f13.net

WHAT THE FUCK? WAS THIS SOME SORT OF TRICKSY JOKE? BETTER THAN THERE WILL BE BLOOD OR NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN?

Is this in regards to one of those bullshit awards ceremonies that I try hard to ignore because they're bullshit?

What? Did it win Best Picture or something? Lol. I didn't watch the awards --- I'd be surprised if it was even nominated for anything...

I didn't think it was that good -- though I liked the series as a whole, and accept it at least on that level.

As far as action movies go though, there were better last year.

Best Film Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing (source (http://www.cinematical.com/2008/02/24/oscar-winners)).

I don't know how you guys got Best Picture out of any of those three awards.  That said, I :heart: the Bourne movies.

I just haven't kept track of the Academy Awards. Didn't know what it was nominated for. I figured if Bob was pissed though, then the Award must have been significant.

Ah, I see what they did there. They had the jerkoff speech about how only XX movies have ever won Best Picture followed by the jerkoff film montage tribute to all the movies that won Best Picture with a clip from each one, then then went immediately to giving out the Best Film Editing award. I must have missed hearing that. It wasn't even nominated for best picture, thank god. Still though, it's a fucking travesty it even won the editing award.

Someone needs to make a movie starring Garry Oldman, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Tim Curry. and maybe Raph Fienes. 

Bourne won an award for its headache-inducing editing?  Lol wut?

To bring some slight closure, No Country actually did win Best Picture.

Apparently even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'm pretty happy with the Oscar results.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't it the camerawork that was headache-inducing, not the editing?

yes.  The editors deserved an award fro making an understandable film out of the mess that epileptic 90 year old with the 150 pound hand cam filmed.

Fiancee wanted to watch this tripe. I told her I'd go do my taxes because it would be more entertaining than watching a bunch of industry people jacking each other off about their mostly shitty films. Awards shows are so vapid and irrelevant, it's hard for me to believe people actually watch them. Grammies? Kanye please.

I watched for Jon Stewart and hot chicks in evening gowns. Plenty of both, so I was entertained.

I think one awesome movie per year is asking too much of the movie industry.

Watching this show never even crosses my mind.  Of course, I never see any of the films until they're on DVD, anyway.  However, even if I saw all the films, watching this show would never even cross my mind.  (http://www.invision.smileyville.net/smilies/dbg_boredom.gif)

What's with all the hate?  This year was pretty spot on, in fact it was a great year for movies in general.

I'm cranky.

 :geezer:

Well, I have some of those movies on my queue and have actually seen a couple.  I'll be ready to comment on who deserved what about this time next year.  I generally don't enjoy award shows, though.  I enjoy watching everyone fight about them here, though, so don't stop or anything.

No Country for Old Men wasn't that great. It mostly about killing people just because.

Juno was way better, and I didn't even see the other ones up for nomination.

Juno is such a load of suckage that is should be grateful to even be mentioned in the same sentence as No Country for Old Men.

When was the last time the best picture actually went to a really good film. I'm going to have to find some sort of list...

Hmm, 74. That's a while. I guess I won't worrying too much about who wins it this year then.

What the hell kinda meaningful message did you get from No Country for Old Men? Don't live in Texas?

Who said it was about a message?

The dialogue in Juno was overrated trash.

But then, I think the same about that other movie with all the yellow.

They already have a category for best actor/actress, cinematography, and special effects - what's left? :P

(http://www.toadking.com/6x9=42/stewie.gif)

Yay, we won an Oscar.

For a movie only seen by around 70000 people, which proves it must be art.

If you are referring to No Country For Old Men, those 70k people must have each paid 1500 bucks to see it.

If you are referring to something else, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Few people seeing it make it no less or more art than more people seeing it.

I think he's Austrian.  They won the foreign film category.

First Oscars in a while where I wasn't really disappointed with any of the major picks.  "There Will Be Blood" was amazing and rightfully won best cinematography, but I can see it losing to No Country in the other major categories.  It could have also won, and I'd have been fine with that.  At least Daniel Day Lewis didn't get hosed again.

Juno as best picture.  Eh, it was good and I enjoyed it... but no. If anything they should have made room by dropping a non-contender for Rattatoie, which was kind of sadly relegated to the best animated picture category (I don't think it was better than TWBB or No Country, but it was a damn fine movie, animated or not).

<--- Winner.

I'm talking about "The Counterfeiters" (The foreign movie Oscar).

The movie was criminally ignored up to today, it could only be seen in some special cinemas. Now its the best film ever and everybody knew it. The hypocrisy of our media kills me right now.

1995 - Forrest Gump

 :oh_i_see:

How about The Silence of the Lambs (1991)?

edit: waitaminute... Unforgiven, Schindler's List, American Beauty, and The Departed are all great flicks. And I rate No Country up there with The Godfather Part II.

