92 replies to this topic

[Mamadou]

I guess it's just a weak year.

Indeed. Weaker than most, especially at the Oscars. I've only seen "Little Miss Sunshine," and am interested in seeing only "The Departed" and "Letters from Iwo Jima." Babel doesn't appeal to me at all; neither does the Queen.

What's so aggravating about the Oscars this year (and this is personal) is that the films I got the most excited about in 2006 got shut out or almost completely shut out. UNITED 93 and THE GOOD SHEPHERD scraped one nomination each. I was very surprised that UNITED 93 (which, as some have said, was universally praised) didn't get more nods. Screenplay (very tight writing) and cinematography (how it can hold your attention and create suspense with a radar screen) are nominations it deserves, perhaps Best Picture.

THE GOOD SHEPHERD took some time to grow on me, and I think that's what held it back in nominations: the fact you need to see it twice to really appreciate it (and I did). Most Academy voters aren't going to see a film twice, so the film suffered in nominations as a result. I'd give it screenplay, direction, supporting actor (for Oleg Stefan as Ulysses), maybe Best Picture. I'm not sure about Best Actor for Matt Damon, although he did a tremendous job of holding the film together (his performance reminds me Alain Delon's in "Le Samourai"). That said, the film deserves its art direction nod, simply for the great attention to detail in every single scene. Additionally, almost better than nominating any single actor would be creating an Best Ensemble award (I had the same feeling about "Munich" a few years ago).

I'm obviously disappointed that CASINO ROYALE didn't get any recognition, even in its usual categories of visual effects and song. Art direction and costumes are deserved as well, perhaps adapted screenplay. And, of course, best actor. This is also one of those films that reminds me why the Academy should have a Best Stunt award, for the parkour scene, obviously.

Additionally, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING deserved at least a screenplay nod. It was one of the most original movies, let alone comedies, I've seen in years. Not only does it deal in ideas (the way "Babel" claims it does), but it makes you laugh along the way. I also love how it plays with our allegiances: who knew we'd end up rooting for a Big Tobacco lobbyist? Every line in this film is a pure gem, the cast is phenomenal, it looks beautiful. What's not to love?

But the biggest disappointment for me was the complete shut out of V FOR VENDETTA. It deserved screenplay (fans of the graphic novel are allowed to crucify me), cinematography, art direction, supporting actor (Stephen Rea as the detective), maybe picture (all things considered). But most importantly Best Actor for Hugo Weaving. His was far and away the best performance I saw all year by any actor in any category--and also the most original and creative, considering he did everything with his voice and body language, since his face was covered in the entire film. I saw this film three times last year (twice in the cinema, once on DVD), and have it on my Amazon.com wishlist (I'm very low on cash so I can't buy it myself). Not many films get my butt in the seat more than once, if at all, but this intrigued me from start to finish three times. We won't see another film like this for a long time.

[Bon-san]

I was very surprised that UNITED 93 (which, as some have said, was universally praised) didn't get more nods. Screenplay (very tight writing) and cinematography (how it can hold your attention and create suspense with a radar screen) are nominations it deserves, perhaps Best Picture.

I very much agree. Greengrass for Best Director IMO.

[bond 16.05.72]

What's all this hate for The Departed, while I agree it's not vintage Scorcesse it's still a sold entertaining film, yes Jack's just going through the motions and coasting But Damon & Dicaprio are both excellent, great support from Sheen, Wahlberg & Baldwin.

I'm not a fan of sympathy Oscar's but if Cameron gets an Oscar for that awful bloated over long sentimental drivel that is Titanic then it's about time Marty got one.

Also Eastwood has had far too many anyway.

[Harmsway]

I was very surprised that UNITED 93 (which, as some have said, was universally praised) didn't get more nods. Screenplay (very tight writing) and cinematography (how it can hold your attention and create suspense with a radar screen) are nominations it deserves, perhaps Best Picture.

