Jump to content
Hondo's Bar

Brokeback Oscar, The Titanic returns


Recommended Posts

Brokeback Oscar, The Titanic returns, What's wrong with the Academy this year?

 

oscar5ym.jpg

Tell it like it is Oscar

 

 

 

This year sucks, outside of Paul Haggis' Crash, I'm really not all that interested. Brokeback Mountain, is very over rated indeed and the very people who claim to love this film are the exact ones that won't embrace the tabooistic culture of that content of the movie. look, it's no secret that 2005 wasn't the best year in film production.

It's true now I know alot of you are going to jump Ol' MM for saying so but , it wasn't so relax and just listen to what I have to say...

 

This year Titanic has returned, and with the band we all play into it as this ship called "Oscar" sinks into the abyss of movie oblivion...

 

________________

 

bilde5it.jpg

My hope is on Dillon winning, as he should.

 

 

Best film of 2005 (according to me)

Crash pulls it off effortlessly, mainly because the contrivance is not just there to provide convenient narrative fireworks, rather each co-incidence throws the nature of the characters into sharp relief, revealing depths of motive and feeling that go to the heart of what the film is about - fundamentally good people trying to do the right thing and occasionally failing, either because of the pressures that surround them, or because of their lack of ability to give somebody else the benefit of the doubt.

 

The other astonishing thing about this film is that it presents us with a group of people each of whom, with one notable exception, does something utterly unforgivable during the course of the day. Each awful act, if taken alone, would be enough to condemn each character as the villain of the piece, and yet so well drawn, so fully realised and completely credible are these characters' lives and dilemmas, that we end up understanding and sympathising with them as they have their momentary breakdowns and one by one cross the line.

 

It seems churlish to pick out any one performance for special praise as everybody is just amazing, but Don Cheadle provides the still point at the centre of the film, anchoring it with the extreme subtlety of his performance, and that Ludacris, making his screen debut, seems comfortable and credible amongst such seasoned veterans, is a huge testament to his natural talent and dedication.

 

But this is Haggis' film; his characters, his city, his vision. It's deeply human and empathetic, observational without being judgemental, compassionate without being soft, shocking without being gratuitous, clever and contrived but never for a moment predictable or easy.

 

If this doesn't win Best Screenplay there's no justice. In fact, if this doesn't sweep the board at the Oscars for the categories it was nominated for then what, pray tell, is the point of the Academy at all?

 

 

Brokeback Bullshit

 

103652__brokeback_l.jpg

 

Ang Lee has become one of today's greatest contemporary filmmakers? Are you shitting me?

Two cowboys in Wyoming discover to their surprise that they love each other. They have no way to deal with that fact. Directed by Ang Lee, it's based on a short story by E. Annie Proulx and a screenplay by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana. In the summer of 1963, Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) find themselves one night on a distant mountainside suddenly having sex.

 

...suddenly having sex... :2T:

 

"You know I ain't queer," Ennis tells Jack after their first night together. "Me, neither," says Jake. But their love lasts a lifetime and gives them no consolation, because they cannot accept its nature and because they fear, not incorrectly, that in that time and place they could be murdered if it were discovered.

 

Oh, what a sad and lonely story this is, containing what truth and sorrow. And boringggggggggggggggggggggggg... if this movie didn't have strong homosexual undertones it would be another mundane, boring love romance story about the 2 people who could never have each other, secret lovers, ok Mrs. Jones...

 

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity and another thing, it's a fucking Cowboy movie at it's roots with the only claim of interest is the .....oh yeah, previously mentioned HOMOSEXUAL overtones... other than that I am also disappointed that Gyllenhaal did this film. I enjoyed him in Jarhead, also an excellent movie choice this year. Shame on you Jake.

 

If Brokeback Mountain sweeps I will be very disappointed.

 

 

Personal faves that weren't nominated...

 

story.jpg

 

"King Kong": Why because Jackson kicked ass with a LOTR ROTK sweep last time? He deserved to.

 

King Kong is a stupendous cliffhanger, a glorious adventure, a shameless celebration of every single resource of the blockbuster, told in a film of visual beauty and surprising emotional impact. Of course, this will be the most popular film of the year, and nothing wrong with that: If movies like "King Kong" didn't delight us with the magic of the cinema, we'd never start going in the first place.

