Legend
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
Fan Fic Legend
27,680 POSTS & 20,150 LIKES
|
Post by UT on Feb 19, 2018 19:12:38 GMT
1. Good Will Hunting 2. 12 Angry Men 3. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid 4. The Shawshank Redemption 5. The Hustler 6. The Social Network 7. Saving Private Ryan 8. Miracle on 34th Street 9. The Green Mile 10. Silver Linings Playbook Didn't expect Good Will Hunting to score highly considering it's against the juggernaut that is Titanic. However, Good Will Hunting is a near flawless masterpiece in my opinion, and is one of my lifetime Best Pictures. Would likely have been my #1 regardless of which year it was released or what film won over it. Similar reasoning for 12 Angry Men and Butch Cassidy. In the latter case, I've actually seen Midnight Cowboy and didn't like it all. Tremendously boring. One of the few snubs on my list in which I have seen the Best Picture winner. I wanted Good Will Hunting to make the final list so bad , just so we could talk about it. I couldn't vote for it myself seeing as how I think Titanic was a pretty good winner as well , it was the final cut for me. I love Good Will Hunting way more than the Titanic , but still like Titanic enough and can justify why it got the Oscar.
|
|
Legend
19,823 POSTS & 13,406 LIKES
|
Post by RT on Feb 19, 2018 22:14:18 GMT
Duh. I forgot Saving Private Ryan hadn't been named yet.
1. Pulp Fiction (winner: Forrest Gump) 2. Goodfellas (winner: Dances With Wolves) 3. Gangs of New York (winner: Chicago) 4. Saving Private Ryan (winner: Shakespeare In Love) 5. The Shawshank Redemption (winner: Forrest Gump) 6. Apocalypse Now! (winner: Kramer vs. Kramer) 7. Dead Poets Society (winner: Driving Miss Daisy) 8. The Social Network (winner: The King's Speech) 9. The Revenant (winner: Spotlight) 10. The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of The Ring (winner: A Beautiful Mind)
Pretty much what the 1 and 2 of this list should be even with my arguments for Pulp Fiction. As I said earlier, I wish I put Apocalypse Now! higher as well.
|
|
Legend
23,184 POSTS & 12,594 LIKES
|
Post by 🤯 on Feb 20, 2018 2:44:04 GMT
PI's Snubs: 1.) Saving Private Ryan 2.) L.A. Confidential 3.) Mystic River 4.) Apocalypse Now 5.) Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid 6.) Taxi Driver 7.) Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf? 8.) Dr. Strangelove 9.) Tootsie 10.) Fargo Wife's snubs: 1.) Ray 2.) Saving Private Ryan 3.) The Wizard of Oz 4.) District 9 5.) Up 6.) Sideways 7.) Dr. Strangelove 8.) Gangs of New York 9.) Erin Brockovich 10.) There Will Be Blood
|
|
God
5,980 POSTS & 4,331 LIKES
|
Post by mikec on Feb 20, 2018 4:13:14 GMT
My picks with a note on what didn’t make it -
1 Social Network over Kings Speech 2 Brokeback Mountain over Crash (2005) - one of the three biggest mistakes, probably not but definitely belonged in the top ten. Crash is the worst Oscar winner I’ve ever seen and Brokeback Mountain is a tremendous love story told in a familiar way with a completely unfamiliar set of players.
3 Goodfellas over Dances With Wolves (1990) 4 Descendants over The Artist (2011) - I really meant to move this down my list, but The Artist is blah and Descendants is an enjoyable movie with one of George Clooney’s best performance. Belongs more like number ten.
5 All The Presidents Men Over Rocky (1976) - I don’t like Rocky, and All the Presidents Men tells the most important story in American journalism
6 It’s a Wonderful Life over The Best Years of Our Life - Just out of love for Its a Wonderful Life
7 The Wizard of Oz Over Gone with the Wind (1940) - My stepmother is a big Gone With the Wind fan and it’s fine, epic even. But Wizard of Oz is just bigger with a language that 80 years later is still oft repeated.
