I have to ask, why does everyone seem to have such massive prejudices against musicals? They’re just movies like any other, and I honestly don't get the hate... It feels like people just dislike them because characters break out into song and dance, and that's where they stop. It seems totally subjective, and frankly, I don't follow the logic at all...
Personally, I loved Chicago. If it had swept all 13 Oscars, I wouldn't have complained for a second—I'm fully rooting for it. Out of all the nominees I've seen (aside from Gangs of New York), none of them even come close. None of those films left me feeling as energized as Chicago did once the credits rolled...
Renee & Catherine are fantastic. I really don't understand the criticism directed at Zellweger—people saying someone else could have played her part better—but hey, to each their own...
I caught "small business horror" for the first time yesterday, and honestly? I enjoyed it. While the first half definitely outshines the second, they nailed certain elements—especially the soundtrack—which earns it a passing grade from me.
I know musicals might not be everyone's cup of tea on this forum, but I’d still recommend this one if you're just looking for something light to watch...
Peter Williams9 said:Well, I guess that's what happens when you try to adapt a Stephen King story.
Oof, this feels like a total mess of a Stephen King adaptation, and honestly, that's a mistake. Don't go there. 😉
On a different note, I have nothing but praise for Monster's Ball. It was easily one of my top five films from last year. The cast is fantastic—Billy Bob Thornton and Peter Boyle were great, and Halle Berry gave a really solid performance...
The direction and script are top-notch, the music is appropriately heavy, and the ending lands perfectly. How could you ask for more?
Especially that incredibly powerful scene between Peter Boyle and Halle Berry, where she storms out of the house at the end of their talk right toward Billy just to tell him, "I met your dad!" 👍
Pale Blue Eyes said:I’d also add Pakula's "All The President's Men," Frankenheimer's "The Manchurian Candidate," and "Reds" to the list.
Uuuu, yeah... All three are absolute masterpieces. I’d say "Reds" is the only one that gets a four-star rating from me, mostly just because it feels a bit too long. I watched it once a few years back and the details are a little fuzzy, so I really should give it a rewatch soon.
All of the President's people are absolute fucking masterpieces. Honestly, The Manchurian Candidate was one of the most pleasant surprises I had last year—just one of those classic films that popped up on PBS during their Tuesday night lineup.
When it comes to movies from the 1950s, I have to say that decade is easily my favorite era of filmmaking. Some of the best and most cherished films I’ve ever seen come from that period (just a few examples being some kind of hot love, Quo Vadis, a tram called longing, anatomy of a murder, and River Kwai)... Because of that, I didn't mind at all that this film was made back then, with none of the modern attempts to gloss over its period setting.
The music is beautiful throughout the entire film (though I do agree it's a bit heavy-handed at times), and Julianna Moore delivered what I believe is the best performance of her career so far (at least based on everything I've seen her do)... I honestly don't get why Todd Haynes wasn't nominated for directing, but since he did get a nod for screenplay, I won't complain too much about the Academy's choices...
That said, I feel the movie leans way too hard into overt racism. It’s especially glaring in that pool scene, and the breaking point for me was when Dennis Haysbert (who is excellent, by the way) takes Ms. Whitaker by the hand in the middle of the street, only for some white man to shout, "What are you doing?!" When you look at those scenes in isolation, you really have to wonder: what was the director trying to achieve, other than making the audience feel contempt for American Society Fifty on one hand, and relief they weren't born in that era on the other?
If the director had cut those exaggerated moments and just focused on those subtle, brilliant beats—like when the white women stare at Ms. Whitaker as if she were a witch—this would be a masterpiece. As it stands, it earns a four-star rating and one more vote for Julianna Moore for Best Actress (though personally, I really wanted her to take home an Oscar; if anyone among this year's nominees deserved it more, it's her)...
Actually, no, it wasn't "terrible"... It just wasn't what I was expecting...
Let’s be real here: I’ve never seen Cooper at his absolute best, and you could say the same about Meryl. If they both walked away with an Oscar for this, I wouldn't even complain (even if I'm still rooting for Julianna Moora)...
There are stretches of the script that are nothing short of perfection, but the last thirty minutes of the film? Total garbage. I honestly couldn't believe how someone could build such a brilliant narrative for ninety minutes only to completely mess up the ending... Whether it was a mistake by Kaufman or Jonze's, I don't know, but that finale just doesn't work... At least for me...
Oh, and by the way, even though the ending ruins the whole experience for me, Adaptation is still one of the best-acted films of the last decade...
Man, I really want to see this! But of course, in this absolute dump of a place we live in, there's no way to actually get my hands on it. I guess I'll just have to sit around and wait for PBS to finally air it.
I've heard this movie is excellent...
Honestly, the only recent political film that comes to mind right now is The Contender (starring Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges, Christian Slater, and Gary Oldman), and it’s excellent!
