Jump to content

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


Zorral

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I

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

Very good film, and pairs exceptionally well with Haynes' Far From Heaven.

Did you ever manage to catch Portrait of a Lady on Fire

13 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

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

Ditto.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The English Patient lived up to its reputation, technically well done in many ways, but still boring as shit. It was clear Oscar-bait, which should never get rewarded. 

What a weak time in film making, as many films in the late 90's to early 00's would get wrecked by several films older or newer who weren't even considered worthy in their given time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ran said:

Also, my remarks about Malick may give the impression that I think TTRL is a terrible film, but no, it's gorgeous and meditative even if Malick hacked it to pieces to minimize Caviezel ... and it's a better war film than SPR, to boot. :P

I was going to give you some props on this right up until this clarification.  I saw TTRL in the theatre, and pretty sure that my butt is still asleep.  No disagreement that it was gorgeously shot, but it was a serious navel gazer.  I rarely get bored with a movie and that one was just an utter snooze fest.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ran said:

Very good film, and pairs exceptionally well with Haynes' Far From Heaven.

Did you ever manage to catch Portrait of a Lady on Fire

Ditto.

 

Unfortunately I didn’t. I think the cinema release was fairly limited here and it was towards the end of february anyway which was when things were starting to get a bit concerning over here and i was less inclined to go out anyway. Shame. 

I’ll be keeping an eye out on streaming services and/or Sky though. Its available to rent/buy on Prime video which i will likely end up doing if the wait drags on too long. Thanks for the reminder though! I recall your mentioning it and my interest now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

I thought The Grand Budapest Hotel was a great film and Fiennes was very good in it. I wouldn't say the same about Hail, Ceaser! which is a mess overall although Fiennes does have a great comic scene playing a director trying to teach a cowboy actor how to act in a drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What a weak time in film making, as many films in the late 90's to early 00's would get wrecked by several films older or newer who weren't even considered worthy in their given time.

Why?  Because two of the best picture winners didn't blow anything up?  LA Confidential was from that time period.  ..I dunno, this all should be started in another thread.  All I'll say is that era is definitely not a particularly "weak" period in American cinema.  Not saying it's like the 70s or anything, but I think it's ridiculous to assert it's much worse than most any other era.  Or 4-6 year timeframe, or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why?  Because two of the best picture winners didn't blow anything up?  LA Confidential was from that time period.  ..I dunno, this all should be started in another thread.  All I'll say is that era is definitely not a particularly "weak" period in American cinema.  Not saying it's like the 70s or anything, but I think it's ridiculous to assert it's much worse than most any other era.  Or 4-6 year timeframe, or whatever.

96 to 05 Best Picture winners, what would you excitedly tell someone to watch? Million Dollar Baby is a good movie, but it's not something you tell people they need to see. I personally really like Gladiator, but many think it's a weak Best Picture winner. Titanic made a ton of money, but it's debatable how good it actually was. 

Also, I didn't recall that all three LOTR movies were nominated for best picture. Anyways it was just an overall weak time for films. The winners by and large weren't great, but their competition wasn't any better. There are, however, a lot of films that came before and after that period that didn't win which could of dog walked every film made over that decade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of The Grand Budapest Hotel, and Portrait of a Lady on Fire, I actually just bought both on Blu-ray during the Barnes and Noble Criterion sale. The latter was a blind buy, but I’ve heard nothing but good things. Might try to get to it tonight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

96 to 05 Best Picture winners,

Why are you judging the quality of the films simply by who the Academy decided to reward.  Take 2002.  Chicago won.  Not sure I've ever even seen that all the way through, but Gangs of New York, the Pianist, the Hours?  All great films.  We can argue about Shakespeare in Love beating the two war movies in 98, but it also beat out Life is Beautiful, which is an extraordinary film.  Green Mile, Aviator, Finding Neverland, Sideways, Munich - probably my favorite Spielberg movie.  All nominations that fall within your timeframe.  Point is, do you like apples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why are you judging the quality of the films simply by who the Academy decided to reward.  Take 2002.  Chicago won.  Not sure I've ever even seen that all the way through, but Gangs of New York, the Pianist, the Hours?  All great films.  We can argue about Shakespeare in Love beating the two war movies in 98, but it also beat out Life is Beautiful, which is an extraordinary film.  Green Mile, Aviator, Finding Neverland, Sideways, Munich - probably my favorite Spielberg movie.  All nominations that fall within your timeframe.  Point is, do you like apples?

