I haven't turned it on yet, but it looks like you called it right for best supporting actor - I'm really surprised. I don't like Tarantino - he's too self-consciously "shocking" IMO, and I hated "Inglorious Basterds" - I thought it was a cheap cheat of a movie - with plenty of Tarentino's trademark gratuitous violence, and a plot that really went nowhere. Waltz was the best thing about it. That first scene in the farmhouse earned him the Oscar that year. I like Waltz, but this year I just thought others were more deserving.
I disagree with you a little (OK - a lot ^_^) about the merits of "Lincoln", because I think both Spielberg and DDL pulled off something pretty amazing. I read the book on which the movie was based which concentrated more on how Lincoln pulled together all of men who had run against him for president, and who, at first, had nothing but contempt for him as an "Ignorant backwoods hick". Lincoln then put them on his cabinet and was a master at getting them to work together, and at gaining their respect, and with 2 of them, a deep friendship. You have to remember, too, that this was the president who guided us through the most perilous time in our history.
Lincoln had his faults, he was certainly a man of his time concerning the abilities of African Americans, although he grew and changed in many of his opinions over time. That was one of his great strengths - the ability to see the long term goal and hold to it, coupled with the humility to admit when he was wrong and to adjust accordingly. He also had an incredible ability to relate to people on a personal level.
He's the greatest American President in my opinion, and it's very possible we wouldn't have gone through the agony of a century more of institutionalized racism if he had not been murdered only 3 months into his second term.
Oh, dear. Sorry - I didn't mean this to be a treatise on my admiration for Lincoln. I just thought DDL brought him to life, and this is only the 2nd movie based upon his life in the history of the movies, so it meant a lot to me.
Actually I didn't, but I got my wish. I really didn't think the Academy would give Waltz his second award so soon after the first. But I'm not complaining. In my opinion his performance stood out among the other nominees. There's just something about his performances that draws me in.
I personally love Tarantino. Even his not so good movies are brilliant in their own way, in my opinion. I couldn't disagree more about Inglourious Basterds. Although I partly get what you mean with it "went nowhere", but in my opinion his movies are never about a message or a point. That's what I personally really love about him, he just makes movies for entertainments sake and it's more about creating fascinating characters and dialogues than anything else. But he's not everybody's cup of tea and I certainly understand that.
Don't apologize! I love discussing this and it's great to see where you are coming from in your assessment.
Well, I think my problem (and I now that some of my friends had the same issues) with 'Lincoln' is that as a European I don't really know that much about Lincoln at all. You know, we learn about the American Civil War and of course about Slavery and the history of Slavery and Segregation in the US, but we don't learn that much about Lincoln himself. I consider myself to be an educated person, but this movie required a lot of knowledge that I - and I think that is true for other non-Americans as well - simply didn't have (actually I'm glad I watched Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter before, otherwise I would have known even less).
I feel as though the movie caters to Americans only. So probably this is why I didn't think DDL's performance was outstanding because I simply don't know how Abraham Lincoln talked (out of curiosity, how do people actually know?).
But the thing is, I don't know much about other stuff either, but usually that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a movie about it. For example I know probably just as much about Lincoln as I knew about the situation in Iran that 'Argo' depicts. And I certainly know less about the people involved. And yet this movie managed to set the scene in such a way that I feel drawn into the situation nonetheless. Also 'Argo' as well is a purely American story that caters to an American audience, but nonetheless I could identify with it, could understand and appreciate it and I didn't have the feeling to be excluded as an audience. That is true for almost every movie coming from Hollywood in one way or another. But I never had such a feeling of exclusion from the target audience as I had with 'Lincoln'.
Now you would think that if I knew that little about Lincoln that this movie would have taught me a lot. But actually I don't feel like it did. What I garnered from this movie was, that actually the guys played by James Spader and Co. (god, I don't even remember their names and I've seen this movie just last week) bought and blackmailed Democrats to vote for Lincoln. And I'm not sure that this is the message Spielberg wanted to send about the greatest president. I mean it's great that Spielberg obviously didn't want to sugar coat it and portray Lincoln with his faults and all, but actually he failed to make me see his greatness. Which is probably due to the fact that I don't know enough about him.