Going backwards through the best pictures, here are the ones I've seen and liked:

2003 - Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - I liked Fellowship better, but this was an homage to the three of them and we all know it.
2000 - Gladiator - I liked it a lot. Did it deserve Best Picture? I saw Crouching Tiger and Traffic as well that year. I can't say either one of them were better in terms of my enjoyment.
1995 - Bravehart - I simply loved this movie when I was in high school, and I still love it today. Our mascot was the Fighting Scots, so we watched it a lot.
1994 - Forest Gump - It's a well-told work that spans decades in a very approachable manner with a lot of subtle humor. Still, Shawshank got SCREWED.
1991 - Silence of the Lambs - It's a great movie and I still like watching it. Some would argue JFK was better, but I don't fall in that camp at all.

You get into the 80's and they all kinda suck. Nothing in that decade stands out. I kind of want to remember that decade as the time art forgot about.
The 70's were much better. Patton, The Godfather I and II, and The Deer Hunter. Jaws got screwed I think.
The only one in the 60's I've seen is Lawrence of Arabia, and LORDY is it long and boring in parts.

Beyond that Casablanca and Gone with the Wind remain in the earlier stuff I've seen and liked.

1999 - American Beauty

1996 - The English Patient

1994 - Forrest Gump

1991 - Silence of the Lambs

1986 - Platoon

There are a few good films on that list.  This was an exceptionally weak year.  

I thought about putting Platoon on my list, but I just couldn't because I found it way too over the top and preachy for my tastes.

We must have different taste.

  1982 (55th)  Gandhi
  1983 (56th)  Terms of Endearment  
  1984 (57th)  Amadeus  
  1985 (58th)  Out of Africa
  1986 (59th)  Platoon
  1987 (60th)  The Last Emperor  
  1988 (61st)   Rain Man
  1989 (62nd)  Driving Miss Daisy

Were all respectible movies (two were in my top 20 personal choices in Amadeus and Gandhi).  Gandhi was epic.  I agree that the 70's had a number of good movies... Cookoo's nest was great in the theater.  Lawrence of Arabia and My Fair Lady were the best of the 60's (arguably the weakest of recent decades).  How is it that Doctor Zhivago didn't make the list?  What a crime!  

All of those were great. Hell, even Rain Man was, Cruise and all.

No Country for Old Men was fucking great and deserved it, if you don't think so, you're a fun-hating commie pig.

Still haven't seen it myself... BUT, I've never seen a Coens' flick I didn't like (fairly sure of that).

I never saw it, but I'll watch it on DVD. Then again, I hate things that most film-buffs enjoy with a passion.

There's a movie you would like coming out then. I think it's called Step Up 2: The Street. It's pretty rad, dude.

Dude, I'm not that guy.  :ye_gods:

I just meant I'm more mainstream, less foreign.

Well, if it makes you feel better, hardly any awards show or critics' show gives a best picture honor (here in the states) to foreign films. And the Coen's in particular are about as American as it gets -- hello? Raising Arizona, Big Lebowski, Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou?

Yeah, I've liked about half their stuff, so we'll see.

Forgot about The English Patient. Willem Dafoe was pretty cool in that.

I just want to know why they keep snubbing the Die hard franchise.

Fuck The English Patient. It made Titanic look like an action-packed short. The only redeeming quality was Kristen Scott Thomas sans clothing. Everything else was a LONG. WASTE. OF. TIME.

I am amazed at how many of the Best Pictures of the 1980s I still haven't seen, and still have no inclination to see. Serious yawner of a decade.

Like what? Amadeus, Gandhi, Platoon, Last Emperor. Those are some freaking ace movies.

Sucked, Too Long, Too Much, and Never Saw It.

Wow, take breaks, too much what -- truth?, get to it.

  1982 (55th)  Gandhi- Never saw it. Not a lot of interest.

  1983 (56th)  Terms of Endearment- Not a chance.

  1984 (57th)  Amadeus- Regret missing this one, but not enough to actively seek it out.
 
  1985 (58th)  Out of Africa- No interest

  1986 (59th)  Platoon- Love it. Preachy and all.

  1987 (60th)  The Last Emperor- Couldn't care less

  1988 (61st)   Rain Man- Saw it. Meh. Couldn't watch it again due to involvement of Xenu Jr.

  1989 (62nd)  Driving Miss Daisy- Might care even less about this one than The Last Emperor.

Never saw Chariots of Fire either, which I think was the 1981 winner. Compare it to the 1990s or the 1970s, and the 80s are just clownshoes for Best Pictures. Had some of the best teen comedies of all time, however.

I agree on the teen comedies, but damn guys... Last Emperor, Gandhi, and Amadeus are absolutely transporting. And very timeless. There just isn't much wrong with them. They also pull off being both entertaining and educational. Very few historical flicks have accomplished that.

Driving Miss Daisy is just good hearted drama. Not just Morgan Freeman and Jessica Tandy, but even Dan Akroyd is great in it. Sure, it's not one of those movies the typical guy would choose to watch right away, but it's one of those ones that once you do, you want to see the whole thing through.

I can understand Out of Africa and Terms of Endearment, since they're very female oriented stories, but really.... They're great films no matter how big you think your dick is.