If we’re grouping these under political films—though I'm not entirely sure what else they'd fit into—I have to say two of Scorsese's presidential movies are also top-tier for me: JFK (I actually just mailed a copy to a friend out in rural Montana so he could check it out) and Nixon. Now, okay, Nixon definitely runs a bit long, but watching the incredible chemistry between Hopkins and Allen is always a treat. 🙂
Anthony Brown13 said:plus of course Angelo Badalamenti + David Lynch
Man, the Twin Peaks soundtrack is just stunning...!
And don't even get me started on Mulholland Drive... I've only managed to grab a few tracks from the net, but they are absolutely fantastic. Badalamenti is king!
Icepick said:Are you actually being serious right now, redowl90? 😕 😁
Of course I wasn't being serious... It was just a joke to see how people would react. But clearly, I didn't get much of an answer since everyone immediately pivoted to Britney and Aguilera...
This is just ridiculous... Timothy Cox2 actually takes the time to write something constructive, and all everyone else can come up with is: "he's a god, he's a king, he's the man"... You guys are really something else...
Anyway, Nicholson is definitely one of the top ten actors out there. It's hard to pick his absolute best performance (personally, I’d say One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), but Timothy Cox2 missed one movie where Jack absolutely shines: Terms of Endearment... Every single scene with him and Maclaine is pure gold!
By the way, did you guys know that guy was the father of his daughter's best friend? And that he smashed the window of a Mercedes that accidentally got in his way in traffic?
Heads up, this is a bit of a trick question since we're talking about two movies that most people actually DON'T like...
But first, I want to look at the writing, okay?
So, which film has the better-written love story?
Titanic - "Oh, Jack, I'm flying..."
Or
Star Wars - Episode II: Attack of the Clones - "I die a little more each day since you came back into my life..."
I know both have massive main plots where the romance is just a subplot, but let's temporarily ignore the sinking ship and the creation of an Imperial army and just focus on the love...😉
Now, don't give me any of that "You can't compare them because one is a drama and the other is sci-fi" stuff. We aren't looking at genres here; we're strictly looking at which love scenes were better written, okay?
1. Citizen Kane - as one of the absolute best 2. Planet Nine from Outer Space - as an example of one of the worst 3. Ben-Hur - as one of the most awarded films ever 4. The Godfather trilogy - as something truly untouchable 5. The Shawshank Redemption - as a movie you can watch over and over again
2. - And this The Death of a Salesman... - It's The Death of a Salesman. - It's Duck Productions !
The Unforgiven
3. Funny how? You tell me! You mean like a clown? I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny? Funny how? Say, WHAT THE FUCK IS SO FUNNY ABOUT ME? Goodfellas
2. A term coined by French critics to describe movies with a dark, pessimistic mood—usually applied to crime flicks from the 40s and 50s featuring a gritty underworld and cynical, disillusioned loners.
Film Noir
5. Crime, action, or similar genres where the two leads are partners with contrasting personalities, often belonging to different races.
Buddy Buddy (comedies?) 🙂
1. Martin Scorsese
Robert De Niro
2. Jack Lemmon
Billy Wilder
5. Clint Eastwood dedicated his "The Unforgiven" simply "to Sergio and Don." Which two directors was he referring to?
One is Sergio Leone, and I can't quite recall the other one at the moment...
1. The most recent (so far) Quentin Tarantino film, based on Elmore Leonard's novel "Rum Punch".
Jackie Brown
2. Steven Soderbergh's '98 movie about the unusual connection between an FBI agent and a bank robber, based on the novel of the same name by E. L.
Out of Sight
2. Stanley Kubrick's sci-fi dystopia that originally received an X-rating. After some editing room interventions, it went into distribution with an R rating.
A Clockwork Orange?
4. The first adult film to receive a wide theatrical release, earning $40 million and making it the most profitable adult film ever. Its name became widely used.
Deep Throat
1. What is the name of the film award founded in 1943 by eight foreign journalists accredited in Hollywood?
lonescout2 said:The movie doesn't really have a plot; it has characterization (which is handled well, credit where it's due), but there are just too many characters. Aside from that depth, there isn't much else going on, besides maybe some jabs at the American upper class during its era of decline over sixty years ago. As for the detective "mystery," it only feels complicated because the cast is so bloated. If there were fewer people, the culprit and their motive would be obvious immediately. Instead, you're left scratching your head even at the end—not because the mystery is intricate, but simply because it's impossible to keep track of everyone.
True, but the core of the story isn't actually the murder or the investigation. It's exactly what you pointed out: the portrayal of the American elite right before their decline, looking at the world of the wealthy versus their staff and how those two seemingly different worlds collide. The murder is almost incidental. In fact, the director treats it as if it's totally irrelevant, since everyone acts almost exactly the same after the crime as they did before (with the exception of Lady Stockbridge, who was the only one to show any emotion toward the victim and completely loses it in her room afterward...).
What you need (and what about 90% of viewers need) is to watch the film a SECOND TIME. That's the only way you'll catch everything you missed during the first viewing. I'll admit it myself—by the end of my first watch, all I really knew was who the killer was and why, along with maybe three or four other names...