<strong>I used to think that way and then I saw Frances McDormand win for Fargo. I think it was over that Titanic bitch too who thought she had it locked up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Titanic" was the year after "Fargo." McDormand won over Kristin Scott Thomas of "The English Patient" and Emily Watson of "Breaking the Waves."
A Beautiful Mind's only weakness was Ron Howard doing what he typically does...dragging scenes for minutes longer than they should be. That is not enough for it to be snuffed by Lord of the Rings.
[quote] pfflam: Your right about Moulin Rouge not having a plot, but that was the point. It was a comedy about how bad love stories/musicals are. Hell, look at how friggin CORNEY almost EVERY song was (except Roxanne, which was a terrific scene). <hr></blockquote>
Didn't I say that I was aware of its pretended irony. I don't think you understand, I GET IT.... there just isn't anything to get. . . its 'camp' quality is in fact not campy, its irony not ironic, its 'knowing' badness is just plain bad!!!!
I have seen many many many films (and made them too) of all sorts from extremely experimantal ex; Paul Scharitz, to Monty Python... I know what I'm saying (IMO): . . this movie was not as sophisticated in its comedy as it at first promised to be, and/or thought itself to be. Very few scholars of camp will covet this film as a completely smart triumph when they write their Lacanian critiques of contemporary musicals for tenure.
As for LOTR, I loved the film!!, but its editing was a hack job. It feels like they tried to sqeeze a large book into three hours.... which is just what they did. And, ontop of that, the camera never rested: Jackson used too many Television and MTV camera movement cliches: it had the positive effect of moving the action fast so that you felt that they were really in a hurry,
but
it had the negative effect of moving the action fast so that you never got a sense of distance traversed, or fatigue or weariness, and you also never got a breath or a place to just soak in the visual splendor. . . . even the fine scenes of Orthanc, or of Rivendell, were but splices: its almost as if he were afraid that if you looked too long you would see the Computer graphics or the Matte painting
Consequently, the further I got from seeing the movie the more difficult it became to remember it as a live action film: I kept visualizing it as an animation:
Moulin Rogue wanted to be taken seriously. It wasn't a campy flick at all, it was a joke.
Army of Darkness, that's camp.
Moulin Rouge, that's crap.
I appreciate what they were trying to do but it was an unmitigated failure because at the end of the day they wanted to do a regular movie. In short, they didn't have the balls to do it right.
When you make a half-assed attempt at camp you end up with crap.
(Of course, once I heard the chords to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" I felt dirty.)
<strong>As for LOTR, I loved the film!!, but its editing was a hack job. It feels like they tried to sqeeze a large book into three hours.... which is just what they did. And, ontop of that, the camera never rested: Jackson used too many Television and MTV camera movement cliches: it had the positive effect of moving the action fast so that you felt that they were really in a hurry, but it had the negative effect of moving the action fast so that you never got a sense of distance traversed, or fatigue or weariness, and you also never got a breath or a place to just soak in the visual splendor. . . . even the fine scenes of Orthanc, or of Rivendell, were but splices: its almost as if he were afraid that if you looked too long you would see the Computer graphics or the Matte painting
Consequently, the further I got from seeing the movie the more difficult it became to remember it as a live action film: I kept visualizing it as an animation:
No no no! Please don't compare Mr. Jackson's work with MTV! His style comes from decades of horror movie cliches, not MTV and television cliches.
The camera movement, extreme close-ups, pushes - it's all straight out the horror film shot manual (And for those who don't know, Mr. Jackson is something of a god-like figure in the world of low-budget horror).
I thought the editing was good for the reason you disliked it - the speed, and the fact you didn't get to see the effects properly. Harry Potter made this mistake - if the effects are on screen too long, they look awful (Particularly the much-lauded but actually terrible Quidditch scene).
I was worried the movie would be too like the book, i.e. dull as dirty dishwater, so it was a pleasant surprise to find such a fast pace to the editing. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen.
Tom Wilkinson deserves the Best Actor nod, a close race between him and Crowe, but he was fantastic. I think Sissy Spacek is also the most deserving of Best Actress (I haven't seen Iris yet so I don't know about Judi Dench's performance, although she always rules).
(I hope Moulin Rouge gets snubbed entirely, but I think they will/should throw it Best Art Direction or something like that.)
Bah, Im not going to try to defend Moulin Rouge any more. I found it funny, I thought that the camera work was superb (what really made it for me), but I agree, it had no substance. However that being the point, and making up for it in wit and style, it still made it.
Kinda like Ghost int he Shell in that respect.
