Film 2018

Because the world needs Duke Nukem

Oscar noms
https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/90th_noms_announcement.pdf

Happy Mudbound got so much recognition, though don't see why it couldn't have filled out the Best Picture slots.

Otherwise I can't see any major shocks from scanning the list. Wonder how the Three Billboards backlash will impact it's wins/noms.

Florida Project got robbed.

By WJD Go To PostHappy Mudbound got so much recognition, though don't see why it couldn't have filled out the Best Picture slots.

Otherwise I can't see any major shocks from scanning the list. Wonder how the Three Billboards backlash will impact it's wins/noms.

What backlash?

I would love for Sufjan Stevens to win an Oscar.

Surprised The Disaster Artist got so few nominations. I though James Franco would have at least gotten a Best Actor nomination.

Kobe Bryant has an Oscar nomination.

By SchuckyDucky Go To PostSurprised The Disaster Artist got so few nominations. I though James Franco would have at least gotten a Best Actor nomination.

the allegations against him hit pretty much right when the voting started.

Surprised we didn't get a tenth movie this year. There were so many great films this year, it's weird they couldn't get one more on there.

it's not up to them really. if voting is more spread out you get up to ten. just means no more movie got enough votes. of course they make the rules but i'm fine with it.

By LFMartins86 Go To PostWhat backlash?

I would love for Sufjan Stevens to win an Oscar.

http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/oscars-2018-your-guide-to-the-three-billboards-backlash.html

Racial insensitivity basically. Not a criticism I had at the front of my mind when watching from my privileged pedestal originally, but I can see the merit in it having read around since.

By Mariosalic Go To Postit's not up to them really. if voting is more spread out you get up to ten. just means no more movie got enough votes. of course they make the rules but i'm fine with it.

Yeah, I know. I'm just surprised one more movie didn't sneak in. I thought Blade Runner 2049 might get in. Still a great list.

It may have merit, but that doesn't derail may enjoyment of it and definitely not to the level where I would ever campaign against it.

I'm most happy to her Logan get a screenplay not. Jessica Chastain lost out for Meryl, ugh... And I'm.gonna spin it that James Franco is relieved to have not been nominated.

By RATHasReturned Go To PostIt may have merit, but that doesn't derail may enjoyment of it and definitely not to the level where I would ever campaign against it.

I'm most happy to her Logan get a screenplay not. Jessica Chastain lost out for Meryl, ugh… And I'm.gonna spin it that James Franco is relieved to have not been nominated.

Yeah, I could imagine he might want to avoid that controversy. I'm just bummed this might mean no Tommy at the Oscars.

How in theeeeeee ffuuuuuuuuuuuuuck did Lady Bird get best picture and director nods over Blade Runner????

Mudbound, Phantom Thread and Darkest Hour all did surprisingly well. Thought Mudbound was pretty good, Darkest Hour just okay and haven’t seen Phantom Thread.

Nice to see Star Wars, Baby Driver and Blade Runner pick up a few.

Haven’t seen two of the films on the BP list but the two weakest I have are the two most Oscar bait, DH and The Post. Surprised they picked up more first choices than the likes of The Big Sick.

No McDonagh throws a spanner in the works somewhat but I’ll still go with Three Billboards

Early predictions of the bigguns:

BP - Three Billboards
BD - Guillermo del Toro
Actor - Gary Oldman
Actress - Frances McDormand
SupActor - Sam Rockwell
SupActress - Allison Janney
O Screenplay - Get Out
A Screenplay - Call Me By Your Name
Score - The Shape of Water
Cinematography - Dunkirk
Editing - Dunkirk

It’s weird distinguishing between best film and best director - surely they should go hand in hand!

Holy shit Blade Runner got a best picture nom
Wait nvm I can’t read.
It’s early in the morning

Dunkirk getting nominated for anything but technical Oscars is laughable. Otherwise seems a very strong field, though I can't help but suspect that Darkest Hour and The Post are just Oscar bait.

