The CineMarter Awards - Best of 2015

The CineMarter Awards - Best of 2015

Like the Oscars - but with more diversity and less category fraud - today's CineMarter Awards celebrate the best of cinema from 2015.

Read Full Article

Why did you put spoilers tags on pages where you reveal who you picked for that category? Was there anyone going to that page who just wanted you to get your take on the category without knowing who you picked? Since people are reading this thread, I am going to assume that they have clicked on the spoiler tags in the article.

Best Picture: It was cool that you recognized Inside Out as one of the Best Pictures of the year. It was my pick as my favorite of the year. It was definitely was an Oscar snub that it wasn't nominated in that category. I like your pick Spotlight. However, I was not enthused about the movie as the critics are. Everything was well-done. It just seemed passionless. The story was told in a very journalistic way. Also, there was no drama about the ending. You knew that the article was going to be published and it will have positive repercussions as a result.

Best Director: I have seen 4 of the 5 movies that you nominated. I still haven't seen Rocky: The Force Awakens aka Creed. I have no problem with George Miller winning. It was definitely a spectacle. Even though, I really don't like the Mad Max series. It seems to be nothing but spectacle. My off the board pick is The Wachowskis for Jupiter Ascending.

Best Actor: You should have "Say his name". Bryan Cranston gave a great, memorable performance of a great, memorable person Dalton Trumbo. I just came back from watching The Revenant (which I believe is a French word for "bear rape"). Leonardo DiCaprio's performance and the movie was what I thought it was going to be. It was just him crawling on the ground and grunting through most of the movie. I guess the enthusiasm for his performance come from the same place when a beautiful/handsome actor looks ugly and plays a disabled person. The Revenant should win some technical awards. As for best picture or best actor, those awards should to go to more deserving movies and actors.

Best Actress: This is the only category where I haven't seen any of the movies. So, I'll take your word for it. My pick: Melissa McCarthy for Spy. Comedy constantly get overlooked during awards season. Why? It's harder to make someone laugh than it does to make them cry or depressed.

Best Supporting Actor: We are in complete agreement here. Mark Rylance was the heart and soul of Bridge of Spies. I hope he wins the Oscar.

Best Supporting Actress: If Alicia Vikander was nominated for Ex Machina for the Oscar I would root for her. Since she wasn't, I'll root for Kate Winslet chameleon performance in Steve Jobs.

Best Animated Film: I haven't seen Anomalisa yet. Until then, Inside Out is also my pick for this category.

Best Screenplay: I am more enthusiastic about your other picks more than your winner Spotlight. Since all the other movies had great writing, I'll give a slight edge to The Big Short for the difficult task of explaining financial matters in a funny, insightful way.

Best Breakout Star: I'll go further and declare the whole cast of Ex Machina as the winners. Even though, Oscar Isaac have been a rising star the past couple years starting with Inside Llewyn Davis.

Wait in Best Animated Film, The Good Dinosaur is above Inside Out despite it was disappointing?

Edit:
Considering the response that my response has garnered, I'm just going to go ahead and say it:

Screw Kurt Cobain and screw Amy Winehouse.

Thank you for your attention. Peace, I'm out!

Scarim Coral:
Wait in Best Animated Film, The Good Dinosaur is above Inside Out despite it was disappointing?

The nominations are listed in alphabetical order

I haven't seen all of the movies yet, but I will say that it's great to see all of the sci-fi/action movies getting recognition. I really need to watch The Revenant. If it can beat out Fury Road on cinematography then it must be something special indeed.

Having just seen The Martian, I have seen all of your nominees for best picture and I'd probably agree with them all being there. I liked Spotlight a lot, but I'd personally pick Mad Max or Ex Machina over it.

>no Straight Outta Compton

Welp, time to cry in the corner again

OT: No Brie Larson as break star? I know she's been around for a couple years, but between Room and Trainwreck this was her break out year.

RJ 17:
Anyone care to explain to me why we're supposed to glorify a couple of addicts (Cobain and Winehouse) who ultimately went on to kill themselves?

Because that's what the documentaries did? What part of those documentaries gave you that impression? I'm assuming you've watched them to come to that conclusion, of course.

