|
|
Post by Philemon on Mar 5, 2005 8:17:53 GMT -5
On a much lighter note ...
Top Ten WORST Oscar-winner movies !!
Worst Oscar-winner ever? Step forward Braveheart
Braveheart - it takes one to watch it without reaching for the off button
heads Empire Magazine's list of worst best film Oscar-winners
Few people would argue that the best picture Oscar has ever been a foolproof index of the finest movies ever made. But some winners, it would seem, are less deserving than others - like Braveheart, for example.
Mel Gibson's woad-smeared, Brit-bashing epic has been named the all-time worst best picture by Empire magazine, leading a top 10 of similar duff choices. The film won the Academy Award in 1995, with Gibson also being honoured as best director.
Runner-up in the Oscar hall of shame was A Beautiful Mind, which triumphed in 2002. The magazine hailed the "wilfully dishonest screenplay" and "clunkily intricate direction" of Ron Howard's biopic.
The "tawdry circus spectacle" otherwise known as 1952's The Greatest Show on Earth was at number three. Robert Redford's sudsy family soap opera Ordinary People placed fourth, with the chocolate box horror of Forrest Gump rounding out the top five.
Other films on the list included Terms of Endearment, Rocky and the John Ford saga How Green Was My Valley, which triumphed in 1941 ahead of such worthier contenders as The Maltese Falcon and Citizen Kane.
"The Oscars aren't about quality," explained Empire scribe Patrick Peters. "They're peer group nods of approval and, as a result, there has been a surfeit of unworthy Best Pictures and, rest assured, there will be many more to come."
|
|
|
|
Post by Weeping_Guitar on Mar 5, 2005 9:17:58 GMT -5
For those it may interest ... Rumble in the jungle He was the hottest young director in Hollywood - before he'd even made a film. But Orson Welles' first movie, an adaptation of Heart of Darkness, collapsed even before the cameras rolled. Clinton Heylin on the story behind the greatest film never made ... film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1429851,00.html Hmm, I'd never heard anything about that. Looks like Welles' career started with the same tragic theme that would haunt him his whole career. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 5, 2005 9:42:43 GMT -5
Methinks they could've squeezed Shakespeare In Love, Driving Miss Daisy, Chariots of Fire and Kramer Vs. Kramer onto that list.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on Mar 5, 2005 18:01:20 GMT -5
I just watched Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. A+ for originality and cinematography. Kate Winslet is very good and her accent was pitch perfect. Every now and then I would hear what sounded like Carrie Heffernan from King of Queens. Not over the top New York, but New York none the less. I am surprised more fuss wasn't made about Jim Carreys performance. I thought he was terrific. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie but couldn't really get emotionally attached to the characters or the love story aspect. Too many visual things going on I guess.
4/5 Amps!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 6, 2005 14:13:05 GMT -5
Watched Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love from 2000 last night.... which, despite its name, bears absolutely no resemblance to a Meg Ryan movie, I promise! It is a slow, sad, artful meditation on the pain of missed connections, longing, and memory. In a cramped Hong Kong apartment building in 1962, two married couples move in to adjacent apartments. We are only introduced to one individual within each couple - Mrs. Chan, whose husband we never meet, though we occasionally hear his disembodied voice offscreen, and Mr. Chow, whose wife we never meet, though we also occasionally hear her disembodied voice offscreen. There is not much dialog in the screen but the exquisite and expressive faces of Chan and Chow betray everything you need to know - both are desperately lonely, both have spouses who are constantly away on "business trips." Eventually they discover that their spouses are in fact having an affair with each other - and, bonded through their sadness, begin to spend more and more time together, and it becomes more and more clear that they are developing feelings for each other - but somehow, they never quite allow these feelings to express themselves. They are too frightened about the gossip that surrounds them, about violating the norms of social propriety, and, most of all, about becoming just as bad as their unfaithful spouses. One night in a taxi cab Chan dares to rest her head on Chow's shoulder - it as far as they will ever come toward acting upon their feelings for each other - the scene is exquisitely melancholy, as you can see all their desperate sadness and longing written in their eyes. (The acting in the movie, which has very little dialog and mostly relies upon subtle facial gestures and body language, is absolutely brilliant - both leads have exquisitely beautiful and expressive faces)
Chow eventuallly takes a job in Singapore, leaving Chan behind - this sets in motion the final section of the movie, in which the years slowly drag by, and you see the characters go through significant changes in their life situations, but Wong Kar-Wai suggests through a few elegant scenes that neither person has been able to forget the other, and that the pain of their missed opportunity lingers with them through different years and different countries.
