13 Mar 11
Originally posted by scacchipazzoOn CNN online there is in the blog section a bit called the lowest grossing best pictures of all time, something like that, where best picture and director awards for movies such as Gandhi, Slumdog millionaire and Shindler's list barely made it into the top ten of the year, so clearly giving a film an oscar for best picture does not equate with popularity.
NO argument there. At least in sports awards are won on the pitch!
13 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseOf course not. If that were the main criteria then the Oscar would be won by even less worthy garbage such as Rambo and other box office hits. Of the films cited only Schindler's List is a worthy winner. Hollywood likes giving awards to schlock. Worst all time is Titanic. Snoozers! Or Dances with Wolves. Awful films, both of them!
On CNN online there is in the blog section a bit called the lowest grossing best pictures of all time, something like that, where best picture and director awards for movies such as Gandhi, Slumdog millionaire and Shindler's list barely made it into the top ten of the year, so clearly giving a film an oscar for best picture does not equate with popularity.
Edit: How could I have forgotten The English Patient!
13 Mar 11
3 edits
Originally posted by badmoonI hate action movies; with the possible exception of The Bourne Identity. I can't stand comedies, with the possible exception of Click.
I enjoyed it a great deal. Acting was superb, it was both tense and funny, and I like the story.
Do you prefer action movies and low brow comedies better? I avoid those like the plague.
To each his own.
I like great dialogue. I like compelling stories. I like movies that make you think and give your mind a workout. I like movies that capture your interest in the first scene and don't let go. You can keep your 5 minute car chases and dazzling special effects. I'll take the quiet compelling thoughtful dialogue.
If you want to know where I'm coming from, a general syllabus of my all time favorites are:
- The Social Network
- Inside Man
- The Shawshank Redemption
- 25th Hour
- Goodwill Hunting
- Munich
- JFK
- Memento
- Rounders
- Wall Street
- Glengarry Glenross
- Casablanca
- The Godfather, Part II
etc.
To put this two hour coma-inducing bore with those great movies listed above (okay, Rounders wasn't "great" but I love that last scene) is sacrilege.
Boo Hoo! Wifey... The doctor won't play nice. I'm picking up my toys and going home. Boo Hoo. I don't want to be king of England. Wait... wait... maybe if I manage to read a few intelligence insulting truisms with less than seven stammers on the day we declare war on Germany, nobody will care about that fact that I've never actually done anything in my life and they will all laud me as a hero and this will spur the nation on the victory.
- Colin Firth
14 Mar 11
Originally posted by sh76I must admit that although my opinion of the Kings Speech was slightly higher than yours, this was not a great movie. You'll find movies that have "traditional" themes, or are about historical events, are generally preferred by the members of the motion picture acadmey. And why??? Because they are OLD, and old people tend to prefer these kind of movies. I agree with Woody Allen when he said "awards for movies are meaningless" (Yes...Woody Allen is old too...but he's smart!)
Okay, I capitulated and went to see it. I know I'm going to offend some people, but here goes.
That was the best movie of the year????? Please. It was a semi-punishment sitting through that snooze-fest.
What was great about that movie?
What it the dialogue? What dialogue? The dialogue was completely uninspiring.
Was it suspense? No, we all knew how ...[text shortened]... screen most of the time. Here I kept hoping for it to get better and so I watched it.
14 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718Awards are meaningless because he wins none. What a jerk Woody Allen is. The academy prefers schlock. Age has nothing to do with it. Smart old people would find the King's Speech ridiculous, stupid, plodding, inane, absurd, and boring. Academy also likes dumb hence Gladiator won a few years ago. They bank on crowd ignorance to rewrite history to their liking, always have. Any Roamn history buff could have consulted these dumbasses and told them the story was inplausible and dumb. But it won best pic! Old people would have said such a story is so dumb as to be absurd.
I must admit that although my opinion of the Kings Speech was slightly higher than yours, this was not a great movie. You'll find movies that have "traditional" themes, or are about historical events, are generally preferred by the members of the motion picture acadmey. And why??? Because they are OLD, and old people tend to prefer these kind of movies. I ag ...[text shortened]... said "awards for movies are meaningless" (Yes...Woody Allen is old too...but he's smart!)
