Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Slumdog Millionaire

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Southstander
    replied
    I bet you anyting that The Simpsons will do a "K-wiky Mart Millionare" this season..

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    I finally got to see Slumdog yesterday, and I think it was a special movie. Unfortunately I can't compare it to anything really, as it's the only movie I've seen that was nominated. But I loved the storyline, the detail, the connections, the lasting affair between two people, the harsh reality of India's situation, even the dance scene, and of course......the ending. I believe the phone call scene was one of the more unique moments in film history. It summed up the purpose of the whole movie in a very brief period of time.

    Now I need to catch some of the others, and if they are 2/3rds as good as Slumdog, it will be worth the time and money spent. Given that I am a big Sean Penn fan, have always been intrigued by the character Mickey Rourke, like the concept of a person aging in reverse, hear that Kate W was impressive (again), and so on, I think I'm in for a real treat!!

    Leave a comment:


  • RealBronco
    replied
    Originally posted by Snapping Turtle View Post
    I agree with you that The Passion is probably a better film than Slumdog. So many people were impacted by that movie and I think that's great. It was well done and powerful. I wouldn't have been upset if it had won Best Picture.

    I'm sorry, but Fireproof is just an average movie in my opinion. I liked it just fine, I didn't say it was bad. I would probably buy it and have it in my collection of DVDs. But I don't feel like it is comparable to any film that has been nominated for Best Picture. Its a good movie yes, but is it great? No.

    Concerning Brokeback Mountain...well obviously it would be a completely different movie if it wasn't about two men in love. But that is not all the movie is about. It too portrays martial relationships, families and in my opinion it sends a good message. I don't know if Brokeback should have been recognized by the Academy, but what I do know is that I very much enjoyed it. I thought it was a beautiful movie to watch, and a great love story.

    I see nothing wrong with enjoying religious films and those that may go against Christian beliefs. I feel like that is what is being interpreted from my posts, and I just wanted to point out that it isn't the case. If the Academy had felt Fireproof was deserving of being honored, that would have been fine with me...because they know far more about movie making than I do. But really, it just feels like a glorified lifetime movie.
    Well I definitely appreciate your comments. I think if I strip my comments down to the bare bones, basically if you take out all the cultural and moral etc stuff... I just didn't see why B.M. was such a "groundbreaking" film, at the same time, I definitely wouldn't say that Fireproof deserved any Academy awards....and I don't think Brokeback did either.

    They've still got a long journey ahead (the church that made Fireproof) before they're going to be at the film-making level of say Curious Case, or whatever... but as far as independent film goes, I figure it's not any worse than some of the rest.

    *shrugs* Some years there just aren't any movies in the "Best Picture" category that really deserve it. heh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snapping Turtle
    replied
    Originally posted by RealBronco View Post

    Hands down The Passion of the Christ was a far better film that Slumdog Millionaire. Let's take out culture, let's take out religion. The films at their core, as film: The Passion had a better score, better cinematography, better performances, wonderful lighting, great make-up etc., and yet Slumdog just didn't impress in those areas at all. Again, the acting was campy and almost phoned in with Slumdog, the score was okay for the most part. The cinematography was decent, but definitely didn't deserve that award over some of the others it was against.



    I want to disagree that TDK won the categories it deserved. While yes it did in the two categories it did win, but I felt like it was robbed of Cinematography and Sound Editing, at least. No I don't think it deserved Make-Up because really the only major make-up was Ledger... etc. but it definitely deserved more than the 2 wins it got. Hel it even deserved Best Score over Slumdog but it wasn't nominated for that at all.

    but let me continue the discussion about Fireproof. Why is it just a "fine movie" but "nothing spectacular"? It had a fantastic message and it's been a wonderful tool for marriages on a huge scale. I'd say it has a similar moral message on the other side as Brokeback Mountain tried to convey on the other hand. And yet for some reason Brokeback Mountain is this "groundbreaking" "inspiring" film that everyone has to see? Why? what makes it so special? What makes it so much better than any other love story out there? Bigger budget? Bigger name actors? The director that butchered The Hulk? I don't know... but it sure as heck wasn't plot or story line... as I've said before we've seen that a thousand times over. Why care more about Brokeback than Fireproof if you're going to compare the two... and really the only reason you would is because one was made by a Christian church with Christian values and the other promotes a lifestyle contrary to those Christian values.

    eh. I just don't see what makes Brokeback so spectacular without it's so called "controversial slant."