Were it not for PAN'S LABYRINTH, I'd say it was the best film of the year.

THE GOOD SHEPHERD took some time to grow on me, and I think that's what held it back in nominations: the fact you need to see it twice to really appreciate it (and I did). Most Academy voters aren't going to see a film twice, so the film suffered in nominations as a result.

Ah, yes. I really thought THE GOOD SHEPHERD was quite good. Tragically ignored.

I'm not sure about Best Actor for Matt Damon, although he did a tremendous job of holding the film together (his performance reminds me Alain Delon's in "Le Samourai").

Well, it's the best performance he's ever given. It's not a flashy performance, so it's not as striking as some of the other Oscar nominees, but it's quite a good one.

Additionally, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING deserved at least a screenplay nod. It was one of the most original movies, let alone comedies, I've seen in years. Not only does it deal in ideas (the way "Babel" claims it does), but it makes you laugh along the way. I also love how it plays with our allegiances: who knew we'd end up rooting for a Big Tobacco lobbyist? Every line in this film is a pure gem, the cast is phenomenal, it looks beautiful. What's not to love?

Indeed. THANK YOU FOR SMOKING is one of the best comedies of the decade. Hilarious and poignant.

But the biggest disappointment for me was the complete shut out of V FOR VENDETTA. It deserved screenplay (fans of the graphic novel are allowed to crucify me),

Oh come on. I'm a fan of the graphic novel, so take that into account, but the script was heavy-handed and full of awkward dialogue. It only worked because there were some gifted actors in the cast who were able to redeem the clunkers. Nevermind that there's nothing particularly subtle about the film - it's a film that thinks it's smarter and deeper than it is (see also THE MATRIX, which was far from a Best Picture nominee).

And if you haven't read the graphic novel, I recommend you do so. It's brilliant, though it's remarkably different from the film - both storywise and thematically. Its adaptation takes a work of intriguing dystopian fiction and turns it into a palatable popcorn film. What it should have been was a new A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. What it ended up being was a new THE MATRIX.

cinematography, art direction,

Definitely, and it's criminal it didn't get nominations in either of those categories. It was one of the more beautiful films of 2006.

But most importantly Best Actor for Hugo Weaving.

He certainly deserved a nod. Fantastic work.

[Mamadou]

Harmsway,

I have read the graphic novel of V FOR VENDETTA and loved it. Alan Moore and David Lloyd created a unique world and a unique character. The film and the novel, however, are two entirely different animals. The novel does some things better than the film (a couple of things are explained there that aren't in the film), but the film has a few things over the novel. I think the graphic novel got a little heavyhanded in the extremes it presented, whereas the film (to me) presented a slightly more plausible scenario. That aside, it's a film, requiring some sacrifices from the book to accommodate the medium (for another case in point, read Mario Puzo's novel "The Godfather," then watch the movie again to see what kind of cuts). To me, one isn't better than the other; they are just different species.

I also hated the entire Matrix trilogy, BTW. The Wachowski brothers had nothing to say in that film that was relevant, or hadn't been said better by BLADE RUNNER or DARK CITY. V was a film that was current, went straight for the gut, and also let you have a little fun along the way.

Still, it is criminal that it was forgotten. The only film I've heard talked about more was UNITED 93.

[Harmsway]

The novel does some things better than the film (a couple of things are explained there that aren't in the film), but the film has a few things over the novel.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not all a purist. I allow for a lot of flexibility in changes from material to the adaptation, as long as the changes are good/necessary and seek to maintain the same essence as the material that is being adapted.

Many (actually, most) of the changes were entirely unnecessary and unwarranted. A lot of them even cheapened the story - for example, making the government leader the particular bad guy who had merely manipulated his way into power and was bad through and through. In the graphic novel, he believes in what he's doing, and there's the much more interesting idea that he didn't necessarily have to stage a massacre of people to get put into power.

