Haven't seen Lives of Others but I can't think of much being able to top the poignancy, beauty and depth of Pan's Labyrinth.
The thing though is that it does. It really does. I have 'The Lives of Others' at no. 3 on my list for last year and 'Pan's' at no. 5 but between those two and 'Letters from Iwo Jima', I switch depending on the time of the day.
Seriously, Wes. I understand you love 'Pan's Labyrinth' as much as you do and that's great, but don't assume that something isn't as good as your baby or you're closing yourself off to what could be (and in the case of 'The Lives of Others', most certainly is) an outstanding moviegoing experience.
OscarGuy wrote:Italiano's the kind of person who can never be wrong about a film. Even if he were, he'd NEVER admit it.
Oscar Guy, you don't know me, still you seem to be obsessed by me. I'm a bit tired of all this, but as I said often, I dismissed Dreamgirls's Oscar chances and the movie itself just when others - including you - were predicting 20 Oscars for it and that it'd have been a masterpiece. Nobody back then had seen it.
Now both of us have seen it - you still think it's a masterpiece and I still think it's dreadful. I've explained to you why I think it's a bad movie - yet even after having read your review I still can't understand why you think it's so good. I know that you loved it, I know that you found it moving (emotional reactions which I can even understand) - I just don't know why you think it's a good movie.
Also - a friendly advice. Don't be paranoid. Nobody here dislikes you as a person - maybe we would, if we knew you, or maybe not. But we don't know you so our criticism is never directed at you as a human being. We just sometimes - or, in my case, very often - disagree with your way of thinking. So what? You can't expect us to agree with your personal views on movies all the time. Accept our criticism and, if you can, reply to it. But don't take it personally. What should criddic do then? Attempt suicide? He knows perfectly well that on this board it's only an aspect of us - our opinions on a few subjects - which is taken in consideration and occasionally criticized, not our whole being, our personality, our life.
First of all, I have NEVER called Dreamgirls a Masterpiece. It has flaws as my review highlights, but it is still a wonderful movie.
And while you may not have found reason enough in my review for why I liked it, that doesn't mean that it's not there.
And I can only assume that someone doesn't like me by putting forth something like Sonic Youth after I had corrected him once before. So, pardon me if I think Sonic is letting his personal feelings about me color his memory and rhetoric.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
OscarGuy wrote:Italiano's the kind of person who can never be wrong about a film. Even if he were, he'd NEVER admit it.
Oscar Guy, you don't know me, still you seem to be obsessed by me. I'm a bit tired of all this, but as I said often, I dismissed Dreamgirls's Oscar chances and the movie itself just when others - including you - were predicting 20 Oscars for it and that it'd have been a masterpiece. Nobody back then had seen it.
Now both of us have seen it - you still think it's a masterpiece and I still think it's dreadful. I've explained to you why I think it's a bad movie - yet even after having read your review I still can't understand why you think it's so good. I know that you loved it, I know that you found it moving (emotional reactions which I can even understand) - I just don't know why you think it's a good movie.
Also - a friendly advice. Don't be paranoid. Nobody here dislikes you as a person - maybe we would, if we knew you, or maybe not. But we don't know you so our criticism is never directed at you as a human being. We just sometimes - or, in my case, very often - disagree with your way of thinking. So what? You can't expect us to agree with your personal views on movies all the time. Accept our criticism and, if you can, reply to it. But don't take it personally. What should criddic do then? Attempt suicide? He knows perfectly well that on this board it's only an aspect of us - our opinions on a few subjects - which is taken in consideration and occasionally criticized, not our whole being, our personality, our life.
OscarGuy wrote:Haven't seen Lives of Others but I can't think of much being able to top the poignancy, beauty and depth of Pan's Labyrinth.
Then how about you practice what you preached a month ago to Italiano for casting judgement upon a film he hadn't seen, and go see The Lives of Others before making all this belittling commentary?
I saw TLOO over the weekend and it is TERRIFIC. No, maybe not as much as Pan's Labyrinth is, but it's only marginally less terrific. Or, not even marginally, but slightly. A very worthy winner. It's not as though the Academy decided to honor a piece of crap in this category.
Hold on there. First of all, I'm not belittling ANYTHING except the foreign film committee and the way it runs its business.
I admit I haven't seen Lives of Others, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand and I'm not calling it trash without seeing it. I'm being honest. And I'm NOT the one who got up in Italiano's face about not having seen the film to make a judgment. I may have suggested he shouldn't dismiss it without having seen it, but I would hardly say that I was the instigator nor primary driving force behind the Italiano-bashing regarding that incident.
Besides, I knew Italiano would hate it just because he said he would. Italiano's the kind of person who can never be wrong about a film. Even if he were, he'd NEVER admit it.