:ack: I was on your side just until you mentioned that horrible piece of shit excuse for a movie :p 

Generally speaking though, I do think @Tywin et al. has a strong case that the winners from 96-2005 just weren't very good for whatever reason.


Just copying the list from Wikipedia with winners and nominees below and it's actually quite depressing:

Spoiler

 

 

1996
(69th)
The English Patient Saul Zaentz
Fargo Ethan Coen
Jerry Maguire James L. Brooks, Laurence Mark, Richard Sakai, and Cameron Crowe
Secrets & Lies Simon Channing-Williams
Shine Jane Scott
1997
(70th)
Titanic James Cameron and Jon Landau
As Good as It Gets James L. Brooks, Bridget Johnson, and Kristi Zea
The Full Monty Uberto Pasolini
Good Will Hunting Lawrence Bender
L.A. Confidential Curtis Hanson, Arnon Milchan, and Michael Nathanson
1998
(71st)
Shakespeare in Love David Parfitt, Donna Gigliotti, Harvey Weinstein, Edward Zwick, and Marc Norman
Elizabeth Alison Owen, Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan
Life Is Beautiful Elda Ferri and Gianluigi Braschi
Saving Private Ryan Steven Spielberg, Ian Bryce, Mark Gordon, and Gary Levinsohn
The Thin Red Line Robert Michael Geisler, John Roberdeau, and Grant Hill
1999
(72nd)
American Beauty Bruce Cohen and Dan Jinks
The Cider House Rules Richard N. Gladstein
The Green Mile Frank Darabont and David Valdes
The Insider Pieter Jan Brugge and Michael Mann
The Sixth Sense Frank Marshall, Kathleen Kennedy, and Barry Mendel

 

2000
(73rd)
Gladiator Douglas Wick, David Franzoni, and Branko Lustig
Chocolat David Brown, Kit Golden, and Leslie Holleran
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon William Kong, Hsu Li-kong, and Ang Lee
Erin Brockovich Danny DeVito, Michael Shamberg, and Stacey Sher
Traffic Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz, and Laura Bickford
2001
(74th)
A Beautiful Mind Brian Grazer and Ron Howard
Gosford Park Robert Altman, Bob Balaban, and David Levy
In the Bedroom Graham Leader, Ross Katz, and Todd Field
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Barrie M. Osborne
Moulin Rouge! Martin Brown, Baz Luhrmann, and Fred Baron
2002
(75th)
Chicago Martin Richards
Gangs of New York Alberto Grimaldi and Harvey Weinstein
The Hours Scott Rudin and Robert Fox
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh, and Peter Jackson
The Pianist Roman Polanski, Robert Benmussa, and Alain Sarde
2003
(76th)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson, and Fran Walsh
Lost in Translation Ross Katz and Sofia Coppola
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World Samuel Goldwyn Jr., Peter Weir, and Duncan Henderson
Mystic River Robert Lorenz, Judie G. Hoyt, and Clint Eastwood
Seabiscuit Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall, and Gary Ross
2004
(77th)
Million Dollar Baby Clint Eastwood, Albert S. Ruddy, and Tom Rosenberg
The Aviator Michael Mann and Graham King
Finding Neverland Richard N. Gladstein and Nellie Bellflower
Ray Taylor Hackford, Stuart Benjamin, and Howard Baldwin
Sideways Michael London
2005
(78th)
Crash Paul Haggis and Cathy Schulman
Brokeback Mountain Diana Ossana and James Schamus
Capote Caroline Baron, William Vince, and Michael Ohoven
Good Night, and Good Luck Grant Heslov
Munich Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, and Barry Mendel

 

Particularly 2001 & 2004 were bad. No good film seems to have been nominated in 2004. Out of the entire list from 96-05 I'd say that only Gladiator and Return of the King were justified winners. Whether that means that the entire output during these years was weaker is not a conclusion I would automatically draw, but the Academy certainly kept its head up its own butt even more than they do so nowadays!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

Just copying the list from Wikipedia with winners and nominees below and its actually quite depressing:

As compared to what?  You're telling me you're a huge fan of the winners and nominees from the 80s?  Or post 2005?  I guess that's your opinion, but don't tell me that group of films is of any higher quality than the decade described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

Speaking of The Grand Budapest Hotel, and Portrait of a Lady on Fire, I actually just bought both on Blu-ray during the Barnes and Noble Criterion sale. The latter was a blind buy, but I’ve heard nothing but good things. Might try to get to it tonight...

