Jump to content

Academy Awards 2017 - Oscar Night: In the Pale Moonlight


Mladen

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Relic said:

Good for you? Thanks for taking the time to bitch about something that isn't even a thing?

Why do i think Gladiator is an over rated piece of garbage? 

1) Russell Crowe.

2) The entire horrid Roman emperor and sister plot line. Wakeen Felix (or Joaquin Phoenix, if you prefer) has just awful in this, as well. 

3) The ending. 

4) Aside from the first couple of fights I was bored to death by the arena bits. 

5) The movie was trite, cliched, melodramatic, over wrought, self important, and silly. 

6) Historical inaccuracy has nothing to do with my dislike for this steaming pile of boring brainless bullshit.

7) I don't care if you disagree. It is your right to think this was the greatest movie ever, and my right to think you have terrible taste. 

In Gladiators defense, the first 10 minutes were dope. 

 

Ha!  You know more than the critics and the Academy and 86% of the movie-going public.  And the fact it plays on a loop on television because  the unwashed masses find Gladiator "trite, cliched, melodramatic, over wrought, self important, and silly steaming pile of boring brainless bullshit."

Yes, your taste is so good and rarified, its an international treasure.  Let's be sure to bury it.  

Or maybe you're just a kewl contrarian, waiting for the next bloodless BBC drama of sheer anglophile angst and boredom to grace your screen while you sip tea and revel in its uncommerciality? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Why is it difficult to believe that it would happen? I would have thought after all the controversy and #Oscarsowhite stuff there was no way there would not be a reaction. I honestly don't care about them doing it, its up to them. But to shut down anyone who suggests it might be happening is just as ugly. 

The argument that Moonlight won BP because the Academy wanted to be PC is non-sense, because, among other things, it fails to understand how the system works since the 2010 awards:

The preferential voting system (and the fact that are now 8-10 movies every year) means it's virtually impossible for a film to get 50% +1 of the vote in the first round- the round where people actually vote for their favorite films of the nominees. Whereas, for example, in 2006 you'd have people that didn't like Brokeback Mountain rallying around Crash as their #1 choice to stop it from winning, today that wouldn't happen because they could simply vote in Capote or Munich and then just have have Crash as their #3 and #4 on their ballots.

What does that have to with Moonlight? The argument that the majority of the Academy decided to rally around it as a PC choice makes no sense, because, even if part of the Academy felt they had to do that, it would lead the earlier rounds of voting, but as movies got eliminated, it would lose it's #1 status- because if you want to make Moonlight winning for PC reasons a priority, surely you'd have him at the top of your ballot instead of #6 or #7.

But what happened with Moonlight was exactly the opposite- in fact, I'm willing to bet good money that after the first round of voting (and maybe in the next few ones), La La Land was leading it.

However, when movies got eliminated, Moonlight likely kept getting votes from people that preferred other movies- for example, people that liked Arrival or Manchester By The Sea, but thought that LLL was too vapid, or people that care about social issues and stories about POC, but voted first in Hidden Figures or Fences, and ended up winning because it was the consensus choice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Relic said:

Are you not entertained?

I'm drawing a RED CARD of hypocrisy here.  You cannot call the first 10 minutes dope, Russell Crowe Godawful, the subsequent two hours you claim are "trite, cliched, melodramatic, over wrought, self important, and silly steaming pile of boring brainless bullshit."  

And then quote, from said "horrible" actor and the dreadful two hours that make your eyes bleed, one of the most memorable lines in film history and badassery for a witty retort.

Spoiler

My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

RED CARD!!!  EJECTION!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, generalzod said:

I'm drawing a RED CARD of hypocrisy here.  You cannot call the first 10 minutes dope, Russell Crowe Godawful, the subsequent two hours you claim are "trite, cliched, melodramatic, over wrought, self important, and silly steaming pile of boring brainless bullshit."  

And then quote, from said "horrible" actor and the dreadful two hours that make your eyes bleed, one of the most memorable lines in film history and badassery for a witty retort.

 

What movie? I'm quoting Jay Z. And sipping on my highly refined cup of tea. Judging you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gladiator was a reasonably entertaining movie but it definitely took itself too seriously and was too impressed with its own importance. It would have been better served focusing on the popcorn aspects and leaving off with the half-assed stabs at historical drama. All those ham-fisted lines about giving Rome "back to the people" just made me groan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Gladiator was a reasonably entertaining movie but it definitely took itself too seriously and was too impressed with its own importance. It would have been better served focusing on the popcorn aspects and leaving off with the half-assed stabs at historical drama. All those ham-fisted lines about giving Rome "back to the people" just made me groan.

