2019 Films and Oscars - Movies & TV - Forums : Best Ever Albums

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Hayden wrote:

Just watched 1917. Went way past my expectations. Which pisses me off because now I need to knock a good film out of my top 10 of the year.

AwaitingAndrew wrote:

I saw 1917 on Monday and concur. Almost makes me rethink my top 10 for the decade.

I'm not sure I watched the same movie as you two. The movie I watched was about Oscarbate as it gets. Nevertheless, it's a solid Oscar bait film.

PurpleHazel wrote:

Uncut Gems is a banger. My only major caveat is that
**SPOILER ALERT**

Quote:

a basketball star believing a gemstone is a lucky charm so much he wins all his games seems more like a light comedy bit, and, on top of that, Sandler winning a crazy high-stakes bet based on that TWICE feels repetitive, reusing the same big moment for the climax.

**END SPOILER**

But I love the headlong, frenetic style. Most films are by nature suspense films on some level, and the Safdie brothers ratchet up the tension on theirs almost as high as it can go. Agree that Sandler's significantly better here than in Punch-Drunk Love. Didn't think he had the chops to pull off the tantrum scenes in the latter. Here, he has to yell like half the time and handles it fine. Agree with Hayden that the score's excellent and deserved an Oscar nom.

Nice, glad you're a fellow fan. And yeah, Sandler gives a good performance here, and I think his speech impediment actually helped. I didn't know he had a speech impediment until recently. His mouth doesn't move normally when he speaks, and his pronunciation of certain vowels sounds off. It was fine in comedy, but when tried to play serious roles, I just thought it was bad acting when it was actually bad casting. Anyway, it fit his character in Uncut Gems well because his character is always yelling and hollering, and he rarely shut up.

PurpleHazel wrote:

CA Dreamin, you've explained several details that I didn't even realize had some significance and offered thoughtful explanations of things I didn't even contemplate, so I got you covered on this one.

**SPOILER ALERT**

Quote:

The slightly creepy older guy and Julia cross paths by chance at least twice early in the Vegas sequence. Each time he hits on her and she casually rebuffs him. When she spots one of Bogosian's goons, who wants to relieve her of the suitcase of cash before she can place the crazy bet, in the casino, she accepts creepy guy's invitation to his room to evade the hood (fortunately for her, it turns out they're not alone in the room). At the end, she uses creepy dude to pick up the winnings because Bogosian's guys are staking out the casino window.

**END SPOILER**

Ah, okay. The plot of Uncut Gems was fast-paced. Everyone's bound to miss something the first watch. I look forward to watching it again someday.
_________________
on such a winter's day

PurpleHazel

CA Dreamin wrote:

Ah, okay. The plot of Uncut Gems was fast-paced. Everyone's bound to miss something the first watch.

Absolutely. Don't think the bloody leg as an opportunity for the theft registered with me.

Quote:

I look forward to watching it again someday.

Have to admit after reading your and the Google user's posts, I wouldn't mind rewatching parts of it right now, if I could. It's the type of movie I'd probably be up to rewatching in a year -- though I have the urge to rewatch movies a lot more than I actually do.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

Quote:

I'm not sure I watched the same movie as you two. The movie I watched was about Oscarbate as it gets. Nevertheless, it's a solid Oscar bait film.

If this is the future of Oscar bait, I'm all for it. I didn't feel that way at all. I think there's been a major shake-up of what an 'Oscar' film is since Birdman won. We've had some films (Moonlight, Whiplash, The Shape of Water, Roma, Mad Max, Get Out, Joker) that wouldn't of 'fit the bill' even a decade ago. I think if the Academy had the same mentality they have now back in 2006, Pan's Labyrinth would've had a decent shot at Best Picture. I think the Oscars at getting much better at selecting films (maybe ignore 2018, but yeah), and the concept of bait is fading.

Just watched Little Women. Torn on it. There's some lovely stuff in the mix, but I hated the editing. Some befuddling acting decisions too.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Hayden wrote:

CA Dreamin wrote:

I'm not sure I watched the same movie as you two. The movie I watched was about Oscarbate as it gets. Nevertheless, it's a solid Oscar bait film.

