I'm surprised about Juno. For me it's a perfectly good little quirky indie comedy--but I've seen a lot of those. Ellen Page's performance puts it a slight cut above most of them, but Best Picture, of 2007? Not even close.
I have not seen Atonement yet, but have seen everything else. I'm all for There Will Be Blood and No Country taking home most of the honors.
Originally posted by tabuno: Personally, ATONEMENT is my personal favorite movie in a decade for it seems to be the ultimate in what cinema is all about, capturing the unique features of the media to tell a compelling and captivating story has the elements that will resonate decades into the future with a fabulous twist at the end that is so suggestive of THE ENGLISH PATIENT (1996) that won nine Academy Awards including best picture.
I think you just made me lose any interest I had in seeing Atonement by comparing to the snoozefest that was The English Patient.
In a memorable episode of Seinfeld, Elaine reviewed that movie better than I ever could:
"Stop telling your boring stories about the desert and die already!"
----- Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
Posts: 5926 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
1. Has anyone else noticed that the nominees are nearly exclusively of a recent release date? I know it's common for noms to focus on movies which come out close to Xmas, but this year seems more about the last quartern than any other I can recall
2. Shockingly, the Romanian drama; 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days was not nominated. Extremely disappointing to see this remarkable film shafted on an even bigger audience.
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
Posts: 2762 | Location: The ever silent spaces of the East | Registered: 12 February 2007
Ishmaels Coffin Jedi Posted 22 January 2008 10:54 PM
Two Points.
1. Has anyone else noticed that the nominees are nearly exclusively of a recent release date? I know it's common for noms to focus on movies which come out close to Xmas, but this year seems more about the last quartern than any other I can recall
2. Shockingly, the Romanian drama; 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days was not nominated. Extremely disappointing to see this remarkable film shafted on an even bigger audience.
I'm glad someone mentioned 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS. I'm stunned by how highly praised this movie is among the film critic community and yet I haven't heard anything about it. So much for marketing I guess. I seems that something terribly wrong happened in the recognition, awareness department somewhere.
Posts: 1483 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
EricG75 "Forum Moderator" Jedi Posted 22 January 2008 09:14 PM Hide Post quote: Originally posted by tabuno: Personally, ATONEMENT is my personal favorite movie in a decade for it seems to be the ultimate in what cinema is all about, capturing the unique features of the media to tell a compelling and captivating story has the elements that will resonate decades into the future with a fabulous twist at the end that is so suggestive of THE ENGLISH PATIENT (1996) that won nine Academy Awards including best picture.
I think you just made me lose any interest I had in seeing Atonement by comparing to the snoozefest that was The English Patient.
I like I said NINE, I repeat NINE Academy Awards not nominations, awards for THE ENGLISH PATIENT. Along with Best Director (Director's Guild), Golden Globes winner for Best Drama, Highest praise from The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Fransico Chronicle, New York Times, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Sun-Times.
Apparently quite of few people didn't fall asleep watching this movie.
Posts: 1483 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Now, considering I have seen only one of the Best Actor noms, so my vote is actually absurd, I still reckon Viggo deserves a trophy.
He was so lost in that role. My yardstick for a great performance remains if you are able to imagine that character walking off screen, into your home and carrying on a conversation. Viggo ran true for sure.
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
Posts: 2762 | Location: The ever silent spaces of the East | Registered: 12 February 2007
Originally posted by tabuno: Apparently quite of few people didn't fall asleep watching this movie.
No hard feelings but I did and I fall in the camp that believes The English Patient is a bore of a film. And as it ran against Fargo, well it wasn’t supposed to be a contest.
quote:
Originally posted by Ishmaels Coffin: Now, considering I have seen only one of the Best Actor noms, so my vote is actually absurd, I still reckon Viggo deserves a trophy.
He was so lost in that role. My yardstick for a great performance remains if you are able to imagine that character walking off screen, into your home and carrying on a conversation. Viggo ran true for sure.
I still haven’t seen There Will Be Blood but I also thought that Mortensen did a great job. I also understood that the “training” he undertook was intense which included learning the language by actually living in Russia and following the FSB. He really made that film special.
Some people have mentioned that Atonement is a boring film and while I don’t agree, I can see why they say that. It certainly “runs long” in that it moves very gradually from time to time but that, to me at least, adds to the overall effect. I was in love with the cinematography and the way that the entire cast acted, it really is a breathtaking film.
Finally, Michael Clayton will be re-released here on Friday, like Eric noted, so I guess I will need to check it out. But the real news is that There Will Be Blood will finally come to my town this Friday, I cant wait!
