|
Post by svsg on Apr 9, 2009 21:23:42 GMT
Doubt
John Patrick Shanley
English 2008
Somewhat disappointing, considering that this generated some oscar buzz. I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman's acting and also to some extent Meryl Streep's. There is probably something of interest if you look at the plot as a religious/moral dilemma. But as a psychological study of the characters in an institutional setup, it has little to offer of any interest. There are some other aspects explored on the surface, like race and gender issues, but nothing really significant.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Apr 9, 2009 23:00:21 GMT
I enjoyed it, although I thought the traditionalism (borderline evil bitch) vs. new (progressive and enlightened) was a bit over the top. The analogy to faith was well done though. And Amy Adams and Hoffman were terrific, especially Adams.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Apr 11, 2009 8:19:26 GMT
I actually think "Oscar buzz" is a way of avoiding movies these days. That's a cliché that others have been saying for ages, but it's one I feel increasingly true.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Apr 11, 2009 14:06:53 GMT
I actually think "Oscar buzz" is a way of avoiding movies these days. That's a cliché that others have been saying for ages, but it's one I feel increasingly true. Unfortunately I think this might be true too, but like any rule, there are rather large exceptions that bend, if not break it and beat the rap. I mean ten years from now, in 2019 when we all here get older and our nuts get more wrinkled than they already are, which supposed highly "Oscar" nominated movies of 2008 would we gladly recommend to younger/newcomer buffs? You know, the good shit? Certainly I wouldn't with any of the Best Picture nominees. I would suggest instead Darren A's THE WRESTLER (a perfect little film) and yes, goddamn THE DARK KNIGHT, which I know some of you are fucking tired of me and others praising as much as we do, but too fucking bad. ;D In contrast Capo, what about two certain 2007 front-runners, with one winning Picture & Director, in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD? Those two are special, and we keep talking about them. Would you tell a rookie not to check them out? So yes, I know 2008 kicked some of your asses, but using absolutism never solves anything because, as I'm pained to say this, but the AMPAS sometimes gets shit right. DDL getting the Oscar? Fuck yes. NCFOM getting the big prize? Doesn't bother me, nor if TWBB had prevailed. On the other hand for 2008, Rourke should have won instead of Penn, though I thought Ledger deserved his (at least among those that got nominated in that category.) The problem is that the AMPAS is getting a further reputation for being elitist, which in itself isn't a bad thing for sometimes arthouse/critics pictures deserve the win more than the popcorn (like some would argue ANNIE HALL instead of STAR WARS) but usually they do it for shit that just isn't worth it and wont be remembered in 5 years, much less a decade. You know the dreaded Oscar Bait.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Apr 11, 2009 20:45:02 GMT
There is no too much praising of THE DARK KNIGHT.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Apr 12, 2009 11:08:57 GMT
I don't think highly of There Will Be Blood. I'd have to see No Country For Old Men again.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Apr 22, 2009 18:56:22 GMT
I actually think "Oscar buzz" is a way of avoiding movies these days. That's a cliché that others have been saying for ages, but it's one I feel increasingly true. how many films a year do you see? surely you can make time eventually for the 5-10 films that the suits at the academy think are best... i mean, 2008 was a bad year in the opinion of most...between Slumdog, Milk, Reader, Frost/Nixon, Button, Dark Knight, Wall E, Wrestler, & Doubt I only saw one movie that I thought was generally bad, and thought the recent were average to decent.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 1, 2009 16:11:40 GMT
Of those you note, I'd say Slumdog, Milk, The Reader, The Dark Knight are one of the following: dull, miserable, wretched, silly and self-important.
Frost/Nixon, Button, WALL-E, The Wrestler: tame, lame, goodnotgreat.
I only saw 188 films last year.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on May 2, 2009 6:45:18 GMT
Capo, when you say 'self-important', do you mean something like overly ambitious/epic, or do you mean that the subject is not very important itself? Or both or neither?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 2, 2009 13:22:06 GMT
I'm not sure what is important and what is not important. I think if somebody knows their stuff in a certain field, or has something to say, they have every right to say it. What annoys me is pretentiousness, the process by which somebody parades themselves as knowing something and having something to say when in fact they have very, very little.
