|
Post by godotwaits on Jan 1, 2014 1:38:49 GMT -5
OK. It's only a matter of time, but you know we gotta have this thread. If it don't last, then I'll know most everybody don't like me. Which I can entirely understand.
First: We discussed "Gravity" And it'll be an important film. Mainly for the technical innovation that it sets. If you didn;t see it in 3D on a IMAX screen you're SOL. And won't get it. It'll easily be in the top 10 if not the top 5 for Best Picture. But I'm happy to predict that Sandra Bullock will get one of the top five nominations for "Best Actress." Not sure if she wins, but, she has earned a well deserved nod. Our darling love child Mr Clooney gets a favorite nod as a possibilility, probably not. It's difficult to disappear into the cosmos and come back as a hallucination. I did that once. I played Albany in King Lear. Off stage for a couple of hours... forgettaboutit! No transition in sight.
Second: "Dallas Buyers Club" Now if Robert DeNiro could put all that weight on and play "Raging Bull" and win critical accolades, why can't Matthew McConaughey get some recognition for how incredibly thin and malnourished, get some amount of recognition for the AIDS patient with a mission in this film?? It's pretty much a gut wrenching performance. I think he'll get a nod. I know he's not perceived to be the heavy weight that DeNiro is... but shit this dude is certainly trying. And he ain't all that bad. Also, surprise... Jared Leto for supporting... unbelievable performance. Absolutely mesmerizing. Heart breaking.
Third: And this isn't in any order but other than after I've viewed them. "Nebraska" I'm dyin' to hear what you mid-westerners have to say about this one. Old fart. thinks he won a million dollars from a magazine subscription marketing thing and makes a journey from Billings,Montana to somewhere through the Badlands to some place in Nebraska.. Bruce Dern in a performance that will knock your socks off. Yeah. It's a road movie with an interesting difference. Shades of King Lear and the Man of LaMancha. Bruce Dern has lingered in the periphery for so many years and FOLKS, this has gotta be his year, either that, or it's a lifetime achievement award. Remarkable, remarkable performance! But he's a jogger folks. Ain't it amazing what an old fart can do when they're still in shape?? And wait until you see the scene with the 8-10 guys are watching a football game on black and white tv. I almost pee'd my pants laughing.
Fourth: Ok. Trying to get serious here... here's the most difficult one... "American Hustle" Shit! I'm going out on a limb here but folks... here's the most serious contender for "Best Picture." You ain't gonna believe this one!! It's almost impossible to watch this thing from beginning to end... you keep hitting the rewind button... to make sure you just saw what you thought you just saw... cast from paradise...everybody's perfect... sleeze with ease ... the 70s of your nightmares... all that hair... slimebuckets from hell!! If it don't win it'll be a cult classic that even your grandchildren will wonder at. It's unctuous!!! with black humor!!! And Jennifer Lawrence, if you had any doubts after her "white trash with responsiblities" and her "Silver Linings" award and her bow on arrow sagas... you'll understand why Meryl Streep is fingering her worry beads. Best supporting folks!! But truly the whole cast is outstanding. If nothing else the hair department's gotta win!! Sound track.... oh my god!! You'll weep. It's a total cumquat of black humor. Abscam scandal. YMMV. But it kept my twinkle inspired.
Fifth: Captain Phillips. Haven't seen it all the way through, but obviously Tom Hanks in the Best Actor category. Possibly top five Best Picture, I dunno. It's a thriller diller. And a lot of cinematics.
Sixth: Blue Jasmine. The Woody Allen film. I'm not an erstwhile fan of Cate Blanchett per se, but shit, that's the Best Actress if you ask me. all those damn costume dramas... and the movie's kind of a weird take on "Streetcar Named Desire," which makes it seem flakey... but her performance is shattering. And I mean shattering! I was deeply moved. Maybe, I'm a cheap set of tears. It was to the level of Bergman.
Still up: a lot more. This just in... haven;t seen it, but it's easy to predict that Robert Redford will get a nod for "All is Lost." Dyin' to see it. And I'm dyin' to see Julia Roberts try to kick ass on Meryl Streep in "August; Osage County." Another dysfunctional family from hell tale.
So feel free to give the above your best licks...