    I agree with you that The Passion is probably a better film than Slumdog. So many people were impacted by that movie and I think that's great. It was well done and powerful. I wouldn't have been upset if it had won Best Picture.

    I'm sorry, but Fireproof is just an average movie in my opinion. I liked it just fine, I didn't say it was bad. I would probably buy it and have it in my collection of DVDs. But I don't feel like it is comparable to any film that has been nominated for Best Picture. Its a good movie yes, but is it great? No.

    Concerning Brokeback Mountain...well obviously it would be a completely different movie if it wasn't about two men in love. But that is not all the movie is about. It too portrays martial relationships, families and in my opinion it sends a good message. I don't know if Brokeback should have been recognized by the Academy, but what I do know is that I very much enjoyed it. I thought it was a beautiful movie to watch, and a great love story.

    I see nothing wrong with enjoying religious films and those that may go against Christian beliefs. I feel like that is what is being interpreted from my posts, and I just wanted to point out that it isn't the case. If the Academy had felt Fireproof was deserving of being honored, that would have been fine with me...because they know far more about movie making than I do. But really, it just feels like a glorified lifetime movie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ravage!!!
    replied
    TDK was ok. It was entertaining.... and it had the best actor of the year playing the villian.... but its still an action flic and wouldn't get more acknowledgment because of that.

    TDK was also just too long. Seriously. There were three different times I started to stand up because I thought the movie was over, only to see the movie fade yet into ANOTHER scene. Towards the end, it was like "is it ever going to end?" Then.... they yet again kill off a bad guy (two face).

    TDK was good... just like Taken was very good... but I just don't see it as this "all time great" movie that should have won academy awards type film.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie Brown
    replied
    I did not see Slumdog Millionaire but the last movie I went and saw was The Dark Knight.

    There are a few more movies I want to see this year and I was hoping that I would be able to see the Argentine and Guerrilla. But such is the way with films in "foreign languages". Hope to catch them on DVD soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • HurricaneDovs
    replied
    I wonder if TDK wasnt a batman themed movie, it if wouldve been nominate/won.

    Like if it was just a movie about a guy (not batman. no suit, gadets, etc.) that acts as a vigilante or cities' protector, but is unwilling to kill like batman, going up against someone like the Joker.

    Same personality as Batman. Same sense of justice and all that. Same unwillingness to be an executioner. All of that is the same, its just not batman.

    Because if you look at TDK it goes very deep into the psychology of human beings. It pushes one man to have to look deep inside himself and he fights with himself to decide what he must do to stop this seemingly unstoppable figure. One man that feels like the weight and burdens of many people are on his shoulders. Now think if the very people he protects turn on him. Then hes left alone to fight an apparently unwinnable battle unless he turned on his own beliefs.

    Something tells me if TDK was the same basic thing minus Batman, it wouldve been recognized alot more by the Academy.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealBronco
    replied
    Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    sorry. The part of this that doesn't make sense falls in the same category that doesn't make your earlier statement REALLY make sense. You can NOT tell how good a movie is without seeing it.

    Now... I'm not saying he HAS to see it. But he can't sit there and COMPLAIN about it winning Best Picture when he hasn't even seen it. If he saw it, and said "it doesn't deserve it" is one thing. Saying it doesn't deserve the award simply because its not about a batman comic book character, and not having anything to base that opinion on, DOESN't make sense.

    Thats like me judging a football player on his play simply because I don't like th team he played for prior, or the number he wears. Doesn't make sense, and has a bias that doesn't fit when making a judgement against something.

    You also say you didn't say anything as 'fact'..yet use the word "definitely" a lot... as if its definite.

    Definite: precise; explicit and clearly defined;
    Well yeah, because it was clearly definitely a better picture.

    Also yes, I CAN tell how good/bad a movie is without seeing it. Just because you can't doesn't mean I can't. Sorry. I've been at it a long time, and I know what I'm doing.

    Trailers don't hide anything. If you really want to know, all you need to is look no further than a trailer to know whether or not a film will be worth seeing or not.