This is one of the most visually striking movies I've ever seen - not only are the leads both impossibly beautiful (Maggie Cheung looks like one of those Japanese porcelain dolls you can buy in antique shops), but the photography is breathtakingly beautiful, with every scene bathed in gorgeous, luxurious colors. The camera lingers meaningfully on random daily objects - Mrs. Chan's slippers, the thermos in which she carries home noodle soup from a noodle stand, the front door of Mr. Chow's apartment - and the countless beautiful fashion-plate dresses with Mrs. Chan wears throughout the movie - apparently she wore a new dress for every single scene. This fetishistic lingering on mundane objects makes the movie feel like a Marcel Proust novel set in front of a video camera, with the same sense of nostalgia and the inevitable passage of time. The direction continually reinforces the painful division and self-imposed alienation between the two characters - constantly, they are half-blocked or occluded by door frames, one of them is offscreen as the other yells through a door or around a wall to them, other minor characters stand between them, etc etc. Wong Kar-Wai is a director with a strong, strong vision - it makes me wonder why competent but ordinary directors like Clint Eastwood have multiple best directing Oscars, when Wong Kar-Wai can film a woman walking up a staircase in a way that you'll never forget (there's a scene in which Mrs. Chan is running up a staircse to meet Mr. Chow and every single step she takes is shot in a different frame, giving it a bizarre, disorienting feeling like a collage of stills focusing on different parts of her body - her high heels slamming into the step in one scene, her anguished face in the next, the back of her dress swaying in the next, her bag hitting her side, etc etc - I could watch her climb that staircase over and over again if I wanted to, it was such a striking, artful scene.
I loved this movie - of course, it matches my sensibility so perfectly - a kind of understated, unsentimental melancholy, a sad recognition that love does not necessarily transcend social conditions. But I also recommend it to anyone who wants an antidote to typical Hollywood romantic bombast, with its melodrama and over-the-top sex scenes and contrived happy endings and endless blabbering between the two main leads. Here instead is a love story with no sex, very little dialog, an unpredictable ending, and no over-the-top emotional outbursts (there are some tears, but they are shed quietly and privately). My friends have been recommending this movie to me for years and now I'm just angry that it took me so long to finally get around to it - I can't wait to watch more Wong Kar-Wai. amp, I think you in particular would love this film.
...another 10/10.
Cheers,
M
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on Mar 6, 2005 14:36:30 GMT -5
I will have to put that on my "what to rent when you don't know what to rent" list.
Mary, did you get my email the other day?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 6, 2005 17:12:15 GMT -5
I didn't know if any of you have heard of this (I didn't know until I saw an ad in the Sunday paper), but this bothers me a bit.
From the ABC News website:
A Tamer 'Passion' Re-released
A new version of "The Passion of the Christ" will be released to 500 to 750 theaters nationwide on March 11, just in time for Easter.
Gibson confirmed that five to seven minutes of the movie will be deleted, particularly the most graphic scenes in which Jesus is flogged.
"Well, I got a lot of feedback," explained Gibson. "And it was like they thought that perhaps it was a little too hard for 'em, too wrenching. So I sort of listened to that, and I went back and I said I could redo it and keep the impact of what I had done, and … cut down on the brutality."
Gibson added that he did not think the film was too violent but he did want to make it available to a "wider audience."