8 Saving Private Ryan over Shakespeare in Love (1998) 9 Sideways over Million Dollar Baby (2004) - I just don’t like Million Dollar Baby. Not a ton of great options, but Sideways is my favorite of them.
10 Fargo Over The English Patient
|
|
Senior Member
2,866 POSTS & 2,222 LIKES
|
Post by Lionheart on Feb 20, 2018 18:01:50 GMT
This thread is going way too fast for me to keep up with. I think I was on...
Pulp Fiction
I was also really shocked that people didn't care for or remember Willis' scenes in this movie. They were probably the most memorable part of the entire thing for me. I was falling out of my chair laughing while watching Marsellus chase him through the streets and the entire thing from their capture to their escape was one of the most crazy ridiculous epic things to ever happen in a movie.
I'm not sure why everyone is calling this a cult classic. It was targeted at a wide audience, was massively successful domestically and overseas, and made a ridiculous amount of money. In fact, it's the number one liked movie in my city. I see the poster for it on like half the walls of people's houses that I go to. While this is the level of fandom you would expect for a cult movie, it doesn't apply when it's everyone liking a blockbuster. It's comparable to saying Marvel movies are cult movies because everyone loves them and has toys/shirts galore of them.
I think people who like it just want it to be considered a cult movie so they can seem more hipster and cool. Anyway, I really like this movie. It was #6 on my list and it would have been higher were I not to consider Titanic beating anything a much larger case of snubbery. If I had ranked according to movie quality, it would probably have been #2 or #3.
I understand that it is annoying when people praise a movie to high Heaven, especially when you don't like it, but I for one think it's easily possible to not like it. It's hard for people to get out of their own heads and since they like it so much they can't see any other angle. Yet I know a good amount of people who don't like it and I understand why. Just because you like something doesn't mean other people will have the same feelings. It all depends on your personality and background. My parents hate this movie and it's very apparent beforehand that they would. But the technical aspects of the movie are undeniable and that alone makes it fantastic even without the whole Tarantino style unique plot jumping craziness that people subjectively like on top of that.
Raging Bull
Fantastic fucking movie. Not a sports movie. Psychological drama. Emperor should watch it. No idea what Ordinary People is.
Goodfellas
Technically amazing. Bored me to tears. The Untouchables is the example of what a gangster movie should be and I much prefer it. I am really surprised so many people voted for Goodfellas since technically sound movies that are kind of slow are usually exactly the kind of movie that gets neglected. That being said, Dances With Wolves is horrendous and so this is still a clear snubbing. I didn't vote for it though.
Saving Private Ryan
War movie. Emotional. Powerful drama. Tom Hanks. Masterpiece. No idea what Shakespeare In Love is. I am surprised this movie won because I assumed no one else would have seen that either, but I guess it makes sense if people voted for this without seeing the Shakespeare thing.
|
|
Senior Member
2,866 POSTS & 2,222 LIKES
|
Post by Lionheart on Feb 20, 2018 18:12:39 GMT
And here is my list:
1. The Red Shoes (snubbed by Hamlet) 2. Apollo 13 (snubbed by Braveheart) 3. Django Unchained (snubbed by Argo) 4. As Good as It Gets (snubbed by Titanic) 5. Good Will Hunting (snubbed by Titanic) 6. Pulp Fiction (snubbed by Forrest Gump) 7. There Will Be Blood (snubbed by No Country for Old Men) 8. The Shawshank Redemption (snubbed by Forrest Gump) 9. Scent of a Woman (snubbed by Unforgiven) 10. A Few Good Men (snubbed by Unforgiven)
So only two of my picks made it. I am shocked beyond imagination that Apollo 13 wasn't one of them. I would have thought a Tom Hanks movie over Braveheart was a no brainer.