So all in all, yeah, I probably can't judge DDL's performance like you can, but I don't know I think it really shouldn't be necessary for me to have that much knowledge. For example I didn't know anything about King George before 'The King's Speech' and yet there is not a single doubt for me that Colin Firth's performance was outstanding.
Oh wow, this got longer than intended and I'm pretty much reiterating the same point over and over again but I think that's really the root of my assessment of this movie and why disagree with pretty much everybody in Hollywood. xD
I don't mean to needlessly drag the discussion out, but I wasn't able to respond yesterday.
I think Quentin Tarentino is one of those polarizing directors you either love or hate. Not that I hate him personally, of course, but I do hate his movies. Millions of people, including many critics, love them. For me it's just a visceral, gut response. I agree with you that he makes movies for entertainment purposes only, but so do most other filmakers.
I want to be entertained at the movies as much as the next person, but Tarentino's movies offend me more than anything else. I think he enjoys doing exactly that, and eliciting shock for no other purpose than - eliciting shock. It's the gratuitous bloodshed and violence for no purpose that puts me off.(And what was with his acceptance speech for best screenplay?!? He congratulated himself - that was an Oscar first.)
I actually enjoyed the first 45 minutes of "Inglorious Basterds". I was invested in the character of the Jewish woman who wanted revenge for her murdered family. It was a story that pulled me in, then Tarentino gave the audience the finger, and proceeded to kill everybody(including Hitler!), with the exception of the man who killed her family, and the intensely annoying Brad Pitt (who I usually like, but not in this movie). Anyway - rant over.
You made some very good points in response to my comments about "Lincoln". You are right - a person shouldn't have to have pre-knowlege of history or an event in order to be able to enjoy a movie. In his passion to make this movie, Spielburg did not give it any universal appeal, and I know that even with my faily extensive knowledge about Lincoln, if I hadn't read "Team of Rivals" just weeks before I saw the movie, I don't think I would have liked it so much.
"Lincoln" was a very different kind of movie for Spielburg, who is a master at knowing what wide audiences find entertaining, and/or making serious issues gripping enough to lure in a wide audience. He had been wanting to make this movie for years, so I guess it was more personal for him. But I have to agree with most of your observations.
I enjoyed "Argo", too, and it did pull me in from the beginning. But it was, of course, a very different kind of movie.
Now I just have to see "Life of Pi". I didn't have the desire to see it before, but now I can't wait.
I love discussing and debating movies, so I hope I haven't bored you too much. I wish there were a comm where we could do that - discuss the movies we love and hate with no holds barred as to genre and age of the movie.
Thanks for letting me rattle on endlessly in your journal. ^_^
Tarantino is definetly one of those that you either love or hate. You are not the only one I know that hates his movies and I can definetly see where you are coming from.
Indeed, most if not all directors try to entertain, but there are very few who actually do this in such an unapologetic way. Tarantino to me, is one of the most unpretentious directors - and I know you will disagree - because I genuinly believe that he's just making movies he'd like to see. What put you off in "Inglorious Basterds", giving the audience the finger, is exactly what I love about this movie. Killing Hitler just shows how unpretentious he is and how uncompromising. He wasn't trying to make a realistic movie about the Third Reich, it merely served as a setting for his story. And in his story Hitler had to die.
In his movies I can feel his passion for movies and for details when I watch each movie. That is really what makes his movies stand out in my opinion. In every shot you can feel the passion for movies basically jump out of the screen. I think it's his passion and joy making movies that translates to the rest of the crew. I don't think it's a coincidence that so many actors give stellar performances in his movies.
What I also love about his movies is, that although they all have his distinct style no two movies are alike. I think that's very rare (only a handful of others if at all come to my mind), to have such a unique style and still be that versatile.
