Academy Awards 2015 - Oscar night...

[The Monkey]

The problem would come in if Academy members thought the way you do.

Yeah yeah, I hear ya. Not saying they should be judged by their personality, but it's always nice to see at least one of these celebrity sociopaths taken down a notch or two.

[Kyoshi]

^It would be a crappy system...but one can still hope.

[Castel]

Yeah yeah, I hear ya. Not saying they should be judged by their personality, but it's always nice to see at least one of these celebrity sociopaths taken down a notch or two.

Sociopaths? Really?What did Keaton say to bring this out? Did he admit to killing puppies or something :P?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I don't know, what were the alternatives? If Bradley Cooper had won for his role in a movie that might be the worst ever nominated for Academy Awards, the whole thing would've been a total farce. And while Michael Keaton did a fine job in Birdman (although it was solely the direction that made it a great movie), the fact that he comes across as such an asshole in interviews (even by actor standards), makes me happy to see him disappointed. Benedict Cumberbatch was good in The Imitation Game, but nothing spectacular, or too challenging a part. Haven't seen Foxcatcher so can't comment on Steven Carrel's performance.

I thought Bradley Cooper's performance was solid. I didn't think there was much depth to the character he portrayed, but that's on the film itself choosing to offer a positive-to-beatifying portrayal of a shallow sociopath. Benedict Cumberbatch's performance on the other hand was basically just a less loquacious but equally dickish version of his Sherlock Holmes. And this in the context of a film which desecrated Turing and his life.

I didn't see Theory of Everything, so for all I know Redmayne deserved the win. Keaton was incredible in Birdman, though, asshole or not, his performance was award-worthy. I think he as much as the direction made Birdman a great film.

[Winterfell is Burning]

I don't know, what were the alternatives? If Bradley Cooper had won for his role in a movie that might be the worst ever nominated for Academy Awards, the whole thing would've been a total farce.

Sorry, this comment is just ridiculous. I'm guessing you're in the "Clint Eastwood made a movie about a soldier, clearly this must right-wing propaganda even though Eastwood has publicly opposed the war on Iraq many times and the movie clearly portrays his character as addicted to the adrenaline (as Jeremy Renner's was in The Hurt Locker, which no one calls pro-war), racist and shows he doesn't accomplish all that much in the grand scheme of things" camp. The camp of people that already had their mind made up about the film before seeing it.

As for the rest- it's irrelevant if Keaton comes off as an asshole in interviews (which I just don't see it, BTW- he comes off as very mature and not interested in the politics of Hollywood for me, the opposite of Redmayne). Hitchcock was an asshole, Kubrick was an asshole, nine out of ten movie stars are assholes, doesn't mean they didn't deserve Oscars.

[Commodore]

don't see how someone could watch Whiplash and Birdman and think the latter was better

[Nictarion]

Sorry, this comment is just ridiculous. I'm guessing you're in the "Clint Eastwood made a movie about a soldier, clearly this must right-wing propaganda even though Eastwood has publicly opposed the war on Iraq many times and the movie clearly portrays his character as addicted to the adrenaline (as Jeremy Renner's was in The Hurt Locker, which no one calls pro-war), racist and shows he doesn't accomplish all that much in the grand scheme of things" camp. The camp of people that already had his mind made up about the film before seeing it.

As for the rest- it's irrelevant if Keaton comes off as an asshole in interviews (which I just don't see it, BTW- he comes off as very mature and not interested in the politics of Hollywood for me, the opposite of Redmayne). Hitchcock was an asshole, Kubrick was an asshole, nine out of ten movie stars are assholes, doesn't mean they didn't deserve Oscars.

Been reading through the thread, and I have to say I think you've been on point in all your posts. I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

[lancerman]

don't see how someone could watch Whiplash and Birdman and think the latter was better

I'd argue that Birdman had the better directing by a mile, way better cinematography, and the acting was better. Even if you want to call Simmons and Keaton a wash (which I would dispute, Keaton imo was better, not a whole lot better, but better nonetheless) I'd still call the rest of the cast better.

So maybe Whiplash had a better screenplay. But it's still a lot closer than the other things.

Editing is kind of hard to judge just because of the way the Birdman was shot. They pretty much had to commit to a scene before it was put on film. But Whiplash had such good editing that I'll give it the nod on that one.

I think if you like Whiplash better it more comes down to taste than anything technical.

