Watch, Watched, Watching: What Old Is New When There Is No New

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Don't you dare lock this thread before I can reply!

[Mexal]

I liked Shakespeare in Love 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, Ran said:

The critics adored it, the audiences adored it, the people in the industry adored it. It's not a surprise it did so well at the Oscars.

Audiences did not adore it. Like I said, it's rare to find people who actually like the film. It was Oscar bait, not great film making. Many films that do well at the Oscars actually kind of suck. Because Driving Miss Daisy won best picture, a film that's completely forgettable and never spoken about, in a year in which one of the most honest actual films about race was made, Do The Right Thing, and it got no love. 30 years later, which film are students studying? Not even fucking hard to figure this one out.

Quote

Better that you go watch it yourself and tell me you find it boring than telling me complete randos found it boring. 

Perhaps if it's free, but I'm not paying to watch something I rarely hear good things about. 

Quote

Never watched Avatar, but Dances with Wolves  was quite the achievement 

Avatar is for more of a visual achievement, and they are damn near the same movie narrative wise.

Also, I'd tell someone to go see Avatar long before I'd tell them to see The English Patient.....
 

Quote

 

Quote

Which of the films up for an Oscar that year are a top 500 film? Not Saving Private Ryan. What do your friends say about The Thin Red Line?

Um, yeah, Saving Private Ryan is a top 500 easily, as it's always in the conversation for best war films ever made. No one ever speaks about Shakespeare in Love largely other than to dog it. 

Like for example, from the 69th Oscars, which film is discussed more today, Fargo or The English Patient? Which was the better film? The former is a slam dunk on both accounts. Shit, Jerry Maguire was better than The English Patient, and even that was just an alright film.

Quote

Warbeck's score? Stoppard's screenplay? Yeesh.

A best picture these do not make.
 

Quote

That movie had a masterful opening 20 minutes and then it's an overlong, uneven 2 hours afterward followed by a taut ending and then a schmaltzy epilogue. Spielberg should have quit WWII movies after Schindler's List.

Even if we accept this premise, which I don't, superior acting, directing, cinematography and yes storytelling should beat out a boring art house film that is kind of laughable 20 years later. One film, again, is taught in many film schools. The other is an afterthought. Figure out which one is which. It won't help your argument. 

Quote

Time and tide waits for no man, etc. 

He's an exceptional actor, yes. He was mesmerizing in A Bigger Splash. And he can do a certain kind of comedy, to boot, as in The Grand Budapest Hotel and Hail, Caesar!

Is this a reference to him not aging well? Because the first film I saw him in was the aforementioned Schindler's List, and by then I didn't see it, and I am a straight man who is perfectly fine with saying other men are good looking.

And I don't believe I've seen either of those movies. I have meant to get to The Grand Budapest Hotel. I haven't heard the best of things about Hail, Caesar!, though.  
 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I liked Shakespeare in Love 

You also like the Bengals. 

[ljkeane]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Like for example, from the 69th Oscars, which film is discussed more today, Fargo or The English Patient? Which was the better film? The former is a slam dunk on both accounts. Shit, Jerry Maguire was better than The English Patient, and even that was just an alright film.

Wait, I thought you hadn’t seen The English Patient? How do you have any idea whether Jerry Maguire is better than it or not?

[Nictarion]

I don’t have a dog in this fight, as I haven’t seen The English Patient or Shakespeare in Love, but it’s really strange to me to see someone have such strong opinions on films they also haven’t even seen...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Wait, I thought you hadn’t seen The English Patient? How do you have any idea whether Jerry Maguire is better than it or not?

Because it was a good, albeit kind of stupid, movie. Not everyone loved it, sure, but it's not panned the way The English Patient is. I may have spoken with more people who support the latter today than I have in the last 10 years prior, and I have a lot of family that works in the industry. 

25 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

I don’t have a dog in this fight, as I haven’t seen The English Patient or Shakespeare in Love, but it’s really strange to me to see someone have such strong opinions on films they also haven’t even seen...

Lol fair, but because I've yet to meet someone in the real world, especially those with backgrounds in the industry, who thought either film was more than below average at best. I'll trust the ones I know who say they are not worth the time. That's not to say I don't listen to people here. Recently many people said The Talented Mr. Ripley was worth watching, and I rather enjoyed it. 

 

[Mexal]

Personally, I found The English Patient to be boring 

[Zorral]

The English Patient nominations for and winning of awards was objected to by various groups because the romantic hero is a German spy, who they perceived as excused and romanticized by the author of the novel and the film, into 

Quote

...a dashing explorer who falls in love with another man's wife while working with the Royal Geographical Society in North Africa, and who helps the Nazis only as a way to be united with his love.

That was what people objected to, rightly, or wrongly. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/movies/the-real-hungarian-count-was-no-english-patient.html 

[Veltigar]

4 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I finished it last night, really liked it.  In a perfect world there would have been about 20% more focus on the political machinations and character development, but that is my only small gripe. T

Spoiler

he death of Mu-yeong was really moving.  Will def. watch season 3 when/if it comes out. 

