Forum Replies Created
May 13, 2021 at 2:59 am #1204253281
Do male actors ever get “the camera adores him” treatment?May 13, 2021 at 2:56 am #1204253277
We don’t need any type of critics’ awards shows period. Industry only. Studios just use the extra ceremonies to get their stream trains going and show off potential winners’ speeches.May 11, 2021 at 11:44 pm #1204251882
For the first time, I couldn’t make it though an episode. The cold open was funy and sweet, and the monologue was okay. But 1-2 sketches in, I was done for. I watched Weekend Update and the sketch about conversations after covid on Youtube. The rest was too awkward for words. Miley though, she has chops!May 11, 2021 at 3:20 am #1204250467
I’ve recently started something I never thought I’d do. I’ve started watching Marvel comic movies (caveat have watched 2.5). This may or may not have something to do with the recent Twitter trending of Tom Holland’s Lip Sync Battle performance 4 years ago, which I had never even heard of and only vaguely knew his name. Well after watching that, something shifted inside me and well, here we are. Bravo marketing people.May 5, 2021 at 5:48 am #1204243291
I just can’t with Lily Collins.May 5, 2021 at 5:37 am #1204243284
I just watched Elle. Hupert was incredible but I’m super not into the plot which perpetuates some male myth that women are turned on when being raped. Aah French cinema. Giving no fucks since forever, and “if you’ve got a problem with what’s depicted, that’s a reflection of your limitations you basic bitch.” Also the video game arc felt weird.May 5, 2021 at 5:02 am #1204243256
Adam Driver is a boring actor who tries too hard to be interesting.May 4, 2021 at 12:18 am #1204241776
I enjoyed Brit Twitter after the show more than the show itself. God you lot are funny.
Such a disappointment.May 3, 2021 at 12:51 pm #1204241057
Me after the credits started rollingApril 30, 2021 at 1:13 pm #1204236625
Hate. Peak superficial Hollywood nothing.
Also it’s spelled loathe.April 30, 2021 at 10:45 am #1204236371
Tom Hanks really shouldn’t have won for Philadelphia. It’s a pretty mediocore and surface-level film that doesn’t explore the issue half as well as subsequent movies have. Hanks, himself, is playing a different character to usual, but I don’t find any of his acting all that spectacular.
This shows how the passage of time, totally changing the context, alters the critical & social reception of the arts (not to mention broader social norms and behaviours).
When Philadelphia came out in 93-94, we hadn’t seen anything like it. It was really gut wrenching, massively controversial and tackled a topic and a relationship never seen on screen before for a mass audience. I was 14 years old and more aware of HIV/AIDS than the average kid my age, but my parents wouldn’t let me see it until much later, even though I was mature, and we’d watched Big and Splash on repeat in my house growing up. There was something about this role which was being rewarded and Hanks was also being rewarded for – yes – the bravery in playing a gay man in a mainstream movie. To say it was pivotal in changing people’s perceptions of gay male relationships, and the impact of AIDS, is an understatement. It helped make it personal, with a character we had grown to connect with through the course of the film. Forgive me if I’m preaching, but coming so soon after Freddie Mercury’s death, which I think shocked a lot of people, plus the growing awareness of the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, people were ready at that moment to begin waking up and throwing off their homophobia.
Say what you will now, with the benefit of “subsequent movies”. We didn’t know subsequent movies at the time.
A similar comment was made recently on here about Kramer vs Kramer. While it is legitimate to criticise how movies don’t hold up over time (e.g. American Beauty), sometimes hindsight is harmful when looking back on groundbreaking material.April 30, 2021 at 10:29 am #1204236333
Considering that the plot of the film will follow “a crisis that could jeopardize their careers and another that could end their marriage,” I would not be surprised with Sorkin if he depicts when Lucille Ball was put on trial in 1953 and accused of being a communist.
Adding to this, by all accounts she was a very serious woman completely unlike her onscreen persona.April 30, 2021 at 10:25 am #1204236324
Absolutely, especially for those in Europe/Africa/Middle East/Asia (i.e. most of the world) who would prefer to watch it on demand the following day, or even a highlights package on demand for the casual viewers. Even I wasn’t going to watch at 3am (my time zone) when I had work at 7.30am.April 30, 2021 at 6:25 am #1204235941
I am from Australia where there is virtually no cable culture, apart from Rupert Murdoch’s Foxtel. I don’t know anyone who has Foxtel. Yet everyone I know pays for at least Netflix, if not others.
For this Oscars, as with many others, I am outside Australia, in a country with no broadcast, have no access to an American credit card to pay for the Youtube and other similar options (must be registered to US zip code), yet I am fully willing to pay to watch the show. I’d even watch the goddam ads if I had to. Well, they lost my dollar because I finally found that with my VPN (again, something I am willing to pay for), that I could watch the Oscars ad free on CTV. Thanks Canada! (Don’t ask me about the Australian free-to-air Channel 7 which has a useless streaming site.)
If they can’t even find a way to make the show accessible for genuinely interested people – and count the global and online viewership rather than just ABC live broadcast viewers, then that’s on them. I’ll keep accessing their content for free because they are such dinosaurs that they can’t find a way to take my money. They are just a bunch of Jack Donaghys who haven’t figured out global audiences, young audiences or new media, and are simply interested in doing business with their cable company mates, and advertisers. They are the ones harming their own brand, it’s no one else’s fault.