[Nictarion]

I'd argue that Birdman had the better directing by a mile, way better cinematography, and the acting was better. Even if you want to call Simmons and Keaton a wash (which I would dispute, Keaton imo was better, not a whole lot better, but better nonetheless) I'd still call the rest of the cast better.

So maybe Whiplash had a better screenplay. But it's still a lot closer than the other things.

Editing is kind of hard to judge just because of the way the Birdman was shot. They pretty much had to commit to a scene before it was put on film. But Whiplash had such good editing that I'll give it the nod on that one.

I think if you like Whiplash better it more comes down to taste than anything technical.

Couldn't disagree more with the bold. Simmons was in a class of his own last year. Keaton was good, Simmons was great.

[Kyoshi]

people that already had his mind made up about the film before seeing it.

I admit to being guilty of this. Even with your eloquent post, I still don't think I'll watch it and maybe I'm missing out. :dunno:

[Winterfell is Burning]

I admit to being guilty of this. Even with your eloquent post, I still don't think I'll watch it and maybe I'm missing out. :dunno:

It's a free country, of course. But the people that do this are more often than not the same people that complain about the right-wingers and racists finding any excuse they can to trash Selma just because it's about an important black figure. A bunch of hypocrites in all sides, if you ask me.

[Castel]

Regardless, I think it was just a bad movie and has no place winning.

I don't really think that Clint Eastwood is marching in lockstep with the people behind the Iraq War like Hitchens (which is kinda ironic). It's still a bad movie about a character that was tailor-made to be a jingoist's hero. I think Matt Taibbi is right in that it's an excuse to make a "non-political" film about "real human experience" in an incredibly political war, non-political here meaning that Hollywood can milk every part of the market, meaning they shave off whatever the fuck doesn't allow them to do that.

Also:

Sorry, this comment is just ridiculous. I'm guessing you're in the "Clint Eastwood made a movie about a soldier, clearly this must right-wing propaganda even though Eastwood has publicly opposed the war on Iraq many times and the movie clearly portrays his character as addicted to the adrenaline (as Jeremy Renner's was in The Hurt Locker, which no one calls pro-war), racist and shows he doesn't accomplish all that much in the grand scheme of things" camp. The camp of people that already had their mind made up about the film before seeing it.

First off: how was he racist?

And your categorization of him as being addicted to the adrenaline instead of a true hero makes no sense to me, given all his actions. He might be, but that's certainly not what seems to be the important drive to him in the film. At all.

[Mladen]

I admit to being guilty of this. Even with your eloquent post, I still don't think I'll watch it and maybe I'm missing out. :dunno:

Well, I mean Winterfell is Burning is right here. I haven't seen American Sniper and thus I feel uncomfortable commenting it. I can tell that I am not big fan of such movies but that I ultimately can't make 100% statement about the quality without seeing it. That is for instance how I know that Boyhood was better than Birdman, or that Keaton was better than Redmayne, or that Julianne Moore was almost unchallenged in her category, or that Meryl Streep had no place being nominated this year. I hate when people comment on movie that they haven't seen.

[Kyoshi]

Yeah, I think we acquire our tastes. By now I know American Sniper is not the kind of movie for me. Like Eat Pray Love or Fifty Shades. I'll never be able to judge if it's better than Selma or if the racism remarks are warranted.

I can only hope that the people who make these decisions watch every movie and that they do it without prior prejudice. There was a rumour a few years back and I'm not sure how true it is; apparently some of the judges didn't even finish Brokeback Mountain because of "all the sex and kissing." That's something that shouldn't happen IMO.

But as it stands, my opinion doesn't really count for much and so I can get away with not watching American Sniper or any movie like it. I don't think I'm allowed to comment on its quality, though.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Bumping just to link to FIlmCritHulk's brilliant (and very, very long) article on Birdman (and, in case you don't know him, FCH is probably the best critic in business, in part because he really isn't one):

http://badassdigest.com/2015/03/26/film-crit-hulk-smash-ignorance-the-expected-virtue-of-birdman/

This is my favorite paragraph, although it won't make that much sense without context:

inarritu is not an asshole, that should be made clear. and inarritu maybe even knows that riggan is an asshole. but the problem is that he sees too closely through those same eyes. meaning he thinks the same asshole-ish things about superheroes and social media and critics and artists and audiences and all of that. his tirades are too close to the subject, and in the end, the thing he creates as a way to create distance regarding his interests ends up telling that more ugly version of the story. all because inarritu seemingly has the least ability to understand his own fixations.