Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 16:24:18 GMT -5
I think we need to kill this thread. We're so far away from Cinderella Man right now its hilarious. This thread could go to 100,000 pages if we keep cross-referencing movies. Which I'd rather do over a few beers with you all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 16:26:25 GMT -5
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 13, 2005 16:28:06 GMT -5
He was robbed of an Oscar by Pacino in Scent of a Woman. Robbed? Now I agree that Denzel was great in Malcolm X, but to say Al Pacino robbed him....that's silly. Pacino was damn incredible in Scent of a Woman. Was the movie as important politically? No, but it was it a great film? One of the best? I think so. I just rewatched a couple weeks ago when it was on TV...incredible. That's like saying Jamie Foxx robbed Paul Giamatta of the Oscar. Both were great performances...but seriously...there was no disrespect in giving the award to Foxx. Same can be said of the Denzel-Pacino situation.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 13, 2005 16:36:26 GMT -5
Jackson is a talented actor. He is just overexposed and is way too willing to take every last role ever offered which means he ends up making ten films per year. If you want to see his talent I would suggest you check out the one or two good independent films he appears in every few years. But for the most part you can stay away from his major Hollywood production roles because in those he is simply cashing a check. Seriously when doing the major studio flicks all he cares about is the location so he can figure out where to golf during his days off the set. Juice...that was a good one. Deep Blue Sea -- a shark ate me. A... As for Revenge of the Sith, that movie was awesome. 99% of the criticism is there because it is the hip thing to do. Best movie of the year in terms of pure enjoyment (with Sin City right behind). Critics tried to make it into something it was never supposed to be. WORST DIALOGUE EVER. Other than that...and I actually mean this...not such a bad movie. Visually stunning. Plot moves quickly - perhaps too quickly as Annakin (sp?) turns bad real fast doesn't he? Battle scenes were great. Etc Just please....don't ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever let Lucas right dialogue between two young lovers. Every exchange between Annakin and Amadala (sp?) was so stilted, affected and trite you felt like a team of emotionally stunted third graders had written it up during recess. The lovey dovey dialogue was atrocious. I can not stress this enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 16:38:06 GMT -5
Amen. And that was a HUGE part of the last two films, thus bringing them way down for me.
I knew I could count on a former Gopalan disciple to back me up... thanks 'Bridge.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 13, 2005 16:40:52 GMT -5
Oh c'mon SF... most enjoyable of the year?! With acting like that? With a script like that? Its not that its fashionable, its that its TRUE! I did enjoy myself as it was explosions and outer-space and such, but the script, the plot holes, Hayden Christensen, offering details that conflict with the original trilogy... that's what ruins it for me, and I consider myself a much bigger Star Wars fan than critic. While I abhorred the lines in the first two movies (the love scene in Clones, the whole first movie), I can't remember a single line I cringed at in Sith. It wasn't necessarily a huge strength of the movie, but I thought that there were a few good (memorable) lines and overal acceptable dialogue. Christiansen was spotty in Clones, but I chalk it up to the character. Which people didn't seem to realize was supposed to whiny and unlikeable -- that's how Lucas views teenagers, especially those who think they are smarter than everyone else. In Sith he was much better. Again, no cringing. Decent glowering. Nothing to write home about, but nothing to ruin my enjoyment, either. Portman had little to do in the movie. No comment. McGregor was fantastic -- if only because he COMPLETELY pulled off the "You were the Chosen One" speech, which is the key to the movie. It would've been an easy speech to blow -- being too whiny -- but instead it comes across with the right amount of "resigned regret." That scene (and Revenge of the Sith) completely recasts the other three movies for me. People came in to the first three wanting to see the Vader they thought they knew -- PURE EVIL. Instead, Vader is more or less a frustrated failure. He's lost all he cared about and he never even amounted to much as a Sith -- wasn't he supposed to be master by now? He's an enormously tragic figure, and rewatching the quick fight between him and former big brother/ father/ best friend Obi-wan in Episode IV is completely recast in a new light. That was a tangent, but it highlights a big reason of why I liked the movie. Ian McDiarmid was also very good. Bit over the top but the Emperor is an exceedingly fun character. Who else? SL Jackson was fine. I think both he and Smits are too recognizable and people brought issues in with them. Anyway, take fastastic light saber duels; a kick ass Obi-Wan, bearable screenwriting and some decent acting, and I'm good. What plot holes are you talking about? No you didn't! Are you serious? Let me cite the entire dialogue between the two regarding their love and sleeping/dreaming...I believe Natalie Portman brushes her hair during the scene...I can't be sure because the chocked back tears from my barely contained laughter blinded me...and rendered me nearly senseless.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 16:53:15 GMT -5
