what was the last movie you watched?
- Thread starter Folsom Al
- Start date
ImaKingsFan
Bench
The Black Dahlia ^^what they both said...bad movie!!
slugking50
All-Star
Heroes of World Class
Its an awesome Wrestling Documentry
Its an awesome Wrestling Documentry
Gargamel
Starter
Over the last couple of weeks I saw Private Ryan and Shindler's List for the first time since they both debuted. They were much more coherent this time around, having learned more about WWII since I first saw them. Beautiful pictures both. I'm not a fan of the schmaltzy side of Spielberg, but Private Ryan losing best picture to Shakespeare In Love is worse than GoodFellas losing to Dances With Wolves.
KingKong
Starter
Naked (1993)- Mike Leigh
A brutal and honest take on human exisitence. It also has one of the best performances from David Thewlis that I've ever witnessed on celluloid. A fiercely intelligent and an unrelenting masterpiece, which goes down as one of my favourites of all time. Open your eyes. Watch this film!!!
A brutal and honest take on human exisitence. It also has one of the best performances from David Thewlis that I've ever witnessed on celluloid. A fiercely intelligent and an unrelenting masterpiece, which goes down as one of my favourites of all time. Open your eyes. Watch this film!!!
Last edited:
GoGoGadget
All-Star
I'm not a fan of Spielberg's schmaltz, either, but I enjoyed both Schidler's List and what I've seen of Saving Private Ryan (which is probably the whole film, just not in one sitting).
However, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Shakespeare In Love may not have been a better film than Saving Private Ryan, but at least it wasn't three hours of self-indulgent suck. In my opinion, there are very few Oscar injustices that equal the Goodfellas loss that year.
Last edited:
Gargamel
Starter
GoGoGadget said:
Haha. Well, there you go. I'm goin by the overall feel of the movie - story and style. I think Boogie Nights was a better film (not to mention LA Confidential) than Titanic, which won BP. Boogie Nights didn't even get a nomination, probably due to the subject matter. I suspect that's what happened to GoodFellas, which looking past the fact that Scorsese had already done numerous pics w/ DeNiro and numerous mob stories, was a 2:30 masterpiece.
I think they also wanted to give Costner the nod for both directing and starring in Wolves (he won both best pic and director). Even tho Pesci won best supporting actor, Liotta didn't even get a nomination for best actor, which was also a shame. Topping that off, Ordinary People beat Raging Bull in 1980, hence Jon Stewart pointing out the lameness of 3-6 Mafia having an Oscar and Scorsese having ZERO.
Last edited:
GoGoGadget
All-Star
Agree with all. The Oscars pretty much suck.
Which just makes it even more odd that I'm that I'm glued to the TV watching them every year.
Can I jump in and say I hate the Oscars too? I can tolerate the "lesser" awards since they go to people who aren't always recognized for their efforts but Best Picture is almost always wrong to the point of being laughable. Feel free to peruse the list to see just how many turkeys have won: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Picture_Oscar
On the other hand I do have a picture with me holding not one but two more than Scorcese's got
. Unfortunately I had to give them back but for ordinary schmoes like me a picture will suffice.
On the other hand I do have a picture with me holding not one but two more than Scorcese's got
. Unfortunately I had to give them back but for ordinary schmoes like me a picture will suffice.
GoGoGadget
All-Star
I do too. I'm hooked despite the fact that it pisses me off every year.
In my senior year of high school, I was able to use my mom's USC film school connections to get put on the list as a seat filler. That was fun. I didn't get to fill any seats, though (damn Gwyneth Paltrow never once got up to pee, so my opportunity to snag her 1st row seat next to Brad Pitt never came), but it was fun to get gussied up, watch everything in person and have celebrities flirt with me.
mcsluggo
Starter
Can I jump in and say I hate the Oscars too? I can tolerate the "lesser" awards since they go to people who aren't always recognized for their efforts but Best Picture is almost always wrong to the point of being laughable. Feel free to peruse the list to see just how many turkeys have won: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Picture_Oscar
On the other hand I do have a picture with me holding not one but two more than Scorcese's got
Allright, I read the 80s/90s/00s section, and here is my opinion of the most egregious year over that time period. It was a strong year, but any one of the other 4 would have been a clear winner over the Gumpster. (4 weddings easily the second weakest entry, but still better than Forrest)
1994 (67th) Forrest Gump - Paramount Pictures - Wendy Finerman, Steve Tisch, Steve Starkey
- Four Weddings and a Funeral (United Kingdom) - Channel Four Films, PolyGram Film Entertainment, Working Title Films - Duncan Kenworthy
- Pulp Fiction - A Band Apart, Jersey Films, Miramax Films - Lawrence Bender
- Quiz Show - Baltimore Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, Wildwood Enterprises - Michael Jacobs, Julian Krainin, Michael Nozick, Robert Redford
- The Shawshank Redemption - Castle Rock Entertainment, Columbia Pictures Corp. - Niki Marvin
GoGoGadget
All-Star
There weren't any specific guidelines or rules about talking to the celebs that I recall, but it would be pretty tacky to start asking for autographs during the ceremony or anything like that. Besides, there's a bit of a competitive need to stay cool and calm around the famous that's engrained in native Los Angelinos -- heaven forbid you look as silly as those star map tourists.