[edit] I'll agree on the 70's bit as well. That, along with the 40's, are my favorite film decades.

The 90's? Not so much. Best Picture wise though, it wasn't any better or worse than the 80's.

The English Patient was good..
Silence -- definitely a winner
Forrest Gump -- Umm.. Not my cup of tea really. Especially since it was running against Shawshank and (I can hear the gasps now) Pulp Fiction
Dances With Wolves will always piss me off -- It knocked out Goodfellas. Hell, I even liked Ghost better than it.
Unforgiven -- definitely
Schindler's List -- definitely
Braveheart -- I don't know. I guess. Not much competition.
Titanic -- umm.. no. Wished LA Confidential won.
Shakespeare in Love -- whatever
American Beauty -- Fair

As for Amadeus it's a historical bullshit, so I didn't care for it. Platoon I'm on the fence about, but I think it crossed the line on the shock factor for me.

Amadeus was historical enough... But unlike Gandhi and Emperor, it's point wasn't to be historical per se. The reason to watch is Salieri. His story/jealousy/rage could be placed in any day or time.

Yeah I get the whole sin of envy thing. My point was that they took a character who was a genius of his time and totally changed his relationship with Mozart, so now the morons who don't know shit about classical music equate the name, "Salieri" with sucking ass.

Don't you think you should watch a few before simply discarding them? 

Just saying...

It's ok if you don't like the storyline in those movies.  Saying they aren't well made films is completely unfair. 

...

Yeah, don't watch Amadeus for history. It's about as Historically accurate as Braveheart or The Patriot.   It's a good flick and worth dropping in the ol' Netflix queue.  Just pretend it came out last year instead of 22 years ago. 

I still haven't seen Ghandi or Last Emperor all the way through.  What I've seen of them was good, but then I don't need explosions or boobs every 20 minutes. I have the internet for that.  :grin:

I remember the hubub about Out of Africa well, but I've never seen it.  I was only in 6th grade at the time, so it's not like I was going to back then.

They may be well made, but nothing about them compels me to watch them. I can't say the same for the 1970s movies- all the word of mouth made me seek them out. As for the 90s- I think a case can be made that the flicks that lost Best Picture each year are better than the winners, but there were some decent flicks that won.

79 Years of Best Picture Winners in Posters (http://www.movieposteraddict.com/2008/02/21/79-years-of-best-picture-winners-in-posters/)

The last dozen or so…

(2007) No Country for Old Men — not seen yet, Mrs Naum no like these kind of movies, must wait for DVD or see with son/friends/fellow workers, but eager to see it and expect it to be good
(2006) Departed — Loved it, and the Asian flick it was copied from (though heaping ladles of profanity were added…)
(2005) Crash — have not seen, have no desire to see, at least from trailer viewing, sounds preachy, especially when I have lived a story like this already
(2004) Million Dollar Baby — have not seen, and this selection sounds like Hollywood self-fellatio act more than any other recent flick
(2003) Lord of the Rings: RotK — it was awesome, come on, admit it!
(2002) Chicago — tried to watch this, but it ended up as insomnia killer
(2001) Beautiful Mind — another Hollywood self fellatio act, OK movie, but plagued by historical distortion
(2000) Gladiator — again, decent flick, but not worthy of #1 selection
(1999) American Beauty —  Spacey is an amazing actor, but again, a Hollywood self-fellatio over a slightly above pedestrian status
(1998) Shakespeare in Love — don't get this one at all
(1997) Titantic — the start of some real craptacular award sequence
(1996) The English Patient — no desire to see, and that is also based on feedback from those who did
(1995) Braveheart — one of my favorite all-time movies, watch at least once a year
(1994) Forest Gump — story was scrubbed and sanitized (from book which is awesome read) for LCD American Suburbia audience, too cheesed up
(1993) Schindler's List — I accept it possibly worthy of accolades, but could not sit through it (and found nowhere near league of "Life is Beautiful"…)
(1992) Unforgiven — decent flick, but Hollywood wishing to celebrate "return of the Western" as they periodically done past 25 years…
(1991) Silence of the Lambs — great film, still holds up today
(1990) Dances with Wolves — Even with the atrocity of Kevin Costner, still an incredible movie, though a bit too long

/flameon

(http://www.movieposteraddict.com.nyud.net:8080/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/mpatomjonesposter.jpeg)


Really?

The only film that I was really affected by in the last decade (1997-2007) that is also on that list was American Beauty.  Maybe I'm broken.

Now don't be dissin Albert Finney…

Its a good movie. The source is the Henry Fielding novel, not the pop singer.

Ah, c'mon... You gave less cynicism to Unforgiven than Dances With Wolves?? That just isn't right at all.

That wasn't just a return of western, but a script Eastwood sat on for years just in case of a rainy day -- because it was the shit. And he got incredible talent for it... I ask how one could not get stoked over a western with not only Clint, but Gene Hackman, Richard Harris, and Morgan Freeman in it..

