Academy Award/Oscar Nominations 2020

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Gordon_4:
An argument you could probably silence in about three seconds by pointing to both 1917 and Ford vs. Ferrari. I mean, I get that there are things in life that blow chunks and I don't mind a movie being made about it, even a bad one. But having the fucking Joker as your mouthpiece of societal ills just seems....self-defeating.

Joker is the type of movie that appeals to the lowest common denominator. It's for uneducated masses who can't tell the difference between a true work of art and a pretentious mess that's trying to imitate the original work that inspired it. It's why I'm glad that Joker exists. You get to see all who all of those people are.

Silentpony:
No surprise about Joker. Not that its good in the least, just that the usual suspects would cry ...

Things like Joker are liked for nominations because the Oscars are really about Hollywood slapping it's own back (that's why most of the rest of the world's film output is generally shunted into the "Best Foreign Picture" category). As Hollywood business is basically about blockbusters but lots of Academy members feel a little bit awkward that modern blockbusters are usually as dumb as a box of rocks, when one turns up that they feel isn't they'll throw it a lot of attention.

Xprimentyl:

PsychedelicDiamond:
Anyway, my favourite is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It's very much a "Hollywood celebrating itself" movie which the Academy generally seems to like so I think it has a decent chance.

Last night, I watched Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and posted thoughts on it today in the ?Last Movie You Watched? thread. Do me a favor and read my post and tell me what I missed; I thought this film was awful. It had all the makings of and potential for a great film, but it failed across the board in my humble opinion, and while I couldn?t care less about Oscars, I?m am absolutely astounded it?s been nominated for as many as it has been. Best Actor/Supporting Actor, fine; DiCaprio and Pitt did a great job, but what they were asked to do and the context in which they were asked to do it was a bland, boring mess. Best Picture?? Get the hell out of here?

It was a very compelling and, for Tarantino, unusually sentimental portrayal of Hollywoods Golden Age. If you go into it expecting much of a plot you won't get anything out of it but as a series of at best loosely connected episodes about a small handful of characters living and working in that environment it's very enjoyable. And I guess there is a lot of subtext and commentary about that specific era in there. About the American film industry, its evolution and public perception.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Xprimentyl:

PsychedelicDiamond:
Anyway, my favourite is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It's very much a "Hollywood celebrating itself" movie which the Academy generally seems to like so I think it has a decent chance.

Last night, I watched Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and posted thoughts on it today in the ?Last Movie You Watched? thread. Do me a favor and read my post and tell me what I missed; I thought this film was awful. It had all the makings of and potential for a great film, but it failed across the board in my humble opinion, and while I couldn?t care less about Oscars, I?m am absolutely astounded it?s been nominated for as many as it has been. Best Actor/Supporting Actor, fine; DiCaprio and Pitt did a great job, but what they were asked to do and the context in which they were asked to do it was a bland, boring mess. Best Picture?? Get the hell out of here?

It was a very compelling and, for Tarantino, unusually sentimental portrayal of Hollywoods Golden Age. If you go into it expecting much of a plot you won't get anything out of it but as a series of at best loosely connected episodes about a small handful of characters living and working in that environment it's very enjoyable. And I guess there is a lot of subtext and commentary about that specific era in there. About the American film industry, its evolution and public perception.

I can't say it felt like anything other than watching Tarantino at the playground. Like, was there any point to Sharon Tate in the movie, other than 'That's Margot Robbie playing Sharon Tate'? She has no connection to DiCaprio's or Pitt's character, and spends the entire movie just kinda faffing about. People who know about Sharon Tate will have the proper reaction to the ending regardless, and people who don't know won't realize what the ending is supposed to express anyway.

I think the only scenes I liked were on the Mason ranch, DiCaprio's trailer freak-out, and the very last scene which is all happy and care free, but obviously very tragic because that's ofcourse not how it went. Other than that this movie felt like a big bunch of nothing.

Also, why did Margaret Qualley have such fake looking armpit hair? They couldn't just grow that out, or was it somekind of Henry Cavill moustash situation?

Casual Shinji:
I can't say it felt like anything other than watching Tarantino at the playground. Like, was there any point to Sharon Tate in the movie, other than 'That's Margot Robbie playing Sharon Tate'?

Never underestimate people's ability to not know stuff, including Tate's famous demise: she'll be in in some part to make sure people know who she is. But it's more than that: she's included to give us some empathy with her to add emotional heft to her onrushing fate; her lightness and joy to represent the happy face of the era (in contrast, perhaps, to the grim psychos of the Manson clan) or maybe DiCaprio's fading star.

...and the very last scene which is all happy and care free, but obviously very tragic because that's ofcourse not how it went.

Maybe. I think it was quite an achievement. Not knowing the movie ending, I got to the final reel thinking "Surely even Tarantino can't show us this" with a huge sense of foreboding... and then he blows it out of the water with cartoonish elan. It's... I don't know it's brilliant and in ways it's jarring, but it's just so striking and memorable.

Other than that this movie felt like a big bunch of nothing.

One might say that about a lot of Tarantino movies, or parts of Tarantino movies. I might wonder if it's to miss the point, perhaps - they're a lot about characters and characters interacting rather than plot happening.

Agema:

Casual Shinji:
I can't say it felt like anything other than watching Tarantino at the playground. Like, was there any point to Sharon Tate in the movie, other than 'That's Margot Robbie playing Sharon Tate'?

Never underestimate people's ability to not know stuff, including Tate's famous demise: she'll be in in some part to make sure people know who she is. But it's more than that: she's included to give us some empathy with her to add emotional heft to her onrushing fate; her lightness and joy to represent the happy face of the era (in contrast, perhaps, to the grim psychos of the Manson clan) or maybe DiCaprio's fading star.