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jan 1, 2014 2:55:24 GMT -5
In my middle age (I guess I'm that or still that or past that) I have moderated what kinds of movies I care to see. My definition of what passes for "entertainment" has shifted from the days I worked in that industry and as such needed to know what everyone else was doing. I watched everything (with the minor exception of slasher films that I never have seen a reason for) and could enjoy a film just on its technical merits even if the subject matter was depressing and gut wrenching. But now I have no desire to have my guts wrenched and since most effects are computer generated (including about 99% of everything you see in Gravity) there is very little "technical" to see on the screen. Movies, even live action movies like Gravity, have become very realistic animated movies. There are lots of very dramatic movies out there that 'tug at your heart strings', 'bring a tear to your eyes', or 'rip your guts out' or 'keep you on the edge of your seat' and I don't care to see those anymore. I want 90 minutes two hours of escapist entertainment that is exciting or fun or both but isn't going to try to make me think deep thoughts or scare me or make me feel sorry for someone or everyone or sad or depressed or anything. I want to be entertained and the number of movies that do that AND get nominated for Oscars are few and far between. I care not for "dysfunctional family from hell" or "AIDS patient with a mission" or "a gut wrenching performance" or "sleeze with ease" or "slimebuckets from hell". I know I'm supposed to be a movie guy and I've seen my fair share of a few dozen thousand or so, but I would rather put Casablanca on again than watch something 'meaningful'. I would rather watch "Lilies of the Field" or "Singing in the Rain" or "High Fidelity" or even "Galaxy Quest" or "Bull Durham" or "Groundhog Day" *again* than pay $10 to have my emotions yanked around in the name of entertainment and social conscience. I'm just not up to it anymore. The only movie on that list that I saw was Gravity and no, I didn't see it in 3D IMAX because nothing big or deep is going to suspend my level of disbelief enough to make me not constantly know that everything (and I mean everything) that I'm seeing with the minor exception of a few faces from time to time was computer generated and as such has all the real gravitas as Avatar or Kung Fu Panda. It was a good show, well done, but give me a break. Bullock did very well with the unbelievable script she had and she may win but I seriously doubt it. There are too many performances that seem better. McConaughey is getting great buzz and stands a good chance. His co-star is a lock from what they are saying.
Anyway, sorry to get all grumpy on this thread. I really love movies and 30 years ago I would have seen all of these. Really. But these days I would rather stick needles in my eyes than sit through something as depressing as a Kramer vs. Kramer again. Thought that movie was great when it came out. It probably still is. But it, and all the good movies like it, just aren't my cup of tea anymore.
|
|
|
Post by mnhermit on Jan 1, 2014 5:52:24 GMT -5
The last time I watched an awards show Sir Laurence Olivier gave his famous acceptance speech (1979?). The last 'message' movie I watched was 'Billy Jack'. I've never been to an IMAX theater or a 3D movie. I still think Bruce Dern's greatest movie was 'Silent Running' and I hope he finally gets the recognition he's deserved for the last 40 years. The best special effects movie I saw recently was WALL-E, or maybe UP! As you can see I'm not the demographic for the awards shows, but I'm glad there are people that are.
Really 'tramp, why didn't Galaxy Quest get the recognition as the tour de force of satire that it was? or an award for costumes - I mean they gave Sigourney Weaver cleavage! that can't have been easy! I think I have to add it to my Netflix queue.
|
|
|
Post by godotwaits on Jan 1, 2014 10:20:09 GMT -5
Tramp: I'm pleased you weighed in, and was hoping you would do so. I'm sorry you are trial weary. And in a small way, I can commiserate with you. But I am hoping that this thread can have an astute and finely tuned eye. Critics, oh god I'm sorry to say this... but critics are saying that this is a particularly good year for a crop in interesting films from the usual offending line up in the art of cinema. Admittedly, it's somewhat like the fashion industry... let's see ... where do this dress fall .. at the knee.. above the knee... below the knee... maybe our mantra will just be yada yada. I happen to always love the art of the story. Particularly when the stakes are high.
For instance.. I hate football. And you'd have to drag me kicking and screaming to watch a hum drum game. I'd rather sit in the corner and play scales all day. But I fully expect there will be a super bowl. And that's when I get interested. Now that's drama. When the stakes are so high.