The Red Shoes is my #1 favorite movie of all time, so I placed it at number one despite Hamlet also being a masterpiece. I had watched Hamlet just so I could make that pick. I am really glad I did so given the quality of Hamlet, but it is a shame that my #1 vote wasn't enough to put Red Shoes in the countdown. Hamlet uses the actual script from the play, with parts cut out, so it was a bit unusual at first to deal with Shakespeare dialogue in a feature film but I grew used to it after 20 mins or so. But Red Shoes is just a sensational blend of musical and narrative. I would describe it as perfect, which is impossible but that movie may well be the closest thing to it. It's very accessible even today, certainly compared to Hamlet, and I think most would enjoy it.
Oh, and Django didn't make it on the countdown either? Over ARGO? Really? Argo is a good movie, but compared to DJANGO? I am so confused that I am putting random words in all caps to enhance the ridiculity of this event. I can only imagine people just forgot to put it in their list. Good Will Hunting should have made it too for sure, but I understand people like their Titanicry I guess.
|
|
Moderator
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
8,857 POSTS & 8,626 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Feb 20, 2018 18:25:45 GMT
Django is shlocky.
More entertaining? Perhaps. Did Waltz and DiCaprio deserve to be recognised? Sure, but it's a silly movie.
I'm not sure if Tarantino deserved an Oscar or a Razzie for his 'performance'. It was pretty funny and I liked the tip of the hat to Ozploitation, but if he had a dialect coach, I hope he got his money back.
|
|
Senior Member
2,866 POSTS & 2,222 LIKES
|
Post by Lionheart on Feb 20, 2018 19:39:22 GMT
I wasn't sure what shlocky meant, so I looked it up. Apparently it means of inferior quality or poorly made. If that is true, I am afraid I must disagree. Unusual, yes, but poorly made, no. It was intended to be unusual. Silly may be an apt description, but by no means indicates it should not receive an academy award if it is the better crafted movie. And if we're talking about silliness, the "Argo fuck yourself!" movie takes the cake anyway.
A ten second cameo shouldn't have any impact on anything either. It was hardly long enough to judge any acting ability in any case. He specifically played that character because it was such a minor role that it didn't matter.
|
|
Senior Member
IS ONLINE
Years Old
Male
I came, I saw, I came again.
4,918 POSTS & 1,996 LIKES
|
Post by RagnarokMike on Feb 21, 2018 8:56:27 GMT
Definitely disagree with Django being schlocky, vehemently. Wasn't high art or anything, but QT's cameo aside, excellently done film in pretty much every regard. All in all, I think Argo may have been the weakest nominee that year, except for Les Mis.
1. Saving Private Ryan (Shakespeare in Love) 2. Gangs of New York (Chicago) 3. Apocalypse Now (Kramer vs Kramer) 4. Goodfellas (Dances with Wolves) 5. Inception (the King's Speech) 6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Oliver!) 7. Django Unchained (Argo) 8. Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Love the Atomic Bomb (My Fair Lady) 9. Inglorious Basterds (The Hurt Locker) 10. Shawshank Redemption (Forest Gump)
|
|
Moderator
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
8,857 POSTS & 8,626 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Feb 21, 2018 12:23:20 GMT
It's another way to refer to exploitation movies, a main source of inspiration for Tarantino and the production of Django. In this context, it refers to movies with vulgar subject matter with outrageous imagery. Despite touching on the ugly subject of racism, the film doesn't compel the audience to delve deeply, reminding them it's just a movie with outlandish characters like Calvin J. Candie & Samuel L. Jackson's 'Stephen'. The violence is over the top with characters literally being blown across the room and tonally the film is over the place and the language used through out is shocking, mostly for the sake of it.
That isn't to say schlock is inherently bad. I consider 'The Shape Of Water', a movie about a woman falling in love with the creature from the black lagoon to be schlock despite it being one of the best films of last year. However, this type of movie muffles the presentation of the movie, preventing audiences from engaging with it on a deeper or more meaningful level. It isn't the type of move that's supposed to 'move' you emotionally, rather it explores shocking or perverse subject matter to enthrall the audience.