They are, and they’re the weakest in the field. The Academy are doing a really good job of moving towards genre and actually nominating the best films of the year, but every once in a while some slip through the cracks. They are not bad films - like, if they’re as Oscar baity as it gets this has been a good year - but still.

Darkest Hour in particular is very uninspiring and bases its entire film around a big performance, not necessarily a great one. Kaluuya and Chalamet are genuinely MILES ahead of Oldman.

wow Michael Stuhlbarg got robbed

Yep yep yep. That motherfucker was even good in Men in Black 3.

By sohois Go To PostDunkirk getting nominated for anything but technical Oscars is laughable. Otherwise seems a very strong field, though I can't help but suspect that Darkest Hour and The Post are just Oscar bait.

Totally agree on this. It was a mess of a movie. It doesn't even have a plot.

plot is one of the least important things about a film

Besides, it has a plot. It’s just sparse.

By HasphatsAnts Go To PostHoly shit Blade Runner got a best picture nom
Wait nvm I can’t read.
It’s early in the morning

It should have over Dunkirk.

Here's the story of Dunkirk: British soldiers died over 70 years ago. That's important, you see, because they're British. Fin.

Dunkirk gets nominated for all these Oscars and Blade Runner can't even get one for its score. Unbelievable.

I shouldn't be surprised that Blade Runner is getting shut out, but seriously?

dunkirk a shit

By rodeoclown Go To PostDunkirk gets nominated for all these Oscars and Blade Runner can't even get one for its score. Unbelievable.

I shouldn't be surprised that Blade Runner is getting shut out, but seriously?

tell em

By reilo Go To PostHere's the story of Dunkirk: British soldiers died over 70 years ago. That's important, you see, because they're British. Fin.

Incredibly reductive.

Soldier loses his squadmates, has to try and survive through increasingly desperate measures against increasingly shortening odds.

Mad Max -

Max gets captured by cult and works with Furiosa to escape.

Panic Room

Woman spends two hours in panic room with kid trying to survive break in.

It is not the plot that makes any of these films worthwhile; it is the elements that make up everything else. For you, Dunkirk did not work. I guarantee you that was not because it had no plot, because that is secondary to the rest of the film’s intentions. The editing didn’t work for you because it was needlessly convoluted, or its patriotic message was rote and tired, or it became increasingly repetitive with every near-death experience... whatever it was, none of that is to do with plot, because judging a film on plot is extraordinarily reductive and devoid of any rich criticism.

No film has ever been good on the strength of its plot.

Blade Runner got screwed hard

By rodeoclown Go To PostDunkirk gets nominated for all these Oscars and Blade Runner can't even get one for its score. Unbelievable.

I shouldn't be surprised that Blade Runner is getting shut out, but seriously?

It got five nominations :lol, why you all acting like it got completely snubbed?

I loved BR2049. I liked it a lot more than Dunkirk. But this is the Oscars.

Jesse James got nominated for two fuckin’ awards. Two.

Hot Fuzz got nominated for zero.

Step Brothers got nominated for zero.

To be less facetious, Alien got nominated for Visual Effects and Art Direction, and that’s it.

It’s the Oscars.

I can also go down and discuss Dunkirk's trite dialog, if you wish.

Go for it; way more of a criticism than plot.

I don't care about the Oscars but wtf @ Lady Bird getting best picture and director noms

By s y Go To PostI don't care about the Oscars but wtf @ Lady Bird getting best picture and director noms

Haven’t seen it yet but you’ll be in the majority there, friendo.

Dunkirk was dull as a doorknob but it was pretty.

By n8 dogg Go To PostGo for it; way more of a criticism than plot.

I mean it's not just plot, but it's the overarching story and the dialog and the character motivations are all severely lacking. It's most definitely used as a pure means to end, and that end being just for Nolan to make a visual wankfest for himself. I mean, did you see all of his jizz on the shores? There's plenty of great movies with great visual storytelling gimmicks to enhance the story, but how does one enhance something which does not exist? There was a ton that could've been said about the era and that part of the war in particular, but what little was said was shoved in via a Churchill quote at the end of the movie which just felt so poorly tacked on to add some sort of emotional layer in the last minute that was missing throughout the entire movie.