A lot of these films will probably end up smelling like last Thursday's meatloaf in a few years and possibly get deep 6'd from our imaginations. But it's interesting to mince the parcel while the meal is still fresh. I've only mentioned a few. And I'm prepared to make only one prediction... "American Hustle" will endure as a cult classic. Much like the Godfather series. It's just too hard to stop laughing. American Hairstylists of the World .. Unite... We actually lived through that decade. How can you not look back and laugh out loud? Harold and Maude. Godzilla Meets Bambi. Jack of Hearts. Casablanca. Umberto D. Films that still bring a small tear of laughter to the eye and a look of ennui.
I hope you'll hang with this one Tramp. I value your perspective. Hey, don't abandon the defendants when your jurisprudence could make a difference. Or maybe, I should add, don't fear to prosecute the heinously offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jan 1, 2014 11:20:54 GMT -5
I'm just glad that people are making movies that at least try to be something more than remakes of old movies, reboots of old movies, sequels of old movies, or movies based on other things like TV shows, songs, toys or dance moves. The movies you listed are, I believe, all original screenplays. How great would that be? That means someone, somewhere, is funding movies that don't claim to have a built in audience. That's huge in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 1, 2014 12:23:02 GMT -5
While I'm not as burned out as Tramp, we've pretty much given up on "important" movies--but then, we don't care for "serious" theatre of the Ibsen-Tennessee Williams-O'Neill-Miller-Mamet tradition(s) either. (It's a looong drop from Shakespeare and Jonson and Webster and Shaw down to these guys*.) Most of the movies that aspire to the condition of, say, a Jane Austen or Dickens novel** strike me as soapy and therapy-laden or message-heavy, with terrific actors and cinematographers and tech crews laboring to bring a mediocre and/or pretentious script to life.
I confess to not being much bothered by CGI, even when it is used to generate everything but the actors' voices (wait--that would be animation, wouldn't it?). I am probably not the only person who was tickled to see Barsoom realized in John Carter (though apparently not enough of us showed up), and that, like huge swathes of the Lord of the Rings films, was CGI-generated. After all, all of cinema and theatre (beyond bare-stage Shakespeare) is about creating illusions. The obvious staginess of, say, Top Hat or a Busby Berkeley musical is one end of a spectrum of artifice, with, say, The Bicycle Thief or Open City at the other, and every western or noir or domestic tearjerker is strung along the continuum that contains it all.
There's a particular mode of movie viewing that includes awareness of how some effect is managed, but that is distinct from the feeling of being immersed in a world, even when you can see the wires that suspend Flash Gordon's rocket or recognize the rear-projection component of the scene in Swing Time where the car pulls up outside a hotel door or wonder what they were using for snow in the following "A Fine Romance" number. (Can you tell I spent Christmas Eve watching TCM?) For me it's no different from enjoying a piece of guitar music while simultaneously noticing that the effect that others in the audience think is amazingly difficult is actually not that hard to pull off.
That said, much "serious" cinema and theatre and fiction strikes me as too issues-driven for its own good. If I want to know something about addiction or child abuse or domestic unhappiness or sexual identity, I'll look to a documentary or a scientific or sociological study. Those matters can be powerful components of, say, a crime drama, but by themselves they're just "issues." But then, I'm a big fan of "genre" art and storytelling and even cheap thrills and spectacle. I also love soups and stews.
* Interestingly enough, comedy seems to survive better than a lot of serious drama and still can find something non-trivial to say about the human condition. Thus Shaw over Ibsen every time. Chekov is the exception to this rule--but then he claimed to be writing comedy. Compare Woody Allen's outright comedies to his seriously-intended movies.
