Forum Replies Created
February 20, 2019 at 5:51 pm #1202783213
I don’t see them on their website yet.February 20, 2019 at 5:34 pm #1202783193
Literally. And the voter said that he didn’t choose Bale because it was an imitation, and didn’t create a character. That’s literally what a performance based on a real person is.
Not necessarily. Often times, an actor portraying a real life person resorts to sheer mimicry, layering all the tics and vocalizations we associate with the personality but not really delving deep into the character underneath those trappings and prosthetics. It’s like Rich Little in a “classy” setting, all surface and no substance. Bale does a miraculous job of imitating those mannerisms, but it’s still largely a one-dimensional performance (this is particularly blatant when he addresses the camera as Cheney near the end, because breaking the 4th wall is never Dick, it’s all Bale).
YMMV.February 20, 2019 at 12:05 pm #1202782791
If black panther was a white cast then it wouldn’t have got this far. It should be nominated for craftsmanship and being a good film rather than awareness. They tried this last year with get out and it failed.
And if CASABLANCA took place in 1890s North Dakota rather than war-time North Africa, it probably wouldn’t have won Best Picture either.February 20, 2019 at 9:41 am #1202782597
Well, I finally saw all the Live Action short nominees, and I have to say that it’s the weakest slate of films in a long time in this category.
Three of them have one thing in common: FEUVE, MOTHER, and DETAINMENT use Kids-in-Crisis as a starting-off point, but do absolutely nothing with it. FEUVE is essentially a Murphy’s Law visualization of a Terrible Day, MOTHER is a wanna-be-bravura exercise in ratcheting up meaningless tension, and DETAINMENT is a gauche exercise in exploitation via True Crime reenactment. Nowhere in any of them do we see them address a theme or explore characterization. Two of the films deal with close friends, but the nature of friendship and its facets or tensions aren’t really explored. There’s no insight into parental relationships with kids in any of them. There is some very good acting in the Irish and Spanish films, and some gorgeous camera work in the Canadian one, but ultimately the films are shocking and tragic but not about anything. They jolt your sensibilities, but they’re empty.
Which is why SKIN and its kids stands out because it *is* about something: cycles of violence and the way bigotry is taught by example. While this isn’t new, it’s still a *theme*, not just a premise or anecdote. Of course, it’s got its Karmameter cranked up to 11 and so resembles a Twilight Zone episode more than anything, but it’s still vivid, creative and memorable.
Ultimately, MARGEURITE seems in the best position to win because even though its pace is torturously glacial and its ending you can see 3 miles out, it isn’t a downer. It’s sweet and has a lovely little moment of deeply-felt empathy. Not the best of the 5 (I still think SKIN is, despite its flaws) but the one that distances itself from the others by tone and message.
So, the best in each short category:
PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE.
I think all 3 of them have a shot at winning, but I’d say the doc is the only one who might be considered a front-runner.
February 19, 2019 at 3:33 pm #1202781865
- This reply was modified 1 day, 21 hours ago by Filmatelist.
Yep, that’s her. I think the lengthy Oscar season, weeks longer than it is now, also contributed to her 2001 loss. People got bored with her as a frontrunner.
I suppose it didn’t help that the exact same scene (her smashing the dishes) that was so powerful in the film was played ad infinitum on every award show and interview leading up to the ceremony. It got so I’d brace myself for recycling that clip over and over and over again.February 19, 2019 at 12:48 pm #1202781729
Finally saw the Doc shorts and here’s my basic assessment.
END GAME and LIFEBOAT are perfectly respectable films, tackling sober (if highly familiar) subjects and allowing the strengths of the personalities involved to carry the viewer along to leave a powerful and poignant conclusion. The big problem is that the subjects are highly familiar and the subject of nominees in the past, as well as docs in general.
I was really bothered by the re-enactments in BLACK SHEEP–primarily because they created more distance between the audience and the narrator, instead of creating an immersive quality that brings them closer. He’s such a compelling speaker that I was severely disappointed that they felt they had to resort to actors and staged confrontations instead of coming up with a more creative solution.
NIGHT AT THE GARDEN is unusual in that most nominated doc shorts have much longer run times, but the archival footage (provided without commentary) is chilling and highly relevant to today’s political landscape.
