Thanks for clearing that up, ryan. I was having a hard time remembering where he talked to himself. I do it too, and it's certainly normal to find it in a film noir.

quote:

ryanryanryan102 Upwardly Mobile Participant Posted 29 January 2008 03:14 PM

If you consider Josh Brolin saying about three lines of dialogue to himself in one scene of the film a "glaring weakness" I don't know what to tell you. I happened to recently look at the script for the film and I believe his only lines in the scene were:
1. "I reckon I'd go out the way I came in".
2. "If you stopped to watch your backtrack you're gonna shoot my dumb ass".
3. "But if you stopped, you stopped in the shade".

I don't feel like any of the lines break his character or distract from the film. I think most people occassionally talk to themselves when they are in a isolated location or are working out a problem in their head. Even if you consider this a problem in the film it seems rather miniscule to me.

Great response and someone who took the time to do his homework, probably more than I would have done myself! I would agree with you that these few scenes do not and should not constitute a "glaring weakness" in the movie, not at all. But this one blip in the movie when taken together with all my previous observations about the flaws in this movie, just add up and add up where I couldn't accept this movie as anything but less than the best, not deserving of Best Picture if one is to define best as a movie picture that contains only a few flaws, but there are just so many. I adnut I talk to myself sometimes, people talk to themselves, but again we never see this as part of Josh Brolin's character (it stands outside his character). I prefer movies where the audience isn't spoon fed this stuff where the director and scriptwriter, and actor take the time to somehow creatively cinematically allow the audience to understand for themselves, this isn't like a film noir of "required" voice-overs of Blade Runner (1982) which is itself interesting because a large number of people hated the voice-over in that movie which I thought was really great as part of the film noir tradition.

[spoiler alert]

I'll throw another flaw in just because it was so upsetting to me - the supposedly intelligent Woody Harrelson's dimise is so ridiculous that I found it unbelieveable. Woody is supposed to protect people not get assassinated without a fight. Tommy Lee Jones would have done a better job. And when Woody Harrelson finds the case full of money by just looking at the right place? The directors' or the author took the easy way out not deserving of a Best Picture nomination. Woody Harrelson, accidental law enforcement agent. It seems most of his script was an accident. Nothing against Woody, it was what he was given. I sure hope he complained about it though.

quote:

downwithstarbucks Slacker First Class
Posted 29 January 2008 03:20 PM

It's so peculiar that you point out these so-called flaws yet you hail Atonement as being the best of the year. I saw Atonement last weekend and was laughing with my girlfriend of it the entire way home. The distinct lack of subtlety was embarrassing, as was the amateurish acting (aside from Redgrave and the young girl). And the plot holes - oh my the plot holes!

And most alarmingly, you demand consistency, and yet you allow for such a ludicrous scene as the final meet up of the 3 main characters (I won't reveal details to those who haven't seen it). No Country wasn't my favorite movie of the year, but it was at least a serious movie (squid reference!).

just stop it. what's the matter with you?

Clearly you are in a small minority of the popular public regarding Atonement based on IMDb as I probably am with No Country for Old Men. As regards the meeting up of the three characters, one has to understand that by the end of the movie this occurrence is more than adequately explained and in fact is one of the biggest emotional shocks of the movie. This whole movie is about human perceptions and how we can be fooled by them. This movie has more intimate resonance for what it means to be human on a very personal level that actually impacts each and everyone of us on a daily basis. Instead of the more ambiguous and oddly strange cinematic experience of No Country for Old Men, Atonement connects on the much more basic and relevant human level and offers us, in fact, an experience if one is able to perceive it, of future growth as humans, a lot more than can be said about No Country for Old Men.

As for flaws in Atonement, since you didn't mention any other possible problems with the movie, I can only state what I experienced. I admit there were in my mind a few minor flaws that were overcome and I could overlook as I did with There Will Be Blood, a movie with flaws but so brilliantly performed that the flaws couldn't detract from the movie itself.

quote:

downwithstarbucks Slacker First Class
Posted 29 January 2008 03:20 PM

The distinct lack of subtlety was embarrassing, as was the amateurish acting (aside from Redgrave and the young girl). And the plot holes - oh my the plot holes!

