nolan features. I liked the film though, but it was not the best of the category.

 

6 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

It's really one of those quirky Jeunet or Gondry movies and made exactly like that. I dug it but this isn't something that will be etched in your mind, moviemaking-wise (not a patch on Pan's Labyrinth).

 

Indeed. It may be no Pan's Labyrinth, but it is Del Toro through and through, and bears its heart on its sleeve. 

[A24 4,326]

3 minutes ago, KK said:

 

Funny. I find Dunkirk to be honest most Nolan-esque movie to date. His usual pacing formula, the way he plays with time and the familiar third act are all staple Nolan features. I liked the film though, but it was not the best of the category.

 

 

 

Simple story (not even a story) and mostly about atmospherics, designed to put you in the middle of war, and you think it's super typical Nolan?!  

 

I guess me and Nolan are wrong.

 

 

 

[Glóin the Dark 1,218]

13 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Another thing, Dunkirk obviously should have won. 

 

Dunkirk is a tad too sentimental for my taste, in its final act, to make the top spot. I find it interesting that people frequently criticise Nolan's films for being cold and emotionless where, to my mind, they're more prone to erring in the opposite direction.

[A24 4,326]

Just now, Glóin the Dark said:

 

Dunkirk is a tad too sentimental for my taste, in its final act, to make the top spot. I find it interesting that people frequently criticise Nolan's films for being cold and emotionless where, to my mind, they're more prone to erring in the opposite direction.

 

More sentimental than Spielberg?

[KK 3,307]

Yup. Nolan essentially took a war film and made an Inception-esque thriller out of it. Everything down to its third act (which could have played out just the same if you underscored it with "Time") plays by the Nolan formula. What Dunkirk has is the advantage of not being bogged down by any sci-fi or real narrative schematics for exposition, making it one of the leaner films in his oeuvre.

 

It's not a bad thing, mind you. It plays really well in this setting, and makes it one of his most visceral film experiences. But it's nothing particularly new for him as a director.

 

My biggest fault with Dunkirk is that it's finale undermines the lean, survival thriller nature of what came before it by shoe-horning some sense of sentimental "heroism" and British pride with some poorly arranged Elgar blaring in the background.

 

Still, it's a good film. But I await Nolan to truly challenge himself.

[Glóin the Dark 1,218]

5 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

More sentimental than Spielberg?

 

Certainly not. I said "erring", not "going off the map"!

[A24 4,326]

6 minutes ago, KK said:

Yup. Nolan essentially took a war film and made an Inception-esque thriller out of it. Everything down to its third act (which could have played out just the same if you underscored it with "Time") plays by the Nolan formula. What Dunkirk has is the advantage of not being bogged down by any sci-fi or real narrative schematics for exposition, making it one of the leaner films in his oeuvre.

 

 

We must have seen with different eyes. You think it's another complex puzzle film (which is the typical Nolan movie) while I see an experience film (that doesn't even need dialog). I enjoyed it because it wasn't the typical Nolan movie and now you're telling me I'm wrong? Maybe I need to watch it again!

[KK 3,307]

It is both. But the typical Nolan foundation is very much there. It just has massive sets and spectacle to cover it up.

[Glóin the Dark 1,218]

Looking back over the last few decades of Oscars, the years in which they managed to pick a film of genuinely extraordinary greatness were the years of Amadeus and Unforgiven, with The Silence of the Lambs and Schindler's List not far behind (the Academy had a good run from 1991-93!). The Lord of the Rings is a mixed bag, but is riddled with so many moments of such exhilerating brilliance that rewarding The Return of the King, in recognition of the entire project, was a good choice.

[KK 3,307]

They got close with There Will Be Blood, which could have been the last truly great win.

[John 2,032]

I just realized that Shape of Water is the second fantasy film ever to win for Best Picture, after Return of the King.

[Wojo 2,453]

Depends on your definition of the word fantasy. 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Hats off to Gary Oldman. Great performance.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

1 hour ago, KK said:

 (which could have played out just the same if you underscored it with "Time")

 

Only a non Brit could say this!

