Oscars 2015

DoYouEvenLift

DrFloppy wrote: »

Income inequality? Racial diversity? Immigrants?

Christ, was the whole night one giant self-defined victim PC whingefest? Glad I didn't stay up to watch it.

Don't forget the white guilt, that's a big one!

Dirty Dingus McGee

Snowchaser wrote: »

Don't understand all the love for Boyhood. Just because the film was made over 13 years doesn't automatically mean it's good.

The last 30 mins listening was drawn out and the amount of crap the kid was talking was boring. Pretentious rubbish.

Bird man and whiplash grand Budapest on the other hand are great films.

Thats kind of why people liked it I suspect as teenagers in real life spout a lot of boring sh1te aswell.

Right Turn Clyde

Snowchaser wrote: »

Don't understand all the love for Boyhood. Just because the film was made over 13 years doesn't automatically mean it's good.
The last 30 mins listening was drawn out and the amount of crap the kid was talking was boring. Pretentious rubbish.

It's true that many critics have dressed it up heavy in portent, but you need to separate that form what the film itself is actually doing and saying. I'm not directing this as you in particular, but I honestly feel that many people today don't know what pretentious means. You should explain what you mean. What makes it pretentious?

Snowchaser

The Academy got it spot on with Boyhood.

The film was weak across a number of aspects.

The final 30 minutes were basically just a pretentious kid going off on one. Like how can a high school kid be sssooo deep. Cringe.

Just because it was made over the 12 years people though it should get an Oscar. Absolute rubbish excuse.

Well done the Academy.

Effects

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Too bad she talks about income inequality after getting a goodie bag worth over $150k just for attending the oscars lol

What does a goodie bag have to do with income inequality? Do you even know what she's taking about?

DoYouEvenLift

Effects wrote: »

What does a goodie bag have to do with income inequality? Do you even know what she's taking about?

No, enlighten me

Mickeroo

Snowchaser wrote: »

The Academy got it spot on with Boyhood.

The film was weak across a number of aspects.

The final 30 minutes were basically just a pretentious kid going off on one. Like how can a high school kid be sssooo deep. Cringe.

Just because it was made over the 12 years people though it should get an Oscar. Absolute rubbish excuse.

Well done the Academy.

His waffling sounded exactly like the kind of crap you'd expect from someone that age to me. I think the fact that the film focused so much on the mundane aspects of real life is what put folks off, people were hoping for something that ticked more of the coming of age cliché boxes like The Way Way Back for example.

WheatenBriar

I could only last about 30 minutes of the grand Budapest hotel
It was dreadfully boring

helovesher52

How did he not get one again? this is an outrage! Di caprio or leo as i like to call him! he is such a good actor he could play anyone or anything!!!!!!

e_e

It doesn't surprise me one bit that after Arquette gave a very pointed, passionate and rousing speech the people online who crave empty platitudes and escapism were like "Boo! SJWs! Political correctness gone mad!".

Do you all want every speech to be a platitudinous "Thank the crew. Thank God. Thank mom & dad."? I really don't get it.

e_e

Also can't help but hope that since Boyhood didn't win best picture the annoying "Boring, nothing happens! It's such a gimmick. The kid is annoying." people can play their overrated card elsewhere.

I loved Birdman though but Whiplash would have been my #1 choice. Hell that music alone when JK walked up to the stage made me want to go back and watch the film right away.

...and regarding the Selma snub. If the completely flat and boring Imitation Game could get a best director nomination Ava DuVernay sure as hell should have.

Snowchaser

I agree but I don't think it was the script's intention for him to be an annoying teenager. I think they movie was backing his pretentious outlook on life.

I agree that we didn't need another 'Way Way Back' but the story lone was weak. No doubt there were some good acting performances but it lacked as a film.

Making a film over 12 years shouldn’t automatically qualify you for an oscar.

e_e

Snowchaser wrote: »

I agree but I don't think it was the script's intention for him to be an annoying teenager. I think they movie was backing his pretentious outlook on life.

Since it's a humanist look at life and the film has such an experimental nature you have to give it a bit of leeway. I can't help but sense that when people churlishly put down the character they're rejecting what they were like at that age too. Sure from the ages of 14 and 17 he's a little moody but he's finding a voice and purpose in life at that point.

Snowchaser wrote: »

I agree that we didn't need another 'Way Way Back' but the story lone was weak. No doubt there were some good acting performances but it lacked as a film.