 

I'd cover that part in spoiler quotes my man, definitely given the fact that a lot of people are now watching it for the first time.

13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The English Patient nominations for and winning of awards was objected to by various groups because the romantic hero is a German spy, who they perceived as excused and romanticized by the author of the novel and the film, into 

That was what people objected to, rightly, or wrongly. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/movies/the-real-hungarian-count-was-no-english-patient.html 

That was at the time, I think @Tywin et al. point is about more than that, it is also a point about its current standing. As to the English Patient, I saw it once or twice and it is indeed a beautifully looking film, but it is also an exceedingly dull outing. Coloribus et digustibus and all that jazz, but I have always considered The English Patient to be a film that shot for pensative/meditative but ended up with plodding/laboriousness. Still, if its only competitor for the award was Fargo, than I'd definitely choose The English Patient. If the CIA ever wants to torture me, they just have to play the stupid "jah" mid-western gibberish on a loop in my cell. 

As to the other films mentioned in this discussion, I liked Shakespeare in Love. It's been a few years so my appraisal might have changed if I saw it again, but it was fun overall. Did it deserve an Academy Award in the year of Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line? Obviously not. I'll agree with @Ran that Saving Private Ryan has its problems (Schmaltzy Spielberg), but there is nothing in Shakespeare in Love that gets even close to the D-Day sequence in Saving Private Ryan (perhaps apart from Colin Firth's wonderful mustache). It's been many years since I saw the Thin Red Line, so I will refrain from weighing in there.

Dances with Wolves is stupendously long, but it was a wonderful film overall. Saw it many times over the years. Not sure what its competition was, but even if it was a mistake to give it to Costner's vehicle, I can't imagine that it was of the same magnitude as opting for Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan or the Thin Red Line.

[Nictarion]

27 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

Dances with Wolves is stupendously long, but it was a wonderful film overall. Saw it many times over the years. Not sure what its competition was, but even if it was a mistake to give it to Costner's vehicle, I can't imagine that it was of the same magnitude as opting for Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan or the Thin Red Line.

Goodfellas should have won. 

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

Goodfellas should have won. 

Yikes, that was a bad year.  Probably, maybe Goodfellas should have won, but Dances w/Wolves is surely much much better than Ghost, Awakenings and GF III.  Plus the Academy loves actors who can also direct.  Dances w/Wolves gets more grief than it deserves, same with Shakespeare in Love.  They are both fine and good movies.  Shakespeare probably did not deserve best picture, but its no Around the World in 80 Days level of insanity.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

Goodfellas should have won. 

The most "duh" comment of all time.

Now make sure you stir the sauce!

[Nictarion]

6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yikes, that was a bad year.  Probably, maybe Goodfellas should have won, but Dances w/Wolves is surely much much better than Ghost, Awakenings and GF III.  Plus the Academy loves actors who can also direct.  Dances w/Wolves gets more grief than it deserves, same with Shakespeare in Love.  They are both fine and good movies.  Shakespeare probably did not deserve best picture, but its no Around the World in 80 Days level of insanity.

Miller’s Crossing, The Hunt for Red October, and Misery, are all better than the rest of those nominations, imo. 

[Veltigar]

35 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

Goodfellas should have won. 

You're right. Still, not as big of a mistake as Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan overall  

29 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yikes, that was a bad year.  Probably, maybe Goodfellas should have won, but Dances w/Wolves is surely much much better than Ghost, Awakenings and GF III.  Plus the Academy loves actors who can also direct.  Dances w/Wolves gets more grief than it deserves, same with Shakespeare in Love.  They are both fine and good movies.  Shakespeare probably did not deserve best picture, but its no Around the World in 80 Days level of insanity.

Ghost is a treasure, do not bash it 

[Isis]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Audiences did not adore it. Like I said, it's rare to find people who actually like the film. It was Oscar bait, not great film making. Many films that do well at the Oscars actually kind of suck.

Perhaps if it's free, but I'm not paying to watch something I rarely hear good things about. 

Like for example, from the 69th Oscars, which film is discussed more today, Fargo or The English Patient? Which was the better film? The former is a slam dunk on both accounts. Shit, Jerry Maguire was better than The English Patient, and even that was just an alright film.

A best picture these do not make.
 

Even if we accept this premise, which I don't, superior acting, directing, cinematography and yes storytelling should beat out a boring art house film that is kind of laughable 20 years later. One film, again, is taught in many film schools. The other is an afterthought. Figure out which one is which. It won't help your argument. 

Is this a reference to him not aging well? Because the first film I saw him in was the aforementioned Schindler's List, and by then I didn't see it, and I am a straight man who is perfectly fine with saying other men are good looking.

And I don't believe I've seen either of those movies. I have meant to get to The Grand Budapest Hotel. I haven't heard the best of things about Hail, Caesar!, though.  