    Take your favorite film of the discussion here (or two). You know exactly what Slumdog is about, and what will happen... you also know the guy that directed 28 Days Later and Sunshine directed it, and should probably stick with science fiction, just like Michael Bay shouldn't do war movies.

    as with Taken, you know exactly what will happen (and you don't even had to see the trailer for this one because the poster tells you all you need to know in one tagline). But, perhaps you still want to see it anyway. That's okay, so do I. Why? because it looks like a good action flick.

    You also know exactly what's going to happen in something like The Transporter... which is also an action flick, but why do I not want to watch that one? Because I know that the first Transporter was garbage, and nothing Jason Stathem makes outside of Snatch and Lock Stock is worth seeing.

    Yes, I do know whether a movie is Oscar-worthy even without seeing it.

    Take this:

    I saw the trailer for The Last King of Scotland and said: "Forrest Whitaker will win Best Actor this year." and the film wasn't even out yet. I was right. I also knew I wanted to see it... and that it would actually be worthy of the nods it got.

    so... just because YOU don't think something doesn't make it so Rav.

    I'm sorry you can't see through Hollywood's smoke and mirrors like I can...

    also, I KNEW Slumdog would win Best Picture. Doesn't take a genius to see that coming (especially with the direction the rest of the awards were going).. but I complained about it anyway because i KNEW it didn't deserve it, and to solidify my KNOWING... i went out the next day and watched it...

    and again, I was right.
    Last edited by RealBronco; 02-25-2009, 09:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ravage!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by RealBronco View Post

    If he doesn't want to see the movie, then that definitely doesn't mean he's closed-minded. Maybe he just doesn't feel the need to sit down and waste his time on a film that he won't enjoy just because the rest of the country and industry seems to think he should see it because it won a bunch of stuff.
    sorry. The part of this that doesn't make sense falls in the same category that doesn't make your earlier statement REALLY make sense. You can NOT tell how good a movie is without seeing it.

    Now... I'm not saying he HAS to see it. But he can't sit there and COMPLAIN about it winning Best Picture when he hasn't even seen it. If he saw it, and said "it doesn't deserve it" is one thing. Saying it doesn't deserve the award simply because its not about a batman comic book character, and not having anything to base that opinion on, DOESN't make sense.

    Thats like me judging a football player on his play simply because I don't like th team he played for prior, or the number he wears. Doesn't make sense, and has a bias that doesn't fit when making a judgement against something.

    You also say you didn't say anything as 'fact'..yet use the word "definitely" a lot... as if its definite.

    Definite: precise; explicit and clearly defined;

    Leave a comment:


  • RealBronco
    replied
    Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    Well.. thats your opinion.. but not mine. Not others. Not the acadamy.

    I dont' tknow what the other languages have to do much with it to be honest...b ut the reality is I don't agree with your opinion on this..... hence why they are opinions and why they aren't facts.

    just like your opinion on TDK should have won more awards. Thats fine for an opinion, but I'm guessing there are just as many other opinions (as well as those that actually vote) that disagree with you completely.

    That being said... we can't keep saying its a 'fact' that the other movie was better when out of five people posting, I've seen five different perspectives on the same movie. None are right, and none are wrong.

    But just because you say "The christ flic" was a "Far better movie" doesn't make it a fact in the LEAST.... none whatsoever. So there we are again.. in the same place as before.

    The difference is....we've seen both movies and thus have the ability to judge both in cmparison, as opposed to what was the original complaint in that saying it didn't "deserve" to win when it wasn't even watched by the person making the statement.
    The reason I brought up the languages is because you did. You think people don't want to watch a movie because it might have subtitles they may have to read...

    Also it's increasingly hard to trust the Academy's ability to accurately decide on what good film is when they're letting guys like Michael Bay have membership.

    also i didn't say it was "fact" that Passion was better than Slumdog. Take a look at the films they were up against (Passion didn't even get much recognition of course) but then again, Slumdog definitely wasn't Best Picture worthy either...

    Now, nonetheless, even before I saw the film Monday, I didn't feel like it deserved all the recognition it was getting. I had the idea that perhaps I wanted to see it, it looked interested... and then it starts getting all of this recognition and all this hype and I think: "Okay, well I guess I'll have to find out, but now I'm a little weary of what it's going to be like..."

    and I was right... it definitely was a lot less than it was made out to be. I'm not saying it wasn't good... I'm just saying it didn't deserve 10 Oscar nominations.