Taking itself too seriously, when it has no reason to, or giving the impression of importance ("being serious") when fundamentally its flaws prevent it from being so.
The result is often ostensibly important "issue" films, like Haggis's Crash. Here, though: The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionaire are very self-important.
Milk is bland; its character arc as presented in the film just isn't interesting enough. (Dan White's is far more interesting, but the title alone betrays Van Sant's intentions.) The Reader is miserable and silly. Self-important, perhaps, too, because of the "ooh-ah" controversy of humanising a Nazi.
As for Frost/Nixon, it's very, very tame. I see no real reason why it was made; no recreation of actual archival footage is ever as powerful as the original, and so the interest in the film lies in the behind the scenes expository stuff, whose interest rests on the performances. These are engaging enough (Langella's very charming, Sheen is typecast as wishy-washy impersonator), I suppose, but beyond that...?
I found Benjamin Button quite lame in retrospect. It could have been so much better. Fincher's a talented stylist, but unless his script has substance (and Button's sap zaps most of the potential great stuff), he'll struggle to make a genuine masterpiece like Zodiac again.
WALL-E and The Wrestler are both goodnotgreat. I'd love to see the former again, because I need to revise my opinion somewhat, but with The Wrestler Aronofsky goes down routes I'd prefer he didn't; the easier routes, the ones requiring less detail and focus.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on May 2, 2009 16:24:13 GMT
Alright, thanks for expanding on that. I liked your Milk review, too, in the other thread. I agree Brolin had an interesting character. I was thinking though that the film was very political - that was it's focus, minority rights and democracy and accomplishing something hard in that system and facing (sometimes, and in there specifically) unjust consequences.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 2, 2009 17:22:24 GMT
I'm not sure what is important and what is not important. I think if somebody knows their stuff in a certain field, or has something to say, they have every right to say it. What annoys me is pretentiousness, the process by which somebody parades themselves as knowing something and having something to say when in fact they have very, very little. Can't that also describe FCM in general, including me? Milk is bland; its character arc as presented in the film just isn't interesting enough. (Dan White's is far more interesting, but the title alone betrays Van Sant's intentions.) The Reader is miserable and silly. Self-important, perhaps, too, because of the "ooh-ah" controversy of humanising a Nazi. To be fair, MILK wasn't about character really as much as Van Saint making a lesson movie to his fellow American Gays of how to get politically organized and get shit done. I mean remember both parts of CHE? Not about "character" per say, but both are thematic ponderments of armed revolution in general, why one works and one fails. It's the idea, not the action, that's the point here. Oh and I didn't like READER either. I found Benjamin Button quite lame in retrospect. It could have been so much better. Fincher's a talented stylist, but unless his script has substance (and Button's sap zaps most of the potential great stuff), he'll struggle to make a genuine masterpiece like Zodiac again. I read somewhere that to get ZODIAC produced, Fincher agreed to do BUTTON in exchange. Notice that both movies were distributed in America by Paramount, overseas by Warner Bros. Or also, maybe Fincher wanted to go to those dinners for once, get some awards and attention and shit with BUTTON, instead of being his usual bad boy rebel auteur that kicked ass, didn't give a fuck whatever most audiences were with him or not, and making a memorable thematic flashpoint like he did with SEVEN, FIGHT CLUB, and ZODIAC. But I do agree Capo, that BUTTON is well-made, well-acted, well-shot, well-cut, well-digital, but.... so what?[/i] WALL-E and The Wrestler are both goodnotgreat. I'd love to see the former again, because I need to revise my opinion somewhat, but with The Wrestler Aronofsky goes down routes I'd prefer he didn't; the easier routes, the ones requiring less detail and focus. THE WRESTLER, I have a hunch that after Cannes and most folks (except FCM of course) shat on his baby project THE FOUNTAIN, Darren A. got pissed and wanted to shoot a small but heavy drama no-bullshit picture in script and filmatics.
|
|