Another example. The ending of the graphic novel V FOR VENDETTA is a fairly bleak one - you don't really know if everything's going to come together. It's just a chance for the better, and it leaves on that note. The movie goes a ridiculous route and has everybody and their uncle dress up in "V" costumes and has the world restored.

I think the graphic novel got a little heavyhanded in the extremes it presented, whereas the film (to me) presented a slightly more plausible scenario.

The graphic novel sought to pit anarchism against facism, but wasn't really there to endorse anarchy as much as it was to examine the two different extremes. The movie loses that bold thematic strain, and merely makes it a film of liberal politics versus conservative politics, which isn't anywhere near as interesting, and is ultimately just a "safer" route.

The movie goes for something far less controversial, far more palatable, far more acceptable. There isn't an aspect of it that isn't a little toned down for the movie (we don't have Evey driven to prostitute herself in the opening scenes, V is turned into a softer love interest, the bad guys are villainized to a remarkable degree - even the darker scenes of murder with V are removed).

Still, it is criminal that it was forgotten. The only film I've heard talked about more was UNITED 93.

Really? V FOR VENDETTA opened with a whimper, not with a bang, and most people I've talked to haven't seen it. It got okay reviews, but only okay reviews. The general consensus seemed to be that it wasn't anywhere near as controverial or important as it wanted to be.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, BABEL, THE DEPARTED, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and THE QUEEN will be slugging it out this Sunday.

I think THE DEPARTED will win, if only due to a misguided and absurd desire to give Scorsese his "long-overdue recongition", or some such cobblers. I've only seen BABEL, THE DEPARTED and THE QUEEN, but my personal pick would be BABEL - overlong and more than a little pretentious, but still a riveting, dazzling piece of work.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

None of them can hold a candle to Casino Royale. The best movie of the year is not even up for a nomination. Hence there is no reason to waste my time on that kind of garbage.

Question: Did The Departed, Babel, etc have as high a critical rating as Casino Royale on sites like Rotten Tomatoes?

The Academy Awards have always disregarded 'action films' so it's no surprise, really, that CR received no nominations in the major categories. While one can disagree with the Academy on this approach, at least one must grant that the Academy has been consistent about this.

You joking right?

Gladiator, Braveheart, The Return Of The King... Are they arthouse dramas?

Oscars are pure and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Bon-san]

The Academy Awards have always disregarded 'action films' so it's no surprise, really, that CR received no nominations in the major categories. While one can disagree with the Academy on this approach, at least one must grant that the Academy has been consistent about this.

You joking right?

No, not at all. But you didn't really think I was.

Gladiator, Braveheart, The Return Of The King... Are they arthouse dramas?

No, but that's employing a major logic foul. Because those films are not arthouse dramas, it does not necessarily follow that they are action movies. I would classify them as adventures, historical epics, or in the case of ROTK, fantasy. One could argue that Casino Royale is not an action movie. But I don't think one would get very far with that tack.

It's just understood that certain kinds of films, no matter how well-made or how entertaining, are not going to get Oscar nods. I personally didn't think the LOTR films belonged there, but then LOTR has never been my thing. Braveheart, Gladiator, LOTR are all costumers, which the Academy has a long history of rewarding. They were also fine films (I'm stretching in re ROTK, but what the heck).

Hey, I love Casino Royale, but I haven't for a millisecond since its release considered that it might get anywhere near an Oscar nomination. It's just the way of things. Now, I did think there was an outside chance for Daniel Craig and (even more of a longshot) Phil Meheux. But it didn't happen. It's still a great movie. That it didn't pick up Oscar nods, oh well. There's a lot of really terrific films that Oscar ignored. Lots of good company.

Oscars are pure and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

I really bristle when people tell me not to let anyone tell me otherwise. I'm not five years old! In any event, I hardly find the Oscars to be pure . They may not get it right all the time, but when it comes to art, how could anyone? It's all subjective. I do agree with the sentiment that the Oscars (like all awards) are not very important. But the spectacle of Oscar night is a tradition I wouldn't want to see go. It's Movies' Biggest Night!