How about that. Just in time for Easter.
The violence in the film didn't bother me as much as the one-dimensional caricatures of the Jewish priests and Roman soliders (not to mention the lack of a third act). But I was to believe that the violence, while excrutiating in detail (and in many instances, unnecessary; i.e., the crucifixtion sequence), was intentional and to make a point.
Apparently the film is now unrated (according to the ad).
I know there are mixed feelings about the film from everyone (I myself don't recommend it yet I don't feel its a bad film) but what does anyone else make of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on Mar 6, 2005 17:54:37 GMT -5
Well, I can't question his motives really. I mean, the man has made more money than he can spend. I think he may have just done it to appease and please. From what I have heard ALOT of people had to look away, so maybe now they won't have to. Lets not drag him into the mud just yet, or should I say again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on Mar 6, 2005 18:19:27 GMT -5
'The Pacifier' Tops North American Box Office
Sunday March 06 3:50 PM ET
"The Pacifier," starring Vin Diesel, took top honors at the North American box office in its first weekend, nudging the heavily publicized MGM bow "Be Cool," starring John Travolta, into second place.
How sad is that?
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 6, 2005 19:44:26 GMT -5
I didn't know if any of you have heard of this (I didn't know until I saw an ad in the Sunday paper), but this bothers me a bit. From the ABC News website: A Tamer 'Passion' Re-released
A new version of "The Passion of the Christ" will be released to 500 to 750 theaters nationwide on March 11, just in time for Easter.
Gibson confirmed that five to seven minutes of the movie will be deleted, particularly the most graphic scenes in which Jesus is flogged.
"Well, I got a lot of feedback," explained Gibson. "And it was like they thought that perhaps it was a little too hard for 'em, too wrenching. So I sort of listened to that, and I went back and I said I could redo it and keep the impact of what I had done, and … cut down on the brutality."
Gibson added that he did not think the film was too violent but he did want to make it available to a "wider audience."How about that. Just in time for Easter. The violence in the film didn't bother me as much as the one-dimensional caricatures of the Jewish priests and Roman soliders (not to mention the lack of a third act). But I was to believe that the violence, while excrutiating in detail (and in many instances, unnecessary; i.e., the crucifixtion sequence), was intentional and to make a point. Apparently the film is now unrated (according to the ad). I know there are mixed feelings about the film from everyone (I myself don't recommend it yet I don't feel its a bad film) but what does anyone else make of this? I think it's a cop-out on Gibson's part, and I have to wonder why an Easter re-release is even on the table. Surely everyone who wanted to see it, for whatever reason, has seen it, either in it's immensely successful theatrical run or on DVD. Where's the dignity in trying to squeeze a few more dollars from the film in the theatres just because of some bizarre seasonal tie-in? The violence WAS the central theme of The Passion. I was under the impression that Gibson was shooting to give the people a lesson in the brutality that Christ endured to accomplish His mission of atonement (at least that which can be portrayed in the physical realm). It was meant as an eye-opener, was it not? To splice out several moments of the some of the most gripping footage just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. All I have ever heard from my evangelical friends is praise for the film, and not a single one has EVER said they were offended by the graphic violence. The general consensus, to which I concur, is that it was about time that a filmmaker gave us a no-holds-barred unsanitized version of the crucifixion. I have owned The Passion on DVD since Christmas, when I recieved it as a gift, but it is such a powerful experience that I confess I have yet to watch it (that said, I did see the film 3 times in the theatres) and I can't say that I have any plans to watch it again until my son is old enough to handle it, when I look forward to viewing it with him. So...any opinions on the number one movie in the country, Diary of a Mad Black Woman? I haven't seen it, but I know all about Tyler Perry and respect his mission. I did see a DVD of one of his plays, I Can Be Bad All By Myself, and if this new movie, which revolves around the same cast of characters, is anything like that play I think I will like it a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 6, 2005 20:15:31 GMT -5
Put me down as another who is bothered by the re-release of The Passion. It seems way too much like a marketing/profit move to me, and this is NOT a movie to be marketed! I understand the motivaton ... my grandmother is one who wanted to see the movie but didn't think she'd be able to sit through the violence. But she's told me that she won't go to this one, because she knows that even with some cut, it'll still be too violent for her. It just says "give us more money" a little too much to me. I think it's a shame.