The academy concists of 6000 voters. Among them are Tom Hanks, Annette Benning, Hnery Winkler. Not exactly old. I doubt senesence has anything to do with the voting at all.
14 Mar 11
Originally posted by bill718I guess that is as good an explanation as any though these awards do make you scratch your head sometimes. It is almost as though they give awards to movies that they think people ought to see rather than the movies that are actually good.
I must admit that although my opinion of the Kings Speech was slightly higher than yours, this was not a great movie. You'll find movies that have "traditional" themes, or are about historical events, are generally preferred by the members of the motion picture acadmey. And why??? Because they are OLD, and old people tend to prefer these kind of movies. I ag ...[text shortened]... said "awards for movies are meaningless" (Yes...Woody Allen is old too...but he's smart!)
14 Mar 11
Originally posted by sh76I'd rate some of those with the best.
I hate action movies; with the possible exception of The Bourne Identity. I can't stand comedies, with the possible exception of Click.
I like great dialogue. I like compelling stories. I like movies that make you think and give your mind a workout. I like movies that capture your interest in the first scene and don't let go. You can keep your 5 minute car c ...[text shortened]... d me as a hero and this will spur the nation on the victory.[/quote]
- Colin Firth
I put the King's Speech in my top ten of the year. It was well done in all aspects, I thought.
Funny though, when you write
"I like great dialogue. I like compelling stories. I like movies that make you think and give your mind a workout. I like movies that capture your interest in the first scene and don't let go. You can keep your 5 minute car chases and dazzling special effects. I'll take the quiet compelling thoughtful dialogue."
I agree with that entire comment. Funny that we can come from a similar focus and yet see this film so differently.
14 Mar 11
Originally posted by scacchipazzoHe wins none? If you are referring to Woody Allen, I'd point out the 4 Oscars he won for Annie Hall. As far as the motion picture acadmey is concerned..who cares?
Awards are meaningless because he wins none. What a jerk Woody Allen is. The academy prefers schlock. Age has nothing to do with it. Smart old people would find the King's Speech ridiculous, stupid, plodding, inane, absurd, and boring. Academy also likes dumb hence Gladiator won a few years ago. They bank on crowd ignorance to rewrite history to their l ...[text shortened]... g, Hnery Winkler. Not exactly old. I doubt senesence has anything to do with the voting at all.
14 Mar 11
Originally posted by badmoonArt is subjective, I guess.
I'd rate some of those with the best.
I put the King's Speech in my top ten of the year. It was well done in all aspects, I thought.
Funny though, when you write
"I like great dialogue. I like compelling stories. I like movies that make you think and give your mind a workout. I like movies that capture your interest in the first scene and don't le ...[text shortened]... omment. Funny that we can come from a similar focus and yet see this film so differently.
14 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I think they also give awards to films for how well was the execution (from a technical perspective) in terms of acting and directing, rather than overall quality. In that sense, films with less original or thought-provoking scripts but that rely more on acting and photography will win more than films that rely more on an engaging premise or underlying concept. Scripts that make actors or directors shine will be over-represented.
I guess that is as good an explanation as any though these awards do make you scratch your head sometimes. It is almost as though they give awards to movies that they think people ought to see rather than the movies that are actually good.
There's a lot of patting themselves in the back.
14 Mar 11
Originally posted by bill718I rest my case. Schlock! That has got to be one of the worst movies of all time. I rate that one up there with Ishtar! I do agree with Allen that awards are indeed meaningless. So long as you get nominated more easily for political correctness then we will have schlocky movies galore. The point I'm trying to make is that I believe you are in error about age having anything to do with why certain films win.
He wins none? If you are referring to Woody Allen, I'd point out the 4 Oscars he won for Annie Hall. As far as the motion picture acadmey is concerned..who cares?
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMF😀
Well then you won't like the 3 hour Director's Cut one shot version of me pulling your leg, assuming it gets released and doesn't go straight to video.
Hey, Palynka always gets on me about ripping Europe (and I guess sometimes deservedly so), so I have to defend any charge of Amero-centrism. 😉
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by sh76This is my favourite film. In my mind it always pairs up with American Buffalo - with Dustin Hoffman and Dennis Franz. Another claustrophobic talky Mamet stage play adaptation.
If you want to know where I'm coming from, a general syllabus of my all time favorites are:
- Glengarry Glen Ross