Forums | MacLife

Donkey Butter wrote:

"no country for old men" and "there will be blood" where two of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. smurf like that winning awards proves that oscars are bought.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hated both of them

What, no one remembers "Manos, the hands of fate"?!  Now that was a bad movie. 



Well, except for the scene where women in nighties wrestled in the dirt, but otherwise...



Jyri

resedit wrote:

Matrix II - such a disappointment.

Matrix II and III imo. The first Matrix was a virtual masterpiece. They should have left well enough alone.

bratboy wrote:

....I'm curious to hear what movies you believe are good

I enjoyed "Juno"

I can't stand Anchorman. It's really just not a funny movie. Same goes for Napoleon Dynamite. It's lame, awful, and I'd watch it if it were actually humorous... but IMO it's not. Some of my friends are appalled.

Norbit is a horrible movie with a predictable plot, but Eddie Murphy's female character (Raspuesha or however you spell it) is hysterical.

And Justine... I thought Across the Universe was fantastic. What didn't you like about it?

333imacman wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Donkey Butter wrote:

"no country for old men" and "there will be blood" where two of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. smurf like that winning awards proves that oscars are bought.

....I'm curious to hear what movies you believe are good (because both of those films are pretty fantastic, in my opinion).

The Oscars aside, they're both critically acclaimed.  All of those film reviewers are also "bought?"

I don't think they were bought, but movies like that are definitely pandering to the Oscar voting crowd. As soon as they came out, the race for Best Picture was virtually over. I think there were much better movies this year, but the Academy favors movies like No Country and Blood, which tends to make me not like them.

I saw both of those movies. Honestly, TWBB feels more like Oscar material (in a bad way). I kept waiting for it to get interesting, but all it turned out to be was Day-Lewis doing a two hour monologue. If I knew it was that going in, I wouldn't have minded, but GEEZ. It went nowhere fast.

When I saw NCfOM, that was MUCH more enjoyable. It really felt like Fargo every time they showed Tommy Lee Jones, but the suspense and action were both great. A much better movie than TWBB.

elpato84 wrote:

Mission to Mars.

I hated this movie so much.  I kept waiting for the plot to pick up . . . for the exciting part to happen . . . then the end credits rolled.

icebook1 wrote:

And Justine... I thought Across the Universe was fantastic. What didn't you like about it?

Just personal preference. I just didn't care for it at all. I didn't even make it to the end. I think i got about halfway through before shutting it off.

bratboy wrote:

333imacman wrote:

I don't think they were bought, but movies like that are definitely pandering to the Oscar voting crowd. As soon as they came out, the race for Best Picture was virtually over. I think there were much better movies this year, but the Academy favors movies like No Country and Blood, which tends to make me not like them.

I think that's a bit silly.

First of all.....films are not made to "pander to the Oscar voting crowd."  That's a really backwards assertion, that completely minimizes the work, talent, and dedication that goes into much of filmmaking.  These films were intended as art, or to tell a story...but because the filmmakers were after a little statuette?  I disagree.

I believe the Coens and Paul Thomas Anderson are incredibly talented filmmakers and writers.  They may occasionally win awards for their work, but I doubt the Coens attempted a incredibly close adaptation of a Cormac McCarthy novel simply to win some award. 

I personally don't believe that 'No Country' is the type of film the Academy tends to favor, but I don't understand how the fact that the Academy did like them would make you not like them.  I've disagreed with so many award winners in the past (such as "Crash," most recently) but the awards do often go to great films.

Agree to disagree I guess. I walked out of the theater for No Country and said, that was a decent film, but the fact that every critic and Oscar voter is going to swoon over it bothers me. I walked out of the theater for There Will Be Blood and said that I hated that movie, and the fact that every critic and Oscar voter is going to swoon over it really pisses me off.

I think there a lot of Oscar bait films, though most of them don't win. The Last Samuri with Tommy Cruise was him basically throwing his hat into the oscar ring, and nothing more. That's what bothers me. Maybe you don't see it. Maybe I'm insane.

I think what bothered me the most about each film is that (I thought) there were far better films that year, but I knew they wouldn't win or be able to compete against No Country and Blood.

Gone Baby Gone, 3:10 To Yuma, and Michael Clayton were the best pictures of the year, and only one was nominated, and even it didn't have a real shot at winning.

333imacman wrote:

Agree to disagree I guess. I walked out of the theater for No Country and said, that was a decent film, but the fact that every critic and Oscar voter is going to swoon over it bothers me. I walked out of the theater for There Will Be Blood and said that I hated that movie, and the fact that every critic and Oscar voter is going to swoon over it really pisses me off.

I just find that strange, I guess (that this fact would piss someone off).  I assumed both of these films would be contenders, but that's because I felt they both exemplified great direction, acting, and storytelling. 

I think there a lot of Oscar bait films, though most of them don't win. The Last Samuri with Tommy Cruise was him basically throwing his hat into the oscar ring, and nothing more. That's what bothers me. Maybe you don't see it. Maybe I'm insane.

I probably see things differently because I studied filmmaking and have a degree in the art (though it only represents a hobby to me at this point in my life).  I just don't believe that projects are undertaken for such insignificant reasons.

Gone Baby Gone, 3:10 To Yuma, and Michael Clayton were the best pictures of the year, and only one was nominated, and even it didn't have a real shot at winning.

I don't see any reason why those films did not have an equal shot at being nominated or winning.  Similar films have been nominated (and won) in the past.

Ya know, now that i think about it, i'd like to amend my answer. Across The Universe isn't one of the stupidest movies i've ever seen, because i tend to like some stupid movies. It was just bad.

I wasn't impressed with the acting in NCFOM or TWBB, the story was meh and the directing wasn't anything amazing to me.

I have often said that you can only like this type of film if you are in the industry.

I also didn't like babel, and very nearly walked out of the theater. the only reason I stayed was because my wife said we paid money to see it so we should watch it all the way through.

Donkey Butter wrote:

I wasn't impressed with the acting in NCFOM or TWBB, the story was meh and the directing wasn't anything amazing to me.

I have often said that you can only like this type of film if you are in the industry.

I also didn't like babel, and very nearly walked out of the theater. the only reason I stayed was because my wife said we paid money to see it so we should watch it all the way through.

Donkey butter, good call on Babel. One of the most disappointing films I have seen recently. The story line surrounding the Asian girl was terrible. I didn't mind the Middle Eastern story lines, but the Asian one was just plain awkward. Know what I mean?