If this is the future of Oscar bait, I'm all for it. I didn't feel that way at all. I think there's been a major shake-up of what an 'Oscar' film is since Birdman won. We've had some films (Moonlight, Whiplash, The Shape of Water, Roma, Mad Max, Get Out, Joker) that wouldn't of 'fit the bill' even a decade ago. I think if the Academy had the same mentality they have now back in 2006, Pan's Labyrinth would've had a decent shot at Best Picture. I think the Oscars at getting much better at selecting films (maybe ignore 2018, but yeah), and the concept of bait is fading.

Hmm. I partially agree. The Academy has improved with their nominees, but I'm not sure how Birdman's victory was a turning point? Could you explain? I would argue it was when the BP category was expanded. Since BP could be up to 10 nominees, non-English, indie, sci-fi, blockbusters, etc, have all been better represented. And yeah, I agree Pan's Labyrinth would have been up for BP if there were more than 5 noms that year, and under the current mentality.

Anyway, 1917 is totally Oscar bait. It was released in select cities at the very end of the year, weeks before getting released wide. You know, to build up hype. And when was it finally released wide? Right in the middle of Awards Season, as Academy members were making their selections. Sounds like Oscar bait to me. Also, it's a war drama, Oscar bait by definition because the Academy historically, overwhelmingly nominates those types of film, no matter how good or bad they are.

I'm not saying 1917 is bad, but I think it's evidence the concept of Oscar bait is alive and strong. 1917 is a solid movie. It's well-made. The camera work, the sound, the acting, the pacing, the suspense...all good stuff. But I wasn't taken by surprise at any point. It didn't do anything within its genre that hasn't been done a thousand times. Dangerous mission behind enemy lines, check. One soldier says the mission is suicidal and wants to turn around, check. Helpless woman with a child, check. Somber death scene, check. Trying to find an enemy sniper, check. There are other things I could mention, but I don't want to ruin the ending for those who haven't seen it.

My point is 1917 has been over-hyped due to its genre, its marketing, and its release strategy. It's a good film but it's far from original. And best movie of the year? I don't think so.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

CA Dreamin wrote:

Hmm. I partially agree. The Academy has improved with their nominees, but I'm not sure how Birdman's victory was a turning point? Could you explain? I would argue it was when the BP category was expanded. Since BP could be up to 10 nominees, non-English, indie, sci-fi, blockbusters, etc, have all been better represented. And yeah, I agree Pan's Labyrinth would have been up for BP if there were more than 5 noms that year, and under the current mentality.

Sometimes I forget Birdman even won because it's so un-Oscary. Likewise with Moonlight. The Academy has a type, and neither felt like they were part of the mold. They'e pretty small ($18m, $1.5m) films with plenty of personality and unconventional storyboards. Maybe a smidge more independent in spirit. They certainly weren't made with the mindset of winning awards. The King's Speech and 12 Years A Slave feel like they were made with award season in mind. I think they're both fantastic films (and actually think The King's Speech is criticized for winning a little more than it should be), but they're definitely a detail-oriented lavish set-production big-moral flavour the Oscars have always dug into.

Perhaps the shift happened once they expanded the category, but with The King's Speech, Argo and The Hurt Locker winning, I'm not sure the change in taste showed until Birdman. Had maybe Inglourious Basterds, Up, Inception, The Social Network, The Tree of Life, Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Her, or Nebraska won, I'd say it started then, but at least they were nominated. Being said, there's some pre-expansion films that wouldn't stand a chance now. Could you imagine The Reader, Crash, Finding Neverland, Michael Clayton or In the Bedroom even being blinked at in 2019? It'd be weird.

I think the noms are getting better. All I'm saying.

CA Dreamin wrote:

1917

I liked it. Mr. Green

That'll be my lazy argument. Would you have thought differently of it had the film been released in summer? Maybe 1917 shot for the Oscars, but if it is bait, it's a different type of bait than say The Theory of Everything, The Post or Lion.

PurpleHazel

CA Dreamin wrote:

The Academy has improved with their nominees, but I'm not sure how Birdman's victory was a turning point? Since BP could be up to 10 nominees, non-English, indie, sci-fi, blockbusters, etc, have all been better represented.