** Auntie Jane and old Charles have provided the chassis for some first-rate adaptations, though: costume romantic-comedy and social melodrama in whiskers. But you gotta have a good script.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 1, 2014 13:14:47 GMT -5
. . . , There are lots of very dramatic movies out there that 'tug at your heart strings', 'bring a tear to your eyes', or 'rip your guts out' or 'keep you on the edge of your seat' and I don't care to see those anymore. I want 90 minutes two hours of escapist entertainment that is exciting or fun or both but isn't going to try to make me think deep thoughts or scare me or make me feel sorry for someone or everyone or sad or depressed or anything. I want to be entertained and the number of movies that do that AND get nominated for Oscars are few and far between. I care not for "dysfunctional family from hell" or "AIDS patient with a mission" or "a gut wrenching performance" or "sleeze with ease" or "slimebuckets from hell". I know I'm supposed to be a movie guy and I've seen my fair share of a few dozen thousand or so, but I would rather put Casablanca on again than watch something 'meaningful'. I would rather watch "Lilies of the Field" or "Singing in the Rain" or "High Fidelity" or even "Galaxy Quest" or "Bull Durham" or "Groundhog Day" *again* than pay $10 to have my emotions yanked around in the name of entertainment and social conscience. I'm just not up to it anymore. . . . , Interesting. i don't share your view. I rather like seeing something new. And i enjoy the craft of modern story telling with all it's special effects. That being said, i don't like to be jerked around for jerk's sake. i probably have more issues with the way movies are marketed. All the scenes with Meryl Streep bereting everyone around the dinner table turn me off big time; i couldn't care less if it's a good movie/story, or it reveals any truth about the frailty of humanity. They've turned me off so bad already that I won't give it a chance. All that being said, "American Hustle" is a GREAT flick. The performanes are stellar. The script is great. It's fun and real and scary and entertaining all at the same time. The opening scene is so cool, as you're looking at this pudgy ugly old guy getting dressed and then when he faces the mirror you go, "Oh my God ! ! ! That's Christian Bale ? ! ? ! " Batman never looked so bad or vulnerable. But it really works. (It's so interesting how most of the best in Hollywood use their bodies as a canvas. It's incredible what discipline that takes, long before you ever read a line.) But back to the original comment: I'm not interested in a flick that is only entertainment. Whether it's a movie or a song, I expect to be shown something unique and true about the human condition or I'm going to go away bored and cheated. Certainly doesn't have to be heavy. (Too heavy is just as bad as too light). But it's got to be real on some level or I will consider ti a waste.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jan 1, 2014 13:14:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 1, 2014 13:24:48 GMT -5
Ha, ha. I checked the list. I saw 3 in a theater. And 2 on On-Demand. I'll probably see a couple more in the theater, and watch 2 or 3 more on TV.
So I guess I'm not in the mainstream there.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 1, 2014 13:36:25 GMT -5
17 for me. And there were a few I would have seen if they had come to our town. I'm into movies to entertain me. Before we retired we were lucky to see one movie a year in the theater, now we see anything that interest us.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 1, 2014 14:17:45 GMT -5
Interesting. We saw only five of the top 100, though I know we went to the multiplex more than four times. (Oh, and we saw #104, Broken City, on HBO.*) Of course, a top-100 box-office list is going to be at least three-quarters crap aimed at the 12-25 demographic, outside of which we are by more than 40 years. (And even when we were in it we were outliers. Fellini and the Three Stooges, indeed.) For example, C. has declared that she is completely over comics-based movies, even if they feature Robert Downey, Jr. Well, she might put up with Tom Hiddleston, though she thought The Dark World was stupid and boring when he wasn't on screen. Also no more LotR/Hobbitry (she only endured everything after Fellowship and finally drew the line after the first Hobbit inflation.) Myself, I have low tastes and will happily sit through a car chase and explosion or two, and I actually enjoyed Hobbit I, while deploring its exploitative expansion.
* And there are movies we probably would have gone to had they been released outside the art-house/indie circuit or landed in St. Cloud for longer than a week--Philomena came and left before we even noticed, and other "small" films, like Joss Whedon's Much Ado, only play in the Cities.
|
|
|
Post by Hobson on Jan 1, 2014 14:24:30 GMT -5
Saw two of the top 100 and still plan to see the latest Hobbit movie. I'm sure some of those top 100 never played around here. If it's playing in "selected theaters" that doesn't include rural SE Arizona.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jan 1, 2014 14:31:06 GMT -5
I like the Academy Awards, because they serve, to me, as an indicator of some good movies to see. We saw Winter's Bone because of how it ended up in the awards, and thought it was wonderful. But while we're not so completely done as Tramp, we are pretty much into simple entertainment now. I almost hate to admit it, but the big SF/Fantasy movies, we love, and we love action flicks. Got to be decent ones, (I'll take Matt Damon over Steven Seagal.) We don't really watch much in the way of comedy, or chick flicks. The occasional documentary. We go to see 3-5 movies a year, on average. My wife can't do 3D, so less of a need to go to the big screens.
