90th Academy Awards (Oscars)

Anyone seen any of the foreign films?

Too early...I just managed to see Loving Vincent, and that wasn't exactly in a multiplex, but in what I would translate as "Art house cinema". And I had to go to an evening showing to see it.

But that shouldn't be an issue for the voters, they get the movies after all delivered to them.

Yes I would assume the voters see them, I was wondering if anyone on this forum had. I'm debating watching The Square on PPV.

I saw Darkest Hour, Oldman definitely deserved the Oscar nomination. The film itself felt a little unclear with it's direction, and suffered a bit from Ending Fatigue as the climax was three speeches back to back.

The most interesting thing for me was that, as an American, I don't really understand how the British Parliament works (especially it's relationship with the King) and it was an interesting look into that process.

I think it is in the same realm as The Post, well made but more important as a reflection of the current social/political climate than on it's own.

I'm surprised how you can't even tell that it's Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill there.

Not being able to tell it's Gary Oldman is one of Gary Oldman's specialties.

I liked the Darkest Hour as a solid drama with a creative central concept. As I put it in my review, it's effectively a war film where the entire war is waged with words. You have scenes of Churchill crafting speeches treated with the same gravitas you'd have scenes of soldiers marching. Churchill delivering his speeches is played much in the manner of a Big Badass Battle Sequence, so forth.

And of course there's a tour de force perfomance by Gary Oldman.

I'm just gonna guess that Daniel Day-Lewis is gonna earn his final Oscar what with his "retirement", and because of that, Oldman will get snubbed because "you can vote for Oldman any time"

You’re implying that Daniel Day-Lewis hasn’t simply been Gary Oldman playing the long con all this time.

Yes, he'll rip off his Oldman mask when he accepts the award, and have a good laugh.

So what is PricewaterhouseCoopers going to do with the envelopes in order to avoid a repeat of last year's Best Picture error?

Tell the guys holding them to pay attention?

That was one of the all-time Oscar moments. Probably only rivaled by David Niven's streaker.

And god knows it could have major consequences, considering Best Film Oscar winners are often forgotten more quickly than the losers.

edited 9th Feb '18 2:28:19 PM by Lyendith

Long article about how the films on top of the box office don't get nominated for Oscars anymore.

https://www.theringer.com/2018/2/7/16984532/oscars-best-picture-2009-10-nominees-dark-knight-superheroes-star-wars-last-jedi-wonder-woman-logan

I can't see why this is a problem.

I think it is rather obnoxious that an Oscar worthy film has come to mean not a film which is great in its genre, but a certain limited type of movie. Biopics, inspiring minorities/disabled/poor people, indie dramas. Those types of films are not inherently more distinguished or valuable or competent than other genres.

edited 9th Feb '18 5:51:17 PM by wisewillow

I don't really see what the point of the article is… The author basically complains that there aren't enough blockbusters nominated for best film?

…You know, I'm wondering if the "best film" category shouldn't be split into broad sub-categories (like I don't know, Best Drama Flim, Best Comedy Film, Best Action Film…) As it is, either you end up comparing apples with oranges, or you end up nominating a very narrow type of movies, as said.

edited 9th Feb '18 5:59:21 PM by Lyendith

Then you’ll just get issues like The Martian winning a Golden Globe for best comedy

They view themselves as the vanguard of standards, so filthy movies for the unwashed masses will never win awards. As much as I liked it, Birdman won Best Picture because it condemned the superhero genre.

edited 9th Feb '18 7:15:12 PM by Beatman1

Wait, it's wrong to like The Martian?

It wasn’t a comedy.

It somehow won Best Comedy.

edited 9th Feb '18 7:47:46 PM by Beatman1

Oh, I see.

I think Mad Max should have won in its year. Honestly, the movie got awards en masse in the "lesser" categories (meaning the ones for which it is okay to nominated genre movies), walking away with more nominations and wins than everything else that year, while the winning movie barely got any other awards. If a movie does that well in so many areas, it should get the nod.

But then, there was a period in which it was the other way around. Like the year in which Forrest Gump won over Shawshank's Redemption. The former was the popular, well-known one, but Shawshank's Redemption was not only the best movie of that year, it is imho one of the best movies of all time.

On a related note, Fury Road deserved more acclaim.

Well, Oscar or not, Fury Road is already considered a classic, no matter what the Academy says.

…Huh… Then I got nothing. Unless the nomminees can object to the category they're put in.

edited 10th Feb '18 6:43:06 AM by Lyendith

It got almost universally positive reviews and everybody who saw it raves about it and it got a best picture nom.

What more do you think it deserved ?

The movie that should have won in 1994 isn't The Shawshank Redemption, it's Pulp Fiction.

I think that if we have to err on one side or the other, it's better to err on this side with acclaimed films that don't make a lot at the box office over just giving the Oscar to whatever comic book movie tops the charts. One could make a case that nominating The Last Jedi over Call Me by Your Name or Phantom Thread (hurts me to say this as I am a huge PTA fanboy but I think Phantom Thread is his weakest movie) would have been a good idea, but we don't need to be turning the Oscars over to Marvel. The Oscars are the last part of the movie industry that haven't been overwhelmed by the superhero virus.