Was the war brutal and the experiences breathtakingly brutal? Yes, but beyond that, what else did the movie provide beyond another way for Nolan to flex his fixation on using time as a way to tell an interesting "in my style" action movie? And unlike his other outings that tackle the concept of time, there wasn't much meat to this. I am adamant that if you were to tell the movie in a linear timeline, the flaws would be far more apparent.

This was Nolan's attempt at filming his Saving Private Ryan, but unlike the beautifully shot and brutal scene of Adam Goldberg's character being murdered by a Nazi as his squadmate is cowering in fear nearby, there wasn't a single character I gave a shit about when they died because there was zero time spent flexing out these characters to be more than just a means to a visual storytelling end for Nolan.

Haven't watched Dunkirk but it sounds like WW2 Revenant.

No but why is there jizz on the shores?

But yeah for a story ostensibly about human strife, fear, loathing and survival the humans seemed to play second fiddle to every other fucking thing the movie was trying to show me.

Very strange movie. Just kind of said ok then turned it off.

By s y Go To PostHaven't watched Dunkirk but it sounds like WW2 Revenant.

Revenant had character motivations.

Dunkirk had a good run

Revenant is unbelievably pretentious whereas Dunkirk is exactly the film it wants to be.

Dunkirk is also pretentious af, come on n8 lol. You don't pull that silly gimmick messing with how you tell the story if you don't think you're above telling a traditional 3 Act story.

Hey reilo did you like Dunkirk?

I saw it in imax, could barely hear a word of dialogue and couldn't tell a single soldier apart from another but I didnt care, I had a blast watching it. Also what do you mean "character motivation"? It was a survival story, I don't know how much more motivation you need than not dying lol.

Pretentious’ definition is ‘attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed‘.

Dunkirk’s triptych is crucial because it allows Nolan to tell all three stories and capture the three different perspectives. It’s not pretentious besides the fact he numbers them rather than just... doing it :lol

The Revenant imposes meaning on its narrative by constantly mistaking effort for quality: ‘wow its so cold, wow Leo grunts a lot, this is the most brutal film of all’. The quote from Inarritu about Leo eating that heart or whatever literally makes me sick. Prick is so full of himself and his work when it is devoid of anything interesting to say about anything.

What Nolan attempted to do with Dunkirk - bunch of dudes stuck in shit - , he mostly succeeded. The acting wasn’t great, or the writing, or the dialogue, or the attempt to impose more meaning at the end, but for 90% of its runtime it was exactly the film it was supposed to be. The Revenant wants to be a treatise on the lengths man will go to for survival or some shit but does that by cutting to snowy landscapes all the time while Leo crawls. It’s all surface level nonsense that thinks it’s far more profound than it is.

By Pizza Go To PostHey reilo did you like Dunkirk?

I had issues with it lol

By Pizza Go To PostI saw it in imax, could barely hear a word of dialogue and couldn't tell a single soldier apart from another but I didnt care, I had a blast watching it.

I saw it in IMAX as well. The boat scenes not being shot with an IMAX camera were pretty jarring.

By Pizza Go To PostAlso what do you mean "character motivation"? It was a survival story, I don't know how much more motivation you need than not dying lol.

Soldiers aren't just some sort of homogeneous entity that you can just paint with a singular brush and define them by a singular motivation. But beyond that point, you could at least spend some time providing some sort of background or character study to fill in a few gaps. The reason you couldn't tell a single soldier apart from another? That's because Nolan failed to distinguish them as their own entities. The only noteworthy character that even had some sort of distinguishing characteristics that we were able to witness any sort of depth throughout the movie was Cillian Murphy's character and it was easily the strongest character of the group.

And god, that ending on the train reading Churchill is still so damn hokey.

I watched Dunkirk on Blu-ray the other day.