PsychicTaco115:
>no Straight Outta Compton

Welp, time to cry in the corner again

Better to just call Marter an obvious racist and boycott his reviews from now on until he begins adding more diversity in his nominee selections. :P

LetalisK:
Because that's what the documentaries did? What part of those documentaries gave you that impression? I'm assuming you've watched them to come to that conclusion, of course.

Never said that it was the documentaries that gave me this impression, but rather society's response to these two public figures. Cobain wrote a bunch of music, did a bunch of heroine, and blew his face off with a shotgun. Winehouse was a trainwreck who wrote a bunch of music and ended up OD'ing.

What I'm getting at is why do these two deserve documentaries in the first place?

RJ 17:

PsychicTaco115:
>no Straight Outta Compton

Welp, time to cry in the corner again

Better to just call Marter an obvious racist and boycott his reviews from now on until he begins adding more diversity in his nominee selections. :P

LetalisK:
Because that's what the documentaries did? What part of those documentaries gave you that impression? I'm assuming you've watched them to come to that conclusion, of course.

Never said that it was the documentaries that gave me this impression, but rather society's response to these two public figures. Cobain wrote a bunch of music, did a bunch of heroine, and blew his face off with a shotgun. Winehouse was a trainwreck who wrote a bunch of music and ended up OD'ing.

What I'm getting at is why do these two deserve documentaries in the first place?

Because someone thought their story was interesting in some way and wanted to share it with others. I don't know why you said "deserve" either. It's not like they or anyone else are entitled to it.

LetalisK:
I don't know why you said "deserve" either. It's not like they or anyone else are entitled to it.

Considering the general reaction and following these two received, it certainly seems like enough people felt they were entitled to it.

RJ 17:

PsychicTaco115:
>no Straight Outta Compton

Welp, time to cry in the corner again

Better to just call Marter an obvious racist and boycott his reviews from now on until he begins adding more diversity in his nominee selections. :P

LetalisK:
Because that's what the documentaries did? What part of those documentaries gave you that impression? I'm assuming you've watched them to come to that conclusion, of course.

Never said that it was the documentaries that gave me this impression, but rather society's response to these two public figures. Cobain wrote a bunch of music, did a bunch of heroine, and blew his face off with a shotgun. Winehouse was a trainwreck who wrote a bunch of music and ended up OD'ing.

What I'm getting at is why do these two deserve documentaries in the first place?

They were interesting people who led impactful, creative lives. I mean, why NOT them for a documentary? I've watched documentaries about how corn is grown and distributed, a guy who makes a lot of sushi, and one about people being sexually attracted to balloons. It's not like you have to be Mandela or King Jr. or Spartacus to be worthy of a documentary.

RJ 17:

LetalisK:
I don't know why you said "deserve" either. It's not like they or anyone else are entitled to it.

Considering the general reaction and following these two received, it certainly seems like enough people felt they were entitled to it.

Or that's your perception of other people enjoying something you don't like.

LetalisK:

RJ 17:

LetalisK:
I don't know why you said "deserve" either. It's not like they or anyone else are entitled to it.

Considering the general reaction and following these two received, it certainly seems like enough people felt they were entitled to it.

Or that's your perception of other people enjoying something you don't like.

Which is precisely why I asked someone to explain to me why these two addicts are so often glorified.

At least Gorrath provided me with one possible explanation:

Gorrath:
They were interesting people who led impactful, creative lives. I mean, why NOT them for a documentary? I've watched documentaries about how corn is grown and distributed, a guy who makes a lot of sushi, and one about people being sexually attracted to balloons. It's not like you have to be Mandela or King Jr. or Spartacus to be worthy of a documentary.

While this is true, I still don't see why people so often praise these two. As I mentioned to Letalisk, this is the real crux of my issue. Granted: I'm not a fan of either of their music, but that's why I'm asking for explanations as to why they're considered so impactful.

I really liked Sicario. Not the most adventurous film, but perfectly done for what it was. I think I must be the only one who doesn't love Inside Out.

RJ 17:

LetalisK:

RJ 17:
Considering the general reaction and following these two received, it certainly seems like enough people felt they were entitled to it.

Or that's your perception of other people enjoying something you don't like.

Which is precisely why I asked someone to explain to me why these two addicts are so often glorified.