The ending scene is pretty hokey to me. I thought I was the only one.

Not quite sure what it is, I guess it just feels like a bad play monologue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I find it annoying in the extreme when people belittle the audience of shows that may not be historically accurate. If I wanted precise history I'd watch a goddamn documentary.

Many documentaries are anything but precise history.  In fact, many of them are not even history at all!

Anyone who thinks otherwise  :D :lmao: I.e. the History channel!  For one instance only. 

At best, they tend to be mighty thin and shallow stuff.

There are others though, which are really terrific, such as my favorite documentary, which didn't win, of course, I Am Not Your Negro, or 13.  O.J. vs The People was very good, with very high production values, but -- it was ultimately about the danger of celebrity culture, in LA the distillation of celebrity culture -- hey, looky look! it's the Kardashian posse as kids! -- thus ultimately about Hollywood from whence it all cometh, and thus the Oscar academy's favorite thing, themselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.  

White supremacy need not be actively and vocally championed to be white supremacy.  Our political and legal system is informed by white supremacy, as are things like art and entertainment.  Yes, white privilege is the result of white supremacy.  A film that invokes nostalgia for the 'good old days' without any special care taken to acknowledge that it wasn't good for everyone (and was actually a time when white supremacy was more overt and now cloaked in things like coded language) is a celebration of white supremacy, imo.  I would say that not recognizing this would fall more under the white privilege definition.  

As far as commentary, I disagree that it must be deliberately intended by the artist.  The artist might say, "my only intent was to tell a cute little love story about the good ole days" but he has no control over what his audience sees or feels.  He might not intend to whitewash history or ignore the ugliness, but that could very easily still be the result and what his audience sees.  Though I'm not married to this term, I'm absolutely no wordsmith.  I'm certainly open to a better term to describe what people think a piece of art says.  

Somehow Hollywood and fans never moved on from Back to the Future, and a white kid teaching Chuck Berry how to duck walk. :D :lmao:

In the meantime it seems Hollywood hasn't even noticed the magnificent state of jazz currently, thanks to the shots of energetic innovation poured into it by contemporary latin jazz artists -- many of them Cuban, many who are living in the US, some of them even second and third generations here by now, such as Arturo O'Farrill and his sons -- Arturo imbibing it from his immigrant Cuban father -- and so many others.  The scene sizzles, whether here or abroad.  The greatest New Orleans jazz artists and Cuban musicians are going back and forth and learning from and inspiring each other.  This is all so much more exciting and fun than than that ridiculous la la flick. But we should be seeing something terrific coming on screen from all this action failry soon, as some of our Hollywood friends are Cuban music heads, big time!

One would hope that Hollywood has moved on from the 1930's even in its nostalgia for song-and-dance, considering how cringe-worthy some of it is, even, yea verily my adored Rogers-Astaire works, such as in Swing Time . . . .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let we be clear about one thing... Gladiator is not the most awesome movie there is. It is LOTR:ROTK Extended Version. 

I simply don't care 45 minutes of ending, I couldn't care less about some choices regarding the narrative (Rohan defending its own country with 300 people and yet 6000 riders went to Gondor), or even some questionable CGI. Because the moment Angmar breaks Gandalf's staff and the Rohirrim charges, everything is irrelevant. After Aragorn threatens to Sauron and afterwards have that amazing speech at the Black Gates... Who cares about anything?

So, Sir Ian McKellen should have won an Oscar for Gandalf in FOTR. Cate Blanchett should do a movie with Galadriel in the center and I honestly would like Hollywood treating Miranda Otto nicer. 

So, no judging... Or at least judge those smart-asses who made Suicide Squad the Academy Award Winning Film. 

And to repeat "Carol" got zero last year. Sometimes I think Hollywood deserves that ass in White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Risto said:

Let we be clear about one thing... Gladiator is not the most awesome movie there is. It is LOTR:ROTK Extended Version. 

I simply don't care 45 minutes of ending, I couldn't care less about some choices regarding the narrative (Rohan defending its own country with 300 people and yet 6000 riders went to Gondor), or even some questionable CGI. Because the moment Angmar breaks Gandalf's staff and the Rohirrim charges, everything is irrelevant. After Aragorn threatens to Sauron and afterwards have that amazing speech at the Black Gates... Who cares about anything?

QFT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...