|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 4, 2017 20:19:10 GMT -8
Anyone else fancy doing their own Oscars history? Mine didn't take terribly long, but then my film log is geared to make that kind of info easy to grab. OK, I looked over the list of nominated films from the '90s on, and for favourites, I'm mostly going by memory. The first is what I consider to be the best of the Best Picture nominees, the second my favourite film from that year, to the best of my recollection: 1990 Best of the Nominees: Goodfellas My Favourite Film From That Year: Goodfellas 1991The Silence of the Lambs The Double Life of Veronique 1992Unforgiven The Player 1993Schindler's List Dazed and Confused 1994Pulp Fiction Pulp Fiction 1995Babe Before Sunrise 1996Fargo Fargo 1997L.A. Confidential Boogie Nights 1998Shakespeare in Love Rushmore/The Truman Show (tie) 1999The Insider Being John Malkovich (close runner up: Fight Club) 2000Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Almost Famous/In The Mood For Love/Memento (three-way-tie) 2001Gosford Park Mulholland Drive 2002The Pianist Talk To Her 2003Lost In Translation Oldboy 2004Sideways Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2005Brokeback Mountain The Death of Mr. Lazarescu 2006The Departed Pan's Labyrinth 2007No Country For Old Men No Country For Old Men (close runner-up: Ratatouille) 2008Milk The Dark Knight (close runner-up: WALL-E) 2009A Serious Man Mother (Madeo) 2010The Social Network Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World 2011The Tree of Life Miss Bala 2012Django Unchained Moonrise Kingdom 2013Her Her 2014The Grand Budapest Hotel The Grand Budapest Hotel 2015 Mad Max: Fury Road Mad Max: Fury Road (runner-up: Phoenix)
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 5, 2017 6:47:06 GMT -8
The Double Life of Veronique Talk To Her Mother (Madeo) Miss Bala Niiice. ...Really?
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 5, 2017 16:02:28 GMT -8
Haha. I could've lied, and said The Thin Red Line, but most of what I remember about that film is the soldiers wandering up that grassy hill, and it taking bloody well forever. Too much repetition. Yeah, it's not my favourite Malick: I greatly prefer The Tree of Life, The New World, Badlands, and Days of Heaven. Re: Saving Private Ryan, after the harrowing opening segment, it settles in as a pretty standard war flick. I don't love SIL or anything, but found it pretty inoffensive: an easy watch that didn't test my patience.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 5, 2017 18:17:03 GMT -8
Well, I can understand not being too hot on those particular Spielberg and Malick brainchildren, but surely the only way Shakespeare in Love could be blander if it was actually a four-hour documentary about rice cakes? But the important thing is that you don't think of it as film of the year, because that'd be troubling.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 5, 2017 18:47:28 GMT -8
I haven't watched any of those 1998 Best-Picture-nominated films in ages.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 6, 2017 20:22:14 GMT -8
No Country for Old Men is a really good film - tense and gripping and very well-directed. The actors are fantastic, with Tommy Lee Jones a particularly empathetic standout. Impressive how the writers can evoke so much emotion without the use of music - just let the script, the actors, and the camera carry the film.
I'm not sure I'd call it one of cinema's all-time great films, but it's definitely worth watching. And as with most Coen Brothers films, I expect it'll grow on me with repeat viewing.
Got a few other BP films lined up for the next week, but they're each about three hours long. So heck knows when I'll finish them.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Dec 6, 2017 20:27:08 GMT -8
Snipe, I'm genuinely curious what the dozen or so films you'd give a 1/10 are.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 7, 2017 10:29:16 GMT -8
Well, for clarity I'd like to state that 1/10s are so mercifully rare because whilst I've seen plenty of weak, dumb, clumsy, tired, amateurish etc movies, there's usually at least something that works in the film's favour as to justify a 4/10, or a 3/10 if there isn't. So 2/10s are reserved for the truly execrable; the sort of film that actively tests my faith in the medium's worth, with 1/10s being those who push that 'quality' so far as to make me wonder who on earth gave the greenlight on it (let alone released it) and, moreover, what's the point of living? I'm not in front of my film log right now, but I know they include the following:
Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) The Beast of Yucca Flats (1961, the worst I'd ever seen until...) Monster a Go-Go (1965) Uncensored (1984) The Nostril Picker (1993) Jesus Christ: Serial Rapist (2004, ...this) Abducted by the Daleks (2005) Slaughtered Vomit Dolls (2006)
In my defence, I kinda asked for a couple of them as I always used to say that it wasn't really IMDb's October Challenge until you'd seen at least one truly terrible film in the bunch. Unsurprisingly, one of them features the dread hand of my nemesis director Herschell Gordon Lewis, who was not only staggeringly inept but responsible for a statement that is a real slap in the face to anyone who ever put effort into making a motion picture: "I see filmmaking as a business and pity anyone who regards it as an art form". He finally friggin' died this time last year.