Million Dollar Baby is really good. That movie doesn't deserve an ounce of hate. Also, Clint and Morgan again. Still though, I think the Aviator kicks it's ass (edit: on a sidenote, I disagree on that being hollywood fellating for even being selected... Have you even seen it? As for myself, it's one of my favorite movies of all time. I can't say that about many movies made in the last 20 years. Departed, while good, is the real story of hollywood fellating scorsese -- because he got scammed time and time again not only for aviator, but for good fellas and raging bull before).

Crash was better than expected.. not really preachy, but yeah, it has a feelgood message. It's not overt in any way though. It's all in the narrative. That being said, Brokeback Mountain is much better. Good Night and Good Luck, as well as Munich are just about as equal.

I thought Return of the King wasn't that great. I don't care for fantasy much in general, but I try to be openminded here --- I've watched it a couple of times. I don't see why it was awarded other than being an award for the entire series. The specific movie was just a drawn out battlefield spectacle -- and the touching parts had already been done in the first flick.


qft

Huh.. I never, ever, EVER would have placed Ernest Borgnine as having starred in an emmy award-winning picture, much less a "Best Picture."

To me, he'll always be "that old guy on 'Airwolf'."

My first memories of Borgnine were Super Fuzz (one of the greatest superhero flicks ever btw) and the cabbie in Escape from NY.

But really, a guy who's been around that long? He better have been in a few Oscar worthy flicks or two.

...

Shawshank Redemption not SWEEPING in 2004 was the greatest crime perpetrated on film since the entire industry's inception.

It's certainly up there.  Shawshank was a modern masterpiece. 

No, that position is reserved for the complete lack of Academy Awards given to Capra's classic "Arsenic and Old Lace" which should have swept the board in 1944.

You mean '94 right?

Yes, I meant 1994. Whoops.

Also, apparently there's Bourne 4 on the drawing board, although I have no idea if this source is even remotely credible:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981337.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2562

Thought that was a pretty good year actually. Hmm... I guess this is the third time I fellate Eastwood here (didn't realize until now how much of a fan I am of his directing), but Mystic River was great. I've already watched it plenty of more times than Return of the King. Then again, the best part of it wasn't the directing necessarily, but the acting. And Robbins and Penn did win for it. Lost in Translation and Big Fish were good stuff as well. And far as big budget blockbusters go, Pirates of the Caribbean is so much more entertaining to me than Return of the King.

I still get a giggle out of all the nerds who seriously felt "vindicated" or something after LotR won though. That was funny.

Heh. Variety tends to be pretty accurate considering it is basically the daily bible of Hollywood.

Ow. When you look back at this statement in 20 years it's going to hurt.

RE Everyone: American Beauty?? You just singled out the worst winner. Ever.

Some of the winners have been decent films (though only a few), but nothing really good since Godfather Part II.

The best film I've seen recently was "Heart, Beating in the Dark" (http://imdb.com/title/tt0805648/) a 'remake' by the same director of a film he made in 1982 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0292366/).

Borgnine not only was in Marty which got Best Picture but he also won Best Male Lead that year as well.  He was also in the original 1953 From Here To Eternity which scooped 8 awards and won best picture as well. 


American Beauty was a great film.  The most recent worst winner ever was Chicago, followed closely by Titanic.
 
I personally think the 60s was the weakest decade for winners but mainly on the back of Sound of Music, My Fair Lady and Oliver! as, on the whole, I detest musicals.  On the other hand, Lawrence of Arabia is one of the best films ever made period. (Long and boring in parts?  Get the fuck out of here!)   The 50s were very good - On the Waterfront, Bridge Over River Kwai, From Here to Eternity, All About Eve and Ben-Hur make up for An American In Paris and Gigi.  70s was a near flawless decade for winners - marred only by the presence of Rocky which is not a totally bad film in itself but beat Taxi Driver, Network and All the President's Men which were all more deserving. 

What the fuck? Do people even watch movies that nominate movies for awards? This film was editted by a hyperactive five year old with epilepsy. Did they totally miss the fact that some plot threads start and then totally disappear?

Jesus, nominating this pile of shit for film editing only insures more shitty shaky cam and horrible editing coming down the pike.

I hate Kevin Spacey.

I cannot figure out why either of these movies would get an Oscar for Best Pic. Silence was ok at best, with a great performance by Hopkins. But the fucking English Patient? Other than Sayeed, the entire fucking movie was boring, romance novel SHIT. SHITTY SHIT SHIT SHIT. I'm supposed to feel some form of sympathy for a pair of adulterous dumbasses? I didn't, at all. The movie was tripe. It was Bridges of Madison County tripe.

EDIT: American Beauty was a good movie, but I could see how it rubs folks the wrong way. It's a very hard to take style of filmmaking. Return of the King shouldn't have won, and only did because the Academy felt bad for not giving Fellowship the win it deserved. Beautiful Mind, Titanic and Million-Dollar Baby shouldn't even have been nominated, much less won.

lol. That's rich.

Good one.