----- Never say you miss her, never say a word. And do everything she'd never do.
Posts: 6652 | Location: Texas | Registered: 27 December 2005
posted by mark f Atonement is not nominated for Best Director.
....at least there is some justice...
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
Posts: 2762 | Location: The ever silent spaces of the East | Registered: 12 February 2007
Originally posted by tabuno: You mean to say that there aren't any flaws with No Country for Old Men?
I actually did not find many flaws in No Country for Old Men. I know many people were disapointed with the ending (as I was after first seeing it) but in retrospect I now feel the ending fits perfectly. I would be interested to know what problems you had with the film. In There Will Be Blood, P.T. Anderson's reach exceeds its grasp. Some scenes are absolutely brilliant, while others are frustratingly over the top (particularily the ending). I realize that Anderson certainly intended the final scene to be ridiculous and unrealistic but I am unsure what purpose it ultimately served. But of the two mentioned above I found There Will Be Blood to be a more powerful film, despite its failings. As for Atonement I can't say I cared much for it. The acting was strong but I felt that the cinematography (with the exception of that one lenghty dolly shot on the beach), the musical score, and the story itself were all fairly bland.
Originally posted by Ishmaels Coffin: Now, considering I have seen only one of the Best Actor noms, so my vote is actually absurd, I still reckon Viggo deserves a trophy.
He was so lost in that role. My yardstick for a great performance remains if you are able to imagine that character walking off screen, into your home and carrying on a conversation. Viggo ran true for sure.
He was awesome, and Eastern Promises was also a great movie. I would've put it over Juno for one of the best picture noms.
I thought Eastern Promises was good, mostly because of Viggo's performance, but the story could've been a lot tighter. There was a period in the middle of the film where I thought it might really come together, but the ending seemed really anti-climatic to me.
----- Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
Posts: 5926 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
ryanryanryan102 Upwardly Mobile Participant Posted 23 January 2008 03:25 PM quote: Originally posted by tabuno: You mean to say that there aren't any flaws with No Country for Old Men?
I actually did not find many flaws in No Country for Old Men. I know many people were disapointed with the ending (as I was after first seeing it) but in retrospect I now feel the ending fits perfectly. I would be interested to know what problems you had with the film.
(1) A number of scenes with who is about to dispense his random sense of justice with a victim is oftentimes prematurely cut away when the actual tension and emotional climax is about to occur. While some critics may feel this is some sort of great director's script device, I feel it's too lazy. One of the most interesting characteristics of this character is his approach to deciding the fate of his victims and yet the audience usually doesn't get to experience fully his approach - many times the audience does not know whether a character lives or dies...leaving a dead space, making for unfinished business - Javier Bardem character knows what happens and probably a number of the other main characters but the audience doesn't get to know. Life is unfair? Well, this is a movie and the directors have the power to make this movie fair to watch.
(2) Javier and Jones characters never really get to interact much and in fact Jones character is the weakest of the main characters. Particularly at the end, Jone's dialogue while apparently important, requires more contemplation than the audience is offered - a one time through. Jones character also doesn't seem that much different from other characters he has portrayed before, just less emotional, worn down, and unfortunately less interesting. In the end, he just sort of fades away.
(3) Brolin's character also is not helped by the director's choice to have him talking to himself in attempting to track down the remaining individual with the money, his explanation of his tracking skills appeared too convenient a device, his talking was artificially inserted into the movie so the audience would understand why he was going where he was going. Brolin's background comes out in bits and pieces and its difficult to know what abilities Brolin has. The cat and mouse game is off-balance. Neither Brolin nor Javier seem to have that really great skill. The movie seems to move more on the basis of luck and fortune (like the flip of the coin in the movie) than anything else.
(4) Even Woody Harrelson's eventual outcome is so ludicrous in that I found it unbelieveable and almost a fatal flaw in the movie. Woody is supposed to be able to protect people from Javier? Why not just hire a retired CIA or FBI or ATF or Tommy Lee Jones for that matter. Ever find a case full of money by just looking at the right place? Perhaps, but just not in this movie.
(5) The exploding a car was more for show than quality movie-making. This was not consistent with Javier's character, there were much more subtle cinematic ways of accomplishing the same thing.
(6) Several other annoying movie problems included the predictable beginning and the outcome of the law enforecment officer; the way the dead bodies were strewn about in the shoot out scene were artificially positioned about in symmetrical ways.
(7) Javier Bardem's character wasn't really that convincing to me, he didn't really seem to be all that intelligent nor really capable of doing all that he did, much of what happened to him appeared to be luck and how he survived prior to this movie to even be in this movie as a character is beyond me. He ought to have been killed by now. His appeal seems to be the oddity, the unusual bland and non-character, anti-character that he portrayed. There really didn't seem much for him to do on screen but follow the script.