Juice...that was a good one. Deep Blue Sea -- a shark ate me. A... As for Revenge of the Sith, that movie was awesome. 99% of the criticism is there because it is the hip thing to do. Best movie of the year in terms of pure enjoyment (with Sin City right behind). Critics tried to make it into something it was never supposed to be. WORST DIALOGUE EVER. Other than that...and I actually mean this...not such a bad movie. Visually stunning. Plot moves quickly - perhaps too quickly as Annakin (sp?) turns bad real fast doesn't he? Battle scenes were great. Etc Just please....don't ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever let Lucas right dialogue between two young lovers. Every exchange between Annakin and Amadala (sp?) was so stilted, affected and trite you felt like a team of emotionally stunted third graders had written it up during recess. The lovey dovey dialogue was atrocious. I can not stress this enough. Oddly enough, while Lucas certainly wrote the primary dialogue, he brought in a fantastic writer in Tom Stoppard to clean up the dialogue. I didn't think it was bad at all in Sith. Clones is a different story.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 16:58:46 GMT -5
I think part of it is the abbreviated cut. Here's a script pulled off the net -- pretty sure it is the uncut script of that scene. A bit cheesy, yes, but Lucas was always cheesy. The first three movies are ridiculously cheesy. Nothing there that's just awful. www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-Revenge-of-the-Sith.html
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 17:53:38 GMT -5
I heard Lucas has both of those in his house... This is true. He used money out of my own pocket spent on tickets and merchandise to do so.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 18:14:40 GMT -5
He was robbed of an Oscar by Pacino in Scent of a Woman. Robbed? Now I agree that Denzel was great in Malcolm X, but to say Al Pacino robbed him....that's silly. Pacino was damn incredible in Scent of a Woman. Was the movie as important politically? No, but it was it a great film? One of the best? I think so. I just rewatched a couple weeks ago when it was on TV...incredible. That's like saying Jamie Foxx robbed Paul Giamatta of the Oscar. Both were great performances...but seriously...there was no disrespect in giving the award to Foxx. Same can be said of the Denzel-Pacino situation. You gotta be kidding me? Foxx and Giamatta were at the top of their game. Pacino was over the top in that lousy flick "Scent of A Woman." A movie that has been forgotten by all of society except for the footnote that Pacino stole an Oscar on that performance. Face it he got the award as a make up call for not getting the Oscar for his more deserving work in the 70s. It also didn't hurt that Denzel was playing a controversial figure in a movie directed by a controversial director. Denzel's amke up call for losing out on that film and "Hurricane" may be his win for "Training Day" which, while good, wasn't all that complex based on the script he had to work with. Revege of the Sith ranks behind only Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars as far as I'm concerned (albeit far behind). I place it barely ahead of Return of the Jedi. Of course the less things said about the first two prequels the better. I already proven my geekdom enough by getting into some friendly debates on movie oriented message forums and I won't go into that all again here. But as a person who has seen the original idea for the script and some of the original lines let me say that Lucas made the right decisions in getting rid of the bad stuff or simply improving upon them in rewrites. As much as I love the original trilogy it would be revisionist to think that those flicks weren't full of bad dialogue. Sith is easily the darkest of all six films, the most daring and the most adult. Its not entirely successful because of lingering bad dialogue,a few awkward moments, and a cast of characters whp we haven't been made to care about as much as we did Luke, Han and Leia. There are flaws. But there are inspired moments in the movie that I did not think Lucas had in him. Like SF wrote I think a bunch of people were conditioned to bash this movie before they saw it after how afule PM and AOTC turned out to be. Nevertheless the critical response to the movie was very positive as reported by sites such as Rotten Tomatoes who keep up with such info. And across the board it has been received very well by fans according to the reports that I read. As for this thread getting out of control I wrote a long breakdown on Marc Egerson's performance this weekend at McD. I got like two or three responses. What does that tell everyone?