Do you people seriously not like movies or something?

I think I might be watching them wrong.  I enjoy stuff that may or may not be good.

Forgot about Marty... Didn't realize he won that. From Here to Eternity I knew he was in... He was also in the Wild Bunch and the Dozen...not really oscar type of flicks, but those are still some of the best movies around imo.


Yeah the 60's were a joke. Hollywood studios were nearly falling apart by then, the good actors were trying to get out under their contracts, and all the really good shit was overseas.

Gonna have to disagree with you on Rocky though. Don't get me wrong, I've seen Taxi Driver at least 50 times, and always give Network and All the President's Men a look when they come on... But Rocky man.. That's like one of the best of the best to me. Like, time capsule-shoot it out into space for the universe to see- type of good. And one of the rare times when critics and the public were in complete alignment. Really inspiring..Still inspiring.. It's like, Terry Malloy meets Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That's a formula that will always hit home -- but for it's time, it was even more potent. That was like one the most cynical decades ever in America. People needed that, and less Travis Bickle and Nixon. It's no surprise to me why it won.

C'mon now. You're old enough you should know better than to give a rats ass about anyone else's opinion on what you think is good/ bad.  If you enjoy 'em, then you enjoy 'em. Doesn't mean you're 'watching them wrong.'  :awesome_for_real:

I will repeat Silence of the Lambs was an OK movie. It was not a bad movie and it damn sure was better than all the other Hannibal shitpiles that came out later. And Hopkins was fantastic in it. But to me, it never really rose above "serial-killer thriller" movie, despite Hopkins turn. Had it not been acted as well as it was, it would have been Kiss the Girls shclock.

Oh, true.  When I say 'good' or 'bad', I mean from a technical perspective.  You know, the thing that awards should actually be about instead of popularity or sociopolitics.  Great technical photography, great technical editing, great job sewing up some costumes, great job on Will Ferrel's pancake, I don't know about that.  I do know that I laughed my ass off watching Kung Pow.  I'm the same with music in that I don't understand music at all from a technical perspective, I just know what I like.

Shawshank Redemption is great flick, but problem is, that movie & theme been done so many times… …even the first time I watched it, I could easily predict the plot sequence and to no surprise, it followed perfect, just like the dozens (if not hundreds) of prison movies made in the same vein…

SPOILER (for the recluse who hasn't seen it…)




























…innocent dude, evil warden, sadistic guards, befriended by older lifer, tragedy of sentimental old sap who cannot adapt to RL, the great escape, etc.…

Hey, I'm a musician, and rarely like things from a technical perspective (if anything, that comes much later). I don't think technicalities are why some things get critically praised or slammed more than others... There is that, but for the most part, works aren't getting attention for elements that the average person doesn't know about or see. They're talking about the final work that was available for everyone (whether it be a book, movie, or album). The final result, not the process. Half of the time, the process is full of intangibles anyways, and can't be talked about.

Anyhow, just keep on liking what you like -- but keep an open mind at the same time. I don't think any critic or any industry professional/artist is doing anything different. It's only when you have no open mind at all, and are completely set in your ways about what "you like" that your opinion means absolutely shit.

Shawshank is about 3 hours longer than it needs to be. Plus it's in no way original. Silence is ok, but I'm with Haem. Many others of the winners were watchable and even enjoyable (though many were not) but they were not great films. Great hollywood films maybe, but there are a lot more films made a year than that and just because something doesn't get a wide release or have a huge budget or big stars doesn't mean it's some foreign language art house picture (which can also be great sometimes).

I'm the kind of person who struggles to think of ten great anythings though, while I get the impression some of you could reel off 100's in any category (except maybe games) without a pause. Obviously this might come down to a different idea of what great means as much as having little knowledge or breadth of experience (seeing lots of stuff) in film.

American Beauty is the most hackneyed, cliche, cringe inducing pile of narcassistic award dredging crap I have ever had the misfortune to watch. It screams "I'm edgy and wacky and arty and insightful and beautiful and.. oh fuck it just GIVE ME MY AWARDS!!!" without being any of those things. Oh shit! There's beauty in the world, even where some people think there isn't! Oh shit, people are dysfunctional! Oh shit, etc etc.

Awesome film  :awesome_for_real:

I think American Beauty means different things to people in different stages of their lives.  Were I 20 instead of 40 I would have thought the same thing as you do.  I felt I could relate to Spacey's character to some degree (i.e. realizing that your priorities in life are all fucked up) and it's not often that happens with a film. 

Tastes vary.

Depp should have won that award, not Penn.  Depp played a kicass, AWESOME character, with loads of personality.  Shawn Penn won for, yet again, playing Shawn Penn in a movie.  The Exact same character he played in like 4 other movies in the preceding years.

Penn has 2 characters- Jeff Spicoli and Sean Penn. Guess which one I like better?

He did a nice job in I am Sam (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277027/combined). At least I thought so. 