My favorite movie of last year, right next to Parasite. I cannot sing it’s praises enough. Every scene is staged as a piece of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

As compared to what?  You're telling me you're a huge fan of the winners and nominees from the 80s?  Or post 2005?  I guess that's your opinion, but don't tell me that group of films is of any higher quality than the decade described.

Well, Wikipedia is quite handy for comparison's sake. Take the list I posted earlier and compare it to:

1990-1995

I have seen every best picture winner of that era and while there are films that I would personally object too (looking at your Forrest Gump & Braveheart) I'd much rather rewatch even my least favorite Best Picture winners of that era than having to take another go at Chicago, Titanic, Crash, Million Dollar Baby, A Beautiful Mind, Shakespeare in Love, American Beauty and the English Patient.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

:ack: I was on your side just until you mentioned that horrible piece of shit excuse for a movie :p 

Generally speaking though, I do think @Tywin et al. has a strong case that the winners from 96-2005 just weren't very good for whatever reason.


Just copying the list from Wikipedia with winners and nominees below and it's actually quite depressing:

  Hide contents

 

 

1996
(69th)
The English Patient Saul Zaentz
Fargo Ethan Coen
Jerry Maguire James L. Brooks, Laurence Mark, Richard Sakai, and Cameron Crowe
Secrets & Lies Simon Channing-Williams
Shine Jane Scott
1997
(70th)
Titanic James Cameron and Jon Landau
As Good as It Gets James L. Brooks, Bridget Johnson, and Kristi Zea
The Full Monty Uberto Pasolini
Good Will Hunting Lawrence Bender
L.A. Confidential Curtis Hanson, Arnon Milchan, and Michael Nathanson
1998
(71st)
Shakespeare in Love David Parfitt, Donna Gigliotti, Harvey Weinstein, Edward Zwick, and Marc Norman
Elizabeth Alison Owen, Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan
Life Is Beautiful Elda Ferri and Gianluigi Braschi
Saving Private Ryan Steven Spielberg, Ian Bryce, Mark Gordon, and Gary Levinsohn
The Thin Red Line Robert Michael Geisler, John Roberdeau, and Grant Hill
1999
(72nd)
American Beauty Bruce Cohen and Dan Jinks
The Cider House Rules Richard N. Gladstein
The Green Mile Frank Darabont and David Valdes
The Insider Pieter Jan Brugge and Michael Mann
The Sixth Sense Frank Marshall, Kathleen Kennedy, and Barry Mendel

 

2000
(73rd)
Gladiator Douglas Wick, David Franzoni, and Branko Lustig
Chocolat David Brown, Kit Golden, and Leslie Holleran
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon William Kong, Hsu Li-kong, and Ang Lee
Erin Brockovich Danny DeVito, Michael Shamberg, and Stacey Sher
Traffic Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz, and Laura Bickford
2001
(74th)
A Beautiful Mind Brian Grazer and Ron Howard
Gosford Park Robert Altman, Bob Balaban, and David Levy
In the Bedroom Graham Leader, Ross Katz, and Todd Field
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Barrie M. Osborne
Moulin Rouge! Martin Brown, Baz Luhrmann, and Fred Baron
2002
(75th)
Chicago Martin Richards
Gangs of New York Alberto Grimaldi and Harvey Weinstein
The Hours Scott Rudin and Robert Fox
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh, and Peter Jackson
The Pianist Roman Polanski, Robert Benmussa, and Alain Sarde
2003
(76th)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson, and Fran Walsh
Lost in Translation Ross Katz and Sofia Coppola
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World Samuel Goldwyn Jr., Peter Weir, and Duncan Henderson
Mystic River Robert Lorenz, Judie G. Hoyt, and Clint Eastwood
Seabiscuit Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall, and Gary Ross
2004
(77th)
Million Dollar Baby Clint Eastwood, Albert S. Ruddy, and Tom Rosenberg
The Aviator Michael Mann and Graham King
Finding Neverland Richard N. Gladstein and Nellie Bellflower
Ray Taylor Hackford, Stuart Benjamin, and Howard Baldwin
Sideways Michael London
2005
(78th)
Crash Paul Haggis and Cathy Schulman
Brokeback Mountain Diana Ossana and James Schamus
Capote Caroline Baron, William Vince, and Michael Ohoven
Good Night, and Good Luck Grant Heslov
Munich Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, and Barry Mendel