To me the Academy's nominees have only improved because of the increase from 5 to 10. It's not that movies have gotten better, it's just a numbers game. It allows for both smaller and more commercial films to get nominated, as CA Dreamin described in more detail. Just because an effect might be delayed, doesn't mean the cause isn't the cause.

Hayden wrote:

If this is the future of Oscar bait, I'm all for it. I think there's been a major shake-up of what an 'Oscar' film is since Birdman won. We've had some films (Moonlight, Whiplash, The Shape of Water, Roma, Mad Max, Get Out, Joker) that wouldn't of 'fit the bill' even a decade ago. I think if the Academy had the same mentality they have now back in 2006, Pan's Labyrinth would've had a decent shot at Best Picture. I think the Oscars at getting much better at selecting films (maybe ignore 2018, but yeah), and the concept of bait is fading.

Dunno about a decade ago, but Cries and Whispers, Z, A Clockwork Orange, Nashville, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now were more radical selections -- except for Roma -- given how much earlier in Oscar history they fall than the ones you list above.

Quote:

Could you imagine The Reader, Crash, Finding Neverland, Michael Clayton or In the Bedroom even being blinked at in 2019? It'd be weird.

They only wouldn't have made the cut in 2019 because of the quality of the pool of candidates. I can 100% imagine them in 2018 or 2017 (and probably 2020). What's fundamentally different about them than Green Book, The Darkest Hour, The Post, A Star is Born, Bohemian Rhapsody or Ford v Ferrari? Think 2019's the outlier, not Oscar bait films in the last five years.

Green Book was Oscar bait, and very successful chum at that. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Judy (successful) and Motherless Brooklyn are Oscar bait, the last angling more for Best Actor than BP. Arguably Harriet too.

Disclosure: I'm very ambivalent about Birdman, would rate it 6 out of 10 at best. I just didn't like The Shape of Water. Found the main character a little annoying, the story thin and increasingly silly toward the end, and that the mix of fairy tale and more realistic elements created an inconsistent tone. In the last year, I've had to face the fact I'm neither a del Toro fan (do like Pan's Labyrinth) or an Inarritu fan.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

I think I understand where Hayden is coming from. Looking back on the BP field from the early years after expansion, especially 2010 and 2011, there wasn't much variety in the pool of candidates. The only difference was there were 10 nominees instead of 5. But there appeared to a gradual shift in the years after, and Birdman's victory in 2014 demonstrated that shift. I think Birdman would have been very unlikely to win had it been made 6-10 years earlier.

Nevertheless, the more things changed, the more they stayed the same. Green Book is recent proof that the Academy still has traditional preferences, along with other movies PurpleHazel mentioned (Darkest Hour, The Post, A Star is Born, Bohemian Rhapsody). And I agree with PH that The Reader, Crash, Finding Neverland, Michael Clayton, and In the Bedroom would still get Oscar love today as they did in the 2000s.

Hayden wrote:

I liked it. Mr. Green

That'll be my lazy argument. Would you have thought differently of it had the film been released in summer? Maybe 1917 shot for the Oscars, but if it is bait, it's a different type of bait than say The Theory of Everything, The Post or Lion.

If 1917 was released in the summer, my opinion of it would be the same. I just wouldn't call it blatant Oscar bait. It's a different type of bait from those titles but it's bait nonetheless.

Last edited by CA Dreamin on 01/21/2020 16:57; edited 1 time in total

PurpleHazel

CA Dreamin wrote:

I think Birdman would have been very unlikely to win had it been made 6-10 years earlier.

That's probably true. Though The Artist (2012) was a pretty offbeat BP winner. Though I can judge Birdman's eccentricity objectively, it feels a little weird for me to have this conversation because I think Birdman's a middling film. Much prefer The Grand Budapest Hotel and Boyhood.

Sometimes the results of change don't fully manifest right away.

Worth noting that when the Academy increased the number of nominated films they were reacting to a widening gap between BP nominees and popular movies (or perceived gap, though it must've been at least partly based on some kind of data).

Applerill
Autistic Princess <3

Gender: Female
Age: 30
Location: Chicago

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/Cubbieri...es-of-2019

My near-final list of favorite movies of the year. I saw over 130 new releases this year, so everything on this list makes the top half for me.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

^^Good to know someone else has seen The Art of Self Defense. Great movie. Although I'm not sure what to make of its #38 ranking.