[Harmsway]

It's just understood that certain kinds of films, no matter how well-made or how entertaining, are not going to get Oscar nods. I personally didn't think the LOTR films belonged there, but then LOTR has never been my thing. Braveheart, Gladiator, LOTR are all costumers, which the Academy has a long history of rewarding. They were also fine films (I'm stretching in re ROTK, but what the heck).

Well, that rule has been broken in past years. We've had some crazy nominees. To name a few films that break the typical Best Picture nominee mold: M*A*S*H, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, THE EXORCIST, THE TOWERING INFERNO, JAWS, STAR WARS, E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, and THE FUGITIVE.

[Loomis]

No way did THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING deserve Best Picture. It's not even a full-length film. Also, it's rubbish. It robbed LOST IN TRANSLATION.

And the wonderful SIDEWAYS was robbed by the wretched MILLION DOLLAR BABY.

Yes, the Oscars are ****. Especially when the films I like don't win. OTOH, when films I like do win, e.g. ROCKY, I haven't a bad word to say about the Academy Awards.

[Harmsway]

No way did THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING deserve Best Picture. It's not even a full-length film.

It was released as its own film, and thus has to be taken as its own film. it's as much its own film as, say, KILL BILL VOL. 2 is, or RETURN OF THE JEDI is.

Yes, the Oscars are ****. Especially when the films I like don't win. OTOH, when films I like do win, e.g. ROCKY, I haven't a bad word to say about the Academy Awards.

[Turn]

No way did THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING deserve Best Picture. It's not even a full-length film. Also, it's rubbish. It robbed LOST IN TRANSLATION.

And the wonderful SIDEWAYS was robbed by the wretched MILLION DOLLAR BABY.

Yes, the Oscars are ****. Especially when the films I like don't win. OTOH, when films I like do win, e.g. ROCKY, I haven't a bad word to say about the Academy Awards.

I agree on Million Dollar Baby, a talented group performing cliches and being rewarded for it. But I find Lost In Translation also somewhat overrated.

I get irked when some of the best films get little more than a token screenplay nod, such as Boogie Nights or Out of Sight, which were among the best films of their respective years.

[HildebrandRarity]

Everyone on the planet would view the three movies I mentioned (Gladiator, Braveheart and LORT:ROTK) to be action adventures. The Bond movies are action adventures.

Gladiator, Braveheart and LORT:ROTK are not comedies, are they? They aren't dramas either. They are pure action spectacles and so I stand by my rebuttle that action movies dont get nominated.

I mean I really dont care. Oscar smoscar. I saw Casino Royale multimple times and I know a good movie when I see one and I could care less to see the likes of Miss Sunshine or Iwo Jima or Babel. Their subject matter does not interest me.

But no one has answered my question:

What movie had a higher level of critical acclaim than Casino Royale? (If there was such a movie, it certainly is not as univesally loved as CR.)

Then there's United 93.

[tdalton]

I stated earlier in the thread that I thought that it was down to The Departed and Little Miss Sunshine for this year's Best Picture award. Since the awards are tomorrow, I'm going to just go ahead and make a prediction that Little Miss Sunshine will take home the trophy. The film has won the Best Picture (or the equivalent) award at the Independent Spirit Awards, Screen Actors Guild awards, Producers Guild awards, and the Writers Guild awards. While it's true that none of the films has really emerged as a front-runner for the award, I think that the fact that Little Miss Sunshine has won all of these Best Picture awards at other events signals that it has a great deal of support and, most likely, will go home with the Best Picture Academy Award.

[Loomis]

But no one has answered my question:

What movie had a higher level of critical acclaim than Casino Royale? (If there was such a movie, it certainly is not as univesally loved as CR.)