The difference between 'The Shape Of Water' and 'Django Unchained' is that Django over-did it.
|
|
Senior Member
2,866 POSTS & 2,222 LIKES
|
Post by Lionheart on Feb 21, 2018 17:17:48 GMT
Well, in that case I have to totally agree that it fits that description. However, I am afraid I still must disagree.
I would take a higher quality movie over a deeper or more meaningful one any day, especially if the higher quality one enthralls me. It doesn't muffle the presentation at all. The intended presentation is given in full-force. It's just a different kind of presentation.
And choice of style should have no impact on academy awardiness. One of the biggest problems with the Oscars is that they choose movies based on their thematic content or styles over quality. Basically anything about racism (not including ones where people get blown across the room) or real-life events where people's lives were at stake or the like, such as Argo, typically wins regardless of actual quality.
|
|
Moderator
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
8,857 POSTS & 8,626 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Feb 22, 2018 8:51:37 GMT
Which is the problem with schlock movies because they veer off into juvenile directions to escape the pressure of in-depth criticism. Django Unchained doesn't invite further inspection relative to other movies, nor does it play around with film technique like Tarantino's previous works. Both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are excellent movies because of how they experiment with the notion of narration. In Reservoir Dogs, the audience begins at a disadvantage as the agents know far more than we do. However, by the end of the movie, we know more than the agents, which turns the mystery into suspense. Meanwhile Pulp Fiction tasks the audience with piecing the story together, in turn affecting our perception of the characters in the movie. In contrast, Django is a straight forward story that draws parrallels with stories of old. It doesn't invite a lot of introspection beyond that and the only complexity in the film is Schultz' character flaw where he could not accept defeat to an awful human being.
I agree that the Oscars make the 'wrong' decision all too often. More often than not it's driven by personal tastes or politically agendas. I believe the award should recognise movies that use the art-form in a clever way to communicate intelligent discourse. The more creative, consistent and well thought out the picture, the better it is. Django Unchained is not an intelligent movie, it is not trying to move the cinematic experience in any direction, it's merely an indulgent auteur movie for fans of his work. It has elements worth celebrating, but it also has elements worth criticising as well. For instance, as good as the performances are, some of the 'dramatic' sound clips and close-up of characters is something you would see in a cheap double-feature. At times the acting is hammy with actors conveying their pain in comedic fashion and the story lacks complexity. The movie attempts to deal with the latter on a couple of occassions, namely in the scene where Django shoots the father infront of his son, allows one of the Mandingos to be eaten alive by dogs and the scene with Candie/Schultz but doesn't go further than showing how difficult it can be to retain one's composure.
Now I can't say whether Argo deserved it or not as I haven't seen every possible contender for 2012. However, I do know what Django was trying to be and it was not trying to be a Best Picture winner. That's fine and I'm glad it entertained you as much as it entertained me.
|
|
Senior Member
2,866 POSTS & 2,222 LIKES
|
Post by Lionheart on Feb 22, 2018 23:14:55 GMT
There are a lot of things you said that I have issues with. Django does not verge off into juvenile directions. Juvenile means for a younger audience. Django is not for a younger crowd, which is obvious from all the violence. It is merely a different style from Argo, not a lower style that you seem to have deemed beneath that of Argo's.
Further, Django does not utilize the style it does for the means of evading any in-depth criticism. I find that assumption offensive to the filmmakers. They made the film in that style because that is a style they like and wanted to make. People can give in-depth criticism to any movie they like. They may choose not to for this kind of film, but that has nothing to do with why they made the film that way and is totally up to the critics themselves.
Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are both excellent films, but that is not just because they experiment with the notion of narration. That is only one element. There are a vast number of factors that contribute to a film's quality and why those are great films. To simply say that they are great because they did that and Django isn't as great because it did not is a bit silly. Also, claiming that there is one single complexity in Django is a bit of a generalization. Many viewers have drawn many more elements of complexity from the movie than that one character flaw. And not having a unique gimmick in terms of narration has nothing to do with whether the movie is more worthy of the academy award than Argo. Many films with straightforward narration have won the award, Argo included as one of them.