 

Particularly 2001 & 2004 were bad. No good film seems to have been nominated in 2004. Out of the entire list from 96-05 I'd say that only Gladiator and Return of the King were justified winners. Whether that means that the entire output during these years was weaker is not a conclusion I would automatically draw, but the Academy certainly kept its head up its own butt even more than they do so nowadays!

I disagree there. I love Sideways. I’ve seen it countless times, and it just never gets old. 

Also, while not one of my favorite Scorsese films, The Aviator is pretty good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why are you judging the quality of the films simply by who the Academy decided to reward.  Take 2002.  Chicago won.  Not sure I've ever even seen that all the way through, but Gangs of New York, the Pianist, the Hours?  All great films.  We can argue about Shakespeare in Love beating the two war movies in 98, but it also beat out Life is Beautiful, which is an extraordinary film.  Green Mile, Aviator, Finding Neverland, Sideways, Munich - probably my favorite Spielberg movie.  All nominations that fall within your timeframe.  Point is, do you like apples?

I just pointed out that for a long run largely forgettable movies cleaned up at the biggest film award event.

So let's take some of the films you mentioned. Chicago.....sucked. I've tried to watch it a few times, it's not a very good film, and I say that as someone who like musicals and loves that city. 

I really like Gangs of New York. I'll stop on it damn near every time. But I'm not sure it really is a Best Picture film either. The Aviator is also a great film, and that would be a worthy BP winner over many in that time span. I know I've seen Munich, but can't recall it. I'm not sure if I've ever seen Finding Neverland or Sideways.

The Green Mile is where it gets tricky. The movie was no where near as good as the book, but Michael Clarke Duncan gave an all-time performance. When debating the best castings ever, he belongs in that conversation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Veltigar said:

I have seen every best picture winner of that era and while there are films that I would personally object too (looking at your Forrest Gump & Braveheart) I'd much rather rewatch even my least favorite films of that era than having to take another go at Chicago, Titanic, Crash, Million Dollar Baby, A Beautiful Mind, Shakespeare in Love, American Beauty and the English Patient.  

Yeah you're doing the same thing Ty is and just looking at the best picture winners.  Who give a shit?  The wiki entry showing the nominations is a nice way to see what were the main most lauded films at the time, but that's not the whole story.  And also, I like Beautiful Mind, American Beauty, and Shakespeare in Love - while not deserving of best picture - is a fun movie.  I also don't get why you hate Life is Beautiful.  90-95 included quite sub-par or boring films IMHO like Ghost, Bugsy, Prince of Tides, Howard's End, everything but Schindler's List in 93, Four Weddings and a Funeral, and Quiz Show?!?  Il Postino and Sense and Sensibility weren't my sensibilities either.  And Babe?

So, anyway, lots of movies that get nominated suck, even when there was only 5.  Sometimes they win.  Why are we basing our standards on best picture winners?  Makes no sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why are you judging the quality of the films simply by who the Academy decided to reward.  Take 2002.  Chicago won.  Not sure I've ever even seen that all the way through, but Gangs of New York, the Pianist, the Hours?  All great films.  We can argue about Shakespeare in Love beating the two war movies in 98, but it also beat out Life is Beautiful, which is an extraordinary film.  Green Mile, Aviator, Finding Neverland, Sideways, Munich - probably my favorite Spielberg movie.  All nominations that fall within your timeframe.  Point is, do you like apples?

*bites lip*

...

You had this coming. You had this coming. You only have yourself to blame....

Chicago is my guilty pleasure. I love that film

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

:ack: I was on your side just until you mentioned that horrible piece of shit excuse for a movie :p 

Generally speaking though, I do think @Tywin et al. has a strong case that the winners from 96-2005 just weren't very good for whatever reason.


