Recently Watched Movies/General Movie Discussion

pls exaggerate

How can someone who spent half a film immobile, slumped over in a wheelchair whilst pulling a funny face and letting a computer do all his talking win best actor?

I don't like Neil Patrick Harris.

Also, Birdman sounded pretentious when Ra's described it, so I'm not happy that it won those awards.

Which one of these nominated were better than it?

American Sniper
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

For me The Grand Budapest Hotel is the only film on that list that was close to Birdman.

For screenplay of the films nominated I think Nightcrawler should have won instead of Birdman.

The Grand Budapest Hotel and The Imitation Game, in my opinion.

I haven't seen any of them, but I can't look past Cumberbatch or Wes Anderson.

The Imitation Game was too British and too gay for me. In the same way American Sniper was too American and too straight.

I know what you mean with American Sniper.  I had to make so many excuses in order to not see that film with anyone, I didn't want them to know that I am sensitive to violence and war films in general and prefer introspective hipster films.  They might have realized I wasn't alpha.

Some real technical criticism going on in here, one guy who says a movie is "too British and gay" and one who hasn't even watched the movies

The ceremony was shit enough but I dont think there's any real surprises or undeserved wins in the big categories. It was always going to be between Birdman and Boyhood for best film, and although both make good use of their 'gimmick' (Birdman being basically a one shot and Boyhood being shot over 12 years) Birdman felt more like the style added to the story telling whereas Boyhood just seemed to be lets shoot a movie over 12 years; still cool but the story was meh. Personally though my favourite film was Whiplash.

The only one I thought could have went different was best actor. Keaton was amazing but then again Redmayne's performance was just like watching Hawking so I can't really hold it against him.

Stick most people in a chair and tell them to lick their shoulder while Microsoft Sam does all their talking and they'll invariably "be" Hawking as well.

Keyser Söze wrote:Which one of these nominated were better than it?

American Sniper
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

For me The Grand Budapest Hotel is the only film on that list that was close to Birdman.

For screenplay of the films nominated I think Nightcrawler should have won instead of Birdman.

Nah, Boyhood was a much more earnest and profound film than Birdman could ever hope to be. At least it lets everything that it wants to say be communicated organically through the narrative rather than try to force it down your throat. Haven't seen Selma, The Theory of Everything or American Sniper so I can't comment (two of those I chose not to watch because they seemed completely unappealing). Grand Budapest, for me, is the second best in the pack followed by Whiplash.

Sean, the gimmick in Boyhood was utilized much more effectively than that in Birdman. The authenticity achieved by Boyhood could not have been sustained otherwise whereas I still don't really know what the purpose of Innaritu's long take was.

Ra's al Ghul wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:Which one of these nominated were better than it?

American Sniper
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

For me The Grand Budapest Hotel is the only film on that list that was close to Birdman.

For screenplay of the films nominated I think Nightcrawler should have won instead of Birdman.

Nah, Boyhood was a much more earnest and profound film than Birdman could ever hope to be. At least it lets everything that it wants to say be communicated organically through the narrative rather than try to force it down your throat. Haven't seen Selma, The Theory of Everything or American Sniper so I can't comment (two of those I chose not to watch because they seemed completely unappealing). Grand Budapest, for me, is the second best in the pack followed by Whiplash.

Sean, the gimmick in Boyhood was utilized much more effectively than that in Birdman. The authenticity achieved by Boyhood could not have been sustained otherwise whereas I still don't really know what the purpose of Innaritu's long take was.

Well it gives the film a claustrophobic, frantic kind of feeling. It also mirrors the sort of play within a play of the Carver drama that Norton and Keaton act out, which is fitting given that a lot of the Carver play is quite thematically similar to Birdman as a film.

Also what exactly is it that Boyhood is trying to say? I don't really get the point of the movie beyond the gimmick, although I did enjoy it.

I'm with Sean on that one. If you take away both gimmicks I think Birdman would still be the more interesting film. Boyhood would be what?

Sean wrote:Some real technical criticism going on in here, one guy who says a movie is "too British and gay" and one who hasn't even watched the movies

Keyser and I provide the "two blokes at a pub" perspective on films.

And considering we rarely if ever go to pubs we pulled that shit off well.

Boyhood was utter fucking shit. The last hour was the most painful experience of any film I've seen in a cinema.

I've only seen TGBH out of those movies and I enjoyed it.

That and Imitation Game were the only ones I genuinely enjoyed throughout and would watch again.

I just watched an interview with Eddie Redmayne, he seems like the kind of person I would hate in real life.  All of that fake "oh, that's a great question" and "thank you so much" makes me sick.  Posh git.

I always have an issue with those what-if scenarios but I do believe that without the gimmick Boyhood would still be a beautiful film that expertly depicts the passing of time and captures the essence of childhood as well as any film that I've ever seen. With the gimmick these elements are given an air of authenticity that elevates every aspect of the film. It provoked genuine reflection from me (as I'm sure it would have for most who watched it since one of the film's flaws is that characterizations are painted using very broad strokes making relatability an almost foregone conclusion) and that is something that very few films can achieve.

BG, is Edward Hardy in your list of top 5 actors?

Glen Miller wrote:I just watched an interview with Eddie Redmayne, he seems like the kind of person I would hate in real life.  All of that fake "oh, that's a great question" and "thank you so much" makes me sick.  Posh git.

He's proper cunt I saw him in a film where he had incest with his mother and instantly despised him.

Glen Miller wrote:BG, is Edward Hardy in your list of top 5 actors?

Lol, I had no idea his name was Edward. He's up there. His performance in Locke was one of the best of 2014.

If you guys havent seen Whiplash yet you really should, that last 15 minutes or so is just incredible.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with Michael Keaton now, I wonder if this will be a re ignition of his career.

Haven't seen many of the films at the Oscars this year, they don't appeal to me as much as the last year ones did. I've seen Grand Budapest, the only other that I actively want to see is Birdman. I passively want to see American Sniper and Whiplash and I actively don't want to see Theory of Everything and Boyhood.

Last year I saw everything nominated for Best picture other than Philomena.

The only ones I havent seen this year are Selma and American Sniper, don't particulary care about Selma at all. 

Anyone in the know pick out a really good year of nominees? I'm sure there's alot of stuff I've missed out on watching

Why would you use Oscar nominations as a frame of reference for what you should or shouldn't watch? They occasionally get it right but most of the time they do a terrible job of actually recognising the year's best material.

Nightcrawler and Gone Girl are two glaring omissions.

Ra's al Ghul wrote:Why would you use Oscar nominations as a frame of reference for what you should or shouldn't watch? They occasionally get it right but most of the time they do a terrible job of actually recognising the year's best material.

No need to go all hipster snob. More often than not movies that are nominated for an Oscar will be movies worth watching, simple as that.