Wha-wha-wha? I ADORE Romance on the High Seas, a wonderfully silly musical comedy with two of my fave performers, Doris Day and Jack Carson.ITALIANO wrote:I just saw the worst movie EVER nominated for an Oscar...1948's "Romance on the High Seas"
The Official Review Thread of 2005
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Hehe... You don't remember my posts correctly, Sonic Youth - from such a faithful follower I expect more. I said that "Seabiscuit" was one of the worst BEST PICTURE nominees ever, if not the worst. And it's true. And I said that that movie with the long title was overrated, but not one of the worst Oscar nominees ever. "North Country" is. Definitely.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
I'm pretty sure you said this about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind last year, though I could be wrong. I'm positive you said it about Seabiscuit two years ago. And you've said this about some film or performance every year since... wow, 1999! Sorry, I've just noticed it's something you do.
It's sad how the Academy keeps topping itself (so to speak), setting a new standard every year.
It's sad how the Academy keeps topping itself (so to speak), setting a new standard every year.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
dylanfan23
- Temp
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:46 pm
- Location: Belleville, NJ
Maybe expect was the wrong word....but i was basically refering to the direction the story was going, not what i was hearing about how good the film was. There was a lot of build up in the story and it never seemed to pan out. I got emotionally attached to these characters and somewhere along the line it lost me. I don't know....thats how i felt, it didn't hit me on the gut level where i thought it could and should have. As for the graphic scenes. They were pretty graphic, and i'm not used to seeing "gay" sex. But in no way did it have a negative effect on me.
dylanfan, what did you expect from Brokeback Mountain?
Perhaps the hype made you expect it to be Gone with the Wind?
To be fair, my sister had a similar reaction, saying it was a little "graphic" for her. In her case, I think it was just that it was probably the first depiction of gay sex she ever saw. She also said the female nudity was a bit gratuitous (and this is my liberal sister who dislikes President Bush). However, she thought Heath Ledger was terrific.
Perhaps the hype made you expect it to be Gone with the Wind?
To be fair, my sister had a similar reaction, saying it was a little "graphic" for her. In her case, I think it was just that it was probably the first depiction of gay sex she ever saw. She also said the female nudity was a bit gratuitous (and this is my liberal sister who dislikes President Bush). However, she thought Heath Ledger was terrific.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
dylanfan23
- Temp
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:46 pm
- Location: Belleville, NJ
Brokeback Mountain
*** out of *****
This was a very ok film...probably more good then bad. Actually none of the film was bad. But that doesn't mean any of it was great either. And part of my negativity was the fact i couldn't help think what this could have been. I was waiting for something to happen and it seemed like nothing ever did. I don't want to be too critical because i know i'm in the minority in thinking this was a slightly above average film. But i'm sorry...this story could have picked up and never did. I felt this as a big problem with the script, not the direction and certainly not the acting. The script just left much to be desired, i don't think it even knew the direction it was going, besides the fact it was going to be a story about a bizarre cercumstance and a story about great loss...and a character study. And yes i felt it at the end, i did. I felt the lead characters loss, the dramatic effect hit me. But not in the way where this story stuck with me. Not like a film like capote stuck with me, not like million dollar baby or mystic river stuck with me. This is not the even close to those films, and shouldn't be the best picture of the year. I would nominate heath ledger and jake gyllenhaal. Both performances were pitch perfect. They carried this film from mediorcre to pretty darn good. Ang Lee's eye also helped this film along a great deal. And i do accept gyllenhaal's performance as supporting to ledger's lead. As for williams....she's damn lucky to have her oscar nomination. This was not a performance that should have even been considered. Yes she was good, but nothing great....did she have what, two scenes where she got to act with heath. Very surprising that some think she deserves an academy award. I'll take bello, weisz, adams, linney and johannson any day of the week.
