Interestingly, that system is the reason I think both OUATIH and Jojo Rabbit could have a slim chance.
***ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD***
202,706 Views |
1256 Replies |
Last: 7 mo ago by Swarely
Nice, thanks for the heads up.
SIAP: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-01-22/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-brad-pitt-leonardo-dicaprio-quentin-tarantino-oscars
Another good 3 man interview with Tarantino, Dicaprio, and Pitt. Talk of the early lean years included.
Another good 3 man interview with Tarantino, Dicaprio, and Pitt. Talk of the early lean years included.
i think he probably killed her. but what's great about tarantino's movies, is you kind feel like she had it coming, and it doesn't make you enjoy the character less.Rick Dalton said:
I laugh every time I watch that scene. The way Cliff cracks open the beer and it splashes right on his goggles while she's yelling at him.
No way that was planned but it's so perfect.
No way that was planned but it's so perfect.
Quote:
No way that was planned
Brian Earl Spilner
Joined:
Aug 6, 2013
Posts:
65,159
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just did a final rewatch before the Oscars.
This movie is utter perfection and pure, cinematic joy.
I love it so damn much.
That is all.
This movie is utter perfection and pure, cinematic joy.
I love it so damn much.
That is all.
TCTTS
Joined:
Mar 10, 2004
Posts:
57,054
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TCTTS said:
For the record, I was born in 1980 as well and the only old TV shows I've ever seen are the ones that used to play on Nick at Nite, and none of them were westerns or anything like that FBI show. I don't know that world any better than you do. But the whole point of cinema is to introduce us to worlds we might be unfamiliar with, and to build empathy for people we might otherwise not know or encounter. As Roger Ebert once put it, ultimately, movies are "empathy machines," and to me, the point of this one was to endear us to Sharon Tate via her tragic history and the pure joy she experiences in that movie theater. The entire film is an exercise in preserving, celebrating, and, quite literally, defending that joy of cinema by way of empathy for a soul who was otherwise lost far too soon. Rick and Cliff are Hollywood personified, and in the end, "Hollywood" is literally defending "the joy of cinema" - personified through Tate - from those who wish to kill it. I'm sure there are other interpretations, some more eloquent or accurate than mine, but that's a big part of what I took away from it, at least.
That said, I get how it's an unconventional approach, and if it didn't work for you, it didn't work for you. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Eh, yeah I get it. Honestly you (and Hollywood types) are clearly the target audience. It was good acting paired with a mediocre story that lasted too long.
I am growing a bit tired of the "poor me" Hollywood stories of Birdman and this movie. I agree with their premise (I hate superhero movies and the loss of cinema), but that doesn't make them good stories in and of themselves. I dunno, I was just underwhelmed. I expect it to win Best Picture because Hollywood loves themselves.
Parasite was the best movie of the year.
I would love to hear his interpretation of Parasite, wouldn't you?
Waltonloads08 said:TCTTS said:
For the record, I was born in 1980 as well and the only old TV shows I've ever seen are the ones that used to play on Nick at Nite, and none of them were westerns or anything like that FBI show. I don't know that world any better than you do. But the whole point of cinema is to introduce us to worlds we might be unfamiliar with, and to build empathy for people we might otherwise not know or encounter. As Roger Ebert once put it, ultimately, movies are "empathy machines," and to me, the point of this one was to endear us to Sharon Tate via her tragic history and the pure joy she experiences in that movie theater. The entire film is an exercise in preserving, celebrating, and, quite literally, defending that joy of cinema by way of empathy for a soul who was otherwise lost far too soon. Rick and Cliff are Hollywood personified, and in the end, "Hollywood" is literally defending "the joy of cinema" - personified through Tate - from those who wish to kill it. I'm sure there are other interpretations, some more eloquent or accurate than mine, but that's a big part of what I took away from it, at least.
That said, I get how it's an unconventional approach, and if it didn't work for you, it didn't work for you. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Eh, yeah I get it. Honestly you (and Hollywood types) are clearly the target audience. It was good acting paired with a mediocre story that lasted too long.
I am growing a bit tired of the "poor me" Hollywood stories of Birdman and this movie. I agree with their premise (I hate superhero movies and the loss of cinema), but that doesn't make them good stories in and of themselves. I dunno, I was just underwhelmed. I expect it to win Best Picture because Hollywood loves themselves.
Parasite was the best movie of the year.
I'm kinda with Walton on this one. I love looking deeper into movies, but this one is a weird one for me. On the surface it's a long stretch of a story with some good scenes interspersed in an oddly paced fashion - luxuriate on a way too long car ride, an odd meet-cute, or some man facing his demons scenes, but also have two of the best acting scenes you'll ever see on film (DiCaprio and the girl talking about books, and DiCaprio playing the villain keeping the girl hostage) plus a fun-bonkers final act.
But - and maybe there's something else there I'm missing - a deeper meaning being it's reflection on Hollywood/cinema and how it's there to bring art and joy, and how that just isn't the same as it used to be, has this odd "Make Hollywood Great Again" gatekeeping feel to it, that is, with all the sequel and reboot stuff, a rut we should be looking forward to new ideas and not backward to nostalgia to get out of.
Really well stated, especially the looking forward, not backward concept. This movie didn't connect with me as much because I'm of the opinion thay the gunshot from Hollywood didn't come from an outside party but was largely self inflicted.
finally saw this friday night and absolutely loved it. perfectly tarantino and pitt/dicaprio were both fantastic.