As for the violence, I can only say, that I love it. I can't explain why and probably Freud would have to say a lot about this, but I really enjoy violence in movies, and in my opinion Tarantino manages a good balance between over the top violence without becoming too ridiculous. As for the shock-effect - actually Tarantino rarely shocks me. Surprised me? All the time. But I neither find his violence nor his stories too shocking. It would be different for me if his movies didn't have that tongue-in-cheek attitude. If his violence wasn't over the top but realistic. That is is the violence that really shocks me.
But I guess in the end we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic. :)
Maybe I'll watch 'Lincoln' again and on second view I'll be able to appreciate it a bit more. Because per se I didn't think it was a bad movie, not at all. Indeed Spielberg is a master of pulling wide audiences, so probably it just took me by surprise that he didn't manage it for me this time. I don't like all his movies (especially his most acclaimed ones interestingly) but there are certain expectations nonetheless.
Indeed, Argo was a very different kind of movie, but in their essence both 'Argo' and 'Lincoln' and you can throw 'Zero Dark Thirty' in there as well, are American stories for an American audience. Yet 'Argo' was very accessible to me as a Westerner, whereas 'Lincoln' was not.
Oh, tell me your thoughts once you did see 'Life of Pi'! I'm curious to hear your opinion!
So do I. No, not at all. Discussing movies is something I could do forever and ever. I wish there was a comm like that as well. Maybe we should just open one. xD But in the meantime we can keep on discussing here. :D I really enjoy it!
I saw "Life of Pi" this afternoon. I'm so full of thoughts and feelings about it that I'm going to be sifting through them for awhile. I'd like to see it again, but it was so intense for me that I need to let some time go by before doing so.
This movie affected me so deeply and so emotionally! I wasn't expecting that at all, especially from a movie that contains so much CGI.
Ang Lee did an amazing job of bringing this world and this story to life.
Oh, that sounds wonderful. Have you had a chance to sift through your thoughts about the movie yet?
It's really interesting, as much as we can agree on tv shows, I don't think we can agree on movies at all. Life of Pi was one of the most disappointing movies of the year for me.
I guess it would be hard right now to share what I felt and thought about this movie, especially with someone who didn't like it, because I thought it was dark, wonderous and very moving. As I gain some distance from the film, it will be easier to look at it more objectively.
But LOL - Just because we disagree about three movies isn't an ironclad indication that we would never agree about any movies at all. I'm sure we could find several we both agree upon.
Speaking of which - what are your thoughts about the Coen brothers and their movies? Martin Scorcese? There is a huge realm of movies out there, not to mention the older classics.
I disagree with you a little (OK - a lot ^_^) about the merits of "Lincoln", because I think both Spielberg and DDL pulled off something pretty amazing. I read the book on which the movie was based which concentrated more on how Lincoln pulled together all of men who had run against him for president, and who, at first, had nothing but contempt for him as an "Ignorant backwoods hick". Lincoln then put them on his cabinet and was a master at getting them to work together, and at gaining their respect, and with 2 of them, a deep friendship. You have to remember, too, that this was the president who guided us through the most perilous time in our history.
Lincoln had his faults, he was certainly a man of his time concerning the abilities of African Americans, although he grew and changed in many of his opinions over time. That was one of his great strengths - the ability to see the long term goal and hold to it, coupled with the humility to admit when he was wrong and to adjust accordingly. He also had an incredible ability to relate to people on a personal level.
He's the greatest American President in my opinion, and it's very possible we wouldn't have gone through the agony of a century more of institutionalized racism if he had not been murdered only 3 months into his second term.
Oh, dear. Sorry - I didn't mean this to be a treatise on my admiration for Lincoln. I just thought DDL brought him to life, and this is only the 2nd movie based upon his life in the history of the movies, so it meant a lot to me.