I was chatting with a girl who was filling a seat next to Kevin Spacey for a few minutes, and she said he kept leaning over and joking with her about how boring the whole thing was.
GoGoGadget
All-Star
Oh, that one still bothers me. Pulp Fiction and Shawshank were so far ahead of the rest of the field, it's not even funny.
atxrocker
Starter
Though both are great, solid movies (and personally my vote would go to pulp fiction) why all the forrest gump hate? i think it merits the award as much as any of the other contenders.
RoyalDiva
Starter
Agree w/you. I thought that Forrest Gump was an excellently made film that deserved the Oscar. Perhaps people dump on it so much because of the sentimentality and feel-good vibe throughout, although I didn't think that it came across as bombastic or corny.
Gargamel
Starter
I don't personally don't think Gump was much diff or any better than Born On The Fourth Of July, which lost out to Driving Miss Daisy in 1989. Try that on for worst best picture. Gump was carried by Tom Hanks. He came off of his best actor win the previous year for Philadelphia. I think that had a little to do with Gump winning in 94.
I hate Tarantino beyond his first two films, but Pulp Fiction definitely was the most unique and different movie of the early 90s imo. Again, maybe the subject matter did it in. Gump was very feelgood in comparison.
Gargamel
Starter
Mos def corny, but I think that was actually the goal, which makes it forgivable. For example, Forrest's inception of the yellow smiley face and the phrase "S happens", or the "I gotta pee." scene.
GoGoGadget
All-Star
A lot of the backlash against Forrest Gump amongst the film snobs had a lot to do with it's corny sentimentality, which I personally don't mind. There was also a lot of resentment that started buzzing around that film during award time precisely because of the attention is was stealing from some of the less mainstream titles that were trying to give power to the indies, specifically Pulp Fiction.
Also, if I remember correctly, there was a bit of chatter suggesting racist undertones in the relationship between Forrest and Bubba/Bubba's family (Forrest is a millionaire thanks to the shrimp co., but the family is still living in a shack and shrimping). That always seemed bogus to me.
Also, if I remember correctly, there was a bit of chatter suggesting racist undertones in the relationship between Forrest and Bubba/Bubba's family (Forrest is a millionaire thanks to the shrimp co., but the family is still living in a shack and shrimping). That always seemed bogus to me.
Gargamel
Starter
This is a comprehensive Oscar site, w/ winners and losers in every category. Scroll to the bottom for winners by year and decade.
http://www.filmsite.org/oscars.html
Browsing those lists, these are some movies that I think had best picture written all over them, regardless of whether they actually won or if they deserved to win or lose.
1967 - The Graduate (L)
1972 - The Godfather (W)
1974 - Chinatown (L)
1975 - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (W)
1978 - The Deer Hunter (W)
1979 - Kramer Vs. Kramer (W)
1982 - Ghandi (W)
1983 - Terms Of Endearment (W) - loads of noms
1984 - Amadeus (W)
1990 - GoodFellas (L)
1993 - Schindler's List (W)
1995 - The Bridges Of Madison County (L)
1997 - Titanic (W)
1998 - Saving Private Ryan (W)
2005 - Munich (L)
Some disses that I can see are Tatum O'Neal beating out Linda Blair for best supporting actress in 1973. Let's see Tatum rotate her head 360. The Towering Inferno got a best picture nomination in 1974 -- lame (ask OJ). Marathon Man didn't get a best picture nomination in 1976. An Officer And A Gentleman not getting a nomination for best picture in 1982. Silkwood no best picture nomination in 1983. The Color Of Money no best picture nomination in 1986, another Scorsese snub. Working Girl DID get a best picture nom in 1988 -- horrible. Almost Famous got no best picture nom in 2000 (Gladiator won that year, so not a strong year). Cast Away got zero nominations of any kind in 2000. Don't know why Crash won last year, don't know why I seem to be the only one who hates it and finds the coming to grips w/ racial differences theme utterly played out (Grand Canyon, Do The Right Thing, Falling Down, A Time To Kill, Higher Learning, etc).
http://www.filmsite.org/oscars.html
Browsing those lists, these are some movies that I think had best picture written all over them, regardless of whether they actually won or if they deserved to win or lose.