At least Gorrath provided me with one possible explanation:

Gorrath:
They were interesting people who led impactful, creative lives. I mean, why NOT them for a documentary? I've watched documentaries about how corn is grown and distributed, a guy who makes a lot of sushi, and one about people being sexually attracted to balloons. It's not like you have to be Mandela or King Jr. or Spartacus to be worthy of a documentary.

While this is true, I still don't see why people so often praise these two. As I mentioned to Letalisk, this is the real crux of my issue. Granted: I'm not a fan of either of their music, but that's why I'm asking for explanations as to why they're considered so impactful.

Do you have a problem with their choice of dealing with their troubled minds? Do you not understand what often leads to such addictions? Can you also not see that there is no "glorification" of their lifestyle but more an exploration as to how certain creative minds are unable to effectively cope with their problems? At least these people created something for the public to enjoy. It is unfortunate that sometimes the heartfelt work has to come from certain minds. Perhaps you do not understand that others want to understand more of what makes these people who they are. Such ignorance only cause further damage and breeds more ignorance. Empathy is a useful tool and a great communicator.

RJ 17:

At least Gorrath provided me with one possible explanation:

Gorrath:
They were interesting people who led impactful, creative lives. I mean, why NOT them for a documentary? I've watched documentaries about how corn is grown and distributed, a guy who makes a lot of sushi, and one about people being sexually attracted to balloons. It's not like you have to be Mandela or King Jr. or Spartacus to be worthy of a documentary.

While this is true, I still don't see why people so often praise these two. As I mentioned to Letalisk, this is the real crux of my issue. Granted: I'm not a fan of either of their music, but that's why I'm asking for explanations as to why they're considered so impactful.

Well, for Winehouse her music was quite popular. I'm not a music expert or anything so I don't know that I can answer your question with any real academic rigor, but Winehouse at least had the "popular, tragic artist" thing going for her. I like her music myself and have been interested in some of the details as to why she was an addict and how she expressed her troubles with addiction in her music. I wouldn't mind sitting through a good documentary about that stuff myself.

For Cobain, I mean, the guy had a HUGE hand in shaping popular music in the early nineties. While Nirvana wasn't the only mainstream grunge band they are, I think, easily the biggest and best well known. He's not Elvis or the Beatles but I can easily see why he'd get a documentary considering how massively influential and popular Nirvana's style of grunge was.

That's about the best I can give you I'm afraid but for me that seems like it'd be enough. You don't care for their music so I get that you don't see them as particularly special but Cobain's influence was pretty unarguably HUGE. He's considered impactful because of the way Nirvana influenced what some consider the vapidity and excess of the late 80's early 90's music scene. Again, not your cup of tea and honestly not really mine either. I find Nirvana's music to be very "meh" but I can certainly see why Cobain was so influential and why people would be interested in his life, the history of the band and how their influence spread.

Anywho, hope that explains things a bit better. I mean hell, they make documentaries about bands that don't actually exist! (Or didn't, in the case of Spinal Tap.)

Must not have been many animated movies out this year of the good dinosaur managed to have a chance at best animated.

Worgen:
Must not have been many animated movies out this year of the good dinosaur managed to have a chance at best animated.

I was thinking the same thing. Good Dinosaur was paltry compared to Inside Out. They shouldn't even be whispered in the same breath. Of course Inside Out was also, in my estimation, one of the best animated films ever made so...

Worgen:
Must not have been many animated movies out this year of the good dinosaur managed to have a chance at best animated.

Apparently, it's better than The Peanuts Movie... :P Then again, in terms of criticisms, The Peanuts Movie is in the same league as The Force Awakens: Safe, but not Out...

OT: Huh... This made me realized that I am pumped for the Independent Spirit Awards this year!

Other than that, hooray of Ex Machina!

RJ 17:

LetalisK:

RJ 17:
Considering the general reaction and following these two received, it certainly seems like enough people felt they were entitled to it.

Or that's your perception of other people enjoying something you don't like.

Which is precisely why I asked someone to explain to me why these two addicts are so often glorified.

Oh. I thought you were just being snarky.

As for why, it's simply because some people really enjoyed their music and this they are impactful for those people. I don't particularly enjoy either one, so they didn't have an impact on me, but I understand why they might have had an impact on other people. Or they might not even like the music and just think the story is interesting.

 

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