OK, honest question: Have you even seen Once Upon A Time In Hollywood? You and another poster have made comments on the last 2 or 3 pages that - while perhaps interesting or thought provoking in an abstract philosophical way - don't seem to really have anything to do with this movie.Quote:
I am growing a bit tired of the "poor me" Hollywood stories of Birdman and this movie.
It's fine if you didn't like it, but it's as if we saw two very, very different movies, because I have no idea wtf you're talking about here.
Travers predicting OUATIH to win.
pitt's getting a ton of love, and deservedly so, but leo is absolutely fantastic in this too.ac04 said:
finally saw this friday night and absolutely loved it. perfectly tarantino and pitt/dicaprio were both fantastic.
I think it it's one of Leo's best performances.jackie childs said:pitt's getting a ton of love, and deservedly so, but leo is absolutely fantastic in this too.ac04 said:
finally saw this friday night and absolutely loved it. perfectly tarantino and pitt/dicaprio were both fantastic.
Body By Fisher said:OK, honest question: Have you even seen Once Upon A Time In Hollywood? You and another poster have made comments on the last 2 or 3 pages that - while perhaps interesting or thought provoking in an abstract philosophical way - don't seem to really have anything to do with this movie.Quote:
I am growing a bit tired of the "poor me" Hollywood stories of Birdman and this movie.
It's fine if you didn't like it, but it's as if we saw two very, very different movies, because I have no idea wtf you're talking about here.
If you don't see the parallels, then I don't know what to tell you.
I enjoyed it. Just wasn't very cohesive
I didn't have much hopes for this to win Best Picture, but I was really hoping QT could get either the Screenplay or Directing awards.
Nine movies in and Tarantino STILL hasn't won for directing, it's pretty nuts. That said, when he releases his tenth and final movie, he will undoubtedly be showered in Oscar gold as a career win.
Nine movies in and Tarantino STILL hasn't won for directing, it's pretty nuts. That said, when he releases his tenth and final movie, he will undoubtedly be showered in Oscar gold as a career win.
Zombie Jon Snow said:
I suppose what you are getting at is story/acting vs. filmmaking.
Sometimes movies are so well made they win director, cinematography, sound, editing, set design etc. and cumulatively that is the best picture also.
Other times it isn't that so . much as it is the story and acting performances.
Sometimes it is both or all of that.
I've seen those three movies and two other noms and would have a hard time picking best picture among them for that reason.....but here's my brief reviews....
Once Upon a Time - great acting, story is a little meh until the end, and technically it has some great elements as usual for Tarantino, period piece aspect was well done.
1917 - technically off the charts, the size and scope is incredible, directing, cinematography, etc., the acting is good but not great.
Parasite - incredible story really, just keeps you mesmerized cuz it's so unique. some great acting too. directing, technical stuff is all very good also. really good to great in all aspects.
The Irishman - another great Scorsese flick with great performances. story is a little dry, period piece stuff is great. technical aspects did not stand out other than the de-aging of course.
Marriage Story - this is just full of great acting, and a good story but nothing special in terms of directing or technical things.
So I have not seen Ford v Ferrari, Joker, Little Women, or JoJo Rabbit. But plan to see 2 of those this weekend - Jojo and Little Women.
But based on what I've seen so far I think we might actually have the first foreign picture win Best Picture with Parasite. With none of the others standing out head and shoulders above I probably would give it to Parasite based on it being the most surprising thing I've seen this year in so many ways.
But I could see 1917 or any of those I saw winning actually. It's as wide open this year as ever I think. But that's also why I think Parasite might win as traditional voters will be split on those others and then the voting method they use becomes a factor:
They don't use a straight popular vote but something called Preferential Balloting. With more than 5 nominees the academy wanted to avoid giving best picture to some film that only got say 20% of the votes if it was well liked by just that small percentage but hated by others. So they brought back the old style preferential ballot method. In this voting method voters have to rank the nominated movies from 1 to 9. Then they disperse them effectively into piles with their top vote. If no film has more than 50% of the first place votes then they take the bottom movie out and redistribute it's votes to the 2nd picture on their list. Then again they see if one film has more than 50% of the votes cast. And they repeat that until some film does removing the bottom film and redistributing to their 2nd or 3rd choice if it was already redistributed, etc. etc.
So that's where I think Parasite can win. It might not be top among more than 50% but I think it's going to be split among 4-5 films and Parasite will be in the top 3 for many of them. That may be true of 1917 as well though. I think it's between those 2 personally.
Well I got it right. Parasite won.
#NotMyBestPicture
I saw it this afternoon and the date during the film was Saturday 2-8-1969 so had a connection
Thought it was spot on
Didn't know if Brad Pitt had walked into the neighbors house at the end by mistake
Thought it was spot on
Didn't know if Brad Pitt had walked into the neighbors house at the end by mistake
I wanna see our defense pissed off, not confused, maybe a little murder in their hearts
Reload12, 11/4/11
Guesses on what role he auditioned for?
TCTTS said:
Guesses on what role he auditioned for?
Tex???
Edit: Just checked to see he's 39. So maybe Luke Perry's role?
Featured Stories
See All
2026 Lakewood (CA) tight end Caleb Tafua commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Battle At Reed' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
22:08
2d ago
5.2k
Hefner scores 19 as No. 12 A&M overpowers HCU in Friday matinee
by Olin Buchanan
Ar'maj Reed-Adams announces his return to Texas A&M for 2025
by Richard Zane