Couldn't disagree more, the film didn't need anything in the way of contrived conflict or obvious structure. There is so much told through the gaps in time alone, it really is one of the fullest, liveliest films I've ever seen.

Snowchaser wrote: »

Making a film over 12 years shouldn’t automatically qualify you for an oscar.

It doesn't, or else 56 Up would have that beat.

Snowchaser

e_e wrote: »

Since it's a humanist look at life and the film has such an experimental nature you have to give it a bit of leeway. I can't help but sense that when people churlishly put down the character they're rejecting what they were like at that age too. Sure from the ages of 14 and 17 he's a little moody but he's finding a voice and purpose in life at that point.


Couldn't disagree more, the film didn't need anything in the way of contrived conflict or obvious structure. There is so much told through the gaps in time alone, it really is one of the fullest, liveliest films I've ever seen.

Difference of opinion I guess That's what makes film interesting.

I just think the whole film tried to be ordinary and it really just didn't come off.

The kid just had a pretentious annoying character. 'Oh look at me, I am so different….'. Absolute tripe. He was only in high school for god sake.

I really feel they tried to push home that this is the right way to be. The director's view on life maybe?

The last 60 mins was tiresome and the only notable scene being Patricia Arquette's view on her life. This partially saved it.

I agree with previous posters' that 'Whiplash' was a top top film and probably deserved best film. However, Birdman was a very worthy winner.

Right Turn Clyde

There doesn't seem to be a lot of love for The Way Way Back on here. I enjoyed it. Sometimes I don't mind when a film is cliche and ticks all the coming-of-age boxes. Sometimes it's just nice to sit back and see how the film goes about doing it. It reminds me of watching Barcelona a few seasons back. You know beforehand that Messi was gonna score a brace, and that they'd demolish the opposition, but the pleasure was in watching it all unfold again, despite knowing the outcome. Admittedly, I only feel that way about certain types of films. For example, sports movies absolutely grate when the team/boxer/driver clinches the match/race in the dying seconds of the film.

dark crystal

Gutted for Linklater and Keaton. Linklater's one of my favourite directors and I thought he did an amazing job with Boyhood. This was probably Michael Keaton's last shot at the Oscar too. Ugh.

I also thought Neil Patrick Harris was only okay as host. Non controversial, singy and dancey etc. A less interesting and funny Billy Crystal really.

I'm going to start campaigning for Jim Carrey to host next year...

e_e

NPH was such a flat host. He looked like a deer in the headlights at times, like his teleprompter was off.

Amazingfun

I'm going to start campaigning for Jim Carrey to host next year...

great idea!

e_e

Snowchaser wrote: »

The kid just had a pretentious annoying character. 'Oh look at me, I am so different….'. Absolute tripe. He was only in high school for god sake.

I really feel they tried to push home that this is the right way to be. The director's view on life maybe?

Linklater simply accepts people for who they are. I find it refreshing in an age of cynicism and 15 different levels of irony to everything.

R P McMurphy

Mickeroo wrote: »

His waffling sounded exactly like the kind of crap you'd expect from someone that age to me. I think the fact that the film focused so much on the mundane aspects of real life is what put folks off, people were hoping for something that ticked more of the coming of age cliché boxes like The Way Way Back for example.

His outlook at that stage definitely rang true. He was indulging in some acid as well so was bound to be a little philosophical

Right Turn Clyde

I liked Boyhood, but I thought Ellar Coltrane couldn't act. In fairness, that was hard to legislate for given the nature of the production, but it bothered me nonetheless. Also, Lorelei Linklater was woeful, god help her. What I did like about it was that nothing major happened (save one notable incident, and even that was left behind very quickly). I was worried that something tragic or momentous was going to happen, but I was pleasantly surprised to see it just play out nice and easy, with some occasional ups and downs. Just like real life, I guess.

dark crystal

e_e wrote: »

NPH was such a flat host. He looked like a deer in the headlights at times, like his teleprompter was off.

And what was with the running predictions gag? What an anti climax!

Amazingfun wrote: »

great idea!

Honestly, I think he'd be perfect for it. His Bruce Dern impression last year was my highlight

dark crystal

e_e wrote: »

Linklater simply accepts people for who they are. I find it refreshing in an age of cynicism and 15 different levels of irony to everything.

