Oscars 2015

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I would feel the same about Tarantino as I do about Anderson. They have a very distinctive style and it almost doesn't matter who the characters are or what the story is. Style over substance. Bit harsh maybe but I feel like their films are full of 2D cutouts of people and there's no real connection to anything. That's just my opinion though. Other directors may have habits and styles that they revisit over and over but the content of their films vary a bit more.

I did like Fantastic Mr. Fox though, I must admit

Mickeroo

The distinctive style those directors employ are a big part of what makes them all great imo. Yes Anderson's movies explore a lot of similar themes and are always unmistakable as Wes Anderson movies in terms of style, but his films are also like nothing else that's out there at the moment. I'd rather he keeps doing what he's doing and to be honest if you take Moonrise Kingdom and GBH alongside eachother for example, though there's stylistic similarities they're still quite different in terms of mood and story. I would never call them style over substance though, his films always tend to be very moving for me personally.

I'm biased though, he's responsible for three or four of my all time favourite films

Schecter01

Patrick Harris? Not sure how that will go down!

Schecter01

Juliane Moore does my head in, weird legs!

LuckyLloyd

Schecter01 wrote: »

Juliane Moore does my head in, weird legs!

Some tremendously relevant contributions on this thread. :rolleyes:

e_e

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.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grandbudapesthotel.htm

This was a bonafide box office success at least, which was heartening to see.

MisterAnarchy

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

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

Nothing wrong with the phrase.
Mediocre, although as such neutral, already has negative connotations. You can reinforce those connotations by indicating that the mediocrity in this case actually has a stronger effect than you would normally expect of mediocrity by using extremely mediocre.

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...

I thought 12 Years a Slave was like something you'd see on True Movies.
It was a run of the mill film,well shot and well acted but the storyline was generic and as a film it wasnt memorable apart from Fassbenders antics.

Argo ,was ok too,more workmanlike than memorable.
It was nothing special like Birdman and many other Best Picture winners.
The Academy seems to go for very safe films.

Right Turn Clyde

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Nothing wrong with the phrase.
Mediocre, although as such neutral, already has negative connotations. You can reinforce those connotations by indicating that the mediocrity in this case actually has a stronger effect than you would normally expect of mediocrity by using extremely mediocre.

Nah, it still sounds ridiculous.

e_e

Show me a True Movies film with cinematography, editing, score and performances as incredible as 12 Years a Slave. Again narrowing it down to "storyline" is reducing it highly as plot is just nothing but information without film makers to tell it in a powerful and interesting way. Besides there are only so many stories to tell and I think it's odd to expect film to reinvent the wheel in that regard.

Also how is Birdman safe? It's a foreign director taking a big budget chance on a highly unusual, surreal and meta script with extremely elaborate long takes, an actor who many would say is past his prime and score that consists almost entirely of somebody banging drums. Not to mention it being a big piss-take of the ego of the actor and everything that Hollywood currently stands for.

johnny_ultimate

David Ehlrich summed up Grand Budapest Hotel best:

"The Grand Budapest Hotel is the film with which Wes Anderson finally answers his critics, and the message could not be clearer or more immaculately embossed in Futura on an insert shot of the most delicate stationary: “Go **** yourselves.”"

The more Wes Anderson disappears into his quirks and stylistic rabbit hole, the more I adore his films and hope he continues exploring those peculiar tonal, visual and narrative sensibilities of his in such a distinctive way (although I do see exactly why others don't like him). I do think it's unfair to say his films are basically all the same thing, though - while certainly they share many traits, he has also consistently varied and experimented with the way he delivers them. He's a director constantly evolving, albeit without surrending his own trademark style.

Eugene Norman

I am mostly a fan of Anderson's style but really didn't like the Life Acquatic. I think the deadpan was getting old. Fiennes was excellent in GBH and certainly not deadpan, far from it. That made it for me.

Really should have got a nomination.

elBootho

Some interesting results.

Birdman seems to controversial, a lot of people don't seem to get it. Citizen Four for best documentary is interesting. Saw it last week, very well made.

elBootho

Some interesting results.

Birdman seems to be controversial, a lot of people don't seem to get it. Citizen Four for best documentary is interesting. Saw it last week, very well made.

AndonHandon

Haven't seen it but was Selma a worthy nominee and were there any slavery points attached to it?

e_e

AndonHandon wrote: »

Haven't seen it but was Selma a worthy nominee and were there any slavery points attached to it?

Certainly more worthy than Theory of Everything, Imitation Game and American Sniper for me.

How Imitation Game got a best director nomination is beyond me. It's arguably the blandest, most flatly shot film of the bunch.

FloatingVoter

AndonHandon wrote: »

Haven't seen it but was Selma a worthy nominee and were there any slavery points attached to it?

A worthy nominee - even if it didn't portray LBJ in a fair light, which caused some controversy stateside. A century after slavery, its about the civil rights movement and how so little had changed. The Martin Luther King estate didn't authorise the use of any of MLK's speeches so that had to be worked around. This in-fighting, a late release, and an Academy spooked by the present day civil unrest didn't do it any favours.
As a movie alone, Birdman is better. And from what I've heard, Boyhood had more going for it too.

SarahBM

Just saw Selma today and I think it was definitely Oscar worthy!!! Should have got nominations for best actor , director and film IMO.

Welsh Megaman

Barney's movie had heart, but 'Football In The Groin' had a football in the groin.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Welsh Megaman wrote: »

Barney's movie had heart, but 'Football In The Groin' had a football in the groin.