Jackson used too many Television and MTV camera movement cliches: it had the positive effect of moving the action fast so that you felt that they were really in a hurry,
Really? I watched it and thought "Man, this looks like a bad doccumentary film". However not once did I think that the splicing was bad. Mind you I went in expecting the splicing to be HORRID, so perhaps that had an effect.
Personally, I dont think that you could have done much better with the material given. Maybe if you got Arnofski or some one in there but...
The best thing about in the bedroom was the lack of nondiegetic music . . .very rare in movies . . . LOTRs could have used a page from that book . . . it had entirely too much music throughout. . .
. but yes as I said I loved it, the pace left you breathless and at the end I literally exhaled and relaxed after three hourse of sitting rapt
also I had to pee so bad I couldn't stand straight.
Oscars, Grammys, MTV awards, these awards, those awards, yet more ****ing award shows: the whole damned lot of these these self-congratulatory corporate entertainment wankfests are broadcast with monotonous regularity and watching them is as fun as having teeth pulled. As if the arbitrary decisions of some equally arbitrary panel has any meaning or significance: who/whatever wins is always a reflection of how many units that particular item shifted, which is far more a function of advertising, promotion and corporate politics rather than art, craft, invention, performance, skill and merit. Award shows ...big yawn at best.
<strong>Is it only me who does not care about anything that goes on at the Oscars?
Why should we care?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No reason at all, really. At the end of the day, a movie's box-office popularity is more important than the awards it gets. The Oscars are highly overrated awards given by a group of people whose opinions aren't any more valid than others. Why people care, I still don't know.
That said, I liked a bunch of these movies -- Moulin Rouge, LOTR, A Beautiful Mind ... Black Hawk Down was ok. Accurate, but beyond a point pretty boring and pointless. I haven't seen Iris, In the Bedroom, Amélie, Gosford Park, Ali, Monster's Ball, or even Training Day (how this got into the running I have no idea, coming from the previews I saw..."AH AM THE POLICE! KING KONG AIN'T GOT NOTHING ON ME!" Eh?), so I might have liked a bunch of those as well had I taken the time to see them.
But frankly, I don't care who/what the awards go to, because I know what I liked. The Oscars have often been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/22/aa.oscar.trends/index.html"; target="_blank">unrelated to quality of performance</a> and have often not given awards to those who deserve it the most. But with the way the Oscars work, even if an actor or actress gets snubbed (Nicole Kidman is an interesting variable here, especially given what that article mentions...I've always had a thing for Nicole Kidman, so I'm biased in that regard and will keep my mouth shut ) for their current work, they'll often end up with an Oscar for a less distinguished performance later in their career.
So don't lose sleep over it. They'll ALL get Oscars eventually.
Comments
<strong>I used to think that way and then I saw Frances McDormand win for Fargo. I think it was over that Titanic bitch too who thought she had it locked up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Better than Titanic, though, but then again, Battlefield: Earth was almost as good as Titanic.
Didn't I say that I was aware of its pretended irony. I don't think you understand, I GET IT.... there just isn't anything to get. . . its 'camp' quality is in fact not campy, its irony not ironic, its 'knowing' badness is just plain bad!!!!
I have seen many many many films (and made them too) of all sorts from extremely experimantal ex; Paul Scharitz, to Monty Python... I know what I'm saying (IMO): . . this movie was not as sophisticated in its comedy as it at first promised to be, and/or thought itself to be. Very few scholars of camp will covet this film as a completely smart triumph when they write their Lacanian critiques of contemporary musicals for tenure.
As for LOTR, I loved the film!!, but its editing was a hack job. It feels like they tried to sqeeze a large book into three hours.... which is just what they did. And, ontop of that, the camera never rested: Jackson used too many Television and MTV camera movement cliches: it had the positive effect of moving the action fast so that you felt that they were really in a hurry,
but
it had the negative effect of moving the action fast so that you never got a sense of distance traversed, or fatigue or weariness, and you also never got a breath or a place to just soak in the visual splendor. . . . even the fine scenes of Orthanc, or of Rivendell, were but splices: its almost as if he were afraid that if you looked too long you would see the Computer graphics or the Matte painting
Consequently, the further I got from seeing the movie the more difficult it became to remember it as a live action film: I kept visualizing it as an animation:
anybody else experience this?
Army of Darkness, that's camp.
Moulin Rouge, that's crap.
I appreciate what they were trying to do but it was an unmitigated failure because at the end of the day they wanted to do a regular movie. In short, they didn't have the balls to do it right.