Posts: 1483 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Well tabuno, I respectfully disagree with all your points here, but particularly no. 5.
The actual act of blowing up the car is in the book, and who better to know Chigurh's character than the author?
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
Posts: 2762 | Location: The ever silent spaces of the East | Registered: 12 February 2007
shmaels Coffin Jedi Posted 24 January 2008 04:53 AM Hide Post Well tabuno, I respectfully disagree with all your points here, but particularly no. 5.
The actual act of blowing up the car is in the book, and who better to know Chigurh's character than the author?
Sometimes even a character from a book can take on a life, personality, and a behavioral profile that even the author sometimes can't always dictate and control. Writers are human, are not perfect, and even they may overlook the psyche of their own creation. No where else in the movie does Chigurh's character act so blatantly obvious and in such a publicly exposed style. It would be much more in character for Chigurh to continue in his more intimate, less public, explosive style and select an isolated drug store, pharmacy late at night where only one or two people were working and deal out his magic coin and let the fate again take its toll (but of course this repetitive, realistic behavior would become boring and non-entertaining). This behavioral deviation is a critical and almost unlikely departure from what Chigurh would be expected to do and if fact probably couldn't do because of his personality profile. It's important to remember the whole movie depends on this character and the key to the integrity of this movie is that Chigurh is who he is, not some character who could be manipulated by the author or the director or the movie studio to resort to some audience pandering exploding special effect that we've all seen thousands of times in other movies. Even authors sometimes become infected by the multimedia violence that surround them unfortunately.
Posts: 1483 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
EricG75 "Forum Moderator" Jedi Posted 23 January 2008 06:17 PM Hide Post I thought Eastern Promises was good, mostly because of Viggo's performance, but the story could've been a lot tighter. There was a period in the middle of the film where I thought it might really come together, but the ending seemed really anti-climatic to me.
----- We want our film to be beautiful, not realistic.
The contrast between death and life as, if I recall the ending correctly, provides the highest contrast in this movie and ending the movie on some other note might actually diminish this contrast and reduce the emotional impact at the end. It would be interesting to note what other possible scenarios might be considered.
Posts: 1483 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Ishmaels Coffin Jedi Posted 24 January 2008 04:53 AM
Well tabuno, I respectfully disagree with all your points here, but particularly no. 5.
Ishmael doesn't offer much else beside no. 5 comment to comment on. He respectfully disagrees. O.K. I'm still waiting for something to comment on. I mean I could say, "Well Ishmael, I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement with all of my points here." Sounds rather...boring...I think.
Posts: 1483 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Ishmaels Coffin Jedi Posted 24 January 2008 04:53 AM
Well tabuno, I respectfully disagree with all your points here, but particularly no. 5.
Ishmael doesn't offer much else beside no. 5 comment to comment on. He respectfully disagrees. O.K. I'm still waiting for something to comment on. I mean I could say, "Well Ishmael, I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement with all of my points here." Sounds rather...boring...I think.
I think part of the issue is you and Ish are approaching the subject from two different POVs.
I'm not sure if you have read the book, Tab, but I know Ish has(as have I), and I think that is where the disconnect lies. A lot of the issues you point out aren't really issues at all in the book. I think you're approaching it from strictly a cinematic vantage point, which makes those things you pointed out more puzzling. And that is totally fair, because ultimately, I think it does need to be judged on its own as a film. I approach the movie from the same angle Ish does, having already read the book. After seeing the movie with my dad(whom also read it), we both kind of wished we had seen the movie before reading the book, mainly because the movie almost serves as a detailed outline of the story. If anything, I think the Coens were a little too faithful to the book. This would usually be seen as a positive, but there is a definite flip side to that coin. By staying ultra-faithful to the text, those details that are ommitted due to time constraints can be are magnified in the sense that those missing details now present holes, or perceived inconsistencies in the story for those not familiar with the original.
I liked the film, but I think I can see where you're coming tab.
Il n'y a pas de hors-texte.
Posts: 3139 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
I didn't read the book either, and it does seem like people who've read the book seem to appreciate it more. Without taking the book into consideration, I had a lot of problems with the last 30 minutes or so of the film. As I mentioned before, I didn't like the way it went from being a tight noir thriller to Tommy Lee Jones' plaintive, meandering reflection on society. It was a jarring transition and made for a weak conclusion to what could've been another Fargo for the Coens.
----- Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
Posts: 5926 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