 

1 hour ago, Glóin the Dark said:

 

Dunkirk is a tad too sentimental for my taste, in its final act, to make the top spot. I find it interesting that people frequently criticise Nolan's films for being cold and emotionless where, to my mind, they're more prone to erring in the opposite direction.

 

As I think Sharky (the late great) once said, his films are like Rorschach tests.  They're made by a guy with obviously deep feelings, but they'll reward the viewer mostly based on what they bring to it themselves.  Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of his fans, like myself, are drawn in by the father/children elements, for example.  And Dunkirk is less likely to get your chest swelling if you're not from England's green and pleasant land, or maybe it does to the right degree, whereas for you natives it's a bit too much.

[Chen G. 3,943]

1 hour ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Looking back over the last few decades of Oscars, the years in which they managed to pick a film of genuinely extraordinary greatness were the years of Amadeus and Unforgiven, with The Silence of the Lambs and Schindler's List not far behind (the Academy had a good run from 1991-93!). The Lord of the Rings is a mixed bag, but is riddled with so many moments of such exhilerating brilliance that rewarding The Return of the King, in recognition of the entire project, was a good choice.

 

And 1995 with Braveheart. Very deserved, and very unusual given who the director is.

 

As for the Lord of the Rings, the project as a whole deserved every award it recieved and than some, and Return of the King deserved and won Best Picture and Director on its own merit - each film took its own haul. I also seem to recall that it remains the only film to win best picture in all major award ceremonies.

 

1 hour ago, JohnSolo said:

I just realized that Shape of Water is the second fantasy film ever to win for Best Picture, after Return of the King.

 

When the achievement of Return of the King winning best picture is being lauded as the only "fantasy" to win, its said more in regards to fantasy in the alternate universe, high-fantasy vein, not for allegorical films that use fantastical elements in a real world setting to provide social or political commentary. I can't recall any examples, but I'm certain such films had won such awards previously. In a way, you can almost call The Shape of Water Oscar-bait because its, in its own way, pandering to the political inclinations of the film-making community in the current political climate.

 

Not to mention that blockbusters in general aren't known to win Best Picture, and Return of the King being decidedly that, did win.

 

2 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

Another thing, Dunkirk obviously should have won. Not only because it was the best picture, but because if Hollywood wants people to keep coming to the cinema its going to be movies like Dunkirk (and yes, Avatar) that will do it.

 

I think Dunkirk cannot survive on the small screen. There's no point seeing it on anything other than the biggest screen available. To me, it makes it pointless.

 

Cinephiles and small-time film-makers and film-theorists often uphold the role of the movie theater,  but I think many of us have had a lot of our defining experiences of movies happen on the small-screen.

 

To this day, my most vivid watching of Return of the King wasn't in the theater in 2003 nor in the O2 last year - it was in 2004 or 2005, on a small TV, at night, with the volume set very low, since my uncle was sleeping right next to the TV. That it was so captivating and emotionally resonant in those conditions is a testament to the movie's true merit, not how it plays on a huge screen with immense speakers. Same with Braveheart, although I was too young at the time and therefore didn't like it, but it did stick with me.

 

I don't see anyone having that experience with Dunkirk.

[Balahkay 627]

TV Ratings: Oscars on Pace for New Low in Early Numbers

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Edit

 

[John 2,032]

24 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

When the achievement of Return of the King winning best picture is being lauded as the only "fantasy" to win, its said more in regards to fantasy in the alternate universe, high-fantasy vein, not for allegorical films that use fantastical elements in a real world setting to provide social or political commentary. I can't recall any examples, but I'm certain such films had won such awards previously. In a way, you can almost call The Shape of Water Oscar-bait because its, in its own way, pandering to the political inclinations of the film-making community.

 

Argh, just stop. They are both fantasy films nonetheless, which was my original point.

 

I don't need you to give me reasons as to why I shouldn't like Shape of Water.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Hey, I really like the Shape of Water. I think it was deserving.

 

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, is all.