Well, just going by Rotten Tomatoes, THE QUEEN has 98%, as opposed to CASINO ROYALE's 94%. So the answer to your question is probably THE QUEEN, although it's doubtful that it's as "universally loved" (by moviegoers, I take it you mean) as CR, and CR has a higher Rotten Tomatoes score than any of the other Best Picture nominees.

http://goldderby.lat...shaken_by_.html

[Vauxhall]

My head tells me that THE DEPARTED will win, but I really don't think that it deserves to. I didn't find anything special or exceptional about this movie, and feel that it's strongest selling point is Scorsese. I haven't seen all the movies nominated, and based on what I've seen I'd like to see BABEL or LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE take home the award. I have seen THE QUEEN however, and whilst it isn't really the type of film I'd usually watch, I found it to be much more enjoyable than THE DEPARTED. Just my opinion of course.

[HildebrandRarity]

But no one has answered my question:

What movie had a higher level of critical acclaim than Casino Royale? (If there was such a movie, it certainly is not as univesally loved as CR.)

Well, just going by Rotten Tomatoes, THE QUEEN has 98%, as opposed to CASINO ROYALE's 94%. So the answer to your question is probably THE QUEEN, although it's doubtful that it's as "universally loved" (by moviegoers, I take it you mean) as CR, and CR has a higher Rotten Tomatoes score than any of the other Best Picture nominees.

http://goldderby.lat...shaken_by_.html

Loomis, et al...

So, if the above is the case and (*AND*) Braveheart and Gladiator and LORT:ROTK (none of them historically accurate dramas...in fact they're all outright action adventures or even fantasy adventures) get nominations, where is there consistency?

Where? On the one hand Casino Royale's almost the single best reviewed movie of 2006...and on the other hand there's been prescedents set. So where is the consistently?

I'd like to know. (It's a rhetorical statement, btw.)

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 25 February 2007 - 04:26 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

My head tells me that THE DEPARTED will win, but I really don't think that it deserves to.

I haven't seen all the movies nominated, and based on what I've seen I'd like to see BABEL or LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE take home the award.

Vauxhall, the site that Loomis provied a link to has Casino Royale scoring better than The Departed and Little Miss Sunshine. Babel got totally blown out of the water by CR according to scores from that site...it's reviews were mixed.

What do you make of that?

[Safari Suit]

So, if the above is the case and (*AND*) Braveheart and Gladiator and LORT:ROTK (none of them historically accurate dramas...in fact they're all outright action adventures or even fantasy adventures) get nominations, where is there consistency?

Where? On the one hand Casino Royale's almost the single best reviewed movie of 2006...and on the other hand there's been prescedents set. So where is the consistently?

In short; nowhere.

On the other hand, Oscar nominees generally have a bit of "buzz" about them before they were released (as was the case for all of this years films bar "Sunshine"). CR had no such buzz about it before release, just low level speculation afterwards. There is also the fact that the films you mentioned had some "highbrow" pretentions (historical epics, and an adaptation of one of the most highly aclaimed books of all time).

[HildebrandRarity]

So, if the above is the case and (*AND*) Braveheart and Gladiator and LORT:ROTK (none of them historically accurate dramas...in fact they're all outright action adventures or even fantasy adventures) get nominations, where is there consistency?

Where? On the one hand Casino Royale's almost the single best reviewed movie of 2006...and on the other hand there's been prescedents set. So where is the consistently?

In short; nowhere.

On the other hand, Oscar nominees generally have a bit of "buzz" about them before they were released (as was the case for all of this years films bar "Sunshine"). CR had no such buzz about it before release...

...neither did Gladiator.

Gladiator was released in May (2000). I know this because I saw it 5 times during it's run...and there was no 'buzz', as you say...except I recall telling everyone during it's run that it was going to win Oscars...and everyone said to me: "Yea, right...it's an action flick and it's been released too far ahead of time...the oscar contenders get released in late October to December." And I said, "O...ok."

I'll be going to see Casino Royale this evening instead of worrying about the pretentious that's happening back at the base of the Hollywood hills tonight.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 25 February 2007 - 05:31 PM.