    I don't know why it's a big deal that he doesn't want to see the movie. I agree with him, and I agreed with him even before I saw it that it didn't deserve the awards. I have that ability to tell a thing or two about a film before I see it. It's also what saves me from having to sit through a lot of Hollywood's "phone-ins" and waste my time.

    *shrugs*

    Like you said, Taken was a cool movie, entertaining, etc... but it didn't get any Academy Awards... and that's the same level of "entertainment" that Slumdog fits into.

    I mean, we could even sit here and try to figure out why the hell Wanted even got an Oscar nominations in the first place.... or why Downey Jr. got nominated for a role that really wasn't Oscar worthy (nor was that film as a whole at all)...

    I mean, there's tons of examples here...

    If he doesn't want to see the movie, then that definitely doesn't mean he's closed-minded. Maybe he just doesn't feel the need to sit down and waste his time on a film that he won't enjoy just because the rest of the country and industry seems to think he should see it because it won a bunch of stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ravage!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by RealBronco View Post
    I think I already touched on this previously. But just to re-clarify, you say it perfectly to debunk your own opinion: "is that a double standard, or just seeing what a great film is and what isn't."

    Hands down The Passion of the Christ was a far better film that Slumdog Millionaire. Let's take out culture, let's take out religion. The films at their core, as film: The Passion had a better score, better cinematography, better performances, wonderful lighting, great make-up etc., and yet Slumdog just didn't impress in those areas at all. Again, the acting was campy and almost phoned in with Slumdog, the score was okay for the most part. The cinematography was decent, but definitely didn't deserve that award over some of the others it was against.

    I dunno... like you said it's all about opinion. I mean you even mentioned people having a hard time "reading words" on the screen. Well, there were at least three different languages in The Passion and none of them were English
    Well.. thats your opinion.. but not mine. Not others. Not the acadamy.

    I dont' tknow what the other languages have to do much with it to be honest...b ut the reality is I don't agree with your opinion on this..... hence why they are opinions and why they aren't facts.

    just like your opinion on TDK should have won more awards. Thats fine for an opinion, but I'm guessing there are just as many other opinions (as well as those that actually vote) that disagree with you completely.

    That being said... we can't keep saying its a 'fact' that the other movie was better when out of five people posting, I've seen five different perspectives on the same movie. None are right, and none are wrong.

    But just because you say "The christ flic" was a "Far better movie" doesn't make it a fact in the LEAST.... none whatsoever. So there we are again.. in the same place as before.

    The difference is....we've seen both movies and thus have the ability to judge both in cmparison, as opposed to what was the original complaint in that saying it didn't "deserve" to win when it wasn't even watched by the person making the statement.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealBronco
    replied
    Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    I honestly am reading that South has a problem with films that buck against christian values .. IE: accept gays... are being accepted by people and by the acadamy when the movie "The something or other of Christ" didn't get much acclaim.

    probably because the story of christ just wasn't worthy of acclaim...at least not in my opinion. Is that a double standard, or just seeing what a great film is and what isn't. I mean, I think I saw someone say that TDK was one of the "great films of all time." That tells you that some people have different opinions on what truly is a good movie, and what truly is worthy of being acknowledged as best movie of the year.
    I think I already touched on this previously. But just to re-clarify, you say it perfectly to debunk your own opinion: "is that a double standard, or just seeing what a great film is and what isn't."

    Hands down The Passion of the Christ was a far better film that Slumdog Millionaire. Let's take out culture, let's take out religion. The films at their core, as film: The Passion had a better score, better cinematography, better performances, wonderful lighting, great make-up etc., and yet Slumdog just didn't impress in those areas at all. Again, the acting was campy and almost phoned in with Slumdog, the score was okay for the most part. The cinematography was decent, but definitely didn't deserve that award over some of the others it was against.

    I dunno... like you said it's all about opinion. I mean you even mentioned people having a hard time "reading words" on the screen. Well, there were at least three different languages in The Passion and none of them were English

    Originally posted by Snapping Turtle View Post
    I've seen Fireproof. It was a fine movie, nothing special. The rest I have not.