 

And like I said, I think films of that vein of fantasy have been known to win awards.

[John 2,032]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, is all.

 

You play it way too often. There are times when it is best not to give any input at all.

[Glóin the Dark 1,218]

12 minutes ago, TGP said:

Only a non Brit could say this!

 

Not quite! Come to think of it, I believe I would have liked the ending more with "Time"...so perhaps you're right after all...

 

13 minutes ago, TGP said:

They're made by a guy with obviously deep feelings, but they'll reward the viewer mostly based on what they bring to it themselves. Wouldn't be surprised if a majority of his fans, like myself, are drawn in by the father/children elements, for example.

 

I'd call myself a fan, and his deep feelings come through to me perfectly well when his style is dry (particularly Memento, but also Inception, which is still one of my favourite films of this decade). In his recent films I sometimes have the feeling that he's overcompensating for criticisms about his work not being emotionally engaging enough - though that's likely just me projecting my own sensibilities onto Nolan.

 

31 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And 1995 with Braveheart. Very deserved, and very unusual given who the director is.

 

Braveheart has some remarkable film-making in it, but as a whole it doesn't reach greatness for me (again, an excess of sentimentality and cardboard villainy that feels out of place). I was bowled over by it when I first saw it in the cinema, but it's one of those films which I was less enthused by on subsequent viewings. Still, Gibson has done some surprisingly good work as a director; I was really impressed with Apocalypto.

 

36 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

...Return of the King deserved and won Best Picture and Director on its own merit.

 

Agreed. But there's some godawful stuff in there, along with some of the most magnificent scenes that I've ever seen in a cinema.

 

Sorry...that should be "eruawful".

[Chen G. 3,943]

37 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Braveheart has some remarkable film-making in it, but as a whole it doesn't reach greatness for me (again, an excess of sentimentality and cardboard villainy that feels out of place). I was bowled over by it when I first saw it in the cinema, but it's one of those films which I was less enthused by on subsequent viewings. Still, Gibson has done some surprisingly good work as a director; I was really impressed with Apocalypto.

 

He has proven to be an excellent director: good with special effects, good with mustering a big production, knows what to do on a shoe-string budget, and great with actors. He is as old-school as filmmakers get, and yet he isn't zealous about certain aspects of traditional filmmaking, such as shooting on film.

 

To adress your issue of sentimentality, I think part of the reason why my two most revered films of all time (Return of the King and Braveheart) are period pieces (of sorts) is that in a pre-modern setting we accept more appearant sentimentality from male characters, and more emotionally-charged attachments between male characters, that are not in a father-figure dynamic, that is.

 

So to me it doesn't feel overly sentimental. If anything, I feel that just about every movie set in a modern setting either feels devoid of emotion (at least as far as male characters are concerned) or that whatever emotion is wrung out of the characters feels overblown: even excellent films like Schindler's List pull that: the moment where Schindler breaks down has been criticised for that; But when Wallace is dumbfounded at the betrayal of Robert the Bruce it rings more true, to me at least. Another reason why that moment works is that it is devoid of dialogue. You can imagine a lesser filmmaker filling that scene with all sorts of over-the-top "why?!?!" and such.

 

And I think the film needs Longshanks to just be evil. There are a lot of purely evil characters that have become a staple of film, and that's because such characters aren't as irrelevant to the human condition as they are sometimes made to be: as history has shown us, there are some pretty evil people out there.

 

Like I said, when I first saw it I HATED it. Saw it again last year, now as a grown man steeped in film theory, just waiting to poke holes in it, and I could not believe how great it was. Watched it again soon thereafter - it good even better!

[Loert 2,510]

Out of the Best Picture nominees the only one I've seen so far is THE SHAPE OF WATER. If that won Best Picture then I'm having second thoughts on whether I should even bother with the rest...

[Jay 37,281]

Don't let academy members voting on things have anything to do with which movies you take your time to watch

[Loert 2,510]

7 minutes ago, Jay said:

Don't let academy members voting on things have anything to do with which movies you take your time to watch

 

Yes I realised that about 64 years ago. 

