90th Academy Awards (for 2017 films)

[publicist 4,643]

It may be my snarky spiel here but i think people have no problems with sentimental films but badly made sentimental films. And Hollywood is sure guilty of providing plenty of those. Braveheart is not nearly the worst offender in that regard but it pains me to read that people defend every cliché thrown their way as the only way to do such things.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

 

47 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

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.

 

Well I for one probably wouldn't make such a declarative statement about which of those two films is better.  I think they're both so good that I can understand why someone would prefer either of them. I've gone back and forth myself. There are really good arguments to be made for the merits of each film. For example I agree that the fight scenes in Braveheart are more visceral. But that said, I think the opening of Gladiator is among the best first 20 minutes of a movie.  

 

I will say this for Braveheart...Gibson did a whole lot with a lot less.  

3 minutes ago, publicist said:

it pains me to read that people defend every cliché thrown their way as the only way to do such things.

 

Oh for crying out loud...who has done that? 

[publicist 4,643]

Both films range between very commendable and downright tacky, just in different spots. To act as if these are movies - or even one of them - as pure as water (as you and Chen have done) seems a bit excessive to me.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Like I said, I watched Bravheart having had terrible memories from it. I remembered it to be excessively gruesome, overly tragic, toxically patriotic, etc. I was ready to use the full extent of my film theory knowledge to poke holes in it and dismiss it as "oscar bait" and "over the top." It wasn't that. It was phenomenal.

 

I think what prevents it from being tacky is the way in which it plays with the cliches: The love dialogue between William and Murron, for instance: "How did you recognise me after so long?" "I didn't, I just saw you staring at me and I didn't know who you were." Similarly, when Longshanks asks "bring me Wallace", which Gibson himself calls in the commentary "cheesy", but right thereafter he says "alive if possible, dead - just as good."

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

 

11 minutes ago, publicist said:

Both films range between very commendable and downright tacky, just in different spots. To act as if these are movies - or even one of them - as pure as water (as you and Chen have done) seems a bit excessive to me.

Crikey lighten up.

 

No one said either film was "pure as water." Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.

 

I like both films...I think they're both superbly done pieces of epic cinema. Is that OK with you? 

[Chen G. 3,943]

And I should add: I don't think its a perfectly crafted film.

 

But its better than a lot of films that are.

 

And, looking at it and thinking just how wrong it could have gone, makes me appreciate it even more.

[publicist 4,643]

10 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Crikey lighten up.

 

No one said either film was "pure as water." Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.

 

I like both films...I think they're both superbly done pieces of epic cinema. Is that OK with you? 

 

I don't care either way, it's just to keep some threads here going. You can admire Pearl Harbor if that's what floats your boat. But superbly done is neither of them, on a script level at least. Though both certainly make up for that in different ways.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Yes. Because comparing two Best Picture winners to Pearl Harbour is no less of a straw man than the other ones you've made.  No one said either film was perfect, and everyone knows they have flaws...as most films do.

 

18 minutes ago, publicist said:

I don't care either way

 

Clearly.  Tell me again how neither film is superb, and show us you really don't care!

[Chen G. 3,943]

I can point out to issues with Braveheart quite easily:

1. There's some excessive softness - its a film famous for winning best cinematography while having quite a few shots out of focus;
2. some of the costuming, especially on the british troops, looks kinds of cheesy, stage-play like;
3. there's an english soldier whom Wallace hits on the back and kills as he's running away: I don't mind that this film romanticises the historical character of William Wallace, but if you aren't going to provide commentary on his ruthlessness, why have that in there?
4. the portrayal of the (clearly gay) prince Edward is overly stereotypical.

 

I, personally, would also have liked to have seen Wallace's father and brother appear to him, behind Murron, when he is being executed, although that's not quite a flaw. None of these issues make it any less of a marvel than what it is. And I can only imagine what the theater experience of this film was like. If only it was being shown live to projection!

[Glóin the Dark 1,218]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

So to me it doesn't feel overly sentimental.