Constant Garderner
****1.5 out of *****
Now this is every bit of good as everybody is talking about. I saw this a few months ago and just watched again on video. I picked up a lot with the second viewing. This is an important story, a very sad story. Most people are not thinking about what is going on in other parts of the world. And when you do think about it, nothing but sadness comes about. Because it's a flat out sad situation. This is a very good story about the two main characters. Beautifully played by fiennes and wiesz. And it was great way to tell this story. It brought all the emotions it intended too, at least for me. I in no way see weisz's performance as a lead, or even close to it. I've seen her on some peoples lead lists. She's in half the film. Fiennes is the clear lead, and he deserved oscar consideration and i would not have been upset if he was given a nomination. He was perfect for this part, he's a great actor and shows it again here. All the supporting performances were great especially hustons. Great film.
*** out of *****
This was a very ok film...probably more good then bad. Actually none of the film was bad. But that doesn't mean any of it was great either. And part of my negativity was the fact i couldn't help think what this could have been. I was waiting for something to happen and it seemed like nothing ever did. I don't want to be too critical because i know i'm in the minority in thinking this was a slightly above average film. But i'm sorry...this story could have picked up and never did. I felt this as a big problem with the script, not the direction and certainly not the acting. The script just left much to be desired, i don't think it even knew the direction it was going, besides the fact it was going to be a story about a bizarre cercumstance and a story about great loss...and a character study. And yes i felt it at the end, i did. I felt the lead characters loss, the dramatic effect hit me. But not in the way where this story stuck with me. Not like a film like capote stuck with me, not like million dollar baby or mystic river stuck with me. This is not the even close to those films, and shouldn't be the best picture of the year. I would nominate heath ledger and jake gyllenhaal. Both performances were pitch perfect. They carried this film from mediorcre to pretty darn good. Ang Lee's eye also helped this film along a great deal. And i do accept gyllenhaal's performance as supporting to ledger's lead. As for williams....she's damn lucky to have her oscar nomination. This was not a performance that should have even been considered. Yes she was good, but nothing great....did she have what, two scenes where she got to act with heath. Very surprising that some think she deserves an academy award. I'll take bello, weisz, adams, linney and johannson any day of the week.
Constant Garderner
****1.5 out of *****
Now this is every bit of good as everybody is talking about. I saw this a few months ago and just watched again on video. I picked up a lot with the second viewing. This is an important story, a very sad story. Most people are not thinking about what is going on in other parts of the world. And when you do think about it, nothing but sadness comes about. Because it's a flat out sad situation. This is a very good story about the two main characters. Beautifully played by fiennes and wiesz. And it was great way to tell this story. It brought all the emotions it intended too, at least for me. I in no way see weisz's performance as a lead, or even close to it. I've seen her on some peoples lead lists. She's in half the film. Fiennes is the clear lead, and he deserved oscar consideration and i would not have been upset if he was given a nomination. He was perfect for this part, he's a great actor and shows it again here. All the supporting performances were great especially hustons. Great film.
Not just merely, but really, really, really. Transamerica gets into a little bit of interesting territory at the end but doesn't do anything with it and aside from some staggering physical demands (and some fine scenes at the end), Huffman really isn't asked to go beyond one note. She's certainly credible, but her husky monotone doesn't really sit that well with Tucker's dialogue. Very disappointing, and even its theme of acceptence at any cost feels trivial.
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
TRANSAMERICA
Cast: Felicity Huffman, Kevin Zegers, Graham Greene, Fionulla Flanagan, Burt Young, Carrie Preston, Elizabeth Pena.
Dir: Duncan Tucker
Apart from the interesting twist (the theme of transexuality) and Huffman's excellent performance, this is a largely unremarkable and formulaic road movie. Merely okay but nothing to crow about.
Oscar Prospects: "Travelin' Thru" can win.
Grade: C+
Cast: Felicity Huffman, Kevin Zegers, Graham Greene, Fionulla Flanagan, Burt Young, Carrie Preston, Elizabeth Pena.
Dir: Duncan Tucker
Apart from the interesting twist (the theme of transexuality) and Huffman's excellent performance, this is a largely unremarkable and formulaic road movie. Merely okay but nothing to crow about.
Oscar Prospects: "Travelin' Thru" can win.