 

Peter Jackson's triumph is not a remake of the 1933 classic so much as a celebration of its greatness and a flowering of its possibilities. Its most particular contribution is in the area of the heart: It transforms the somewhat creepy relationship of the gorilla and the girl into a celebration of empathy, in which a vaudeville acrobat (Naomi Watts) intuitively understands that when Kong roars he isn't threatening her but stating his territorial dominance; she responds with acrobatics that delight him, not least because Kong has been a gorilla few have ever tried to delight. From their relationship flows the emotional center of the film, which spectacular special effects surround and enhance, but could not replace.

 

 

050527_CinderellaMan_xtrawi.jpg

 

"Cinderella Man": Russell Crowe gives another strong performance in the comeback story of boxer Jim Braddock, who was washed up after an injury but fought back from poverty to win the heavyweight title from the dreaded Max Baer. Crowe's accomplishment is to play Braddock as a good man, even-tempered, loyal to his family above all. This film was excellent and had altogether brilliant performances by the cast, especially Crowe who seems to embibe his role to the fullest in all his movies.

 

Walk the Line should have been nominated as well. I won't be watching the Oscars this year as it is already disappointing. I haven't been excited about the Oscars since Foster and Hopkins won in the same year anyway? The Academy is a joke.

 

 

The G Factor

 

5020154191125.jpg

 

********** Thoughts on Giamatti- I think Paul Giamatti is one of the most influencial character actors to ever do film, his portrayal is worthy of Oscar nomination in his most serious of roles. I also hope for biased reasons he does indeed win as he should have for Sideways. His role in Cinderella Man was fantastic.

Edited by MusicManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should have been nominated for best picture... IMO...

 

kingdomheaven981b3fr.jpg

 

Perhaps the only way for a Hollywood film to diplomatically depict a conflict between Christians and Muslims is by setting the story nearly 1,000 years ago. "Kingdom of Heaven" is about as "fair and balanced" in this respect as one should expect from a post-9/11 release.

 

Director Ridley Scott uses the medieval Crusades as a metaphor for today's fundamental religious division ... and as an excuse for a rousing action-epic. Like Scott's "Gladiator," the movie simultaneously embraces and rises above the sword-and-tunic clichés that define it.

 

"To kill an infidel is not murder; it is the path to heaven."

 

So repeats a bystander in Jerusalem hoping to recruit soldiers to his cause. The interesting thing is that the man could be Christian or Muslim, because this same dogmatic ideal is being used to throw fire on an uneasy truce among the cultures that coexist in the Holy Land.

 

"Kingdom of Heaven" begins in 1104 (between the Second and Third Crusades) with Balian (Orlando Bloom), a recently widowed French blacksmith, being recruited by the Crusader knight father he never knew (Liam Neeson) to accompany the man to Jerusalem.

 

Already enduring a crisis of faith after his wife's suicide, Balian initially balks until a village priest informs him the quest "may relieve your wife's position in hell."

 

Before long, Balian has inherited his father's standing and is thrust into a power struggle between the caretakers of the walled city. Baldwin IV (Edward Norton) -- the Leper King -- holds a tenuous rule, philosophically flanked by peaceable knight Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) and warmongering baron Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas). Balian also gets scabbard-deep in a romance with Baldwin's sister, Sibylla (Eva Green), who is married to de Lusignan.

 

Meanwhile, the formidable Muslim leader Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) waits outside the city with a force of 200,000, poised to use recent Christian atrocities as an excuse to reclaim the territory.

 

Sure, the who's and why's of "Kingdom" are initially confusing -- probably the result of all the characters in the film with the exception of Neeson's being based on historical figures. Scott and screenwriter William Monahan try to bring some factual resonance to the project, and they succeed at detailing the politics and scope of the Crusades.

 

Like "Troy" and the last two "Lord of the Rings" flicks, the movie centers on a siege. But rather than concentrate solely on the catapults and ballistas, the piece becomes more of a mental chess match between Balian and Saladin.

 

This leads to a refreshingly un-Hollywood ending where the real victory comes at the hands of diplomacy not the hilt of a sword.