I, however, have admitted wrongness in saying I didn't think I would like a film but then turned around and loved it and fully admitted it. In this situation, I just don't think I could love a film more than Pan's. I can be proven wrong and if I ever get a chance to see Lives of Others, then maybe I will.
However, I resent being called out for things that I haven't said and haven't done. Sonic, check yourself and your facts before posting because quite frankly, I find it tedious to constantly have to point out flaws in your arguments against me. I know you dislike me and can't stand me as a person or a poster, but really, this has to stop.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
OscarGuy wrote:Haven't seen Lives of Others but I can't think of much being able to top the poignancy, beauty and depth of Pan's Labyrinth.
Then how about you practice what you preached a month ago to Italiano for casting judgement upon a film he hadn't seen, and go see The Lives of Others before making all this belittling commentary?
I saw TLOO over the weekend and it is TERRIFIC. No, maybe not as much as Pan's Labyrinth is, but it's only marginally less terrific. Or, not even marginally, but slightly. A very worthy winner. It's not as though the Academy decided to honor a piece of crap in this category.
Okri wrote:Yeah, I'm a No Man's Land supporter - I frankly hated Amelie.
Oscarguy, what would you suggest to solve the problem? I think making viewing mandatory is a great thing, otherwise you get what happened last year, with people publically admitting they wouldn't see certain films (and in general don't watch all the nominees). Screening tapes aren't always easy (after all, most foreign films are distributed by small boutique distributors or specialty divisions if they're lucky - though Water, Pan's Labyrinth and The Lives of Others all had screeners sent out). I'm just curious.
I think the Academy should provide screeners to its members. Either that or make it easier and less restrictive for people to see the nominees.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I'm a No Man's Land supporter - I frankly hated Amelie.
Oscarguy, what would you suggest to solve the problem? I think making viewing mandatory is a great thing, otherwise you get what happened last year, with people publically admitting they wouldn't see certain films (and in general don't watch all the nominees). Screening tapes aren't always easy (after all, most foreign films are distributed by small boutique distributors or specialty divisions if they're lucky - though Water, Pan's Labyrinth and The Lives of Others all had screeners sent out). I'm just curious.
I'll second DWS here. No Man's Land was an exciting film, and I think it added much more to the life-long debate than any other film I have seen in the last five years. It tackled sensative issues in an extremely humorous way, and was the perfect balance of making us laugh and think at the same time. Amelie, on the other hand, was grating, annoying, shrill and benchmarked by one of the worst actresses working in film today. Thank God the Academy saw through that dreck and awarded the much bolder film. Now I want to see No Man's Land again.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
OscarGuy wrote:Thus why films like No Man's Land win over the more energetic Amelie.
I think that was a great choice. Too bad the voters couldn't have shown that kind of insight last year, choosing Sophie Scholl: The Final Days over Tsotsi. Or the year before, when they could've picked Downfall or Yesterday over The Sea Inside.
I'll have to disagree with that. I thought No Man's Land was pretty standard filmmaking that added very little to a debate that has been raging for decades. Amelie, however, was energetic, inventive and thoroughly entertaining.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
OscarGuy wrote:Thus why films like No Man's Land win over the more energetic Amelie.
I think that was a great choice. Too bad the voters couldn't have shown that kind of insight last year, choosing Sophie Scholl: The Final Days over Tsotsi. Or the year before, when they could've picked Downfall or Yesterday over The Sea Inside.
Haven't seen Lives of Others but I can't think of much being able to top the poignancy, beauty and depth of Pan's Labyrinth.
My point is that the true artists of Hollywood, the ones who work in their craft perpetually don't have time to take out of their busy schedules to watch these screenings which means the old guard, fuddy-duddies are the ones who make up the majority of the screening audiences and thus their predelictions tend to be more sentimentalist than artistic. Thus why films like No Man's Land win over the more energetic Amelie or the sentimental Kolya over intelligent Ridicule.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
OscarGuy wrote:The reason is that you have to attend special screenings to vote in the category. That means a small percentage of the Academy sees them and votes in the category as opposed to the entire body of members voting on most of the rest of the categories.
Is this a bad thing? I wish more categories required the voters to prove they'd seen all the nominees.
What didn't you like about the Lives of Others, OscarGuy? The director may be a smug a$$wipe (hugging the guy you just beat before taking the stage?) and his film may be more of a calling card than a labor of love like Pan's Labyrinth, but I have to admit it's a better movie.
Franz Ferdinand wrote:Anybody know why "Good Bye, Lenin!" was not nominated for Foreign Film back in 2000? That was a great German movie. I am still looking for this to come to the theaters.
It was Germany´s Official entry for the Oscars in 2003 but finally wasn´t nominated.