I thought of that right as I posted. I just figure that is an amalgamation...we'll call it EXTREMELY STONED/retarded Sean Penn.  :grin:

WAP 1, Nebu 0

I have no idea what was so narcissistic or "artsy" about American Beauty. I think you said the same thing about Fight Club once too. What makes them narcissistic? And what the hell kind of criticism is that for a film anyways? Usually it's applied to human beings. How can a film be narcissistic? Do you mean, like, in the Fellini sense? How so then? I don't see anything forcibly "biographical" from either Mendes or Fincher in either one of them. Or do you mean in the John Waters sense? I don't see that either... There's not much kitschy shock value to either one of those films.

Or is it the lead characters that you don't like?

The truth is, many middle class American men are as dysfunctional, miserable, and secretly would like to lash out as the ones in those two flicks. Not to say that they're realistic depictions... Just that the subject matter is accurate. There's nothing really "edgy" about it. If they were too edgy and out there, most people probably wouldn't have even sat through them.

That may be so (there's no accounting for it, to be sure..), but surely, surely you have watched other films that create the same connection but do so in a less superficial way?

I'm not against any film that points out the beauty in places where people commonly miss it (which is one thing I think it tries to do), because I feel that people very often do and that making a point of this is a decent thing to do, but I absolutly detest the way in which American Beauty does this. I feel it is patronising; which isn't what an appreicition of life should be about, and self-satisfied; which is at odds with the basic premise being forwarded. That plastic bag scene? "Here's the key to life kids! Watch and take notes."

Even if you've never seen another film that engenders such an identification, surely that doesn't stop you from seeing the flaws in the way this film does it and imagining another film that does it better?


Eh, what do you think narcissistic means? They loveth their own images. Basking in the glory of their reflections--in shallow pools.

Very true.  I just can't think of any other films that year that really grabbed me.  Maybe I should go back and take a look. 

Would you rather an essay on the way in which the film mixes diagetic and non-diagetic sound in order to create a false sense of connection between disparate elements? It's been a while since I wrote about film in such a way, so I'd have to get my books out. I'm not sure how conversant people here are with film criticism so I thought I'd state my view in simpler language.

Dude. What? You criticize American Beauty for the plastic bag scene? Are you serious? That wasn't even what the movie or even what the title of the movie was about. It had nothing to do with the premise of the film. And that side character was purposely full of himself. You're supposed to hate him. He was a fucking psycho kid, who took joy in everyone's pain, and was left all to himself and a camera. Of course he was narcissistic.


Sean Penn was also good in Carlito's Way.

[edit]

Don't be an asshole. There's no point to it here.

You're making the mistake you think I'm making. I'm not basing my criticism on a single point. I'm merely giving an example.

Also I was talking about the plastic bag bit. Not a specific character. Remember? When the plastic bag is up there on the screen floating about? Not the kid who took that film nor a discussion of it, that actual scene.

On a petty note: What the fuck is it with people who think that things that are in films and books and etc have nothing to do with them? How much more absurd can you get.

I enjoyed Mystic River, but I'm not a big Sean Penn fan.

I said the plastic bag had nothing to do with the premise of the film (and it seemed like you were making it a focal point). Not that it was some entirely meaningless element thrown in there just for the hell of it.

[edit] Also, I don't see how you can seperate the kid from the bag. Everything about the bag was from his own fucked up perspective on things.

I'm interested to The premise of the film is what? That "many middle class American men are dysfunctional, miserable, and secretly would like to lash out"?

I guess they just put all the other characters in the film to colour these guys in, eh? Surely there is no comment being made on/by each character, on/by them as relationalion entities, on/by them as a society, et cetera. Of course, each bit only relates to itself, there is no overlap. The plastic bag is only a comment on some "fucking psycho kid" and has nothing to do with anything else. It just happens to be in the same film.

Out of interest Lamaros, other than the Godfather II what movies do you go back and watch time and again? I'm just interested, as I'm really starting to feel out of my depth here.

I don't go back and watch many films more than a couple of times, especially recently. I'm not a big fan of collecting DVDs, I enjoy watching things at the Cinema more (And only classics and cult films get replayed much at cinemas i know of -- I saw Playtime a year or two back in 70mm. Amazing!). I do like Fifth Element and have watched it many times though. I'm sure that will burst my pretentious bubble. :)

...

Since the the main character tells you what its about, I don't understand the confusion.

5th element: More films need to be made with an anime aesthetic

Yeah, I'm saying it's a comment on the kid, but also saying it's a comment on his perspective of Spacey -- just that it isn't the authoritative view of Spacey or the movie. Just like every other character has their points of view.. They're all given the same amount of screentime. Be it his wife, his daughter, his daughter's friend, the kid's marine dad -- they all have their own perspective on him. There's that final sequence that kind of illustrates that -- in the end of the movie, when he gets shot, it's pretty obvious that it wasn't supposed to be from any one of their points of view -- as he was laying there, dead in the kitchen, it flashes to his daughter's face, then the kid cracking a smile, his wife crying, his daughter's friend curled up, the marine panicking with blood on his hands... All reacting to this guy's life and death in their own way. And then, Spacey's own narration of himself to close the movie (he also opens the film in narration, if you recall). And as far as I'm concerned, when there is a narrator, then the narrator has the sole authority on what is and what isn't the premise of the movie --- especially when the narrator is the protagonist himself!