 

Filmmaker Scott still proves more adept at creating a "look" than staging action scenes. During battles he resorts to extreme close-ups, jumpy screen grabs and slow-motion photography. As in "Gladiator," the outcome looks more chaotic than choreographed.

 

Fortunately, the overall visual design adds authenticity to the images. Despite being shot in Spain and Morocco, the movie does a fascinating job of recreating the cosmopolitan Jerusalem. Even when Scott is a bit heavy handed on the production design -- as his penchant for countryside scenes where snow and/or ash chokes the air as if the knights were removing asbestos -- "Kingdom" captures the feel of the Middle Ages better than most epics.

 

Orlando Bloom's acting is superb, along the greats Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson.

Edited by MusicManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was so in love with "Crash" until the last ten minutes or so. Then I felt ass loved, and not in the Ennis and Jack way, but rather in the Aff at the end of "Mallrats" way. Matt Dillion and Don Cheadle were the tits alright but no love for Luda or Terrence Howard? Fuck...Thandie Newton and Sandra Bullock were great too and I'm a sucker for William Fitchner.

 

Tell the truth I've still not gone to see "Brokeback Mountain" but am planning it before the end of the week. I was actually thinking of going on Super Bowl Sunday (fuck I care about the SuperBowl? Then again Aretha Franklin could let her titty pop out....) but we'll see.

 

As for overlooked nominations where the fuck is "Sin City" for make-up, visual effects or film editing...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MM says the oscars have sucked since Silence of the Lambs, but I say in 1999 when American Beauty won was a great year too. Sure, TONS of great films were over looked, but that was one of the best years for film barnone. Election was overlooked, Fight Club was overlooked Beng John Malchovich was overlooked, but in the end, the years best (and possibly most daring) film won, so who care. I don't think any of these films winning could out-champion the injustice of Pulp Fiction losing to Forrest Gump. THAT was a traveshamockery.

 

And Paul Giamatti will always be remembered for having the Sideways performanc overlooked, but It was his performance in American Splendor that wasn't even nominateed, taht I feel is among the best performances of all time by any actor in any film. That was ALMOST as big a traveshamockery as Pulp Fiction losing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i still have to see Sideways, too.

 

But im not with Jax here - Pulp Fiction was indeed an amazing film, and one of Tarentino's best. But losing to Forrest Gump surprises you? Its an epic drama vs pulp...fiction. Im not nearly as familiar with the academy as Junker or SB, but i know they tend to favor things from this genre, and its not like Hanks did a sloppy job...its one of the movies up there with Shawshank that you have people watch to make sure theyre not dead inside or soemthing. I dont like comparing it to Pulp at all, but given the academy's lean towards movies of that type - not to mnetion controversy around Pulp Fiction at the time - i just dont see what's surprising you here. Pulp didnt need an oscar to be an amazing film, anyway.

 

ps nice link, Jont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a fucking great link, Jont.

 

And Nick, I'm not saying it was surprising, I'm just saying it was an injustice. Yes, Forrest Gump was a great movie, but are you old enough to remember just how different and chocking Pulp Fiction was when it came out? I mean, you show someone Pulp Fiction for the first time now and they like it, but it doesn't blow them away. Tarentino's style has been copied a hundred times since. The fact that a bold little art house flick like that could gross over $200 opened the flood gates in Hollywood for daring matter to get widespread release. It ushered in an era where daring movies could be scene by the public again. It shook the film world. Even though Forrest Gump was typical Oscar material, it's not like bold movie hadn't won before. Just a few years prior, Silence of the Lambs had won. It was obvious to most that Pulp Fictionwas the more important film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, I thought brokeback mountain was pretty good. Certainly not best picture though, that belongs to Goodnight and Goodluck if you ask me. I don't even think brokeback should have been nominated, but the fact that it's been overrated doesn't mean we should all hate it. They could have cut ten minutes or so towards the end, so it was a bit slow, but I thought it was extremely well paced for a movie that jumps forward in time 20 years. It handled that whole device really well, I thought their relationship was believable, and their performances were excellent, especially Ledger (and that's 80% of the battle with a movie like this). I feel the way about Brokeback that i did about Million Dollar baby last year. It's a good movie that will probably win best picture because of good timing and a premise that is oscar bait. I definately reccomend seeing it though.