I appreciate that you believe the award should recognize movies that use the art-form in a clever way to communicate intelligent discourse. That is certainly a good thing for it to do, but again, there are many more factors that contribute to a good movie. The award is called Best Picture, not Most Clever use of Art-Form. You can make a really bad movie with a creative concept and a really good one that follows a traditional pattern.
Django contains a large supply of intelligence in the form of its dialogue alone, so saying it is not an intelligent movie is unfair. Having ridiculous explosions in your movie does not make it any less-thought out or intelligent. They still had to do a lot of planning for every scene to get the most out of it. I would also claim that Django has moved the cinematic experience. How many Blockbusters did you see that year with that much violence with a lighthearted style? It is a very unique film and undoubtedly should influence films to come.
Saying it was "merely an indulgent auteur movie for fans of his work" has no real meaning other than to make it seem like it was made for a small subset of fans and had no real value. In reality, it was met with wide acclaim, obviously an extreme amount of people liked it whether they were previously a Tarantino fan or not as it was the 238th highest grossing movie of all time globally, and it has plenty of value since people must have seen something in it.
Any film has elements worth celebrating and criticizing. As for some of the sound effects and closeups being a bit odd, I believe you were just promoting creativity and unique elements in a film. Apparently these elements seem to have the opposite effect and make the movie less deserving for you though which is rather arbitrary. They didn't just forget how to do sound or shoot scenes well. These were stylistic choices. Conveying pain in a comedic fashion does not mean the acting isn't as good. The movie does need to be complex to be good and I am sure even the scenes you mentioned had more meaning and thought put into them then you realize anyway. Showing how difficult to retain composure is can be rather insightful in itself and focusing on small things like that is interesting and can make people think more about things they take for granted.
We would have a big problem if academy award worthiness was determined based on how hard a movie tried to fit a specific format that they thought would win it. Yes, it wasn't trying to win it, and I would claim that's even more of a merit for why it should win it than a downside. The best movie should win regardless of typical conceptions of what makes a film worthy of an academy award.
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,312 POSTS & 11,457 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Feb 22, 2018 23:51:18 GMT
The best movie should win regardless of typical conceptions of what makes a film worthy of an academy award. If it were that simple, there'd be no need for nominations or a voting process at all, because the "best movie" would just win. Of course, it's impossible to objectively define what a good movie is, or how one movie is "better" than another, which is why there is a nomination and voting process. Sorry to interject, but I felt that needed to be said, Carry on, folks.
|
|
Senior Member
2,866 POSTS & 2,222 LIKES
|
Post by Lionheart on Feb 23, 2018 0:49:04 GMT
I actually almost went into much more detail about exactly what you brought up, but I didn't because I figured my tirade was long enough already. But since you mention it, here goes what I was planning to say about that.
It is very difficult to judge a movie objectively and no doubt many personal tastes influenced the votes, as Pete brought up. That is expected. I don't even really have a problem with that. Sure, I would like it if people tried to be more objective when placing their votes, but that is a lot to ask for. People want to vote for the movies they liked more and that's fine.
What I have a problem with is presuming that, regardless of the objective technical aspects or the subjective preferences of the voters, that a movie should be additionally judged based on its style. Thinking certain styles are just excluded from contention altogether moves things much further away from an accurate result. I don't expect the awards to ever be completely objective, but making them less accurate for no reason other than to show bias against certain styles just doesn't make sense.
|
|
Moderator
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
8,857 POSTS & 8,626 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Feb 23, 2018 3:06:21 GMT
This isn't about pandering to the academy, it's about viewing movies objectively which is a tricky art itself. Criteria such as complexities, morals, technique etc. are valuable in this regard because they allow us to gain a better insight into the film. Django is lacking in these departments, presenting us with a very black and white world where the answer to all lifes problems is blood-shed, lots and lots of blood-shed. When I speak about originality, it isn't limited to one single year but the broader spectrum. The movie itself wears it's inspiration on it's sleeve and the title of the film is a reference to a Sergio Corbucci movie.