Are you saying Boo, or Boo-urns?

drugstore cowboy

Eddie Redmayne is the most irritating person I've seen in the public eye for many a year.

He has the prince harry type punchable face.


So odds on which actors/actresses will have some form of disability or illness in their movies to help them blag an Oscar next year?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

Eddie Redmayne is the most irritating person I've seen in the public eye for many a year.

He has the prince harry type punchable face.


So odds on which actors/actresses will have some form of disability or illness in their movies to help them blag an Oscar next year?

Redmayne is playing one of transgender/transvestite/transexual in his next film. That's the next best thing to disease.

drugstore cowboy

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Redmayne is playing one of transgender/transvestite/transexual in his next film. That's the next best thing to disease.

A transexual would be a good punt for an actor wanting an oscar next year.

Maybe make them bi-polar to seal the deal?

efb

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Redmayne is playing one of transgender/transvestite/transexual in his next film. That's the next best thing to disease.

Been done too recently

Shiraz 4.99

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Redmayne is playing one of transgender/transvestite/transexual in his next film. That's the next best thing to disease.

Oooooo that's interesting, I'd him down as actorleast likely to win a 2nd Oscar when he goes full Jared Let. Still want to punch him though.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ He's playing a based on a real life person who was one of the first people to undergo sexual reassignment surgery. Directed by the guy who did What's Eating Gilbert Grape and The Cider House Rules. Shoe in for a nom I reckon.

FloatingVoter

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

Eddie Redmayne is the most irritating person I've seen in the public eye for many a year.

He has the prince harry type punchable face.

You're not far wrong. He went to school with Prince William. Make sure not to dent your knuckles on the silver spoon.

don ramo

the biggest surprise for me was Redmayne winning over Keaton and Birdman beating Boyhood to best picture,

i wasnt very impressed by Redmayne in The Theory of Everything, Keaton delivered a far better performance, i didnt see Foxcathcher, but Cumberbatch and even Cooper i felt delivered better performances than Redmayne, i just couldnt take to him in the film,

im delighted Birdman won, i fully expected Boyhood to win, it was a labor of love and a feat that deserved recognition, but Birdman was by and far the best film of the bunch, for me anyway,

other than that no big surprises, Moore, Arquette and Simmons were all fully deserving of their awards, probably moore being the only that you could question, but well deserved irregardless,

cloud493

Redmayne was alright. But he strikes me as a right bollox. Just my opinion

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

cloud493 wrote: »

Redmayne was alright. But he strikes me as a right bollox. Just my opinion

He won all the major awards in the lead up so the surprised bumbling idiot act wasn't working for me. At least Patricia Arquette didn't even pretend she wasn't prepared.

efb

Jesus ye are harsh on a guy yeve never met

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

efb wrote: »

Jesus ye are harsh on a guy yeve never met

That's what the internet is for!

Tipsy McSwagger

GBH is the best film out of all those that were nominated.

FloatingVoter

efb wrote: »

Jesus ye are harsh on a guy yeve never met

He's a grand little fella. It just pisses me off that he's younger then me. He came across perfectly normal on Graham Norton....and as Oscar speeches go it was a long way from a full Gwyneth.

Shiraz 4.99

Anyway, Gyllenhall was the best performance of. the year.

Baggy Trousers

Watching the Oscars on RTE2, what's with all the bloody songs? I don't care what the best song was. I want to see more of the films and acting.

DoYouEvenLift

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Watching the Oscars on RTE2, what's with all the bloody songs? I don't care what the best song was. I want to see more of the films and acting.

You're better off downloading it and being able to skip through it. Or else record it and wait an hour before watching so you can skip through all the boring parts, there are a lot of them.

efb

Well they cut Glory to go to an adbreak

Tasden

efb wrote: »

Well they cut Glory to go to an adbreak

I was so annoyed at that, whatever about cutting a performance out completely to fit in the actual presentation of awards, but to cut halfway through a performance!

leahyl

Wtf is up with them cutting John legend?!!!! The ads are ridiculous

don ramo

leahyl wrote: »

Wtf is up with them cutting John legend?!!!! The ads are ridiculous

what are these "ADS" you speak of;)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Why show Octavia Spencer introducing the bloody thing if they're just going to cut it after a minute? Why not skip the whole thing? Looks like they've skipped Gaga entirely.

An Ciarraioch

It's natural that the highlights would concentrate on the songs nowadays, given that everyone would know the Big Five results from morning news headlines, even before checking online, it just highlights that most of the ceremony before the rush of major awards is filler. As for cutting Selma, is that RTE's fault, or down to Academy editing?

leahyl

Are they not gonna show Gaga so?

dublinman1990

RTE didn't show the song named Glory as they blatantly cut it off with 5 minutes of ads during the Oscar Highlights. :mad:

Their unbelievable arrogance is now going to lead me to watch that song on Youtube instead of the added convenience of having it on our national broadcaster.

RTE = idiots. And we the idiots pay our licence fee and expect this type of ****e from them. RTE is gone to hell.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ It's called Glory but rage on!

Tasden

Oh my heart is melting for that young man

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Tasden wrote: »

Oh my heart is melting for that young man

I love that he thanked Oprah.

hatrickpatrick

They cut best documentary feature? God almighty. :mad:

efb

This is shyte highlights package - did they get it in poundland?

Tasden

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I love that he thanked Oprah.

I loved every single thing about his speech genuine appreciation and happiness, was lovely