That being said, I know that saying "many middle class American men are dysfunctional, miserable, and secretly would like to lash out" may be simplifying it, but that's pretty much what I got throughout the whole movie when it came to Spacey's own perspective. I'd say that the kid might have saw himself as the most understanding or sympathetic to Spacey -- but I'm not so sure if he really was, other than in his own head.

[edit] Man, I talk too much. Leave it to tazelbain to sum it up easily.

My point was that it was patronising, no? So a guy telling us what it's all about...

(Narrators can also be unreliable.)

Fair enough. I love narrators myself. Especially the "dead, but I'm telling this story anyways" variety. See Double Indemnity or Sunset Blvd.

Not all art should be left for the viewer to figure out what the artists intent is.  Because like "Hamlet kissing his mother", they will get it wrong and fuck up your story.  And Allan Ball had a point.  I think the critic in you is mad he told his point and you can't make up one of your own.  American Beauty,  a tirade against the excesses on modern Liberalism.

What is with this "I can only remember what you've said in the last sentence" business? I never said I had a problem with not being able to make the film mean what I want it to mean. I have a problem with the way it goes about saying what it says. Can we consider this conversation done now?

That's the point? Could have fooled me. I thought it was about how middle-class life is characterized by putting forth an outward show of normalcy which covers a rotten core of self-denial (sort of like, I don't know, the American Beauty Rose that when it blooms is beautiful on the outside and diseased on the inside) and any attempt to escape such social norms is severely punished.

Yes! I liked the version of that character they stuck into Vice City too.

That's exactly what I got from it as well.

Your problem with American Beauty is a STYLISTIC problem, not a premise problem. I can see why you'd feel that way. It took the very slow, deliberate pacing of Kubrick's movies and made if more airy and dream-like. In some movies, that style bothers me a lot, like all of Shamalamadingdong's movies after Unbreakable, because it feels forced. It feels as if the actors are being fit into ill-fitting holes by the director's choice of style. It feels pretentious.

I think the style fit the piece fine, myself. I also feel part of the theme of the movie was that we make ourselves miserable by putting unrealistic expectations on ourselves, and get so wrapped up in the superficial trappings, that we fail to see the beauty in our everyday, mundane lives. And then some homophobic Marine shoots you in the head.

It's been my observation that American Beauty love/hate splits up almost exactly at the same time as pre/post hype.  My girlfriend and I went to the theater one day, didn't really see anything special there, and then said, "hey, what's that?  Wasn't that the one with the trippy trailer we saw a few months ago?  Let's see that."  We came out of the theater absolutely blown away.  On the other hand, everyone I recommended the movie to, hated it.  I guess it's only good when it's surprisingly good.  Everyone I know who went into it after hearing the hype for it though it was crap.  Everyone who saw it before the Oscar buzz enjoyed it.

Buddy Kane: [Carolyn is getting railed in a motel room by the Real Estate King] Do you like getting nailed by the King?

Carolyn Burnham: Yes, your majesty!


That's classic.

I am usually completely against narration in movies- if the story can be told with a complete lack of music or dialogue, then it's a good example of a movie that works. American Beauty is a rare exception for me.

I couldn't stand a lack of good, snappy narration dialogue in a noir flick for sure. It's a must. Whether it be Sunset Blvd or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

It's worked well in many other genres as well... Shawshank -- that'd be a lesser movie without Red's insight on things. Goodfellas. Taxi Driver. Apocalypse Now. The Big Lebowski. High Fidelity. And I mentioned Carlito's Way because of Penn earlier, but Pacino's narration in it is great. Almost poetic.

That's not the point.  You fooled yourself by severing it from the sentance before hand.
No doubt that is why he died, but I really don't see the narrator as telling us a story about how he was dicked over by social norms. 

I think he's telling us the story about the two Beauties and how he learned to tell the difference.

Nah, I think you fooled me by not writing in a comprehensible fashion.  :grin:

Words are not my aeroplane.

I'm not a huge fan of American Beauty but some of Lamaros' complaints are silly.

Here are some legitimate problems:
1. The murder mystery angle feels superfluous.
2. The "suburban life sucks" angle is too surface-level and hamfisted.

The movie doesn't have a whole lot of depth, the moral of the story is pretty cut and dried. It was a statement movie but the statement was pretty shallow.

Was it a murder mystery really? I don't see what people mean by that. Maybe if you make more out of it, I suppose it can be a superfluous "murder mystery" -- but I don't think it was intended to be a mystery at all. Y'know.. What with the marine rushing into his house, concealing the weapon, with blood on his body. Seemed pretty obvious who killed him. His wife intended to kill him herself, sure -- but afterwards, she's just shown against a wall with a gun in her hand, no blood, etc.. All I got out of that was that she missed her chance to do it himself, and now that he's dead, she's grieving instead.