Reply
I personally love Tarantino. Even his not so good movies are brilliant in their own way, in my opinion. I couldn't disagree more about Inglourious Basterds. Although I partly get what you mean with it "went nowhere", but in my opinion his movies are never about a message or a point. That's what I personally really love about him, he just makes movies for entertainments sake and it's more about creating fascinating characters and dialogues than anything else. But he's not everybody's cup of tea and I certainly understand that.
Don't apologize! I love discussing this and it's great to see where you are coming from in your assessment.
Well, I think my problem (and I now that some of my friends had the same issues) with 'Lincoln' is that as a European I don't really know that much about Lincoln at all. You know, we learn about the American Civil War and of course about Slavery and the history of Slavery and Segregation in the US, but we don't learn that much about Lincoln himself. I consider myself to be an educated person, but this movie required a lot of knowledge that I - and I think that is true for other non-Americans as well - simply didn't have (actually I'm glad I watched Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter before, otherwise I would have known even less).
I feel as though the movie caters to Americans only. So probably this is why I didn't think DDL's performance was outstanding because I simply don't know how Abraham Lincoln talked (out of curiosity, how do people actually know?).
But the thing is, I don't know much about other stuff either, but usually that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a movie about it. For example I know probably just as much about Lincoln as I knew about the situation in Iran that 'Argo' depicts. And I certainly know less about the people involved. And yet this movie managed to set the scene in such a way that I feel drawn into the situation nonetheless. Also 'Argo' as well is a purely American story that caters to an American audience, but nonetheless I could identify with it, could understand and appreciate it and I didn't have the feeling to be excluded as an audience. That is true for almost every movie coming from Hollywood in one way or another. But I never had such a feeling of exclusion from the target audience as I had with 'Lincoln'.
Now you would think that if I knew that little about Lincoln that this movie would have taught me a lot. But actually I don't feel like it did. What I garnered from this movie was, that actually the guys played by James Spader and Co. (god, I don't even remember their names and I've seen this movie just last week) bought and blackmailed Democrats to vote for Lincoln. And I'm not sure that this is the message Spielberg wanted to send about the greatest president. I mean it's great that Spielberg obviously didn't want to sugar coat it and portray Lincoln with his faults and all, but actually he failed to make me see his greatness. Which is probably due to the fact that I don't know enough about him.
So all in all, yeah, I probably can't judge DDL's performance like you can, but I don't know I think it really shouldn't be necessary for me to have that much knowledge. For example I didn't know anything about King George before 'The King's Speech' and yet there is not a single doubt for me that Colin Firth's performance was outstanding.
Oh wow, this got longer than intended and I'm pretty much reiterating the same point over and over again but I think that's really the root of my assessment of this movie and why disagree with pretty much everybody in Hollywood. xD
Reply
I think Quentin Tarentino is one of those polarizing directors you either love or hate. Not that I hate him personally, of course, but I do hate his movies. Millions of people, including many critics, love them. For me it's just a visceral, gut response. I agree with you that he makes movies for entertainment purposes only, but so do most other filmakers.
I want to be entertained at the movies as much as the next person, but Tarentino's movies offend me more than anything else. I think he enjoys doing exactly that, and eliciting shock for no other purpose than - eliciting shock. It's the gratuitous bloodshed and violence for no purpose that puts me off.(And what was with his acceptance speech for best screenplay?!? He congratulated himself - that was an Oscar first.)
I actually enjoyed the first 45 minutes of "Inglorious Basterds". I was invested in the character of the Jewish woman who wanted revenge for her murdered family. It was a story that pulled me in, then Tarentino gave the audience the finger, and proceeded to kill everybody(including Hitler!), with the exception of the man who killed her family, and the intensely annoying Brad Pitt (who I usually like, but not in this movie). Anyway - rant over.
You made some very good points in response to my comments about "Lincoln". You are right - a person shouldn't have to have pre-knowlege of history or an event in order to be able to enjoy a movie. In his passion to make this movie, Spielburg did not give it any universal appeal, and I know that even with my faily extensive knowledge about Lincoln, if I hadn't read "Team of Rivals" just weeks before I saw the movie, I don't think I would have liked it so much.