1967 - The Graduate (L)
1972 - The Godfather (W)
1974 - Chinatown (L)
1975 - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (W)
1978 - The Deer Hunter (W)
1979 - Kramer Vs. Kramer (W)
1982 - Ghandi (W)
1983 - Terms Of Endearment (W) - loads of noms
1984 - Amadeus (W)
1990 - GoodFellas (L)
1993 - Schindler's List (W)
1995 - The Bridges Of Madison County (L)
1997 - Titanic (W)
1998 - Saving Private Ryan (W)
2005 - Munich (L)
Some disses that I can see are Tatum O'Neal beating out Linda Blair for best supporting actress in 1973. Let's see Tatum rotate her head 360. The Towering Inferno got a best picture nomination in 1974 -- lame (ask OJ). Marathon Man didn't get a best picture nomination in 1976. An Officer And A Gentleman not getting a nomination for best picture in 1982. Silkwood no best picture nomination in 1983. The Color Of Money no best picture nomination in 1986, another Scorsese snub. Working Girl DID get a best picture nom in 1988 -- horrible. Almost Famous got no best picture nom in 2000 (Gladiator won that year, so not a strong year). Cast Away got zero nominations of any kind in 2000. Don't know why Crash won last year, don't know why I seem to be the only one who hates it and finds the coming to grips w/ racial differences theme utterly played out (Grand Canyon, Do The Right Thing, Falling Down, A Time To Kill, Higher Learning, etc).
Last edited:
Driving Miss Daisy is definitely up there for me. I'm partial to The English Patient taking that honor but really there are so many to choose from. Just going back to 1979 it seems like they got it right maybe 5 or 6 times.
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
Baggin on the Oscars is easy (espcially since the year Titanic won a slew) But once one realizes that it is the movie industries way of recognizing it's own most of the percived injustices become understandable. Certinally very good and even great films get missed while lessr works get recognized, but why should Hollywood recognize filmmakers who are not part of Hollywood? The oscars is NOT a film festival, it is recognition for SUCCESSFULL films and a 3-5 hour advertisment for the Hollywood film industry. So when actors who rarely do big budget films get a shot like David Stratharin last year, who can blame the Hollywood crowd for recognizing a guy like Philip Seymour Hoffman who has been paying his dues in mainstream fillms for years AND who turnd in a dam good performance in Capote?
Politics IS part of the Oscars BECEAUSE the industry is so sensitive to public perception. It's allways good to remember that Citizen Kane did not win best picture in 1941 loosing to How Green Was My Valley. The influence of WRH on Hollywood was only partly to blame, the fact that the young Mr. Wells was percived as an outsider had even more to due with this decision of the Academy.
My point is it is not only futile, but dam near childish to look to the Oscars as some sort of yard stick of "BEST WORK" or too expect "Justice" in the little envelopes. It's just a show. Hollywood film fans love it and it is after all thier show. No one is required to watch or even pay attention.
Politics IS part of the Oscars BECEAUSE the industry is so sensitive to public perception. It's allways good to remember that Citizen Kane did not win best picture in 1941 loosing to How Green Was My Valley. The influence of WRH on Hollywood was only partly to blame, the fact that the young Mr. Wells was percived as an outsider had even more to due with this decision of the Academy.
My point is it is not only futile, but dam near childish to look to the Oscars as some sort of yard stick of "BEST WORK" or too expect "Justice" in the little envelopes. It's just a show. Hollywood film fans love it and it is after all thier show. No one is required to watch or even pay attention.
Last edited:
RoyalDiva
Starter
Amen to some of that, celt. If only more people would realize that the Oscars are not truly a yardstick, then we would hear less, "waaahhhh!" when a certain picture doesn't win the top prize. I think the only thing I don't like about the Oscars is that sometimes the big-budget films have a foothold due to their immense ability to market their wares, where smaller (indie) films that are just as good or better don't get that. Sometimes it seems like a film has won just because their studio made the most noise about it (Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan, for instance). It's like the little guy never gets a chance that they deserve. However, that is changing much more nowadays as studios have distribution rights to so many indie films and are giving them that marketing.
D-Mass
Starter
You're not the only one. Count me in.
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
Spoken like a true Kobe fan
Similar threads