[Loomis]

But no one has answered my question:

What movie had a higher level of critical acclaim than Casino Royale? (If there was such a movie, it certainly is not as univesally loved as CR.)

Well, just going by Rotten Tomatoes, THE QUEEN has 98%, as opposed to CASINO ROYALE's 94%. So the answer to your question is probably THE QUEEN, although it's doubtful that it's as "universally loved" (by moviegoers, I take it you mean) as CR, and CR has a higher Rotten Tomatoes score than any of the other Best Picture nominees.

http://goldderby.lat...shaken_by_.html

Loomis, et al...

So, if the above is the case and (*AND*) Braveheart and Gladiator and LORT:ROTK (none of them historically accurate dramas...in fact they're all outright action adventures or even fantasy adventures) get nominations, where is there consistency?

Personally, I don't think I've ever said that the Oscars have been consistent (except consistent in snobbishness), but I'm happy to be proven wrong in the unlikely event of anyone feeling bothered to look through my past posts.

Also, Hildebrand, forgive me if I'm wrong, as I may well be, but you seem to be implying that we're all defending the Academy in its neglect of CASINO ROYALE. I think it deserved to be nominated for various things, and am disappointed it hasn't been, and I believe I've stated as much on several occasions. And I think the same is true of everyone who's posted on this thread.

[HildebrandRarity]

Loomis, my friend, you're taking me the wrong way. I don't think you said the oscars were consistent and I don't think you're defending the buggers. I'm just pointing out where the critical acclaim went and what happened in the past.

I saw The Departed and I thought it was a good movie. But better than Casino Royale? No way! An award winning movie for best pic? I don't think so!

[Loomis]

Loomis, my friend, you're taking me the wrong way. I don't think you said the oscars were consistent and I don't think you're defending the buggers. I'm just pointing out where the critical acclaim went and what happened in the past.

Fair enough, and apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick.

I saw The Departed and I thought it was a good movie. But better than Casino Royale? No way! An award winning movie for best pic? I don't think so!

Me neither, but then I didn't even think it was a good movie. Neither was I at all impressed by CRASH, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, LOTR: ROTK, CHICAGO, GLADIATOR, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, BRAVEHEART, PLATOON and other wildly overpraised sacred cows of Academy Awards of yesteryear. OTOH, ROCKY, ANNIE HALL, THE DEER HUNTER, THE LAST EMPEROR, SCHINDLER'S LIST, FORREST GUMP and TITANIC were all worthy Best Picture winners, IMO.

I can't remember the Oscars ever being as political and predictable as they seem to have been over the past few years, though, although perhaps they always were and I was just too young/too not even born to realise it. These days, the way it appears to be enshrined in United States law that Judi Dench, Clint Eastwood and Scorsese must get nominated if they've done any work at all in the relevant year.... it's just embarrassing, and turns the whole thing into a farce.

ROCKY BALBOA, CASINO ROYALE and THE BOURNE SUPREMACY are several cuts above being just yer average sequels. To my mind, they're made with just as much artistry as the supposedly serious and worthy likes of THE DEPARTED and THE QUEEN (both of which are actually ludicrous films with glaring plot holes worthy of ROCKY IV), and it's a shame that the Academy voters are too busy trying to devise new ways to reward, as Lazenby's Bond might put it, that monument Eastwood and his ilk.

[TortillaFactory]

The boyfriend's list. I defer to his superior knowledge.

Will/Should

Best Picture - The Queen/The Departed
Best Director - Martin Scorsese/Martin Scorsese
Best Actor - Forest Whitaker/Forest Whitaker
Best Actress - Helen Mirren/Helen Mirren
Supporting Actor - Eddie Murphy/Mark Wahlberg
Supporting Actress - Jennifer Hudson/Cate Blanchett
Animated Film - Cars/Monster House
Foreign Language Film - Pan's Labyrinth/Pan's Labyrinth
Adapted Screenplay - The Departed/The Departed
Original Screenplay - Babel/Letter From Iwo Jima
Visual Effects - POTC/POTC

and TITANIC were all worthy Best Picture winners, IMO.