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Jun 13, 2005 18:47:44 GMT -5
He was robbed of an Oscar by Pacino in Scent of a Woman. Robbed? Now I agree that Denzel was great in Malcolm X, but to say Al Pacino robbed him....that's silly. Pacino was damn incredible in Scent of a Woman. Was the movie as important politically? No, but it was it a great film? One of the best? I think so. I just rewatched a couple weeks ago when it was on TV...incredible. That's like saying Jamie Foxx robbed Paul Giamatta of the Oscar. Both were great performances...but seriously...there was no disrespect in giving the award to Foxx. Same can be said of the Denzel-Pacino situation. Now you are really pushing it. Scent of a Woman was horrible. Al Pacino was average in that movie. Don't even bring up Jamie Foxx. We are talking about real actors h ere, not sketch comedy peformers. The Oscars are political. There is no way in the world Al Pacino should have not have gotten an Oscar for Godfather's I and II. Without Pacino as Michael Corleone, that movie is nothing. Pacino was born to play that part. But to say Pacino deserved the award for Scent of a Woman over Denzel for Malcom X, is insane. It was masterful, as well as his role in Hurricane. In Training day he did a great job, but Crowe should have won for A Beautiful Mind. But again, it was political.
|
|
HoyaChris
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,408
|
Post by HoyaChris on Jun 13, 2005 18:50:52 GMT -5
As for this thread getting out of control I wrote a long breakdown on Marc Egerson's performance this weekend at McD. I got like two or three responses. What does that tell everyone? I think what it mostly tells us is that most of us have seen movies and few of us have seen Marc Egerson.....but most desperately want to.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Jun 13, 2005 20:41:40 GMT -5
Regarding Stars Wars:
I thought Sith was definitely better than Menace and Clones, but still not great. The opening space battle scene is too smooth, there is no sense of danger that I seem to remeber from the original trilogy.
There are a few main problems with this trilogy. Lucus tries to cover too long a period of time in these three films, so there is too much pushing of the political history of the galaxy and the audience simply doesn't care about the characters. What we get of the characters, as seen in the Clones love dialogues, is also pretty poor. Also, the use of advanced computer graphics make the technology in these films appear to be better than that in the later ones, despite the fact that this trilogy starts 30 years before the originals. Then there is Jar Jar Binks. What I found most unbelievable about the whole trilogy was the age difference between Annakin and Padme. First of all, she's like ten years older than him, and they meet when he is just a boy. The, between Menace and Clones, he ages about ten years, and looks much older. She looks the same age. It's very frustrating to watch them back to back. All in all, I feel these movies are only useful to provide the viewer with a history of the Star Wars galaxy, that seems to be the only thing they do with any success, although even this is far from perfect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 22:00:53 GMT -5
NICE, CT... in my opinion, hit a good deal of it right on the head.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 22:01:18 GMT -5
Ok I say as Monday becomes Tuesday we let this die off... otherwise we'll be here until Midnight Madness.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 14, 2005 9:17:04 GMT -5
Robbed? Now I agree that Denzel was great in Malcolm X, but to say Al Pacino robbed him....that's silly. Pacino was damn incredible in Scent of a Woman. Was the movie as important politically? No, but it was it a great film? One of the best? I think so. I just rewatched a couple weeks ago when it was on TV...incredible. That's like saying Jamie Foxx robbed Paul Giamatta of the Oscar. Both were great performances...but seriously...there was no disrespect in giving the award to Foxx. Same can be said of the Denzel-Pacino situation. Now you are really pushing it. Scent of a Woman was horrible. Al Pacino was average in that movie. Don't even bring up Jamie Foxx. We are talking about real actors h ere, not sketch comedy peformers. The Oscars are political. There is no way in the world Al Pacino should have not have gotten an Oscar for Godfather's I and II. Without Pacino as Michael Corleone, that movie is nothing. Pacino was born to play that part. But to say Pacino deserved the award for Scent of a Woman over Denzel for Malcom X, is insane. It was masterful, as well as his role in Hurricane. In Training day he did a great job, but Crowe should have won for A Beautiful Mind. But again, it was political. I didn't say Denzel wasn't great. And I think it's really revisionist to say Pacino wasn't great in Scent of a Woman. Was the ending cheesy? Hell yes, but the film is basically a one man show...with doe-eyed Chris O'Donnell providing the faintist foil to Pacino's performance. I wasn't saying Denzel's Malcolm X wasn't great...I was just saying it was silly to say "robbed." Robbed implied that there was no contest. I think that's a ridiculous statement. In my opion there have been many travesties in Oscar voting: Two big ones come to mind: 1998 say The Thin Red Line get shut out...SHUT OUT...and to add insult to injury the tired, overworked, cliche ridden "Saving Private Ryan" or "World War II for Dummies" garnered Best Director. While the tepid Shakespeare in Love, while enjoyable, walked away with a seemingly disproportionate amount of gold. In 2001, The Royal Tennenbaums, perhaps one of the top five films of my lifetime gets completely shut out of the Oscars. Not even nominations for Picture, Director, etc. Gene Hackman didn't even get nominated for his incredible supporting role. Nothing. Nada. Not even a nomination. Instead people went gaga over a humdrum Ron Howard film, Training Day, Lord of the Geeks and a horribly unforgettable sex scene in Monster's Ball.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 14, 2005 9:19:22 GMT -5
BTW The Royal Tennenbaums has to be one of the most rewatchable films ever made. Honestly, the cast is so stacked with talent and loaded with incredible, nuanced perfomances that it's a joy to watch each and every time. Really a sublime film.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 14, 2005 9:35:34 GMT -5
Agree on Tennenbaums- one of the great films of the last decade and highly re-watchable. As is Rushmore although I am in the smaller camp of Wes Anderson fans who likes TRT better than Rushmore. I liked Bottle Rocket and Life Aquatic, but didn't love them. Close though.