Grade: C+
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
dws1982 wrote:Phillip Seymour Hoffman isn't as bad as I'd feared (he's one of my least favorite working actors), but the filmmakers don't seem to care about Capote beyond his obsession to write In Cold Blood, and Hoffman's performance doesn't go beyond what the script calls for. It's serviceable, but as Damien mentioned before, it never hints at Capote's charisma, and he comes off as a cold zero here; Even scenes of him holding court at cocktail parties--which try to suggest his charisma I guess--feel odd because of the way he's portrayed elsewhere in the film.
I'm not sure what the phrase "doesn't go beyond what the script calls for" means, or why that's even a bad thing. What the screenplay calls for him to do is a lot to begin with. Anyway, I thought he did go beyond what the script called for. It was pretty clear to me that he was in love with Perry Smith, even though nothing in the film explicitly says so.
And I saw plenty of charisma in the performance. Sure, he wasn't warm. He was guarded and always aware of the spotlight upon him, always performing for the public, "love on his own terms" as Orsen Welles said. He coasted on all this hero worship and got off from it. Hoffman had to bridge that divide between a personality ordinarily prone to mockery on the one hand and a magnetic and powerfully manipulative sort of 'cult of personality' on the other. Maybe not going beyond the script means the performance had no inner life, but I saw him always struggling with an inner life and a past life. I could see him carrying around a past that he resented and using it as the impetus to get what he wanted. This was particularly clear in his interview to the young witness who discovered the bodies, as he recounted how he used to be made fun of when he was younger. While he's looking out the window remembering his childhood, he's also exploiting it, using it as sweet-talk for the interrogation. People are always playing into his hands, and that takes charisma. I thought it was overall a very tricky display of internal equilibrium, more than just reading the lines of the script
I'm getting a little distressed at how the performance is getting reduced down to nothing from practically everybody. I don't remember anyone saying anything negative about it before Brokeback Mountain came along and polarized the Best Actor race. Reza called it a stunt performance somewhere on another thread. What makes it a stunt? Is Joachin Phoenix and David Strathairn and Reese Witherspoon (and Bruno Ganz) performances of famous people also stunts? Is a middle-class Aussie putting on a thick Wyoming accent and aging twenty years not stunt-ish?
The movie is as single-minded as Truman Capote; the filmmakers don't care about Harper Lee because Capote didn't.
See, I agree that Capote the film is too single-minded, but I don't think the role of Harper Lee was left undeveloped out of negligence. I thought the handling of her character was one of the film's better ideas. Maybe not the RIGHT choice, but an interesting one. The movie is told throught Capote's POV and his dismissiveness of Harper's novel, and the way the movie reflects this by delegating her as a less-than-secondary character is meant to be a reflection upon Capote, and maybe even his reputation as an author, himself.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
I finally saw Capote last night and I think the critics and Oscar voters have gone way overboard. It's one of those genuine tradition of quality movies with zero visual style; Except for the 2.40:1 widescreen ratio, this could've been one of those biopics that Joseph Sargent frequently makes for HBO, and no one would've been the wiser. Visually there isn't anything of interest--there isn't a single shot that isn't predictable; even the opening shots of wheat fields feel banal. Bennett Miller seems to be of a graduate of the John Madden "point and shoot" school of directing.
They do a good job recreating the period, but it's all done to little effect because Miller/Futterman have no point to make; Everything is very straightforward, and there's very little in the film that'll surprise people who know much at all about Truman Capote. Phillip Seymour Hoffman isn't as bad as I'd feared (he's one of my least favorite working actors), but the filmmakers don't seem to care about Capote beyond his obsession to write In Cold Blood, and Hoffman's performance doesn't go beyond what the script calls for. It's serviceable, but as Damien mentioned before, it never hints at Capote's charisma, and he comes off as a cold zero here; Even scenes of him holding court at cocktail parties--which try to suggest his charisma I guess--feel odd because of the way he's portrayed elsewhere in the film.
Keener basically plays the devoted wife role, and it's a nice, generous piece of acting, but as Sonic mentioned, it does seem almost like she's getting awards just for going to work. As someone who hates the Academy always nominating the hams for acting awards, it's nice to see recognition for subtle, quiet performances, but she's hindered by the nature of the film: The movie is as single-minded as Truman Capote; the filmmakers don't care about Harper Lee because Capote didn't. She does have a nice moment at the end (the last line of the film, I think), where she rains on Capote's self-pity party (where he's going on about how terrible the executions were for him) by reminding him that he never wanted to help them (Hickock and Smith). But if they'd actually given Keener some scenes that showed Lee bridging the gap between Capote and the people of Holcomb, her nomination might seem justified.