...really? Aside from the visual effects, I've always found it dire.

[Loomis]

I guess this may be the "nonconformist" view nowadays (as I don't remember many negative reviews at the time, and everyone I know went nuts over the film), although it's not intended as such (it's - shock! - my honest opinion), but I think TITANIC is an excellent film.

It seems very fashionable to knock it today, but seeing it for the first time - on the big screen, which is where it must be seen - was one of the most memorable moviegoing experiences of my life - I was riveted, and I'm not ashamed to say that the ending almost had me in tears. I think it's terrific. Cameron's best. The phenomenal filmmaking technique on show more than compensates for the odd clunker of a line or occasional bit of ropey acting.

I'm being serious. I'm not being "ironic", or "nonconformist", or anything. I honestly believe TITANIC is a great film. Works more on the emotions than on the intellect, of course, but, hey, so does PSYCHO, so does THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, so does ROCKY, so do most works of brilliant filmmaking. Whether it's a truly "important" or revolutionary piece of work, I don't know. But it does its job. It does what it says on the tin.

[Harmsway]

Me neither, but then I didn't even think it was a good movie. Neither was I at all impressed by CRASH, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, LOTR: ROTK, CHICAGO, GLADIATOR, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, BRAVEHEART, PLATOON and other wildly overpraised sacred cows of Academy Awards of yesteryear. OTOH, ROCKY, ANNIE HALL, THE DEER HUNTER, THE LAST EMPEROR, SCHINDLER'S LIST, FORREST GUMP and TITANIC were all worthy Best Picture winners, IMO.

Glad to see you stand up behind FORREST GUMP. That movie gets so much hate from the film snobs these days. So does SCHINDLER'S LIST, believe it or not.

However, I'll defend CHICAGO, which did not deserve to win Best Picture, but I think it's a solid film, and GLADIATOR, though KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, as viewed in Scott's Director's Cut, far exceeds GLADIATOR.

ROCKY BALBOA, CASINO ROYALE and THE BOURNE SUPREMACY are several cuts above being just yer average sequels. To my mind, they're made with just as much artistry as the supposedly serious and worthy likes of THE DEPARTED and THE QUEEN (both of which are actually ludicrous films with glaring plot holes worthy of ROCKY IV), and it's a shame that the Academy voters are too busy trying to devise new ways to reward, as Lazenby's Bond might put it, that monument Eastwood and his ilk.

I'm well on board with SUPREMACY and CASINO ROYALE being in the caliber of those films (you know my thoughts on ROCKY BALBOA - it does what it's supposed to, but never displays any real artistry or excellence in any aspect), though I am curious as to why you think THE QUEEN is so ludicrous. Being on this side of the pond, I may not have picked up on things an English chap like yourself would have.

[TortillaFactory]

Fair enough, Loomis. But in my perfect world, a film that wins best picture should still stand its ground on the small screen, should still stun even when it's being shown on network TV. The fact that, as you say, Titanic MUST be seen in a theatre to be appreciated says something about the actual merit of the film.

I can't help but agree with much of the sentiment in this thread, that CR is a much better film than many of those likely to win. Because of the politics of the academy, however, Bond will continue to be largely snubbed. Not even an effects nomination for CR, though I suppose there wasn't anything that could stand up to the windsurfing in DAD.

I guess it's just a weak year.

IMHO last year was pretty damn weak too. The fact that Crash was the best they could come up with is a sad testimony.