I would agree with you but not to the extent you mentioned about the acting. Overall, the acting of the lead characters were not Oscar-performances and I didn't have any problems with the lack of nominations in the acting category. What amazes me is that even without their performances, I was taken by the movie as a whole which me goes a long ways towards believing just how good this movie is. It was the performances outside of the "young girl" and Redgrave, it was the cinematography, the sound editing (that I believe was seriously overlooked), the editing and the script (the story) that made this movie so brilliant in my mind. How many movies can lay claim to that? But you made a good observation about the acting. Somehow I actually feel that even Keira Knightly and Jame McAvoy, to a lesser extent, would agree with you too except for the amateur adjective (they did get paid for their roles I believe).

quote:

Performance by an actress in a leading role
Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" (Universal)
Julie Christie in "Away from Her" (Lionsgate)
Marion Cotillard in "La Vie en Rose" (Picturehouse)
Laura Linney in "The Savages" (Fox Searchlight)
Ellen Page in "Juno" (Fox Searchlight)

Must've missed this before but Ellen Page!?!? Gotta be kidding me. Oh well, she must've slept with someone(s).

quote:

crazed
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 04 February 2008 02:05 PM Hide Post
quote:
Performance by an actress in a leading role
Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" (Universal)
Julie Christie in "Away from Her" (Lionsgate)
Marion Cotillard in "La Vie en Rose" (Picturehouse)
Laura Linney in "The Savages" (Fox Searchlight)
Ellen Page in "Juno" (Fox Searchlight)


Must've missed this before but Ellen Page!?!? Gotta be kidding me. Oh well, she must've slept with someone(s).

If you have questions regarding Ellen Page in Juno, I have the same questions regarding Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men. Ellen page portrays a somewhat odd individual with authentic personality while Javier Bardem portrays a somewhat odd individual with no personality. Which one would you choose?

I thought Javier Bardem gave Anton Chigurh personality. A cold and calculating ruthlessness; a sick wit & humor; a definite determination set by his own personal (relentless & arrogant) code; frustrated that things weren't always going his way (ie the trailer park office woman) and fascination (in the scene with Jones). Whether arrested by a deputy and in cuffs or bleeding and injured in a car accident, he's one beast who won't be kept captured or put down, well, so he thinks. He doesn't show a weakness (or at least any that are consistant) and I think this makes for a terrifying resilience. Given the nature of the character, Bardem performed the role perfectly. Given the nature of her character, I believe Page was average at best. But as the film progressed, I wasn't happy with her character.

I thought both were good in pretty different roles.

Admittedly, I haven't seen any of the other Best Actress performances, but I thought Ellen Page was great in very memorable role. That was also a really multidimensional performance, and Page did the comedic and dramatic parts equally well.

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:
Admittedly, I haven't seen any of the other Best Actress performances, but I thought Ellen Page was great in very memorable role. That was also a really multidimensional performance, and Page did the comedic and dramatic parts equally well.

I haven’t seen the Cate Blanchett or Laura Linney films but Marion Cotillard was utterly terrific in La Vie en Rose. In person she is a stunningly beautiful woman and she completely transformed herself in that role. Not only that but the entire movie revolved around her and how well she conveyed Edith Piaf. I wouldn’t be upset at all if she won but she is a long shot as she is relatively unknown and the film hasn’t been seen by a lot of people.

I wasn’t too crazy about Julie Christie’s job on Away from Her. The movie followed her husband’s life just as much, if not more, as her life. But she is an old-timer who has won before and since the Academy has a lot of old members, they would pull for her. I wouldn’t be surprised if she won but I also wouldn’t be thrilled.

I thought Ellen Page did an all right job in Juno. A lot of her quirkiness and charm was because of the character that Diablo Cody created. However, she put a lot of herself in that role and still did a great job. At first she was the favorite but lately she and Christie have been splitting the actor awards so I am not too sure. Christie also won the SAG award.

quote:

razed "Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi Posted 05 February 2008 03:40 PM

I thought Javier Bardem gave Anton Chigurh personality. A cold and calculating ruthlessness; a definite determination set by his own personal (relentless & arrogant) code; frustrated that things weren't always going his way (ie the trailer park office woman) and fascination (in the scene with Jones). Whether arrested by a deputy and in cuffs or bleeding and injured in a car accident, he's one beast who won't be kept captured or put down, well, so he thinks. He doesn't show a weakness (or at least any that are consistant) and I think this makes for a terrifying resilience. Given the nature of the character, Bardem performed the role perfectly.