Yeah, but that fate doesn't come to pass in the movie, so all of her scenes ultimately didn't matter. Sure, the initial viewing it might instill you with this sense of 'ah man, that poor girl', but once you've seen (or know) the ending it's just Sharon Tate hanging out.

...and the very last scene which is all happy and care free, but obviously very tragic because that's ofcourse not how it went.

Maybe. I think it was quite an achievement. Not knowing the movie ending, I got to the final reel thinking "Surely even Tarantino can't show us this" with a huge sense of foreboding... and then he blows it out of the water with cartoonish elan. It's... I don't know it's brilliant and in ways it's jarring, but it's just so striking and memorable.

Well, the act itself didn't do too much for me - It was just Tarantino being wacky and violent. It was the moment afterward where DiCaprio's character meets up with Sharon and her friends to tell them what happened where it kinda hits. Them just being happy and alive and continuing on with their lives, and for few seconds you fool yourself into thinking they got a happy ending.

Other than that this movie felt like a big bunch of nothing.

One might say that about a lot of Tarantino movies, or parts of Tarantino movies. I might wonder if it's to miss the point, perhaps - they're a lot about characters and characters interacting rather than plot happening.

It just didn't feel like there was much drive to the movie. From the first couple of scenes it already wasn't pulling me along. I never really bought into Pitt's or DiCaprio's character either. The constant driving and listening to the radio didn't help.

Casual Shinji:
Yeah, but that fate doesn't come to pass in the movie, so all of her scenes ultimately didn't matter. Sure, the initial viewing it might instill you with this sense of 'ah man, that poor girl', but once you've seen (or know) the ending it's just Sharon Tate hanging out.

Well, to be fair, pretty much all movies are less exciting when you already know the end.

Most humans feel more strongly about people (including fictional characters) they have been encouraged to care about by seeing something of their lives and character. By showing us Sharon Tate throughout the movie, Tarantino is constantly foreshadowing what happened to her for tension, and encouraging the audience to care about her as a person. If he didn't, it would be considerably weaker in emotional impact.

Well, the act itself didn't do too much for me - It was just Tarantino being wacky and violent. It was the moment afterward where DiCaprio's character meets up with Sharon and her friends to tell them what happened where it kinda hits. Them just being happy and alive and continuing on with their lives, and for few seconds you fool yourself into thinking they got a happy ending.

They did get a happy ending. Just not the same ending as happened to those real people some characters were based on.

It just didn't feel like there was much drive to the movie. From the first couple of scenes it already wasn't pulling me along. I never really bought into Pitt's or DiCaprio's character either. The constant driving and listening to the radio didn't help.

Fair enough - I was happy enough with it, but it's all subjective.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Xprimentyl:

PsychedelicDiamond:
Anyway, my favourite is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It's very much a "Hollywood celebrating itself" movie which the Academy generally seems to like so I think it has a decent chance.

Last night, I watched Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and posted thoughts on it today in the ?Last Movie You Watched? thread. Do me a favor and read my post and tell me what I missed; I thought this film was awful. It had all the makings of and potential for a great film, but it failed across the board in my humble opinion, and while I couldn?t care less about Oscars, I?m am absolutely astounded it?s been nominated for as many as it has been. Best Actor/Supporting Actor, fine; DiCaprio and Pitt did a great job, but what they were asked to do and the context in which they were asked to do it was a bland, boring mess. Best Picture?? Get the hell out of here?

It was a very compelling and, for Tarantino, unusually sentimental portrayal of Hollywoods Golden Age. If you go into it expecting much of a plot you won't get anything out of it but as a series of at best loosely connected episodes about a small handful of characters living and working in that environment it's very enjoyable. And I guess there is a lot of subtext and commentary about that specific era in there. About the American film industry, its evolution and public perception.

See, I didn't get ANY of that. I'm ambivalent to Hollywood's Golden Age (to ALL of Hollywood's ages, honestly,) and this movie did nothing to change that; there was nothing there to do so.

Agema:

Casual Shinji:
Yeah, but that fate doesn't come to pass in the movie, so all of her scenes ultimately didn't matter. Sure, the initial viewing it might instill you with this sense of 'ah man, that poor girl', but once you've seen (or know) the ending it's just Sharon Tate hanging out.

Well, to be fair, pretty much all movies are less exciting when you already know the end.

Most humans feel more strongly about people (including fictional characters) they have been encouraged to care about by seeing something of their lives and character. By showing us Sharon Tate throughout the movie, Tarantino is constantly foreshadowing what happened to her for tension, and encouraging the audience to care about her as a person. If he didn't, it would be considerably weaker in emotional impact.

Ha! Well, in my opinion, Tarantino failed there. The only thing I felt for Robbie's Tate was that she was an ultimately pointless distraction from a much more interesting story that wasn't developing elsewhere.

This movie just wasn't for me, I guess. It was like watching a pot of simmering water that got dumped into the sink after 3 hours. An utter waste of a LOT of talent (how much did he pay Pacino for his 4 minutes of screen time?)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is definitely a love it or hate it movie. I loved it myself. Hope it gets Best Picture.

Johnny Novgorod:
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is definitely a love it or hate it movie. I loved it myself. Hope it gets Best Picture.

Well, put me in the hate camp then. I only feel that strongly because of the amount of talent on both sides of the camera that was piddled away on what is tantamount to a 3-hour trailer for a potentially interesting movie that simply wasn't made. That's a good way to put, I think, it was a good trailer: it showed just enough to establish characters and hint at a broader narrative which is exactly and unfortunately what the whole movie ended up being.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here