|
|
|
Post by godotwaits on Jan 1, 2014 18:04:50 GMT -5
Going back to "Winter's Bone," it's kind of inneresting to track how far Jennifer Lawrence has come. I thought she was very good in the film, but I hadn't imagined that she would become almost a force of nature. I'm sure Marshall will tell you how amazing she is "...Hustle"
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Jan 1, 2014 18:25:34 GMT -5
Godot - as it's 40 minutes to the nearest theater I know pretty much squat about the current movie scene. I did want to post because I want you to know I like you. I like Jennifer Lawrence more though.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,910
|
Post by Dub on Jan 1, 2014 20:12:18 GMT -5
We just watched The Hobbit (1) on DVD from Netflix last week. We got it because we may go see TH2 in a theater and wanted to be up to speed. We've seen no (zero, zip, nada) movies on the top 100 list.
Great movies (great meaning those I like) are hard to define. I'm not drawn to any genre nor any particular actor. There are certain actors, directors, grips, best-boys, etc. who seem to produce work I like more reliably than others but even those names can let you down and unknowns can become a wonderful surprise. I don't mind having my gut wrenched buy a superlative performance but an OK performance in this case pisses me off. If you're going to wrench my gut, at least do it with grace and artistry. I also don't mind (enjoy, actually) mindless comedy, again if done with class.
Movies I've enjoyed for different reasons include...
Casablanca (well duh) Viva Zapata (Quinn won an Oscar) Harold and Maude The Godfather (I & II) Pulp Fiction The Naked Gun (all) Airplane Winter's Bone Big The Shawshank Redemption Grapes of Wrath Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe The Blues Brothers Terminator II (stupid movie, guilty pleasure)
I'm all over the map with likes and dislikes. Some movies just grab you. Most don't.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Jan 2, 2014 9:12:47 GMT -5
I want 90 minutes two hours of escapist entertainment that is exciting or fun or both but isn't going to try to make me think deep thoughts or scare me or make me feel sorry for someone or everyone or sad or depressed or anything. I want to be entertained. See Walter Mitty. It is the movie you describe here, sweet, fun, occasionally exciting, and you leave feeling very good. You actually like and care for the folks in the movie, (never thought I'd say that about Ben Stiller), and according to my wife that is the most important quality in a movie.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jan 2, 2014 9:37:33 GMT -5
I've seen none of these movies. I might see one or two, or I might not. American Hustle looks good, as does the Wolf of Wall st. Katie saw Hobbit 2 and said the dragon was worth the price of admission. About the Oscars. I don't have a dog in this fight. Someone will win, someone won't, who cares.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jan 2, 2014 10:22:56 GMT -5
We see a fair number of movies but rarely go out to see them, so we're usually behind what's current. We've seen six on that list but will likely see more as they show up on Netflix. We used to make an effort to see all the Oscar nominated movies but haven't managed it lately.
I understand Tramp's position on "meaningful" movies. Story comes first, last, and middle. I don't mind CG when it's used to tell the story, but I can't stand swirly overly-detailed over-long fighty stuff just because we can. We saw the latest Hunger Games a few days ago and it was very good. Jennifer Lawrence, of course, and nobody does nasty like Donald Sutherland. But the half-dozen previews for other movies were all identical interchangeable CG fight chase jump around flip through the air shit.
I pay attention to the recommendations on here to decide what to see.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 2, 2014 10:56:00 GMT -5
Going back to "Winter's Bone," it's kind of inneresting to track how far Jennifer Lawrence has come. I thought she was very good in the film, but I hadn't imagined that she would become almost a force of nature. I'm sure Marshall will tell you how amazing she is "...Hustle" She is very good in Hustle. But EVERYONE is great in that. Amy Adams is unbelievable. Christian Bale is terrific. Bradley Cooper is great. Robert De Niro is great in his little cameo role. Everybody up and down the list does a great job. And it's serious and funny at the same time.
|
|