I saw The Aviator today. The story did get long, but Scorsesse was robbed! I also can't say that Jamie Foxx should NOT have won the Oscar, but think it's shame that DiCaprio did not get more attention for his role ... Foxx winning should NOT have been the done deal that it was. DiCaprio did an incredible job of making Hughes likable at times, repulsive at others. I even forgot that it was DiCaprio for most of it. I'm not a Leo fan by any stretch, but I don't think he's getting nearly the appreciation for the job he did in that movie that he deserves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 6, 2005 21:20:05 GMT -5
So...any opinions on the number one movie in the country, Diary of a Mad Black Woman? I haven't seen it, but I know all about Tyler Perry and respect his mission. I did see a DVD of one of his plays, I Can Be Bad All By Myself, and if this new movie, which revolves around the same cast of characters, is anything like that play I think I will like it a lot. It opened at the local theater last week. Because I frequently visit Roger Ebert's website, I've noticed he's received some criticism for his negative review of the film (he felt Perry's larger-than-life character, Medea, was a distraction) from black readers (few agreed, others called him a racist). He's defended himself very well; hell, he just didn't like the film. I've felt no desire to see it (didn't even know anything about it until it was released) and I don't know anything about Perry's earlier works. Then again, I'm broke and can't see any film right now, let alone that one. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 6, 2005 22:51:40 GMT -5
It opened at the local theater last week. Because I frequently visit Roger Ebert's website, I've noticed he's received some criticism for his negative review of the film (he felt Perry's larger-than-life character, Medea, was a distraction) from black readers (few agreed, others called him a racist). He's defended himself very well; hell, he just didn't like the film. I haven't read Ebert's review, but if Diary is anything like the play I saw then he is probably justified in his view that the Madea character is a distraction. Madea is a bit overwhelming at times, and the highlight of I Can Be Bad All By Myself was the story line, the relevance of the subject and the interaction between the characters (and I might as well admit that I very much enjoyed the spiritual aspect as well. Go figure...). It's Perry's baby, though, and he IS Madea, so I guess that's bound to happen. The funniest character, by far, is Deacon Brown. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 7, 2005 12:41:49 GMT -5
Saw Eraserhead again over the weekend -- turned a couple of my friends on to it -- it had been many years. As glorious as ever; in fact, even better now than it was, then. It is a beautifully unfolding surrealist narrative and meditation on the existential nightmare of being trapped into this cycle of life as both father and son as ever has been committed to celluloid.
Eraserhead is truly a film worth re-visiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 7, 2005 17:55:28 GMT -5
Our protagonist is a fellow with Down Syndrome. He likes talking to snails. They are his friends. One day this snail whispers to him. The things it says freak our Down Syndrome main character out. He doesn't know how to take it. Eventually he reacts by smashing the snaily. Immediately he regrets his actions. In a tender, heart shattering scene, he dismally tries to piece together the dead snail's broken bits of shell, to no avail. This is when another snail shows up and hisses in a whisper "Where is our friend"?, and our protagonist won't answer, too ashamed of his murderous act, and too afraid of the other snail to admit it. He leaves the house just as the snail discovers the smashed, slain body of its friend. The piercing screams of the snail are mind numbingly sharp and harrowing, and our hero must slam the door in the face of that sound.
As crazy-contrived as this sounds, this also sounds pretty affecting if you try to view it through the prism (the limited prism) of a person with Downs...who are generally a very sort of affectionate, sympathetic people w/in their limitations.
Thorn, I gotta ask..
Is Crispin Glover as tripped-out weird-seeming in person as when he's on the talk shows?
|
|