    And sure, art can do that. But technically I would call that entertainment. Entertainment enforces your beliefs while art makes you think. Like I said, I learned that in a class I took last semester...you don't have to agree but after taking this man's class it is hard to disagree.

    Concerning No Country For Old Men....in one of your earlier posts in this thread, you said that The Dark Knight was not nominated/recognized/what have you because it is an action film. No Country For Old Men, in my opinion, can easily fall into that category. But it definitely has more depth than The Dark Knight. And I don't feel like this move undermines or goes against any of the beliefs you mentioned earlier. Except maybe the amount of violence in the film, but of course we are also talking about The Dark Knight which has plenty of violence in it.

    Now, I'm not saying that The Dark Knight is a bad film because I really do enjoy it. But it won in the categories it deserved to win in, the BEST part of the movie was Heath Ledger as the joker and he won. So, I suppose that is more than enough for me.

    One more thing, I never called you a racist or a xenophobe. I mentioned you may be a bit closed minded but that is it.
    I want to disagree that TDK won the categories it deserved. While yes it did in the two categories it did win, but I felt like it was robbed of Cinematography and Sound Editing, at least. No I don't think it deserved Make-Up because really the only major make-up was Ledger... etc. but it definitely deserved more than the 2 wins it got. Hel it even deserved Best Score over Slumdog but it wasn't nominated for that at all.

    but let me continue the discussion about Fireproof. Why is it just a "fine movie" but "nothing spectacular"? It had a fantastic message and it's been a wonderful tool for marriages on a huge scale. I'd say it has a similar moral message on the other side as Brokeback Mountain tried to convey on the other hand. And yet for some reason Brokeback Mountain is this "groundbreaking" "inspiring" film that everyone has to see? Why? what makes it so special? What makes it so much better than any other love story out there? Bigger budget? Bigger name actors? The director that butchered The Hulk? I don't know... but it sure as heck wasn't plot or story line... as I've said before we've seen that a thousand times over. Why care more about Brokeback than Fireproof if you're going to compare the two... and really the only reason you would is because one was made by a Christian church with Christian values and the other promotes a lifestyle contrary to those Christian values.

    eh. I just don't see what makes Brokeback so spectacular without it's so called "controversial slant."

    Originally posted by Dovsinlondon2012 View Post
    All that (editing, score, cinematography, etc) does play a factor to me. The biggest one for me is story and acting though. That the movie really captures the audience and brings them fully into the story. It gets them to sympathize with characters that might not necessarily (sp? never know how to spell that word) be sympathized with. And actors that really grab the attention of the audience. Really bring a character to the role and make the audience want to know more.

    Thats why I like Letters From Iwo Jima so much. It gave the viewpoint of a very famous battle, and a very famous moment in US history from those opposing the US. It made you really feel what those soldiers were going through. Defending their homeland. It may have really turned alot of people's impressions and opinions of the Japanese soldiers of WWII on their heads. Also the actors brought the characters to life. They really gave them a personality and a soul. Ive heard from alot of different people that they found the movie interesting because even though they were fighting American troops, they couldnt help but feel something for the Japanese soldiers.

    But thats just me. Sorry if this was long.
    I noticed your rant about this film and how you were upset that The Departed beat it. I loved The Departed, and was excited that it and Scorscese finally got his recognition, however, Letters From Iwo Jima was fantastic: this is what I thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealBronco
    replied
    Originally posted by Southstander View Post
    Those of you that decry me for not wanting to see this movie I have a question for you. Have you seen any of these movies?

    Flywheel
    Facing the Giants
    Fireproof
    The Second Chance

    I may have unfairly lumped Slumdog, in with other movies and for that I am sorry.

    My main problem is with Hollywood, reward movies like Milk, Broke Back Mountain and other movies that try to undermine the conservative Christian values that this country was founded up. I feel the AMPAS votes for these movies not because they are the best, but because they know that people will do see them simply because the where nominated.

    I feel one of the best movie in the past 10 years was the Passion of the Christ. It barley got any attention from the academy. Normally this is the type of movie that the Oscar falls over its self to promote. It is a long, historical movie with subtitles that was use two dead languages as its major source of dialog. But because it was a "religious" picture that had a conservative message it had no chance.

    My reason for not seeing SDM has nothing to do with being "close minded" or not being open to other cultures. That fact that you all have wrongly accused me of this upsets me. I would ask for an apology from you if I thought that I would get one.
    You have a wonderful point South. Although I still need to see the other three, Fireproof was fantastic, and a great tool for married couples.

    I also agree with you about how Hollywood will honor some films and not others. I'll get to your opinion of it later Rav, but I do feel that The Passion of the Christ deserved a bit more than it got. Now, I was impressed that the Academy even recognized it period. But you can't deny the great score, cinematography, make-up and acting and the great set-design that went into making that film. If it hadn't been about Jesus Christ, I'm willing to bet the Academy would've noticed it a lot closer.

    On the other hand, I will probably get around to seeing Brokeback Mountain and Milk someday because I'm a student of film. But again, I'll use the same point:

    Insert a female into Jake's role. What kind of film do we have then? We have a movie that no one would've even noticed aside from maybe Ledger's performance. Basically we had a film set in the country/hills, about a couple of ranchers who "explored" more than the outdoors, and then they grabbed everyone by killing one of them off. Well, nicely done Ang, but all your movie really is is a basic love story again with a few bumps along the way. The only reason people thought it was "fantastic" or "ground-breaking" was because it was about two men instead of a man and a woman in love.

    That doesn't interest me. Just like Slumdog doesn't interest South, and it has nothing to do with the "controversy" or the "culture" of it.

    I like Sean Penn, I think he's a fantastic actor. But I don't know if he deserved best actor. There's a formula for how to win an Oscar, and he simply fit right into it. Oh well.

    Really, when you get down to it, none of the films this year were really "Best Picture" worthy.

    Originally posted by Snapping Turtle View Post
    I'm sorry South, but I can't agree with you here.

    Brokeback Mountain was an incredible film and a very moving story. I have not seen Milk, but I obviously know what it is about. I think it is great that the Academy awards movies that attempt to break the mold and make people think. After all, movies are art, and art is not art unless it challenges your opinions, morals and beliefs.

    Obviously you don't like the movies I just mentioned because they go against classical conservative beliefs, but what, may I ask has Slumdog Millionaire done to make you dislike it so much? I see that this film is showing us a story in a country that is not our own and about a culture that we do not live in. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with learning about a place you have never seen, and maybe gaining a new understanding about a place and a people you may not have known about before viewing it? Plenty of award-winning films have done the same thing.

    I would go into a more political discussion here about what I feel is wrong and what is right in this world, but this is not the place. I just can't help but feel a lot of negativity and hate coming from this thread concerning subjects of some movies. Frankly, it makes me quite sad.
    You'll have to look below to complete your opinion about the difference of Brokeback Mountain and Fireproof. You call one of them incredible and the other was nothing spectacular. I'm not saying that's not how you felt about it. But if we're going to sit here and jump all over South about why he doesn't want to see Slumdog (which I have no doubt has nothing to do with closed-mindedness), then I don't know what I can think about your comments here.

    How is Brokeback Mountain so incredible? Again it's a similar formula we've seen a thousand times (which Fireproof of course suffers from as well), it's a basic love tragedy. Big deal. Shakespeare already mastered that plot.

    Look below for the rest of the Fireproof discussion.

    Originally posted by Southstander View Post
    I could not disagree with you more on what you say the purpose of art is.

    You quoted me, but I don't think you read it. I have no problem with learning about new cutlures, or "gaining a new understanding about a place and a people you may not have known about before viewing it." If you think that is why I did not want to see this movie you are VERY wrong.

    For the record I don't go the movies that often. The last movie I saw in the threaters was TDK. I think most of what Hollywood puts out is garbage.

    The reason I was upset it got all the wins it did is quite simple. Hollywood has a double standered. Films the the ones I mention had now chance at getting an Oscar, reguardless of how good they are because they have a moral message that Hollywood does not want to hear. The Oscars for Best Picture is not truly about the Best Picture. It is the best message we want to force on everyone else.

    If this thread is making you want to cry Snap, I am sorry. Think how I must feel. The people on here that I thought where my friends are attack and insulting me. Trying to tell me that I am wrong for not wanting to watch movies that I am not intrested in, or go againts my core values.
    I didn't quote him, but I think LT has a great point. I don't really liked being preached to either, and yet Hollywood finds no problem in doing so, while at the same time snubbing the films you mentioned previously. If we're going to talk Oscars, then fine, those films are low budget indie films that don't really have great acting talent... I mean they're not Daniel Day-Lewis, but still pretty decent. But at the same time, they've got great family messages, and yet no one even knows they exist. Yet at the same time you have Sean Penn up for Best Actor for portraying a homosexual, and last year we had two guys up for both acting awards for similar roles.

    That's all fine and dandy, but I just wish they'd bring it around a little more full circle once in a while and recognize every side of the picture you know? Every side of the coin I guess. Again, what makes BM or Milk so spectacular? Change the content and who'd be interested really? I will likely see both of these films eventually, and I can honestly say I'm going to have a hard time really liking them, just because from what I've seen of them so far... they just don't seem that great. To me it'd be like forcing me to sit through Uninvited or some other campy Hollywood movie.

    Originally posted by Snapping Turtle View Post
    I heard that purpose/definition of art in a class I took her at UW and I thought it was spot-on. Why create art if it only adds to what we already have?

    No one is forcing you to watch these movies, no one is telling you that you have to agree with them. But what I am telling you is thatI disagree with your attitude. I don't think it is fair to judge something before watching it, but that is just how I was raised. I guess I would like to know what film , of those nominated, you thought should have won the award. I think we all can agree that The Dark Knight was a great film, but in no way was it best picture worthy. Also, how do you feel about movies like Schindler's List? Rain Man? Gandi? Out of Africa? And what about last year's winner No Country For Old Men? I'm curious now.

    I'm not going to argue with you anymore about this, because I am entitled to my opinion just like you are to yours. Don't take offense that your "friends" have their own opinions and beliefs. I have every right to defend my beliefs as you do.
    Actually, though I liked No Country, I enjoyed There Will Be Blood more... it was a tight race. I dunno, I wanted Blood to win. Last year had good movies up for grabs. This year simply didn't have anything that great. I think that's why Slumdog won so much so easily. It really didn't have much competition. And furthermore, given the group of films nominated for Best Picture for 2008, there's no reason whatsoever that The Dark Knight couldn't have been one of those.

    to be continued...

    Leave a comment:


  • RealBronco
    replied
    Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    Tired of "movies like these".. when you haven't even seen it. How do you know what kind of "movie it is" if you haven't seen the movie???

    its full of action, drama, intrigue.. humor... the movie format was unique and superbly done...yet you guys wan to assume its an "artsy film" simply because YOU guys haven't heard of it??? Come on now. Thats pretty damned close minded and judgmental.

    Also.. as much as I liked "the Dark Knight".... it was NOT the picture of the year (although had the best actor of the year).... and would never be considered " one of the all time greats" outside the world of teenagers (and or comic geeks).

    I have seen almost all the pictures up for nomination (other than milk)... and felt that Slumdog was an EXCELLENT movie and very much deserved the win. No way do I feel that hollywood was/is "ramming it down my throat." God forbid that people.. or hollywood... enjoys a movie that isn't based on some comic book toon. Heaven's forgive us if we have to 'read' a few lines that are spoken in a different language. Let us completely 'Trash" the movie if it is based on a story that isn't american.

    Gran Torino got alllll this hype because of Clint Eastwood. It was good, but not as good as Slumdog.

    Don't judge a movie based on the fact it is about india instead of america (and yes, thats what you are doing )

    And OMG.. did someone say "Seabiscuit" was "crap like that?"
    Let's just start this off here: My Thoughts.

    I think you are forcing the issue that it was made in India/about India etc. That shouldn't even be part of this discussion Rav. Where it is made, and who's in it, an what it's about doesn't have anything to do with why someone might not like the film or why they choose not to watch it or why they may just simply not be interested.

    I'm not really going to bring TDK into this, other than to say that you are probably back-peddling when you say that we shouldn't appreciate "artsy" films (believe me, I'd rather watch an Indie film over Hollywood drivel) and then go on to say that Hollywood shouldn't like something like TDK...

    Hollywood IS TDK... That's what Hollywood thrives on... movies that make the studios money and smash box office records. So I don't think you can use TDK and comic book movies as part of the argument here... because despite the fact that Hollywood thrives on them, they still choose not to acknowledge when one of those might actually be great. I won't say TDK is one of the best films ever... but it's easily the best comic book-base film to date (we'll see about The Watchmen soon).

    Now moving on. I enjoyed Gran Torino much more than Slumdog. I wouldn't say either film was more original than the other because quite frankly Slumdog wasn't original at all. Since you're going to bring the "India" factor into it, that may be the only reason it got any recognition at all.

    Let's take the same film... put it in the Bronx or the Projects... we'll change Jamal to some unfortunate kid in the slums of Brooklyn or wherever you want. We'll give him a love interest and a chance to go on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Then we'll tell his story about how he won the game show through his life experience. Okay, it's a fine attempt at something original, perhaps it's a fairly new spin on the boring rags to riches love story plot.

    But that's just it. That's all Slumdog was. Before I go any further, I'll say I didn't not like Slumdog, as I stated in my review. But I just don't think it warranted 10 nods and 8 wins.

    In fact, as I said, it was just a lucky contender among other films that were equally un-spectacular.

    Benjamin Button=Forrest Gump 2. I mean, it's an interesting concept but oh well.

    Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    Its interesting to see/hear/read different perspectives on different films I suppose. I personally didn't need "chemistry" with the main characters as you try to suggest, since they supposedly hadn't seen each other for so long. THe point was that love lasted throughout everything. I have NO idea what chemistry you were hoping to find or see, but hey... thats your choice.
    I think what they're talking about, and I agree, was the chemistry from the actors. There was really no passion in the acting. Especially from most of the adults. The kid that played Jamal was really the only one that seemed like he was in to his role.

    Again, "love lasted through everything" well we've heard/seen that story a million times already. Who cares?

    But you didn't know Buttons was going to grow into a baby while she grew to be old? DIdn't they basically tell you that the entire movie? Wasn't that the point of the entire movie? Passing by one another, and yet their love continued?? I thought it was blatently obvious from the very moment you saw he was born old and getting younger.
    not really because that's the huge flaw in the film. if he was born as a small 80 year old man, why didn't he die as a full grown awkwardly big child? Why did he shrink back down to a baby again?

    Again... different perspectives. Wall-E... absolutely bored me to sleep. BORED ME TO SLEEP. I thought that was the worst of the animated films that I've seen in a VERY long time, except Robots (which has to be the worst movie ever made)... and I actually LOVE animated flics. Wall-E just flt out sucked (imo).
    Wall-E was probably the most innovative of the three nominated animated films. that's the main reason it won. Also the cinematography was fantastic. Here's a prime example of something that doesn't interest you but others thought was brilliant. So why are you allowed to not like Wall-E, but South is not allowed to not be interested in even seeing Slumdog? He doesn't even have to see it... that's not the argument. If he's not interested, he's not interested.

    Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    Not to mention, there is nothing wrong with being able to increase our worldly views and open our minds up instead of keeping our minds closed. It seems that not only do some refuse to open their minds an inch and allow some culture to enter, but wish that people would stop making movies that actually show culture so they don't have to see it at all.
    Again I don't see how the "culture" discussion comes in to play on this film. Take away the India aspect, and the actors, etc. and it's just another run of the mill film about a kid who grew up poor and gets rich quick.

    In fact, if you want a great film that was made in India, by Indians entirely: Check this one out.

    to be continued...

    Leave a comment:


  • Snapping Turtle
    replied
    Originally posted by draco193 View Post
    Id like to hear from some people about what they look for in a best picture. We normally see that most Best Pictures also have actors nominated for their roles in a film, cinematography, editing, score etc etc. Is this important in your descion for a film to be Best Picture worthy?
    Mainly I like a good story. Something that hasn't been done, or a new take on an old idea. And of course I really enjoy movies that are biographical. I think acting plays a huge part as well as the directing. I dunno, I just think its obvious when a movie is worthy of a nomination. It is hard to explain...a movie that makes you think is always good. I think the Academy does a really good job rewarding different types of movies. I never feel like the same kinda of picture wins every year.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X