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Dec 7, 2017 12:30:03 GMT -8
That list of films might be the weirdest/most amusing conglomeration of words I've ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 7, 2017 15:20:02 GMT -8
I believe I've actually seen some of The Beast of Yucca Flats, since it was riffed on in an episode of MST3K. It was definitely bad, although I don't think it made me question the point of living.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 31, 2017 20:25:12 GMT -8
Okay, I'm back:
Dances with Wolves (1990)
I don't think I'd ever heard of this film until Avatar came out, and everyone accused James Cameron's film of being a rip-off. This should give you a sense of how well Dances with Wolves has aged in the public eye. And now that I've finally seen it, I can sort of tell why it's fallen by the wayside.
Let's start with the basics: This film is three hours long. Three hours of Kevin Costner sleep-mumbling his way through the Civil War-era South, meeting and inevitably befriending the members of a Sioux tribe. The film spends nearly its entire first hour spelling out its premise - which wouldn't be so bad if Costner was a charismatic actor. Unfortunately, while the man can play stoic well, he struggles to carry the film's more dramatic segments.
Still, the scenes with the Sioux tribe are interesting to watch unfold, with the late Floyd Westerman (Hollywood's go-to Native American) doing good work as the chief. I also liked Mary McDonnell (always and forever Roslin!) as the go-between and obvious love interest. It's a shame the film didn't develop the Native tribe more, though. And while the film's message seems to be that "these folks aren't savages," the climax does feature quite a bit of violence, killing, and savagery. If the film wants us to truly buy into the evils of the white man, it needs to spend a little more time showing (and not just talking about) said white men being actually evil.
All in all, the film is well-shot, moderately interesting, and certainly better than Avatar. But it's still an overlong and underwhelming entry in the Best Picture canon.
(Also, before I forget: Happy new year, everyone!)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 2, 2018 21:04:09 GMT -8
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Okay, this is technically a review of all three LotR films, since I had to watch the first two in order to follow the third. (And even then, I had a heckuva time trying.)
I should state upfront that I've never really been a Tolkien fan, or a fantasy fan in general. The sword-and-sorcery genre just never appealed to me. I tried reading the first LotR book once, but lost interest after the first few chapters. But I finally decided to sit down and watch Peter Jackson's sprawling, widely acclaimed film adaptation.
Three films and nine hours later, I'm still not much of a Tolkien fan, but there was definitely a lot to appreciate here. The scope and sprawl of the series are quite something, even when watching in the post-Game of Thrones era. The characters range from instantly memorable (Gollum, Gandalf) to immediately forgettable (oh, hey, it's Orlando Bloom), and the story has plenty of thrilling setpieces in addition to a number of slow spots.
The films get progressively better with each installment, and the second half of Return of the King is particularly spectacular. (Although the film doesn't seem to know when to friggin' end.) The special effects also improve throughout the trilogy, leading to larger and more epic battles as the story builds to its dramatic climax. It's a long story, but there's definite virtue to the payoff.
There were definitely times when watching this series that I was bored, but there were also plenty of moments that genuinely impressed me. Overall, the whole exceeds the sum of the parts - but the parts can still be quite intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 2, 2018 21:14:40 GMT -8
Even though you may not be able to relate all that well to a Hobbit, I imagine you can at least understand why one would be transfixed by a Big Flaming Vagina.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 3, 2018 5:54:41 GMT -8
What are you talking about? It's an eye. It's a giant eye.
...Isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jan 3, 2018 7:18:54 GMT -8
2015 Mad Max: Fury Road Mad Max: Fury Road (runner-up: Phoenix) Ah the memories of me trying to get anyone I could to watch Phoenix. Just a wonderful movie.
|
|