Exactly. These slice of life films, in which nothing explodes, nobody dies, or gets arrested, or has an affair, or has huge tragedies to overcome, or saves the world are precisely the type of films I find refreshing when they come along and Linklater is a master at them.

His 'Before' trilogy is a gift to cinema and I thought Boyhood was a beautiful film. Mike Leigh, who directs the same type of films, was particularly impressed with Linklater when they were discussing their films at this year's round table.

Ah, I'm just gutted for him.

e_e

Yeah I love when movies don't get caught up with big events and bull**** plot twists and just let you observe live passing. Mr Turner had a similar leisurely and patient quality and escaped all of the biopic trappings because of it.

Eugene Norman

Hey.

Does anybody know of any black, gay, wheelchair bound mathematician or scientist ( artist at a stretch) historically. Preferably persecuted at some stage for being gay or black. Dies young preferable. Being shot would be better but I would take suicide.

I want to write a biopic, is all.

Thanks in advance.

efb

Christ but I thought Birdman was self indulgent tosh

efb

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Hey.

Does anybody know of any black, gay, wheelchair bound mathematician or scientist ( artist at a stretch) historically. Preferably persecuted at some stage for being gay or black. Dies young preferable. Being shot would be better but I would take suicide.

I want to write a biopic, is all.

Thanks in advance.

Drop the black thing. Not a vote getter

Eugene Norman

efb wrote: »

Drop the black thing. Not a vote getter

I'm thinking the backlash.

efb

e_e wrote: »

Also can't help but hope that since Boyhood didn't win best picture the annoying "Boring, nothing happens! It's such a gimmick. The kid is annoying." people can play their overrated card elsewhere.

I loved Birdman though but Whiplash would have been my #1 choice. Hell that music alone when JK walked up to the stage made me want to go back and watch the film right away.

...and regarding the Selma snub. If the completely flat and boring Imitation Game could get a best director nomination Ava DuVernay sure as hell should have.

I loved Imitation game

efb

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I'm thinking the backlash.

The academy doesn't care. Give Cuba Gudding Jr a undeserved best supporting actor

Outkast_IRE

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I'm thinking the backlash.

I dont think there will be a backlash. I think the only reason the story got any traction was because there was no other scandel in the run up.

To be fair this year i feel the academy have got it farily spot on. (except for the omission of lego movie in best animation)

I honestly feel that there can be no complaints this year, i think for the most part the winners deserved it.

Shiraz 4.99

Birdman eh, file under Shakespeare in Love as Oscar Winners we'll never hear of again.
A collective circle jerk to the thesps who vote for the Oscars, will not resonate at all with the general public.
There could be a backlash against this once those who originally put it off decide to watch it on the back of the Oscar win, glad I won't be the one defending it.

efb

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

Birdman eh, file under Shakespeare in Love as Oscar Winners we'll never hear of again.
A collective circle jerk to the thesps who vote for the Oscars, will not resonate at all with the general public.
There could be a backlash against this once those who originally put it off decide to watch it on the back of the Oscar win, glad I won't be the one defending it.

Agreed.

e_e

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

will not resonate at all with the general public.

But it already has. I went to see it again last week and there were more people there than on the week of its release, people really seemed to enjoy it too. Not that resonating with the general public is much of a measure of quality either, we could give Brendan O'Carroll an oscar in that case. :pac:

While I understand the circle jerk argument with it being a film about actors and the movie industry I still think it's an insanely fun and creative movie. It's one I can genuinely see myself (along with Whiplash, Boyhood and Grand Budapest) revisiting every few years. It also happens to be a very timely movie about where Hollywood is at right now.

Shiraz 4.99

e_e wrote: »

While I understand the circle jerk argument with it being a film about actors and the movie industry I still think it's an insanely fun and creative movie. It's one I can genuinely see myself (along with Whiplash, Boyhood and Grand Budapest) revisiting every few years. It also happens to be a very timely movie about where Hollywood is at right now.

Only thing I may re-watch from 2014 is probably Interstellar or maybe Whiplash.
Finest example of the art this year was True Detective Episodes 1 - 5, it's the first time I've understood the TV >>>> Film argument.