I don't mind the shallow statement. "Fuck all of you" is a good statement, shallow or not.

I'd just like to add a comment about Rocky.

The producers wanted James Caan to play Rocky. The writer wanted himself.

The writer won on the condition the movie cost less then $1 Million to make.

I still think that's one of the most surprising facts in Hollywood history.

That Sylvester Stallone wrote Rocky. Hell, that he could even write at all.

By the end it isn't a mystery who killed Kevin Spacey but that is a major plot in the movie. Apparently the original script was actually much more of a whodunnit but slowly morphed into more of a character-based drama. I felt those parts of the movie were at odds. The red herrings with the kids and the wife were pretty superfluous to the main story. He could have died of a heart attack at the end and it wouldn't have changed much.

If you think that what you just said was different to my complaints you're just failing at reading again.

Or you are failing at writing.

Edit: I'll add some content to my post. AB is interesting in that many of the critics who lauded it at the time have now turned against it. It's the same sort of thing you see happening in literature a lot. (I highly recommened "A Reader's Manifesto", it goes into this phenomenon in depth) Something comes out, critics praise it, then a few years later they pretend never to have liked it in the first place.

Or as Public Enemy put it: Don't Believe the Hype  :oh_i_see:


I still like it though. Not fanatical about it or anything (despite me carrying on this conversation on here), but it's still entertaining. I think that was my first time I saw Chris Cooper as well -- and he's easily one of my favorite actors now. So there's that.

I did not know that and am still having trouble believing it.

The murder doesn't make it a murder mystery, but it does extend more on the idea of suburban middle class life.  Only one person killed him, but a few more could have, and one almost did.  If you're looking at American Beauty as a statement about these people, what does it say about their character if they were capable of this?  Even if they only considered it?

I dunno, I'm no film critic but I saw it as an indictment of suburbia, when a guy has a wake up call and ends up rejecting the status quo (which has become so bad and made so many miserable) just to feel normal again.

And then goes and fucks it up by refusing the girl, which I totally don't get at all. Because as Billy Idol says, there's nothing pure in this world.. he should have totally gone for it :)

Bhodi, you rock.

Dude, wasn't that chick 16?  :ye_gods:

I'm 99% sure it had nothing to do with her age, but merely the fact she was a virgin.

He didn't want her to end up all fucked up and jaded like he was.  I think you know this already. 

Bhodi only sleeps with virgins?

They are the only ones who don't laugh when you take off your pants.

Well, you have to admit that there is something very comical about a naked man walking around with an erection.  I never look because then I can't stop laughing. 

Part of the reason I didin't like American Beauty much was because everything I heard about the movie conflicted with the movie I actually saw.  I kept reading people say it was such a beautiful movie when I thought it was one of the ugliest things I have ever saw.  Spacey's character is the only character somewhat sympathetic but as cool as his mid-life crisis was his whole motivation for change was because he wanted to screw his daughters (underage) friend.  The wife is one of the most repugnant characters in a movie, ever, and the kids are all self-absorbed shits.  I was sure the title was ironic and the movie was about how ugly the modern selfish lifestyle is but I kept seeing comments like 'beautiful and moving'.  It conflicted my brain so I just dismissed the movie and moved on.

Consensual sex doesn't make you fucked up and jaded unless you are already completely twisted. it's a wonderful experience. If she was supposed to be 16, she sure as hell didn't look it. I'm sure the actress wasn't.

I feel that him turning her down wasn't touching, it was a total failure of his his rejection of the self-absorbed society and the basis of his entire mid life crisis. It was the final test and the achievement of his goal.

In the end, he couldn't completely escape, and it killed him.

To sleep with the girl was to get out of one trap (minless conformation with society) just to fall into another trap (mindless presuit of self-gratifacation.) 

Yeah, but which of those is more fun?

If you look at it that way, you can't win no matter WHAT you do. Also, I suppose it does depend on what you mean by mindless. It's really not precise enough.

Many of the characters were unhappy because they did what society said was right, and not what was good for them or what would make them happy. They stayed in broken marriages, denied their sexuality, all because of the pressure of society on the individual. That pressure goes for sex, too.

Why did this turn into an American Beauty thread instead of a movies you like thread? American Beauty was a polarizing film that I personally didn't care for much.

Can't we go back to things we actually enjoyed and/or movies that got screwed.

I liked JAWS, which I think got screwed.

I watched Jaws at way too young an age. Swimming as a kid after watching that movie was terrifying- and I swam mostly in lakes. I'd go under water and imagine being swallowed by a great white. Terrifying, but fun.  :-)

As much as I love One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Jaws is the better picture.

That statement could have come straight from the NAMBLA website.  Just saying.

He did the right thing by not sleeping with her after spending the movie flaunting normal behavior. His reward was death which was just escape. I could almost call it a happy ending for him.

Reading it again, that came off kind of ...  :pedobear: didn't it? I didn't mean it like that.