Where you experienced "a cold and calculating ruthlessness," I saw vacuous emptiness and an obsessive-compulsive behavior with required little in the way of calculation. Where you perceived "a sick wit & humor; a definite determination set by his own personal (relentless & arrogant) code," I felt no wit or humor except those that might be found when someone with diminished mental capacity did something that apparently violated community standards (unwittingly) and his own relentless & arrogant code is more a product of an obsessive-compulsive person who has little in the way of understanding the more complex workings of the human mind - more of a solid gray personality without any color or content. This character doesn't experience fear or understand the idea of failure, as a machine, he will continued like a "terminator" until his mission is completed. There isn't anything remarkable about his behavior because there isn't any doubts, any true ethical dilemma - he is an almost stereotypical, one-dimensional character in my view. In many ways, Javier Bardem's character is more like an animal on the hunt, but less scary because his less fast, less agile, walks with a limp, not as large as a gizzly bear or tiger...now such creatures are truly terrifying. Not Javier Bardem's character.

quote:

Originally posted by blueskyoas:

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:
I believe the rule is that the song has to be written specifically for the movie. "Falling Slowly" was released in various incarnations before Once was released, but he wrote it specifically for the film.

Ah, of course, the movie would have been filmed before that. That makes a little more sense. So I guess the same principle, "written specifically for the movie," applies to the score as well.

Marketa Irglova and Glen Hansard did an interview with sound opinions that goes into how that song ended up on three albums. It's a pretty good listen with some live performances thrown in.

http://audio.soundopinions.org/podcasts/sooppodshow111.mp3

As for the Oscars, I think best picture comes down to Atonement and There Will Be Blood with Atonement taking home the prize. Atonement just seemed to offer so many more dynamics then the other movies. It had a great story but also brought in the artsy feel with the music, cinematography, and story telling. Just a great movie from all angles.

And I'd go with Daniel Day-Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Saoirse Ronan, and Paul Thomas Anderson for best actor, supporting actor, supporting actress, and director. I haven't seen any of the movies, except for Juno, for the Lead Actresses' nominations so I have no idea what to expect there.

And this is one Oscars I'm pretty excited for because I've actually seen a lot of the movies. And now the Oscars seem to be extra motivation to end the Writer's Strike so it could be a good night overall.

quote:

Boots Participant
Posted 06 February 2008 01:41 AM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by blueskyoas:

quote:
Originally posted by EricG75:
I believe the rule is that the song has to be written specifically for the movie. "Falling Slowly" was released in various incarnations before Once was released, but he wrote it specifically for the film.


Ah, of course, the movie would have been filmed before that. That makes a little more sense. So I guess the same principle, "written specifically for the movie," applies to the score as well.


Marketa Irglova and Glen Hansard did an interview with sound opinions that goes into how that song ended up on three albums. It's a pretty good listen with some live performances thrown in.

http://audio.soundopinions.org/podcasts/sooppodshow111.mp3

As for the Oscars, I think best picture comes down to Atonement and There Will Be Blood with Atonement taking home the prize. Atonement just seemed to offer so many more dynamics then the other movies. It had a great story but also brought in the artsy feel with the music, cinematography, and story telling. Just a great movie from all angles.

quote:

Boots
Participant
Posted 06 February 2008 01:41 AM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by blueskyoas:

quote:
Originally posted by EricG75:
I believe the rule is that the song has to be written specifically for the movie. "Falling Slowly" was released in various incarnations before Once was released, but he wrote it specifically for the film.


Ah, of course, the movie would have been filmed before that. That makes a little more sense. So I guess the same principle, "written specifically for the movie," applies to the score as well.


Marketa Irglova and Glen Hansard did an interview with sound opinions that goes into how that song ended up on three albums. It's a pretty good listen with some live performances thrown in.

http://audio.soundopinions.org/podcasts/sooppodshow111.mp3

As for the Oscars, I think best picture comes down to Atonement and There Will Be Blood with Atonement taking home the prize. Atonement just seemed to offer so many more dynamics then the other movies. It had a great story but also brought in the artsy feel with the music, cinematography, and story telling. Just a great movie from all angles.

Sometimes it's nice to know that I'm not singularly crazy, not that I'm saying that
Boots is crazy. But it's not easy to state a position that nobody else believes in.

From a strictly editorial standpoint I think Dylan Tichenor should win the Oscar for There Will Be Blood. He was also the editor on The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford which, unfortunately, was not nominated. It was quite a good year for Mr. Tichenor.

Also, Joel & Ethan Coen's editorial work on No Country for Old Men was tremendous. As such, I would be happy if "Roderick Jaynes" (a pseudonym for the brothers) took home the award.

I liked Juno, and Page is tremendously appealing, but I saw her on Letterman a few weeks ago and She Is Exactly The Same In Person. So really, was she acting, or just kinda behaving?