 

LOVELESS is my favourite film I've seen this year...though I haven't seen that many tbh.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

And 1995 with Braveheart. Very deserved, and very unusual given who the director is.

 

Agreed.  Braveheart has always been one of my favourites, and is the kind of film that wasn't being made for a long time until Mel Gibson came along and did it again. It was also a return to the kind of well made spectacle which could win a Best Picture Oscar in Hollywood's Golden Age.  Gladiator (which also deserved its Oscar) is usually given credit for reviving the historical epic, but Braveheart came first. 

 

As for Braveheart, or Dunkirk, or any other film having sentimental aspects....so what?  I'm frankly sick of irony in film, and some of the greatest movies of all time have been earnest and sentimental. I don't get this sneering contempt for films that engage in sentimentality.  As long as its done right, I don't see the problem.

 

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

As for the Lord of the Rings, the project as a whole deserved every award it recieved and than some, and Return of the King deserved and won Best Picture and Director on its own merit - each film took its own haul. I also seem to recall that it remains the only film to win best picture in all major award ceremonies.

 

 

When the achievement of Return of the King winning best picture is being lauded as the only "fantasy" to win, its said more in regards to fantasy in the alternate universe, high-fantasy vein, not for allegorical films that use fantastical elements in a real world setting to provide social or political commentary. I can't recall any examples, but I'm certain such films had won such awards previously. In a way, you can almost call The Shape of Water Oscar-bait because its, in its own way, pandering to the political inclinations of the film-making community in the current political climate.

 

Not to mention that blockbusters in general aren't known to win Best Picture, and Return of the King being decidedly that, did win.

 

While I know you said you were playing devil's advocate, I do think its fair to differentiate between a strictly high fantasy film and one that merely has fantastical elements. The Shape of Water is allegory anyway.

 

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I think Dunkirk cannot survive on the small screen. 

 

It's directed by Nolan Sir, I assure you it can.

 

I've seen Dunkirk in IMAX and on my 60" Panasonic plasma. While there's no question the film is more powerful in the cinema, I still found it to be an excellent film for home viewing. Saying that it's "pointless" unless you see it on a gigantic screen is overly dismissive, IMO.

 

On the other hand, I thought both Avatar and Gravity, two films which I enjoyed in the cinema, lost a LOT in home viewing. But even in those cases I wouldn't call them pointless.

[Richard Penna 3,669]

Much to the frustration of a workmate, the oscar count for a film will often dissuade me from wanting to see it.

 

But I also try to avoid reviews/professional opinions before I see a film. I don't want any preconceptions that the film has to either live up to or exceed.

[Chen G. 3,943]

14 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Agreed.  Braveheart has always been one of my favourites, and is the kind of film that wasn't being made for a long time until Mel Gibson came along and did it again. It's also the kind of well made spectacle which could win a Best Picture Oscar.  Gladiator (which also deserved its Oscar) is usually given credit for reviving the historical epic, but Braveheart came first. 

 

As for Braveheart, or Dunkirk, or any other film having sentimental aspects....so what?  I'm frankly sick of irony in film, and some of the greatest movies of all time have been earnest and sentimental. I don't get this sneering contempt for films that engage in sentimentality.  As long as its one right, I don't see the problem.

 

YES!

 

All this issues that people have with sentimental films results in films that are either completly devoid of emotion, or films that traffic in bathos like the Marvel films. We need more sentimentality in our cinema! I want to see male characters crying!

 

And yes, Braveheart came before Gladiator, but it wasn't nearly as big a hit, for obvious reasons. But it did pave the way to Gladiator. Peter Jackson even cited it as an inspiration to The Lord of the Rings! While I very much enjoy Gladiator, to me, its nowhere near Braveheart, which is very impressive given that Braveheart was Gibson's second feature film as a director (following a small drama in The Man without a Face), compared to the already well-established and seasoned Ridley Scott. Comparing the visceral effect of the battle at the front of Gladiator to The Battle of Stirling makes it abundantly clear which is the better film.