 

I guess our inner sentimentometers just have different settings! On a related note, I remember you saying that Citizen Kane doesn't meet your standards of greatness on account of its being too cold or emotionless (or something to that effect), whereas to me its ending is one of the towering emotional moments in cinema.

 

Incidentally, the scene in Schindler's List that you mentioned is, for whatever reason, an example where my response seems to be in the opposite direction to a lot of people's insofar as sentimentality is concerned. I always found the tone of that scene to be pretty well-judged and appropriate, whereas I've heard and read many comments expressing the view that it goes over the top in its sentimentality.

 

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

And I think the film needs Longshanks to just be evil.

 

Jeebers...for a moment there I thought you were talking about The Lord of the Rings...

 

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

As for...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.

 

I don't think anyone here has been saying that sentimentality in films is bad in itself - only that a perceived excess of it is detrimental to one's appreciation of the film, just as an excess of any attribute is bound to be. That perception is obviously going to depend on both the sensibilities of the viewer and the qualities of the film in question. Just as some people are inclined to find an ironic attitude in a film less palatable than others, on balance, so some of us are more likely than others to find that certain common approaches to instilling "emotion" feel fake or egregiously manipulative, and are neither affecting nor enjoyable.

[KK 3,307]

 

5 hours ago, someonefun124 said:

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

 

It was a very dull ceremony. At least it wrapped early.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

I saw a montage of Billy Crystal's best moments as Oscars host on Youtube the other day...guy was a genius. The song and dance numbers introducing the best pic nominees are still laugh out loud funny. 

 

Very, very little in the way of the political, and what was there was good natured. No piousness or sanctimony, just a celebration of the magic of cinema. People turn to movies because they want an escape from politics, not to be beaten over the head with it.  No wonder no one wants to watch.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

People still watch this garbage? Losers who need an authority figure to tell them what to like and appreciate?

[SteveMc 2,674]

True words.

[KK 3,307]

49 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I saw a montage of Billy Crystal's best moments as Oscars host on Youtube the other day...guy was a genius. The song and dance numbers introducing the best pic nominees are still laugh out loud funny. 

 

Very, very little in the way of the political, and what was there was good natured. No piousness or sanctimony, just a celebration of the magic of cinema. People turn to movies because they want an escape from politics, not to be beaten over the head with it.  No wonder no one wants to watch.

 

The last great ceremony was when Jackman hosted in 2008. The opening monologue and musical numbers were a riot!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Apparently, Adam West wasn't included in the list of deceased celebrities.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

2 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

I saw a montage of Billy Crystal's best moments as Oscars host on Youtube the other day...guy was a genius. The song and dance numbers introducing the best pic nominees are still laugh out loud funny. 

 

Very, very little in the way of the political, and what was there was good natured. No piousness or sanctimony, just a celebration of the magic of cinema. People turn to movies because they want an escape from politics, not to be beaten over the head with it.  No wonder no one wants to watch.

 

Except Crystal's approach now would just be criticized the other way as too soft. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

I haven't really had a problem with how the hosts have acknowledged this stuff lately. Kimmel was fine last night, I thought Chris Rock's OscarsSoWhite monologue was pretty savvy. It's generally the winners/presenters that piss in the punch bowl.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

They should get Tim and Eric to do the next Oscars.  

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Next year should be hosted by Fox News women with nice legs. Watch the ratings skyrocket.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

The Lonely Island's rejected Oscar song:

 

 

[Brundlefly 2,385]

14 hours 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.

Oscar's biggest sins are 1987, 1995 and 1996 when flawed movies like Platoon, Forrest Gump and Braveheart got all the Oscars although there were masterpieces like Blue Velvet, Pulp Fiction and Casino that didn't get any or just a few of them.

It was similar in 1998 with Titanic and L.A. Confidential, but Titanic is still a great movie.

[publicist 4,643]

Makes no big difference to me. Most years' winners are questionable stuff like Rain Man or Driving Miss Daisy or or or. 

[A24 4,326]

Great movies don't win and we should be happy for that because they never have to deal with Oscar backlash.