They do a good job recreating the period, but it's all done to little effect because Miller/Futterman have no point to make; Everything is very straightforward, and there's very little in the film that'll surprise people who know much at all about Truman Capote. Phillip Seymour Hoffman isn't as bad as I'd feared (he's one of my least favorite working actors), but the filmmakers don't seem to care about Capote beyond his obsession to write In Cold Blood, and Hoffman's performance doesn't go beyond what the script calls for. It's serviceable, but as Damien mentioned before, it never hints at Capote's charisma, and he comes off as a cold zero here; Even scenes of him holding court at cocktail parties--which try to suggest his charisma I guess--feel odd because of the way he's portrayed elsewhere in the film.
Keener basically plays the devoted wife role, and it's a nice, generous piece of acting, but as Sonic mentioned, it does seem almost like she's getting awards just for going to work. As someone who hates the Academy always nominating the hams for acting awards, it's nice to see recognition for subtle, quiet performances, but she's hindered by the nature of the film: The movie is as single-minded as Truman Capote; the filmmakers don't care about Harper Lee because Capote didn't. She does have a nice moment at the end (the last line of the film, I think), where she rains on Capote's self-pity party (where he's going on about how terrible the executions were for him) by reminding him that he never wanted to help them (Hickock and Smith). But if they'd actually given Keener some scenes that showed Lee bridging the gap between Capote and the people of Holcomb, her nomination might seem justified.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
THE NEW WORLD
Cast: Colin Farrell, Q'Orianka Kilcher, Christian Bale, Christopher Plummer, David Thewlis, August Schellenberg, Wes Studi, Yorick Von Wageningen.
Dir: Terrence Malick
Quite possibly the best film of the year. Such a sublime cinematic experience which I seriously would love to go through again. Writer-director Malick is 4-for-4 in my book. The way Malick uses James Horner's score (his best in a long, long time, btw), the impressive performance of newcomer Kilcher and awe inspiring cinematography and gorgeous landscapes moved me in ways I cannot put into words. Beautiful, beautiful film!
Grade: A
Cast: Colin Farrell, Q'Orianka Kilcher, Christian Bale, Christopher Plummer, David Thewlis, August Schellenberg, Wes Studi, Yorick Von Wageningen.
Dir: Terrence Malick
Quite possibly the best film of the year. Such a sublime cinematic experience which I seriously would love to go through again. Writer-director Malick is 4-for-4 in my book. The way Malick uses James Horner's score (his best in a long, long time, btw), the impressive performance of newcomer Kilcher and awe inspiring cinematography and gorgeous landscapes moved me in ways I cannot put into words. Beautiful, beautiful film!
Grade: A
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
MUNICH
Cast: Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Geoffrey Rush, Ciaran Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hans Zischler, Ayalet Zorer, Marie-Josee Croze, Lynn Cohen.
Dir: Steven Spielberg
An earnest but rather flawed effort by Spielberg in his dramatization about the aftermath of the Munich Olympics massacre. As a thriller, it succeeds with plenty of truly suspenseful, shocking and nerve-wracking sequences. As a political/message movie, it falls somewhat short but kudos to Spielberg for refusing to take sides.
Oscar Prospects: I think it has a shot at Editing and Original Score.
Grade: B+
Cast: Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Geoffrey Rush, Ciaran Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hans Zischler, Ayalet Zorer, Marie-Josee Croze, Lynn Cohen.
Dir: Steven Spielberg
An earnest but rather flawed effort by Spielberg in his dramatization about the aftermath of the Munich Olympics massacre. As a thriller, it succeeds with plenty of truly suspenseful, shocking and nerve-wracking sequences. As a political/message movie, it falls somewhat short but kudos to Spielberg for refusing to take sides.
Oscar Prospects: I think it has a shot at Editing and Original Score.
Grade: B+