But I think the best is the one I already knew from before. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE does what the best docs often do: explore a commonplace or marginal subject but through an original prism, and this film does it beautifully with insight and humor. It brings up issues of privilege and equality, progressive ideals and feminist rights and economic independence, and all while dealing with a topic that most western audiences probably take for granted without a second thought.
It’s also the film that provides the most uplift out of the 5, but is never glib or pandering. It’s a serious look at an important global subject, but feels fresh in every frame. I hope it wins.February 19, 2019 at 12:35 pm #1202781716
what those two movies also have in common is that the teams behind them wasn’t Oscar-less.
Legato & Jones, responsible for Jungle Book, won 3 Oscars already before winning for JB.
Ralston, responsible for Death Becomes Her, won 3 Oscars before winning for DBH.
in doubt, always go with previous Oscar winner?
so looking at the 3 major contenders this year (& 2 which are BAFTA-less), this is how their teams fared with Oscars to date:
A:IW – 0 Oscars
RPO – 1 Oscar
FM – 2 Oscars
CR – 2 Oscars (actually, while the movie is pretty bland, visual effects are exceptional)
S:ASWS – 1 Oscar
what do you think?
Correlation is not causality. Remember that none of the ballots name the individual nominees, just the films (and even if they did, do you honestly think most people would know who was or wasn’t a previous winner?).
I think the only film you can dismiss this year is CHRISTOPHER ROBIN because not only is it so unlike any other winner and a film that didn’t perform particularly well at the b.o., but unlike EX MACHINA or BABE (which it most closely resembles in tone and style), it doesn’t have any other nominations anywhere else either.
Some of the other titles have a better chance than others, but I don’t see any reason to dismiss any of them as off-the-table. They’ve all got a shot.February 17, 2019 at 8:47 pm #1202779917
I remember a lot were predicting the Planet of the Apes franchise every time it got nominated and it lost. I predicted Blade Runner correctly over it (last year I believe). Not saying I will be right this time, but I think when you talk about First Man, people always say “Oh yes- that Moon Landing! That was sensational.” And it was.
Or they may look at it the way they looked at APOLLO 13 (which used no archival footage but was completely convincing as photo-realistic vfx) and go for something that has a supernatural element that makes the effects more obvious as well as impressive. And APOLLO was only competing against ONE other movie.February 17, 2019 at 8:43 pm #1202779903
Wasn’t the loss of Eddie Murphy due to the release of Norbit?
No one film can sink a nominee’s chances. But what NORBIT may have done was remind voters that Murphy had been making almost nothing but NORBITs for a decade or more. Sure, he was a Hollywood veteran, but one who largely peaked in the earliest part of his movie career (NUTTY and BOWFINGER notwithstanding). And unlike Arkin (even a more established veteran with other nods in his past), Murphy had a reputation for being a prima donna and a jerk, albeit a talented one if he brought his A game (which, again, people had largely not seen for a while).February 14, 2019 at 10:05 am #1202776038
It used to be a requirement that you attend specific screenings to be eligible to vote in the 3 short categories. Now, I believe all members have access to all the nominees online, but I’m not sure if there’s still a verification process to prove you’ve seen them that way before you can vote.
February 13, 2019 at 5:15 pm #1202775184
- This reply was modified 6 days, 18 hours ago by Riley. Reason: Removed redundant block quote
I agree with your your critique on Pixar giving human attributes to everything. Good point!
Among their shorts: Lamps, umbrellas, unicycles, volcanos, Lost & Found items, religious icons, dumplings, even the day/night. Some are better than others but between those and the TOY STORY and CARS franchises, it’s incessant and (to these eyes) kinda lazy going back to that well over and over.February 13, 2019 at 10:35 am #1202774676
Just because a movie is consistently well liked across the board doesn”t mean it will triumph at the Oscars. I personally have always been skeptical of people constantly saying the preferential ballot is such a game changer when it comes to Best Picture: The Hurt Locker, The King”s Speech, The Artist, Argo, 12 Years A Slave, Birdman, Moonlight, and even The Shape Of Water would have won Best Picture in a winner take all system as there were strong narratives/passion behind all of those films that are the real reasons why they won Best Picture. Only Spotlight could have lost Best Picture under a winner take all system although even that is arguable.
As much as I love MOONLIGHT, I think it definitely could have lost to LA LA LAND in a winner-take-all contest depending on what the other 3 nominees would have been.February 12, 2019 at 11:42 am #1202773665
There’s already a thread: