One of the best films of the decade. And I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with Haneke making an American remake of Funny Games-- after all it's mainly Hollywood style movie violence that so many Haneke films criticize, so why not go to the source.
Back to the Oscars-- say what you want about The Departed, but it's still the best film to win best picture in, I don't know, about ten, fifteen years? Or equally good as any film to win in those years.
One of the best films of the decade. And I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with Haneke making an American remake of Funny Games-- after all it's mainly Hollywood style movie violence that so many Haneke films criticize, so why not go to the source.
Back to the Oscars-- say what you want about The Departed, but it's still the best film to win best picture in, I don't know, about ten, fifteen years? Or equally good as any film to win in those years.
Seems to me it's just the latest in a long line of less-than-stellar films to score the nod:
1980s ??? Ordinary People ??? Chariots of Fire ??? Gandhi ??? Terms of Endearment ??? Amadeus ??? Out of Africa ??? Platoon ??? The Last Emperor ??? Rain Man ??? Driving Miss Daisy
1990s ??? Dances with Wolves ??? The Silence of the Lambs ??? Unforgiven ??? Schindler's List ??? Forrest Gump ??? Braveheart ??? The English Patient ??? Titanic ??? Shakespeare in Love ??? American Beauty
2000s ??? Gladiator ??? A Beautiful Mind ??? Chicago ??? The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ??? Million Dollar Baby ??? Crash ??? The Departed
Only really good ones in my lifetime it seems = Deerhunter, Amadeus, Gandhi and Platoon. Honorable mention to The Silence of the Lambs. The rest = doo doo.
my friend is a film critic. he was watching last night; i'm jumping in and out, not really caring. before i go to sleep, i see he has sent me a text: 'helen mirren...would you?' absolutely, and he agreed.
i asked at work; she's batting 1.000 among the 8 men i've surveyed, and my wife totally cosined my decision; she'd watch.
Lord of the Rings ain't doodoo, btw. i'm no film/fantasy guys, but those movies are all incredibly well done, and extremely rewatchable.
1980s ??? Ordinary People ??? Chariots of Fire ??? Gandhi ??? Terms of Endearment ??? Amadeus ??? Out of Africa ??? Platoon ??? The Last Emperor ??? Rain Man ??? Driving Miss Daisy
1990s ??? Dances with Wolves ??? The Silence of the Lambs ??? Unforgiven ??? Schindler's List ??? Forrest Gump ??? Braveheart ??? The English Patient ??? Titanic ??? Shakespeare in Love ??? American Beauty
2000s ??? Gladiator ??? A Beautiful Mind ??? Chicago ??? The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ??? Million Dollar Baby ??? Crash ??? The Departed
Only really good ones in my lifetime it seems = Deerhunter, Amadeus, Gandhi and Platoon. Honorable mention to The Silence of the Lambs. The rest = doo doo.
These are all enjoyable films, deserving of Best Picture awards:
1978??? The Deer Hunter 1982 ??? Gandhi 1984 ??? Amadeus 1986 ??? Platoon 1991 ??? The Silence of the Lambs 1992 ??? Unforgiven 1993 ??? Schindler's List 1999 ??? American Beauty 2003 ??? The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 2006 ??? The Departed
These are doo doo
1985: Out of Africa 1989: Driving Miss Daisy 1990: Dances with Wolves 1994: Forrest Gump 1997: Titanic 2001: A Beautiful Mind
The rest range from pretty good to somewhat problematic, but neither best picture or doo doo.
Oh, and the American remake of Funny Games is inherently suspect. I think that Haneke's critique of violence in society is much much broader than critiquing violence in Hollywood. If he wants to make an American movie that makes a similar point, make a new one. Don't remake a not very old one. I am hostile to remakes. Haneke will probable do an admirable job remaking his own film, but I am still hostile.
We need more originality, not more nostalgia.
Oh, and on the magazines, I'll flip through both Us and People if they're laying around, but US is better. Bonnie Fuller did a number on Us.
By my recollection, Entertainment Weekly is a pretty good magazine, for standard, semi-smart entertainment criticism, but I don't remember the last time I looked through it.
That said, the only magazine I read regularly/religiously is Wax Poetics. I should just subscribe, especially now that the only reliable source in town is closing in three days.
Whenever rwingers trot out the 'liberal hollywood' myth feel free to point out how forrest gump is one of the most loathesome conservative movies ever.
1980s ??? Ordinary People ??? Chariots of Fire ??? Gandhi ??? Terms of Endearment ??? Amadeus ??? Out of Africa ??? Platoon ??? The Last Emperor ??? Rain Man ??? Driving Miss Daisy
1990s ??? Dances with Wolves ??? The Silence of the Lambs ??? Unforgiven ??? Schindler's List ??? Forrest Gump ??? Braveheart ??? The English Patient ??? Titanic ??? Shakespeare in Love ??? American Beauty
2000s ??? Gladiator ??? A Beautiful Mind ??? Chicago ??? The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ??? Million Dollar Baby ??? Crash ??? The Departed
Only really good ones in my lifetime it seems = Deerhunter, Amadeus, Gandhi and Platoon. Honorable mention to The Silence of the Lambs. The rest = doo doo.
Wow. I will say after going over this list that there is an amazing amount of films that certainly DON'T belong on the list for best picture, let alone nominated. However, "The Last Emperor", "Unforgiven", "Schindler's List", "Million Dollar Baby" are FAR from "doo doo". "Unforgiven" in particular being one of the best westerns EVER, and I say that knowing full well how much weight a statement like that carries. And with the exception of Liam Neeson's final, overtly sentimental, gag-inducing speech to the liberated Jews, "Schindler's List" stands up as one of the greatest films ever, period, end of story. By far Spielberg's finest, which, despite the urge by so many to jump on the bandwagon and bash dude, IS saying a lot. The man has made some great films in his career.
Some titles that absolutely boggle the mind as to how they could've possibly won/been nominated... "Shakespeare In Love", "Forrest Gump", "Dances With Wolves", "Gladiator", "Titanic", etc.
Some titles that absolutely boggle the mind as to how they could've possibly won/been nominated... "Shakespeare In Love", "Forrest Gump", "Dances With Wolves", "Gladiator", "Titanic", etc.
Why all the hatt for Gladiator? I'd def say that was worthy of a nod. Great performances by great actors. The writing, direction, and cinematography def top notch as well. It may not have been as rich as other works about the era like I Claudius, but if people think Gladiator is doo doo, I think their radar is off.
Why all the hatt for Gladiator? I'd def say that was worthy of a nod. Great performances by great actors. The writing, direction, and cinematography def top notch as well. It may not have been as rich as other works about the era like I Claudius, but if people think Gladiator is doo doo, I think their radar is off.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Gladiator was "doo doo". Just not worthy of a nod, and certainly not Best Picture. Partciularly since I can think of a few Ridley Scott films off the bat that should've gotten it first - the first Alien and Blade Runner for two, but my feeling is that at the time they were considered to be mere genre pictures (horror/sci-fi) and therefore not worthy. But yeah, I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan (I even dug his grifter flick w/Nic Cage that everyone seemed to sleep on - Matchstick Men). Trust me, no one in that theater wanted to love Gladiator more than me. The next day I had pretty much forgotten about it.
I'm not against an action film being crowned "Best Picture" but I found "Gladiator" to be way too overwrought. The fact that "Sopranos" made fun of it only confirmed my suspicions that it was puffy melodrama with lions and swords added.
Why all the hatt for Gladiator? I'd def say that was worthy of a nod. Great performances by great actors. The writing, direction, and cinematography def top notch as well. It may not have been as rich as other works about the era like I Claudius, but if people think Gladiator is doo doo, I think their radar is off.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Gladiator was "doo doo". Just not worthy of a nod, and certainly not Best Picture. Partciularly since I can think of a few Ridley Scott films off the bat that should've gotten it first - the first Alien and Blade Runner for two, but my feeling is that at the time they were considered to be mere genre pictures (horror/sci-fi) and therefore not worthy. But yeah, I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan (I even dug his grifter flick w/Nic Cage that everyone seemed to sleep on - Matchstick Men). Trust me, no one in that theater wanted to love Gladiator more than me. The next day I had pretty much forgotten about it.
I'm not against an action film being crowned "Best Picture" but I found "Gladiator" to be way too overwrought. The fact that "Sopranos" made fun of it only confirmed my suspicions that it was puffy melodrama with lions and swords added.
Why all the hatt for Gladiator? I'd def say that was worthy of a nod. Great performances by great actors. The writing, direction, and cinematography def top notch as well. It may not have been as rich as other works about the era like I Claudius, but if people think Gladiator is doo doo, I think their radar is off.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Gladiator was "doo doo". Just not worthy of a nod, and certainly not Best Picture. Partciularly since I can think of a few Ridley Scott films off the bat that should've gotten it first - the first Alien and Blade Runner for two, but my feeling is that at the time they were considered to be mere genre pictures (horror/sci-fi) and therefore not worthy. But yeah, I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan (I even dug his grifter flick w/Nic Cage that everyone seemed to sleep on - Matchstick Men). Trust me, no one in that theater wanted to love Gladiator more than me. The next day I had pretty much forgotten about it.
I also just really appreciated the spectacle of it. Like the panning shot with the fire arrows, the death matches in the Colloseum. And it's the film's worn really well for me wheras similar films like Braveheart haven't.
Piano Teacher - hated it! Cache(hidden) - LOVED IT!
can't say I hate any film that Haneke has done so far...and I'd be happy watching Isabelle Huppert watching paint dry.
Is that what she was doing on the edge of that bathtub in Piano Teacher?
Hate is probably too strong a word, but I really felt like Haneke was putting me through the wringer JUST TO PUT ME THROUGH THE WRINGER in that movie more than his others. I mean a lot of his movies are hard to take, but that movie just crossed too many lines for me. The part where she put the glass in the girl's pocket was pretty sweet in its demonic cruelty, though.
Piano Teacher - hated it! Cache(hidden) - LOVED IT!
can't say I hate any film that Haneke has done so far...and I'd be happy watching Isabelle Huppert watching paint dry.
Is that what she was doing on the edge of that bathtub in Piano Teacher?
Hate is probably too strong a word, but I really felt like Haneke was putting me through the wringer JUST TO PUT ME THROUGH THE WRINGER in that movie more than his others. I mean a lot of his movies are hard to take, but that movie just crossed too many lines for me. The part where she put the glass in the girl's pocket was pretty sweet in its demonic cruelty, though.
I know what you're saying, but I don't think it was a particularly gratuitous film. I really like the private life vs public life themes that he always has in his movies. It did cross lines and was hard to take at times, which in turn raised a lot of questions, I like that.
Comments
I'm sad to admit that I made the very same quip during the broadcast.
One of the best films of the decade. And I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with Haneke making an American remake of Funny Games-- after all it's mainly Hollywood style movie violence that so many Haneke films criticize, so why not go to the source.
Back to the Oscars-- say what you want about The Departed, but it's still the best film to win best picture in, I don't know, about ten, fifteen years? Or equally good as any film to win in those years.
Seems to me it's just the latest in a long line of less-than-stellar films to score the nod:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture#2000s
1980s ??? Ordinary People ??? Chariots of Fire ??? Gandhi ??? Terms of Endearment ??? Amadeus ??? Out of Africa ??? Platoon ??? The Last Emperor ??? Rain Man ??? Driving Miss Daisy
1990s ??? Dances with Wolves ??? The Silence of the Lambs ??? Unforgiven ??? Schindler's List ??? Forrest Gump ??? Braveheart ??? The English Patient ??? Titanic ??? Shakespeare in Love ??? American Beauty
2000s ??? Gladiator ??? A Beautiful Mind ??? Chicago ??? The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ??? Million Dollar Baby ??? Crash ??? The Departed
Only really good ones in my lifetime it seems = Deerhunter, Amadeus, Gandhi and Platoon. Honorable mention to The Silence of the Lambs. The rest = doo doo.
before i go to sleep, i see he has sent me a text: 'helen mirren...would you?' absolutely, and he agreed.
i asked at work; she's batting 1.000 among the 8 men i've surveyed, and my wife totally cosined my decision; she'd watch.
Lord of the Rings ain't doodoo, btw. i'm no film/fantasy guys, but those movies are all incredibly well done, and extremely rewatchable.
ordinary people and unforgiven are good
These are doo doo
The rest range from pretty good to somewhat problematic, but neither best picture or doo doo.
Oh, and the American remake of Funny Games is inherently suspect. I think that Haneke's critique of violence in society is much much broader than critiquing violence in Hollywood. If he wants to make an American movie that makes a similar point, make a new one. Don't remake a not very old one. I am hostile to remakes. Haneke will probable do an admirable job remaking his own film, but I am still hostile.
We need more originality, not more nostalgia.
Oh, and on the magazines, I'll flip through both Us and People if they're laying around, but US is better. Bonnie Fuller did a number on Us.
By my recollection, Entertainment Weekly is a pretty good magazine, for standard, semi-smart entertainment criticism, but I don't remember the last time I looked through it.
That said, the only magazine I read regularly/religiously is Wax Poetics. I should just subscribe, especially now that the only reliable source in town is closing in three days.
Bye,
JRoot
particularly loathesome.
Wow.
I will say after going over this list that there is an amazing amount of films that certainly DON'T belong on the list for best picture, let alone nominated.
However, "The Last Emperor", "Unforgiven", "Schindler's List", "Million Dollar Baby" are FAR from "doo doo".
"Unforgiven" in particular being one of the best westerns EVER, and I say that knowing full well how much weight a statement like that carries.
And with the exception of Liam Neeson's final, overtly sentimental, gag-inducing speech to the liberated Jews, "Schindler's List" stands up as one of the greatest films ever, period, end of story.
By far Spielberg's finest, which, despite the urge by so many to jump on the bandwagon and bash dude, IS saying a lot. The man has made some great films in his career.
Some titles that absolutely boggle the mind as to how they could've possibly won/been nominated...
"Shakespeare In Love", "Forrest Gump", "Dances With Wolves", "Gladiator", "Titanic", etc.
Marisa Tomei, best supporting actress for My Cousin Vinny.
Need I say more about the Oscars?
Why all the hatt for Gladiator? I'd def say that was worthy of a nod. Great performances by great actors. The writing, direction, and cinematography def top notch as well. It may not have been as rich as other works about the era like I Claudius, but if people think Gladiator is doo doo, I think their radar is off.
AYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Don't get me wrong.
I don't think Gladiator was "doo doo". Just not worthy of a nod, and certainly not Best Picture.
Partciularly since I can think of a few Ridley Scott films off the bat that should've gotten it first - the first Alien and Blade Runner for two, but my feeling is that at the time they were considered to be mere genre pictures (horror/sci-fi) and therefore not worthy.
But yeah, I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan (I even dug his grifter flick w/Nic Cage that everyone seemed to sleep on - Matchstick Men).
Trust me, no one in that theater wanted to love Gladiator more than me.
The next day I had pretty much forgotten about it.
I also just really appreciated the spectacle of it. Like the panning shot with the fire arrows, the death matches in the Colloseum. And it's the film's worn really well for me wheras similar films like Braveheart haven't.
But yeah, to each their own.
can't say I hate any film that Haneke has done so far...and I'd be happy watching Isabelle Huppert watching paint dry.
Is that what she was doing on the edge of that bathtub in Piano Teacher?
Hate is probably too strong a word, but I really felt like Haneke was putting me through the wringer JUST TO PUT ME THROUGH THE WRINGER in that movie more than his others. I mean a lot of his movies are hard to take, but that movie just crossed too many lines for me. The part where she put the glass in the girl's pocket was pretty sweet in its demonic cruelty, though.
it gets better!
FILM Queen DAME HELEN MIRREN has admitted she didn???t wear undies at the Oscars.
I know what you're saying, but I don't think it was a particularly gratuitous film. I really like the private life vs public life themes that he always has in his movies. It did cross lines and was hard to take at times, which in turn raised a lot of questions, I like that.
for days....overly long, melodramatic nonsense. not fit to hold the sweaty jock of goodfellas.
seriously not impressed. oscars are dumb.