Two biggest robberies in Oscar history for my money, make that the last 25 years anyway, are Dances with Wolves beating Goodfellas, Titantic beating LA Confidential, and Shakespeare in Love beating Elizabeth- another highly re-watchable and under-appreciated film. I don't know which of those three crimes is the most egregious. Goodfellas is probably the best of those robbed films, but at the same time Dances is the best of the three robbers, a dubious honor for sure. Probably the most disgusting one is Shakespeare in Love beating Elizabeth. But I am open to Titantic's robbery for the title. But like I said, its tough, because Goodfellas might be the best film in my lifetime that didn't win best picture but was nominated.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 14, 2005 9:42:34 GMT -5
Agree on Tennenbaums- one of the great films of the last decade and highly re-watchable. As is Rushmore although I am in the smaller camp of Wes Anderson fans who likes TRT better than Rushmore. I liked Bottle Rocket and Life Aquatic, but didn't love them. Close though. Two biggest robberies in Oscar history for my money, make that the last 25 years anyway, are Dances with Wolves beating Goodfellas, Titantic beating LA Confidential, and Shakespeare in Love beating Elizabeth- another highly re-watchable and under-appreciated film. I don't know which of those three crimes is the most egregious. Goodfellas is probably the best of those robbed films, but at the same time Dances is the best of the three robbers, a dubious honor for sure. Probably the most disgusting one is Shakespeare in Love beating Elizabeth. But I am open to Titantic's robbery for the title. But like I said, its tough, because Goodfellas might be the best film in my lifetime that didn't win best picture but was nominated. I'm also in the TRT club. Love Rushmore. Really enjoyed Life Aquatic. Laughed my ass off at bits in Bottle Rockets -- "He said he loved you...He's a mixed up kid." -- but I agree that TRT was the creme de la creme for Anderson. With that cast it only makes sense. Talk about All-Star and everyone bringing their A-game. Agree on all counts. It's always shocking to remember that Goodfellas didn't win. Also, good call out on SIL beating Elizabeth. I rewatched Elizabeth the other day...gf's favorite movie...and was pleasantly surprised at how rewatchable it was. As for Titanic...well, we all knew a ship that large is bound to take down a lot of souls with it as it plunges into the depths of sappy, romantic drivel.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 14, 2005 9:54:37 GMT -5
I guess the only thing we don't agree on is Elizabeth vs Thin Red Line- just realized they were the same year. I wanted to like Thin Red Line but found I had to endure it more than enjoy it. Elizabeth on the other hand was a serious film that was immensley entertaining at the same time. When you see a GREAT film, I find that when you see the first closing credits, you get a tinge of regret instantly. "Damn! Its over already?" I got that feeling with Elizabeth more than any other film I can remember seeing in a theatre- that small theatre on Thomas Jefferson in Gtown with my then brand new gf and now wife. Conversely, I was pretty eager for Red Line to end. But a lot of that can depend on when/where you see the film. I'll never enjoy a film in the late evening.
For me the most re-watchable films of all time are Amadeus and The Hunt for Red October, the latter certainly a sentimental favorite that I don't consider a great film as much as one of my favorite stories well-told. As much as I don't care for his politics, Alec Baldwin is a great actor- much better than Harrison Ford in the Jack Ryan role. Baldwin was also the best thing in Aviator and is hands down the best Saturday Night Live host of all time- constantly delivering better comedic timing and discipline than the cast members.
|
|