It’s still fine. Good even. But there’s no comparing it with the theater experience and that knocks it down three pegs

By n8 dogg Go To PostPretentious’ definition is ‘attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed‘.

Dunkirk’s triptych is crucial because it allows Nolan to tell all three stories and capture the three different perspectives. It’s not pretentious besides the fact he numbers them rather than just… doing it :lol

The Revenant imposes meaning on its narrative by constantly mistaking effort for quality: ‘wow its so cold, wow Leo grunts a lot, this is the most brutal film of all’. The quote from Inarritu about Leo eating that heart or whatever literally makes me sick. Prick is so full of himself and his work when it is devoid of anything interesting to say about anything.

What Nolan attempted to do with Dunkirk - bunch of dudes stuck in shit - , he mostly succeeded. The acting wasn’t great, or the writing, or the dialogue, or the attempt to impose more meaning at the end, but for 90% of its runtime it was exactly the film it was supposed to be. The Revenant wants to be a treatise on the lengths man will go to for survival or some shit but does that by cutting to snowy landscapes all the time while Leo crawls. It’s all surface level nonsense that thinks it’s far more profound than it is.

You're not gonna find me defending The Revenant. I liked that even less than Dunkirk.

But to say Dunkirk succeeds in spite of "the acting wasn’t great, or the writing, or the dialogue, or the attempt to impose more meaning at the end" is exactly why I disliked it.

Dunkirk was a good film, but it doesn't deserve to be nominated for best picture. If you disagree with this statement, you're probably a british person which disqualifies you immediately from having good taste.

Good day.

I'm still laughing that the British Clone Army wasn't able to distinguish between a mute French Soldier because he also looked and behaved exactly like them 😂

By reilo Go To PostI had issues with it lol
I saw it in IMAX as well. The boat scenes not being shot with an IMAX camera were pretty jarring.
Soldiers aren't just some sort of homogeneous entity that you can just paint with a singular brush and define them by a singular motivation. But beyond that point, you could at least spend some time providing some sort of background or character study to fill in a few gaps. The reason you couldn't tell a single soldier apart from another? That's because Nolan failed to distinguish them as their own entities. The only noteworthy character that even had some sort of distinguishing characteristics that we were able to witness any sort of depth throughout the movie was Cillian Murphy's character and it was easily the strongest character of the group.

And god, that ending on the train reading Churchill is still so damn hokey.

But that's exactly his intention. It wasn't about some soldier and his poor parents already losing child number 1 and now child 2 is also participating or a small squad surviving against all odds.

It was about that huge number of soldiers trying to survive in a situation that could have ended in a disaster. The logistics of transporting thousands of soldiers in a situation that could have ended Great Britains involvement in the war. And it's first and foremost about the anonimity being on the beach with thousands of others that you don't know, but share your fate and there's only one thing they all want. Survive that situation and getting home.
It's a different approach from the usual war movies that focus on specific soldiers, that focus on specific groups. I get that this isn't for everybody, the structure isn't for everybody and people rather stick to what they're used to. But Nolan suceeded in what he was trying to pull off. He got the feeling of anonimity, the desperation and the scale of that operation.

So yeah, I can see why you don't like it and got no problem with the criticism. I enjoyed it for what it was and what the movie was trying to do, allthough it's far from a masterpiece.

Anyway fuck the Oscars.
Gonna watch Blade Runner soon.

Watched the extended version of the Handmaiden two days ago.
What a fantastic movie. The cinematography was amazing at times, so was the setting. The actors they picked were also on point and fuck me I might be a bit premature, but I laughed so damn often. Especially when those reading sessions came up and those old guys were dreaming D:
A bit long and a few of the different PoV scenes that are being repeated could have been cut, but I have yet to see a bad movie from Chan-wook Park.
Such a shame they didn't bother to bring that movie into the cinema and another reason to avoid shitty cinemas and rather watch good things at home. Hopefully those cunts crash and suffocate on their endless superhero circlejerk and brainless action shit.