"Lincoln" was a very different kind of movie for Spielburg, who is a master at knowing what wide audiences find entertaining, and/or making serious issues gripping enough to lure in a wide audience. He had been wanting to make this movie for years, so I guess it was more personal for him. But I have to agree with most of your observations.
I enjoyed "Argo", too, and it did pull me in from the beginning. But it was, of course, a very different kind of movie.
Now I just have to see "Life of Pi". I didn't have the desire to see it before, but now I can't wait.
I love discussing and debating movies, so I hope I haven't bored you too much. I wish there were a comm where we could do that - discuss the movies we love and hate with no holds barred as to genre and age of the movie.
Thanks for letting me rattle on endlessly in your journal. ^_^
Reply
Tarantino is definetly one of those that you either love or hate. You are not the only one I know that hates his movies and I can definetly see where you are coming from.
Indeed, most if not all directors try to entertain, but there are very few who actually do this in such an unapologetic way. Tarantino to me, is one of the most unpretentious directors - and I know you will disagree - because I genuinly believe that he's just making movies he'd like to see. What put you off in "Inglorious Basterds", giving the audience the finger, is exactly what I love about this movie. Killing Hitler just shows how unpretentious he is and how uncompromising. He wasn't trying to make a realistic movie about the Third Reich, it merely served as a setting for his story. And in his story Hitler had to die.
In his movies I can feel his passion for movies and for details when I watch each movie. That is really what makes his movies stand out in my opinion. In every shot you can feel the passion for movies basically jump out of the screen. I think it's his passion and joy making movies that translates to the rest of the crew. I don't think it's a coincidence that so many actors give stellar performances in his movies.
What I also love about his movies is, that although they all have his distinct style no two movies are alike. I think that's very rare (only a handful of others if at all come to my mind), to have such a unique style and still be that versatile.
As for the violence, I can only say, that I love it. I can't explain why and probably Freud would have to say a lot about this, but I really enjoy violence in movies, and in my opinion Tarantino manages a good balance between over the top violence without becoming too ridiculous. As for the shock-effect - actually Tarantino rarely shocks me. Surprised me? All the time. But I neither find his violence nor his stories too shocking. It would be different for me if his movies didn't have that tongue-in-cheek attitude. If his violence wasn't over the top but realistic. That is is the violence that really shocks me.
But I guess in the end we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic. :)
Maybe I'll watch 'Lincoln' again and on second view I'll be able to appreciate it a bit more. Because per se I didn't think it was a bad movie, not at all. Indeed Spielberg is a master of pulling wide audiences, so probably it just took me by surprise that he didn't manage it for me this time. I don't like all his movies (especially his most acclaimed ones interestingly) but there are certain expectations nonetheless.
Indeed, Argo was a very different kind of movie, but in their essence both 'Argo' and 'Lincoln' and you can throw 'Zero Dark Thirty' in there as well, are American stories for an American audience. Yet 'Argo' was very accessible to me as a Westerner, whereas 'Lincoln' was not.
Oh, tell me your thoughts once you did see 'Life of Pi'! I'm curious to hear your opinion!
So do I. No, not at all. Discussing movies is something I could do forever and ever. I wish there was a comm like that as well. Maybe we should just open one. xD But in the meantime we can keep on discussing here. :D I really enjoy it!
Reply
This movie affected me so deeply and so emotionally! I wasn't expecting that at all, especially from a movie that contains so much CGI.
Ang Lee did an amazing job of bringing this world and this story to life.
Reply
It's really interesting, as much as we can agree on tv shows, I don't think we can agree on movies at all. Life of Pi was one of the most disappointing movies of the year for me.
Reply
But LOL - Just because we disagree about three movies isn't an ironclad indication that we would never agree about any movies at all. I'm sure we could find several we both agree upon.
Speaking of which - what are your thoughts about the Coen brothers and their movies? Martin Scorcese? There is a huge realm of movies out there, not to mention the older classics.
Reply
Leave a comment