The funny thing is, the first time I tried to watch The English Patient was probably when it was released on DVD (so, end of..1997?) and it seemed really long and I wasn't really into it. But I think I missed the start maybe, anyway I didn't pay attention properly. Then, fast forward ten years or something and I was going through a phase of trying to watch Oscar winners. And I watched it 'properly' and it was a totally different experience. Firstly, for a long film it doesn't drag - it flows. Secondly, for me it lived up to the expectations - acting, performance, cinematography, direction, storytelling, it's ALL there. It's like two great stories in fact, because part of it is told in flashback. 

After I saw the film I read the book. I expected to love it but I didn't find it as moving as the film. So I'd chalk that up to the power of a great adaptation. 

Ultimately I think I have a soft spot for doomed and/or ambiguous love stories. 

Any time The Grand Budapest Hotel is on TV I have to watch it. A brilliant film and yes, Ralph Fiennes is hilarious in it. Worth paying to watch. I paid to see it at the cinema.

[Martell Spy]

10 hours ago, Veltigar said:

Finished the second season of Kingdom. Damn, it really is a great show. Not sure whether I like that it will probably continue for a third season, but at least the story arc was well done.

The actors were great, the costumes and settings superb and the story was rather more intelligent than you usually get in the genre. I also loved how it is very clearly rooted in a good knowledge of Confucian values and stereotypes which were executed rather well.  I also loved the action, which can be bonkers at time.

No, the South Korean period zombie drama of the same name on Netflix   

Ah, Kingdom does sound great, did a bit of looking in to it. It sounds a bit like the Robin Hobbe Farseer/Assassin trilogy of books, with both internal and external  threats to the kingdom.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Isis said:

The funny thing is, the first time I tried to watch The English Patient was probably when it was released on DVD (so, end of..1997?) and it seemed really long and I wasn't really into it. But I think I missed the start maybe, anyway I didn't pay attention properly. Then, fast forward ten years or something and I was going through a phase of trying to watch Oscar winners. And I watched it 'properly' and it was a totally different experience. Firstly, for a long film it doesn't drag - it flows. Secondly, for me it lived up to the expectations - acting, performance, cinematography, direction, storytelling, it's ALL there. It's like two great stories in fact, because part of it is told in flashback. 

After I saw the film I read the book. I expected to love it but I didn't find it as moving as the film. So I'd chalk that up to the power of a great adaptation. 

Ultimately I think I have a soft spot for doomed and/or ambiguous love stories. 

Any time The Grand Budapest Hotel is on TV I have to watch it. A brilliant film and yes, Ralph Fiennes is hilarious in it. Worth paying to watch. I paid to see it at the cinema.

Mostly finished with it, I still believe this film is boring, but its love story isn't as bad as I've heard. 

[Ran]

33 minutes ago, Isis said:

After I saw the film I read the book. I expected to love it but I didn't find it as moving as the film. So I'd chalk that up to the power of a great adaptation. 

Indeed. Between this and The Talented Mr. Ripley, Minghella was one of the best adapters of literary works in the business in the 90s. Only Scorsese (whose nominated scripts were always co-written) and Darabont did as well  in terms of getting recognition for their adaptations. 

The novel is a very challenging to adapt, very poetic in ways, very metaphysical. Minghella reworked it and found a way for the visuals and score to provide the poetry.

[HexMachina]

1 hour ago, Isis said:

The funny thing is, the first time I tried to watch The English Patient was probably when it was released on DVD (so, end of..1997?) and it seemed really long and I wasn't really into it. But I think I missed the start maybe, anyway I didn't pay attention properly. Then, fast forward ten years or something and I was going through a phase of trying to watch Oscar winners. And I watched it 'properly' and it was a totally different experience. Firstly, for a long film it doesn't drag - it flows. Secondly, for me it lived up to the expectations - acting, performance, cinematography, direction, storytelling, it's ALL there. It's like two great stories in fact, because part of it is told in flashback. 

After I saw the film I read the book. I expected to love it but I didn't find it as moving as the film. So I'd chalk that up to the power of a great adaptation. 

Ultimately I think I have a soft spot for doomed and/or ambiguous love stories. 

Any time The Grand Budapest Hotel is on TV I have to watch it. A brilliant film and yes, Ralph Fiennes is hilarious in it. Worth paying to watch. I paid to see it at the cinema.

Its surely just coincidence but it always seems to be your posts that bring up films that make me instantly want to rewatch them just through their being mentioned. Grand Budapest Hotel is just so watchable. Queued up now...

Hmm, scrolled past Carol as I was looking for it. Add another to the queue...

Still excited for the French Dispatch later this year. Looks like typical Anderson, which is absolutely perfect by me

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Ah, Kingdom does sound great, did a bit of looking in to it. It sounds a bit like the Robin Hobbe Farseer/Assassin trilogy of books, with both internal and external  threats to the kingdom.

You have my interest...