[Loomis]

you know my thoughts on ROCKY BALBOA - it does what it's supposed to, but never displays any real artistry or excellence in any aspect

Well, on the assumption that you've seen it only once, I'd recommend giving it another go, which at the very least won't hurt since you already seem to quite like it. I didn't much care for ROCKY BALBOA the first time I saw it (and I was very critical of CASINO ROYALE on first viewing, too - I find I'm often initially underwhelmed by films that after a few watches become firm favourites; this doesn't always happen, of course, otherwise all I'd need to do would be to watch any given movie several times and bingo! I'd think of it as a classic ), but later on started noticing things like how terrific the performances are (even from actors in minor roles), how splendidly-shot the film is, how the final fight is brilliantly-staged, how the script hits every possible right button for the Rocky fan, and so on.

I am curious as to why you think THE QUEEN is so ludicrous. Being on this side of the pond, I may not have picked up on things an English chap like yourself would have.

Well, not that I know Her Majesty, but I think the film's lead character is idealised and sentimentalised, the Queen as we'd like her to be. Which would not in itself be a problem, necessarily - the film doesn't pretend to be a documentary, and didn't need to be "realistic" in order to work. However, all credibility is wrecked by

Spoiler

a sickmaking and utterly unnecessary Disneyesque subplot in which the woman who's one of the world's most famous enthusiasts of bloodsports goes all gooey-eyed and ga-ga over a stag.

You just can't buy it for a single second, and it's so overextended and obvious and hammered into the ground that it seriously derails the film. Also, James Cromwell is miscast as Prince Philip, and the Blairs are cartoonish. For the British viewer, THE QUEEN contains just too many distracting instances of national figures behaving in ways that jar with how they appeared during this recent chapter in history.

[Harmsway]

you know my thoughts on ROCKY BALBOA - it does what it's supposed to, but never displays any real artistry or excellence in any aspect

Well, on the assumption that you've seen it only once, I'd recommend giving it another go, which at the very least won't hurt since you already seem to quite like it.

I didn't quite like it, though. It was okay for one viewing, but I have no interest to see it again. I was more disappointed than happy.

I didn't much care for ROCKY BALBOA the first time I saw it (and I was very critical of CASINO ROYALE on first viewing, too - I find I'm often initially underwhelmed by films that after a few watches become firm favourites; this doesn't always happen, of course, otherwise all I'd need to do would be to watch any given movie several times and bingo! I'd think of it as a classic ), but later on started noticing things like how terrific the performances are (even from actors in minor roles), how splendidly-shot the film is, how the final fight is brilliantly-staged, how the script hits every possible right button for the Rocky fan, and so on.

Well shot? Yes. Acting? Nah. And the script doesn't hit every possible right button for a non-Rocky fan, and that's what it needs to do. I think the script was mediocre, to be honest. I'm not watching it for nostalgia's value, and the fact of the matter is that ROCKY BALBOA doesn't succeed as a film for someone who's not big on the Rocky franchise.

CASINO ROYALE, however, seemed to win over people that never liked a Bond film in their lives.

[Turn]

Me neither, but then I didn't even think it was a good movie. Neither was I at all impressed by CRASH, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, LOTR: ROTK, CHICAGO, GLADIATOR, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, BRAVEHEART, PLATOON and other wildly overpraised sacred cows of Academy Awards of yesteryear. OTOH, ROCKY, ANNIE HALL, THE DEER HUNTER, THE LAST EMPEROR, SCHINDLER'S LIST, FORREST GUMP and TITANIC were all worthy Best Picture winners, IMO.

Glad to see you stand up behind FORREST GUMP. That movie gets so much hate from the film snobs these days. So does SCHINDLER'S LIST, believe it or not.

Forrest Gump is disliked by many because it won over Pulp Fiction, which was clearly the better film that year. It's another case of the Academy's preference for safe choices that don't offend. Many see Gump as emotionally manipulative and very representative of the big studio award film.

Pulp Fiction was so fresh and different in its day and brought about a new wave of films and was the main film that put independent cinema on the scene to stay.

I don't dislike Forrest Gump. I enjoyed it, but it doesn't come anywhere near Pulp Fiction as far as a film experience.