 

I don't know what all the hoopla over Crash is about. There were no real people in that movie. All of those characters played like racial cardboard cutouts to me. I don't think it was straight up bad, there were some good moments; but I didn't connect with anybody in that movie. The characters definately didn't need to be sympathetic, but I do prefer characters that don't act based on what the plot and message need them to do.

 

I totally agree on king kong, I think it was very underrated, and it made me feel more for it's characters than most of the nominees.

 

Not a fan of the Ron Howard sap-fest that was Cinderella man, but that's personal taste, I just can't take his filmmaking anymore. I would say Ron Howard needs to go back to making childrens movies, but he tried that already, and the Grinch sucked.

 

I think the biggest snub of the oscars this year was that Grizzly man wasn't even shortlisted for being nominated for best documentary. It was by far the best documentary this year (and this was a pretty good eyar for documentaries) and I would say one of the best films of the year. To not even nominate it for best doc is just fucking insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what all the hoopla over Crash is about. There were no real people in that movie. All of those characters played like racial cardboard cutouts to me. I don't think it was straight up bad, there were some good moments; but I didn't connect with anybody in that movie. The characters definately didn't need to be sympathetic, but I do prefer characters that don't act based on what the plot and message need them to do.

 

i most definitely agree with everything said. there was just such a complete lack of depth with the characters and situations for such a heavy topic that it pissed me off. it was like a middle school understanding of racism (and for that matter, characterization) and how it affects everyone instead of a grown up view. i wasn't even that impressed with the acting except for terrance howard and thandie newton.

 

as far as brokeback goes...the acting wasn't even in the same league as crash. plus it dealt with homosexuality in the same manner that i felt crash should have dealt with rasicm. sometimes less is more. less dialogue, fewer characters and fewer knock down drag out dramatic scenes (the locksmith and the shop owner with the gun and the little girl from crash...give me a FUCKING break...that was the cheesiest scene in the history of life). i felt that everytime some character came to a realization in crash that they were going to turn to the camera and say "see kids? racism is bad!" i don't need a play by play of whats going on in the movie. i appreciate writers and directors who have faith in their audience and leave things unsaid so you can come to your own realizations instead of having every single fucking character do it for you. i don't think brokeback is the best movie ever but i definitely think it was better than crash. as far as the oscar goes, i need to see the other movies first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Apparently everyone is ignoring it or missed it, so I guess I'm a have to play the outraged fag and call MusicManiac on this:

 

 

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity and another thing, it's a fucking Cowboy movie at it's roots with the only claim of interest is the .....oh yeah, previously mentioned HOMOSEXUAL overtones... other than that I am also disappointed that Gyllenhaal did this film. I enjoyed him in Jarhead, also an excellent movie choice this year. Shame on you Jake.

 

You don't like the movie? Fine. I'm not fond of 'advocacy vehicles' in art either. I think Brokeback was a boring ass movie and I'm happy it didn't win for THAT reason.

 

But setting aside the fact that your moral stance is kinda irrelevant to the artistic merit of the piece I still have to ask... where the hell do you get off being such a homophobic idiot?

 

YES, you're goddamn right homosexual love is equivalent to and should be as accepted as heterosexual love.

 

I'm not sure what the *it* is that you feel has had it's genuine complexity disserviced, so I'll let you clarify that one before I say more.

 

You also never said *why* you're disappointed in Gyllenhaal's choice of role, (whether it's that the movie was morally objectionable or that he picked a boring role), so I'm gonna reserve comment till you clear that up too.

 

 

=================================================

As for the other movies... I haven't seen any except Munich, being out here in jungle land, so I can't comment except to say that Munich was better than average as a movie but not oscar-worthy.

Edited by Jumbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently everyone is ignoring it or missed it, so I guess I'm a have to play the outraged fag and call MusicManiac on this:

You don't like the movie? Fine. I'm not fond of 'advocacy vehicles' in art either. I think Brokeback was a boring ass movie and I'm happy it didn't win for THAT reason.

 

But setting aside the fact that your moral stance is kinda irrelevant to the artistic merit of the piece I still have to ask... where the hell do you get off being such a homophobic idiot?

 

YES, you're goddamn right homosexual love is equivalent to and should be as accepted as heterosexual love.