When you make a half-assed attempt at camp you end up with crap.
(Of course, once I heard the chords to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" I felt dirty.)
<strong>As for LOTR, I loved the film!!, but its editing was a hack job. It feels like they tried to sqeeze a large book into three hours.... which is just what they did. And, ontop of that, the camera never rested: Jackson used too many Television and MTV camera movement cliches: it had the positive effect of moving the action fast so that you felt that they were really in a hurry, but it had the negative effect of moving the action fast so that you never got a sense of distance traversed, or fatigue or weariness, and you also never got a breath or a place to just soak in the visual splendor. . . . even the fine scenes of Orthanc, or of Rivendell, were but splices: its almost as if he were afraid that if you looked too long you would see the Computer graphics or the Matte painting
Consequently, the further I got from seeing the movie the more difficult it became to remember it as a live action film: I kept visualizing it as an animation:
anybody else experience this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No no no! Please don't compare Mr. Jackson's work with MTV! His style comes from decades of horror movie cliches, not MTV and television cliches.
The camera movement, extreme close-ups, pushes - it's all straight out the horror film shot manual (And for those who don't know, Mr. Jackson is something of a god-like figure in the world of low-budget horror).
I thought the editing was good for the reason you disliked it - the speed, and the fact you didn't get to see the effects properly. Harry Potter made this mistake - if the effects are on screen too long, they look awful (Particularly the much-lauded but actually terrible Quidditch scene).
I was worried the movie would be too like the book, i.e. dull as dirty dishwater, so it was a pleasant surprise to find such a fast pace to the editing. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen.
Tom Wilkinson deserves the Best Actor nod, a close race between him and Crowe, but he was fantastic. I think Sissy Spacek is also the most deserving of Best Actress (I haven't seen Iris yet so I don't know about Judi Dench's performance, although she always rules).
(I hope Moulin Rouge gets snubbed entirely, but I think they will/should throw it Best Art Direction or something like that.)
Kinda like Ghost int he Shell in that respect.
Jackson used too many Television and MTV camera movement cliches: it had the positive effect of moving the action fast so that you felt that they were really in a hurry,
Really? I watched it and thought "Man, this looks like a bad doccumentary film". However not once did I think that the splicing was bad. Mind you I went in expecting the splicing to be HORRID, so perhaps that had an effect.
Personally, I dont think that you could have done much better with the material given. Maybe if you got Arnofski or some one in there but...
. but yes as I said I loved it, the pace left you breathless and at the end I literally exhaled and relaxed after three hourse of sitting rapt
also I had to pee so bad I couldn't stand straight.
The oscars will be ready to go once I get all this tasty Mexican food digested well. Look for the results in my toilet tomorrow morning.
Why should we care?
Hehe, just imagine Kent Brockman saying that
Seriously, internet polls are bullcrap.
<strong> Award shows ...big yawn at best.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. It's always fun to watch rich egomaniacs act like fools.
Edit: Fixed quote
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: glurx ]</p>
Best Director: David Lynch
Best Actor: Sean Penn or Wilkinson
Best Actress: Halle Berry
Best Supporting Actor: Ben Kingsley
Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Connelly
Of course the best Animation: Monsters
<strong>Is it only me who does not care about anything that goes on at the Oscars?
Why should we care?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No reason at all, really. At the end of the day, a movie's box-office popularity is more important than the awards it gets. The Oscars are highly overrated awards given by a group of people whose opinions aren't any more valid than others. Why people care, I still don't know.
That said, I liked a bunch of these movies -- Moulin Rouge, LOTR, A Beautiful Mind ... Black Hawk Down was ok. Accurate, but beyond a point pretty boring and pointless. I haven't seen Iris, In the Bedroom, Amélie, Gosford Park, Ali, Monster's Ball, or even Training Day (how this got into the running I have no idea, coming from the previews I saw..."AH AM THE POLICE! KING KONG AIN'T GOT NOTHING ON ME!" Eh?), so I might have liked a bunch of those as well had I taken the time to see them.
But frankly, I don't care who/what the awards go to, because I know what I liked. The Oscars have often been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/22/aa.oscar.trends/index.html"; target="_blank">unrelated to quality of performance</a> and have often not given awards to those who deserve it the most. But with the way the Oscars work, even if an actor or actress gets snubbed (Nicole Kidman is an interesting variable here, especially given what that article mentions...I've always had a thing for Nicole Kidman, so I'm biased in that regard and will keep my mouth shut
So don't lose sleep over it. They'll ALL get Oscars eventually.