Stylistic choices and directors intent doesn't absolve the movie from criticism. A movie like 'The Room' has it's own style, but we don't handwave the awful dubbing or the green-screen as stylistic choices because the film is awful at keeping our sense of immersion. While Django is nowhere near as bad as The Room, it will often take the audience out of the events of the movie through juvenile choices that would be suitable in an episode of Family Guy. When you're dealing with the serious themes of Django it's important you treat those issues with some sensitivity. Instead, Django will often make light of them or use some of the barbaric scenes simply to position you on a character. That's why 12 Years A Slave is recognised as an excellent movie and Django as an auteur movie.
I can't compare Django to Argo since I'm far more familiar with the former. Perhaps Argo didn't deserve Best Picture, but Django definitely didn't. What I know is that Django wasn't going for higher honours, it was trying to be remembered as a fun popcorn flick you'll watch again in 20-30 years time. For most, that's far more valuable than being acknowledged by it's peers.
|
|
Senior Member
2,866 POSTS & 2,222 LIKES
|
Post by Lionheart on Feb 23, 2018 5:10:51 GMT
I am fine to accept an opinion that it did not deserve the academy award, but when you claim that Django is lacking in objective fields then I am confounded. Especially when the only things you have mentioned to support this are entirely subjective opinions and baseless general statements. To me, it seems like you are of the mind that a movie with a silly style like Django does not deserve the academy award and want to think there are objective reasons to support this when it is simply not the case.
You mention technical aspects come into play when measuring a movie's objectiveness. To support this, you stated a few of the closeups seem like shots from a cheap double feature. The cinematographer for Django, Robert Richardson, has won the academy award for best cinematography three times. For JFK, The Aviator, and Hugo. While it is true that a cinematographer's performance will vary from one film to the next, it is a rather dubious claim that this film is lacking in terms of cine with a master of that level in charge of it. And the evidence is that they seem like shots you would expect to see in a movie of inferior quality? Out of the two possibilities, one being that his ability suddenly descended to the same level as that of someone in charge of a double feature B movie for several shots, and the other being that it was an unusual stylistic choice that you personally did not enjoy from a subjective standpoint, I think it is clear which one is the case.
You seem to think originality is another factor for consideration. Your reasoning for that now seems to be the title. A movie making it clear where some of its inspiration comes from in the title simply has nothing to do with the overall level of originality in the film though. Nor does there being lots of bloodshed or claiming the world is black and white when it contains complex characters with very unique ways of seeing the world and unique ways of thinking. And even on the broader spectrum, it remains one of very few blockbusters that merge violence and silliness together in an exciting way. And did so in a film that has likely been seen by more people than any other film to take a similar approach...blatantly contributing much influence to the industry.
Stylistic choices don't absolve movies of criticism certainly, but they do absolve themselves of being objective reasons for why a film is bad when they have nothing to do with the quality of the movie. The not-juvenile entertaining choices they made that are considered silly may have taken you out of the film, but they did not hinder my viewing experience nor the experiences of most of the audience who watched it. It is just yet another subjective feeling you had personally. It is important to treat those issues with sensitivity for you, but not objectively and certainly not for Django when its entire style is all about defying that expectation.
Utilizing violent imagery to shape audience's thoughts of a character is a traditional film technique and a rather solid one, so I find it strange to fault the movie for that. You claimed a scene was not complex because it only focused on the difficulty of showing restraint. I claim there is complexity in this apparent simplicity. The film offers plenty of insight on the intricacies of morality as well.
Your opinion is that Django definitely didn't deserve best picture, but this is by no means supported with any objective evidence as of yet. And if we are in agreement on that, I would leave you be with your opinion.
|
|
Moderator
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
8,857 POSTS & 8,626 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Feb 23, 2018 6:56:28 GMT
I've supported my case with examples and explanations. All those involved with the production have more experience than you or I. Same can be said of those who worked in the Room. Are they also immune from criticism? Or must they have been honoured for their work? So Ang Lee's work on The Incredible Hulk was flawless and it's immune from any criticism because he's an academy award winning director? It's a rationale with plenty of holes in it, just like Django. I never doubted whether these poor shots were intended, I'm sure they were, the issue is they cheapen the movie. The significance of the confrontation or news could have been conveyed in a number of ways that could have kept audiences immersed in the movie, but the juvenile technique reminds the audience they're watching a movie, breaking the immersion and any tension the movie may have earned.