 

I'm not sure what the *it* is that you feel has had it's genuine complexity disserviced, so I'll let you clarify that one before I say more.

 

You also never said *why* you're disappointed in Gyllenhaal's choice of role, (whether it's that the movie was morally objectionable or that he picked a boring role), so I'm gonna reserve comment till you clear that up too.

=================================================

As for the other movies... I haven't seen any except Munich, being out here in jungle land, so I can't comment except to say that Munich was better than average as a movie but not oscar-worthy.

 

I'd be more than happy to appease your question, althoughh it's rather odd you picked up on a quote from some several weeks ago.

 

First off, maybe I didn't post it clearly or maybe it was just that you read it differently than it was intended, but this is what I meant.

 

I am heterosexual, and by no means "Homophobic" at all. I know personally people who are gay and people who are homophobic. I am neither. What I have is a personal opinion on the movie.

 

What I stated was that the heavy overtones of the movie, and it's claim to fame is not about to people in the Midwest that fall in love, its the fact that they are gay.

 

Secondly, this movie in my opinion, does a disservice to its genuine complexity of that in and of itself.

 

you picked out only a portion of the entire thought, Jumbie, I actually said...

 

 

The movie, Directed by Ang Lee, it's based on a short story by E. Annie Proulx and a screenplay by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana. In the summer of 1963, Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) find themselves one night on a distant mountainside suddenly having sex.

 

...suddenly having sex...

 

:2T:

 

"You know I ain't queer," Ennis tells Jack after their first night together. "Me, neither," says Jake. But their love lasts a lifetime and gives them no consolation, because they cannot accept its nature and because they fear, not incorrectly, that in that time and place they could be murdered if it were discovered.

 

Oh, what a sad and lonely story this is, containing what truth and sorrow. And boringggggggggggggggggggggggg...

 

if this movie didn't have strong homosexual undertones it would be another mundane, boring love romance story about the 2 people who could never have each other, secret lovers, ok Mrs. Jones...

 

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity and another thing, it's a fucking Cowboy movie at it's roots with the only claim of interest is the .....oh yeah, previously mentioned HOMOSEXUAL overtones...

 

This movie was used as an advocacy vehicle in Hollywood and has become a cult classic amongst the gay community because of it's overtones.

 

Purely and only.

 

That's what I meant.

 

And it's not a personal view, of mine, but politically, religiously and just in the plain old news... anything "Homosexual" (quotes used to stress) is seen in today's world as morally onjectionable.

 

That's not my personal view, per se. That's common knowledge and fact. It is newsworthy and talked about around the water cooler because the element of "gay" is there.

 

That's what I meant.

 

 

other than that I am also disappointed that Gyllenhaal did this film. I enjoyed him in Jarhead, also an excellent movie choice this year. Shame on you Jake.

 

Yeah. Poor choice of role for Jake, I think it could prove to a tarnish on his future casting calls, personally.

 

Even Nick said...

 

 

ive heard a few others make MM's claim of Broke back being only standout for the homo-love, that itd be mundane otherwise - again, till i sees it, i cant really say.

 

Hope that clears that up for you.

Edited by MusicManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since you've removed yourself from the claim that homosexuality is morally objectionable, I'm just gonna say that posting in forums can be tricky with the reading of emotions and tone.

 

-----

 

You actually have not cleared up *why* exactly you're disappointed in Gyllenhal's choice. Saying it would be bad for his career isn't the same as saying you're "disappointed in his choice of roles, shame on him "

Edited by Jumbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They dont hate it. (They can't, cuz they haven't seen it)

 

They refused to WATCH it because of the homosexual content.

 

Imagine that! They voted for the best picture having refused to screen all the nominees...

 

Couple of real shitheads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Jax, I'll spare you the drama. T'was the man down under!

Wait a second, that doesn't answer my question. Is Heath Ledger Australian?

 

The only thing that has truely pissed me off this year is Sin City not getting an nomination for any technical awards. At least for Art direction, or Cinematography or Editing, or Make-up, or Sound Editing, or Sound Mixing, or Visual Effects. Go on Rottentomatoes.com. Every critic praised the visual look of this film, even the ones that hated it. That pissed me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...