Christie was good in Away from Her. I don't see the relevance of the fact that the movie was actually more about her husband. It doesn't say anything about whether her role was a lead actress role and how she did in it. There's no rule that the lead actress nominee has to have had the largest role in a film -- only that it be a leading actress role. Reese Witherspoon in Walk the Line, Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking -- these weren't the central roles in those films, but they were lead actress roles. But overall I found that Away from Her bugged me, too precious and controlled and tender and poised. I wanted a little more of the blood and bile of human emotions. But that's not strictly speaking relevant to whether Christie deserves the Oscar.

Cotillard was great in La Vie en Rose (though there were frankly a few too many drunk scenes in the first half, and I think she is getting some credit simply for the physical transformation she achieved) so I'd be pretty happy to see her win, but I'd really like to see Laura Linney win for The Savages, a beautiful performance in a perfectly-pitched film, by an actress who more than any of the others deserves an Oscar for her career (since Christie and Blanchett already have one).

I predict NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD split Best Picture Oscar votes, leaving ATONEMENT with the award.

Having seen TWBB yesterday, I've now seen 4 of the 5 Best Pics nominees (all but Atonement). Daniel Day-Lewis deserves the Best Actor award, no doubt. He was brilliant. At this point, I would have to say the epic TWBB deserves the nod, but like I said, I haven't seen Atonement.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
I predict NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD split Best Picture Oscar votes, leaving ATONEMENT with the award.

I don't think this is even a remote possibility. (Sticks head out as axe falls...) I think NCFOM is just way out in front and will win best picture. The Academy has chosen edgy violent films in the last two years, so there is nothing unusual about NCFOM winning. It won the Producer's Guild, and the SAG Ensemble Award, and the Director's Guild. I don't know anyone who thinks Atonement is anything but a well done minor picture. I don't sense any love for it at all -- certainly not the kind of love people had for previous Masterpiece Theatre-style pictures like Howard's End or Sense and Sensibility. If people want to vote for something essentially conventional but well done, they will vote for Michael Clayton.

Juno is this year's Little Miss Sunshine -- the small indie comedy that everyone talks up as having a chance to win, but in fact has no chance at all.

But I think NCFOM is a lock, and I am happy with it because, for the first time in living memory, the film that is likely to win the best picture Oscar is actually the film that I regard as the best American film of its year. I can't actually remember that happening for many years.

Famous last words.

quote:

Peewee
Guru Posted 19 February 2008 01:29 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
I predict NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD split Best Picture Oscar votes, leaving ATONEMENT with the award.

I don't think this is even a remote possibility. (Sticks head out as axe falls...) I think NCFOM is just way out in front and will win best picture. The Academy has chosen edgy violent films in the last two years, so there is nothing unusual about NCFOM winning. It won the Producer's Guild, and the SAG Ensemble Award, and the Director's Guild. I don't know anyone who thinks Atonement is anything but a well done minor picture. I don't sense any love for it at all -- certainly not the kind of love people had for previous Masterpiece Theatre-style pictures like Howard's End or Sense and Sensibility. If people want to vote for something essentially conventional but well done, they will vote for Michael Clayton.

Juno is this year's Little Miss Sunshine -- the small indie comedy that everyone talks up as having a chance to win, but in fact has no chance at all.

But I think NCFOM is a lock, and I am happy with it because, for the first time in living memory, the film that is likely to win the best picture Oscar is actually the film that I regard as the best American film of its year. I can't actually remember that happening for many years.

Famous last words.

I find it curious that you mention all the Best Picture nominees except THERE WILL BE BLOOD, the movie I suggested would vie with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Sounds like you may be conveniently overlooking how THERE WILL BE BLOOD may impact the Best Picture outcome. Unless you can present some commentary on THERE WILL BE BLOOD, your argument is weakened by THERE WILL BE BLOOD's nomination.

Hey, Tabuno: Sorry, I am not discounting TWBB -- I think it is the strongest competition for NCFOM. I was just addressing your theory that the votes will be split between those two and Atonement will come up the middle.

I don't think that will happen for two reasons: (1) I think NCFOM is way ahead, even way ahead of TWBB, and (2) I don't think that Atonement is in third place. If there is a third place candidate that could sneak up the middle, it is Michael Clayton.

But that's the fun of the Oscars -- upsets happen, and I could be so wrong!

I have to say that There Will Be Blood felt more like Best Picture material than No Country For Old Men. It has that epic quality the Academy loves.

Sure No Country For Old Men has won more critic's awards, but ask Ang Lee how that worked out for Brokeback Mountain.