Just copying the list from Wikipedia with winners and nominees below and it's actually quite depressing:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

1996
(69th)
The English Patient Saul Zaentz
Fargo Ethan Coen
Jerry Maguire James L. Brooks, Laurence Mark, Richard Sakai, and Cameron Crowe
Secrets & Lies Simon Channing-Williams
Shine Jane Scott
1997
(70th)
Titanic James Cameron and Jon Landau
As Good as It Gets James L. Brooks, Bridget Johnson, and Kristi Zea
The Full Monty Uberto Pasolini
Good Will Hunting Lawrence Bender
L.A. Confidential Curtis Hanson, Arnon Milchan, and Michael Nathanson
1998
(71st)
Shakespeare in Love David Parfitt, Donna Gigliotti, Harvey Weinstein, Edward Zwick, and Marc Norman
Elizabeth Alison Owen, Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan
Life Is Beautiful Elda Ferri and Gianluigi Braschi
Saving Private Ryan Steven Spielberg, Ian Bryce, Mark Gordon, and Gary Levinsohn
The Thin Red Line Robert Michael Geisler, John Roberdeau, and Grant Hill
1999
(72nd)
American Beauty Bruce Cohen and Dan Jinks
The Cider House Rules Richard N. Gladstein
The Green Mile Frank Darabont and David Valdes
The Insider Pieter Jan Brugge and Michael Mann
The Sixth Sense Frank Marshall, Kathleen Kennedy, and Barry Mendel

 

2000
(73rd)
Gladiator Douglas Wick, David Franzoni, and Branko Lustig
Chocolat David Brown, Kit Golden, and Leslie Holleran
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon William Kong, Hsu Li-kong, and Ang Lee
Erin Brockovich Danny DeVito, Michael Shamberg, and Stacey Sher
Traffic Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz, and Laura Bickford
2001
(74th)
A Beautiful Mind Brian Grazer and Ron Howard
Gosford Park Robert Altman, Bob Balaban, and David Levy
In the Bedroom Graham Leader, Ross Katz, and Todd Field
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Barrie M. Osborne
Moulin Rouge! Martin Brown, Baz Luhrmann, and Fred Baron
2002
(75th)
Chicago Martin Richards
Gangs of New York Alberto Grimaldi and Harvey Weinstein
The Hours Scott Rudin and Robert Fox
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh, and Peter Jackson
The Pianist Roman Polanski, Robert Benmussa, and Alain Sarde
2003
(76th)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson, and Fran Walsh
Lost in Translation Ross Katz and Sofia Coppola
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World Samuel Goldwyn Jr., Peter Weir, and Duncan Henderson
Mystic River Robert Lorenz, Judie G. Hoyt, and Clint Eastwood
Seabiscuit Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall, and Gary Ross
2004
(77th)
Million Dollar Baby Clint Eastwood, Albert S. Ruddy, and Tom Rosenberg
The Aviator Michael Mann and Graham King
Finding Neverland Richard N. Gladstein and Nellie Bellflower
Ray Taylor Hackford, Stuart Benjamin, and Howard Baldwin
Sideways Michael London
2005
(78th)
Crash Paul Haggis and Cathy Schulman
Brokeback Mountain Diana Ossana and James Schamus
Capote Caroline Baron, William Vince, and Michael Ohoven
Good Night, and Good Luck Grant Heslov
Munich Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, and Barry Mendel

 

Particularly 2001 & 2004 were bad. No good film seems to have been nominated in 2004. Out of the entire list from 96-05 I'd say that only Gladiator and Return of the King were justified winners. Whether that means that the entire output during these years was weaker is not a conclusion I would automatically draw, but the Academy certainly kept its head up its own butt even more than they do so nowadays!

I left out Life is Beautiful because I have no idea what that is. But when you look at that list, what film clearly towers over all the competition, including those not nominated? I guess A Beautiful Mind probably was the best film of the year, but even that is weak and deeply flawed. And it won in a year in which The Mexican came out. I rest my case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

*bites lip*

...

You had this coming. You had this coming. You only have yourself to blame....

Not sure what you're referring to?  That I haven't seen Chicago all the way through?  I was interested in its historical bases, but I couldn't take it after awhile.  Richard Gere bothers me.

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...