| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 22:50:33
Entertainment Weekly recently published a list of Oscar snubs, and it got me to thinking about a possible inherent flaw in the Academy Awards. EW's list, entertaining as it is, is based on hindsight -- Monday Morning quarterbacking, to use an American expression. There is little to no room for hindsight in the Academy Awards. It's all based on first impressions. The movies competing have only been out a few months. We have no idea whether they will stand the test of time.
I've often argued that a true test of a movie is whether people still find it entertaining, engaging, worth watching, etc. after 5 years or more. The initial flurry of reviews -- the ones that appear in newspapers, magazines, and the Internet -- are only of moderate value. These reviews are too often clouded by extrinsic factors that have nothing to do with a film's quality: i.e. the film's box office potential, the advance buzz, the marketing campaign, comparisons to other recent films, etc. Initial reviews are also likely to be written in reaction to other reviews. We've all seen the pattern wherein a film receives a wave of initial hype, which is followed by a bitter backlash, which in turn is often followed by a backlash-to-the-backlash. It takes a while for this to settle down so that people can see a movie clearly for what it is and can give it a fair assessment.
An opening-weekend newspaper review of a film is the equivalent of a doctor's initial diagnosis, and the awards season is not much more than that.
By my calculations, we should only now be giving out Oscars for the films that came out in, say, 2002 or 2003.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 22:20:29
quote:
I thought the storyline with Juliette Binoche was more romantic than anything in Titantic.
Oh, no way, man. Both characters are so undeveloped, and the romance so slight, that it barely registers at all. Seriously, they part at the end of the movie, as if they're not even going to miss each other. |
| Sean |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 21:09:24
I think Braveheart, Titanic, and Gladiator are perfect examples of popcorn fodder. Perfectly entertaining, use up 2-3 hours and you can happily forget about them 5 minutes after leaving the cinema. That's what they were made to be, and that's what they were.
They're all perfectly reasonable if you don't expect them to be historical documents, or realistic. This is Hollywood escapism, folks. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 18:50:58
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
My problem with Gladiator that is that it has all those inaccuracies but acts like a serious high-tone austere drama. Braveheart was historically inaccurate too, but it was far more exciting and didn't care if it looked accurate or not. Maximus isn't much of a hero either -- William Wallace was fighting for high ideals like freedom, Maximus is just out to get his. Not entertained am I.
I'm not sure if the terms "historically accurate" or "historically inaccurate" can really be applied to Braveheart. Braveheart is a movie about a historical figure who's so wrapped up in myth and legend that what happened and what didn't happen is always up for debate. In fact, Gibson has even talked openly about this...that when the film was in early pre-production, they did a lot of research and confirmed there were so many question marks about what Wallace did and didn't do that there was plenty of room for artistic license. So yes, they did make a lot of stuff up...but the historical record is so full of holes that what they made up could just as easily turn out to be true.
Of course, there are a lot of inaccuracies about the other characters in this movie. For example, I believe Edward II hadn't even been born yet when Wallace was a fugitive, and a lot of the facts about Robert Bruce are wrong, too. But who cares? This movie isn't about those people. It's about William Wallace. |
| turrell |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 18:17:16
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
The English Patient is just an outright piece of shit. It's neither romantic nor sexy in any way. Its failures are especially apparent when compared to the next year's Best Picture winner Titanic, a big dumb crowdpleaser for big dumb crowds which is still far more sincere, dynamic and enjoyable than the deadening English Patient.
I thought the storyline with Juliette Binoche was more romantic than anything in Titantic. Titanic was good as an actiona film wrapped in an period-piece romance, but it was bad dialogue and butchered delivery by Leo who was way too modern for this role though he's been good in other period films (Aviator, Catch Me if You Can, etc.) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 16:27:21
My problem with Gladiator that is that it has all those inaccuracies but acts like a serious high-tone austere drama. Braveheart was historically inaccurate too, but it was far more exciting and didn't care if it looked accurate or not. Maximus isn't much of a hero either -- William Wallace was fighting for high ideals like freedom, Maximus is just out to get his. Not entertained am I.
The English Patient is just an outright piece of shit. It's neither romantic nor sexy in any way. Its failures are especially apparent when compared to the next year's Best Picture winner Titanic, a big dumb crowdpleaser for big dumb crowds which is still far more sincere, dynamic and enjoyable than the deadening English Patient. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 16:01:36
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I disagree. The battle scenes were done very differently in Braveheart.
Did any of the battle scenes in Braveheart have a broadsword (which weights several kilos and is as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel) whoop-whoop-whooping through the air when someone snatches it out the air by the blade with his bare hands - but he doesn't get even a papercut from it? |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 15:45:42
I disagree. The battle scenes were done very differently in Braveheart. |
| randall |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 14:14:15
BRAVEHEART too, for that matter. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 13:46:35
My problem with Gladiator is that it confuses chaos for action. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 08:12:33
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I hated Gladiator from the first scene, Chocolady. But unlike English Patient, I thought I was the only one. Now I feel better.
Read the book, man - read the book. Ondaatje is an amazing writer, and they turned the whole story on its ear. Bah humbug!
As for Gladiator, the main reason I hated it was all the inaccuracies, but I think I've stated that here before.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 04:48:00
I enjoyed Plan 9 From Outer Space more than I enjoyed Rocky, at least it was entertaining. That makes it a better film I suppose.  |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 01:54:50
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Oh, I read your post wrong. I thought you were saying, it's like if you say you don't like Seinfeld is like saying you don't like English Patient, you get chastized.
I guess I should read every word, instead of every other or every third word, to get the full meaning of people's posts.
Duh.
EM :)
Well you wouldn't be the only person that doesn't pay much attention to me. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 01:53:49
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
But that was in 1997. "The English Patient," nowadays, is less watched and far less praised.
Good thing. But this kind of trauma can be hard for me to get over. |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 23:32:15
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
That's what I meant, Monty. Elaine experienced an exaggerated version of what happens in real life when someone admits they don't like it: she got treated like a cult member that was trying to quit.
Oh, I read your post wrong. I thought you were saying, it's like if you say you don't like Seinfeld is like saying you don't like English Patient, you get chastized.
I guess I should read every word, instead of every other or every third word, to get the full meaning of people's posts.
Duh.
EM :) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 23:09:07
But that was in 1997. "The English Patient," nowadays, is less watched and far less praised. |
|
|