The title was a clear homage, but the film is littered with references and tributes through out that rarely serve the overall story. You maybe interested to watch some of Tarantino's interviews about Django where he goes in-depth about his motivations leading into the movie. While it isn't vital, originality is important as it exceeds and creates new expectations. Audience goers were wrapped up in movies like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction because they hadn't seen a film of that style before. Characters didn't speak the way they did in those movies, we didn't get the insight into those characters nor did events play out like they often did in those movies. 20 years on, Tarantino is like an old dog, and while we enjoy his tricks, they're the same tricks he's used before. For instance, the idea of playing a 'character' to deceive an adversary isn't new for a Tarantino movie, it's a common plot device through out his filmography. It isn't designed for complex character analysis, Tarantino doesn't invite us to believe Schultz nor Django are sociopaths as the movie is straight forward.
Django doesn't question the morality of bounty hunting. The closest we get is the scene with the father and the son, but Schultz is quick to remind Django this father has it coming to him. That's good enough for Django and those are the black and white terms in this 'hero' story. The movie touches on sensitive subjects but doesn't really use them beyond positioning you and providing you with context.
You can make objective statements about pieces of art and by establishing your own set of criteria it's possible to compare and contrast movies. I believe it's possible to enjoy a movie while acknowledging it's faults, just like I can appreciate a wrestling match while picking out elements that prevent it from being a masterpiece. In this instance it appears we're at a stalemate so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
Senior Member
2,866 POSTS & 2,222 LIKES
|
Post by Lionheart on Feb 23, 2018 8:06:14 GMT
I understand that you have listed your grievances and I respect that they made you feel as you do. My only issue is acting like they prove something objectively when they are all just opinions you had that most do not share.
I only meant that Richardson's work and accolades show he is credible, not infallible, and that it is a likely assumption that this film wasn't objectively shot poorly enough to discredit it as an academy award winner. You didn't like those shots and I understand why, but they weren't technically inefficient and a lot of people did like them. I'm not sure what The Room has to do with this, which is technically lacking in every category and had a crew with no credibility...
References and tributes don't mean the movie wasn't original. And it's pretty expected for filmaker's to utilize tricks from their playbook that they have developed over their years of experience. It's not like he can throw out the entire book with each new movie just to be considered qualified for an academy award and most past winners utilized many common film techniques and plot devices, as expected.
Django doesn't do a lot of things you apparently expected it to do to be oscar-worthy, but what it wanted to do it did well. I know it has problems, but not more so than most Best Picture winners. You can't make objective statements about art when your set of criteria is subjective opinions you had. We certainly are in agreement to disagree, but I'm not claiming my opinions are fact or that utilizing a style I happen to not like as much inherently means the film isn't worthy of an award on objective grounds.
|
|
Rookie Member
763 POSTS & 136 LIKES
|
Post by vendrell on Feb 26, 2018 0:39:38 GMT
I loved Django. It was just more fun while Argo was extremely forgettable in my book. That isn't to say Argo was bad but I was just kind of "meh" on it. I never know what really qualifies a movie for best picture anyways. I don't really care what a panel of snobby movie douches think was a great movie.
I will say that I was glad Leo finally got one. I don't think he should have won it for the Revenant in particular but he was so damn good in Wolf of Wallstreet the previous year that this win was to make up for that since they couldn't give one to both Leo and Mcconaughey and the latter was about a guy who actually contributed some good to society while Jordan Belfort was a piece of shit. It always kind of bugged me they actually put Belfort in that movie at the end. Then again maybe it was something he wanted and they had to comply to make the movie. I don't know.
|
|