MisterAnarchy

These Oscar winners seem to become more and more underwhelming every year .
The last few best picture winners have been extremely mediocre films,The Artist,Argo,12 Years a Slave and Birdman

youreadthat

No one has ever heard or spoken of The Hurt Locker since it won! Until this post

LuckyLloyd

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

Birdman eh, file under Shakespeare in Love as Oscar Winners we'll never hear of again.
A collective circle jerk to the thesps who vote for the Oscars, will not resonate at all with the general public.
There could be a backlash against this once those who originally put it off decide to watch it on the back of the Oscar win, glad I won't be the one defending it.

Closing in on $100m at the box office...

Outkast_IRE

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

resonate at all with the general public.

To be fair the oscars arent a public opinion poll they have never claimed that.

I think if that is how you access films then maybe the MTV movie awards is what you are looking for.

I agree with you that Birdman will not be everyones cup of tea, but to say it will be forgotten about it utter folly. It has some of the best cinematography work seen en-mass by the public in years, the long on-shot scenes that blend seemlessly together are a thing of beauty. The all round ensemble performance is excellent. These are some of the many reasons this movie will be watched for many years to come.

dark crystal

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

These Oscar winners seem to become more and more underwhelming every year .
The last few best picture winners have been extremely mediocre films,The Artist,Argo,12 Years a Slave and Birdman

I thought 12 Years A Slave was an excellent film and deserved the win last year.

I haven't seen The Artist, but I did enjoy Argo and Birdman. I wouldn't call them mediocre by any means, but I would agree they probably won't go down in history as all time classics. Then again, nor will Around The World in 80 Days or The Greatest Show on Earth or The Last Emperor or Driving Miss Daisy. The best film of the year not winning isn't a modern phenomenon...

Eugene Norman

No great love for GBH on here? I really liked it.

Eugene Norman

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

These Oscar winners seem to become more and more underwhelming every year .
The last few best picture winners have been extremely mediocre films,The Artist,Argo,12 Years a Slave and Birdman

Not mediocre, but all a bit worthy perhaps.

Outkast_IRE

Lads, seriously.

Best Film of the year is such an individualistic thing i really cant understand why people are so bothered when their favourite film didnt win.

I honestly did think Birdman deserved the win. With the type of people voting for this award they are always going to favour films that are a good display of the craft that is film making. Birdman is this in spades.


If American Sniper had won i would have trouble understanding that.

Right Turn Clyde

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

These Oscar winners seem to become more and more underwhelming every year .
The last few best picture winners have been extremely mediocre films,The Artist,Argo,12 Years a Slave and Birdman

What an utterly nonsensical phrase. I'll file it alongside 'mild peril'.

Outkast_IRE

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No great love for GBH on here? I really liked it.

Loved it , bought it for my collection. But to be fair Wes Anderson does not appeal to the masses on the same level as other filmmakers. To me the amount of little details and eccentricities that run through his films make it enjoyable and unique. But i understand alot of people wont understand it and just label it weird etc.

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I think Boyhood is taking best film and director for Linklater

Boy was I wrong

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Loved it , bought it for my collection. But to be fair Wes Anderson does not appeal to the masses on the same level as other filmmakers. To me the amount of little details and eccentricities that run through his films make it enjoyable and unique. But i understand alot of people wont understand it and just label it weird etc.

I'm not a huge fan of Wes Anderson but it's not because I don't understand it or think it's weird, it's because he seems to just do the same thing over and over again. He's got a very definitive style but you always know what you're going to get from one of his films. Maybe you could say that about a lot of directors though.

dark crystal

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No great love for GBH on here? I really liked it.

I loved it. Would probably be my favourite film of the year. That and Boyhood.

Right Turn Clyde

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'm not a huge fan of Wes Anderson but it's not because I don't understand it or think it's weird, it's because he seems to just do the same thing over and over again. He's got a very definitive style but you always know what you're going to get from one of his films. Maybe you could say that about a lot of directors though.

The first two names that came to mind were Hitchcock and Bergman. Admittedly, I've only seen a handful of films from each, but I honestly feel like I'm revisiting similar territory every time I watch one of their films. I'm sure there's people that would tear me apart for saying that, but that's honestly been my experience with them so far.

Pierce_1991

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

The first two names that came to mind were Hitchcock and Bergman. Admittedly, I've only seen a handful of films from each, but I honestly feel like I'm revisiting similar territory every time I watch one of their films. I'm sure there's people that would tear me apart for saying that, but that's honestly been my experience with them so far.

Fincher was the first that came to my mind, has quite a distinct style. Tarantino too. Those are more positive examples of auteurs though.