Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:57 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
What SHOULD Win Best Picture? 

What's most deserving?
127 Hours 10%  10%  [ 3 ]
Black Swan 21%  21%  [ 6 ]
The Fighter 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Inception 21%  21%  [ 6 ]
The Kids Are All Right 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
The King's Speech 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
The Social Network 17%  17%  [ 5 ]
Toy Story 3 14%  14%  [ 4 ]
True Grit 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Winter's Bone 10%  10%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 29

What SHOULD Win Best Picture? 
Author Message
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6475
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
SoundSanity wrote:


...Anyway I was happy The King's Speech won. It's rare that the Academy actually recognizes my favorite film of the year; it hadn't happened since 2003. They obviously don't listen to me much.


Those bastards!

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:45 pm
Profile
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
Inorite!?


Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:42 am
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
PeachyPete wrote:
And that's why you're the man. 127 Hours deserves way more love on the forum that it's getting. People seem to think it was good/solid, and I think it's damn near great. It accomplishes everything it sets out to do in an entertaining, stylish way. Boyle's most assured work...


Is still Trainspotting; if 127 Hours was his most assured work he would have let the material speak for itself as opposed to overtly glossing over it, fortunately the material/acting is good enough that Boyle's accomplishments outdo his pitfalls.


Tue May 03, 2011 12:07 am
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
JJoshay wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
And that's why you're the man. 127 Hours deserves way more love on the forum that it's getting. People seem to think it was good/solid, and I think it's damn near great. It accomplishes everything it sets out to do in an entertaining, stylish way. Boyle's most assured work...


Is still Trainspotting; if 127 Hours was his most assured work he would have let the material speak for itself as opposed to overtly glossing over it, fortunately the material/acting is good enough that Boyle's accomplishments outdo his pitfalls.



Hi there JJoshay

Your sig is so confusing, but maybe that's the idea....
Anyways, I think Danny Boyle brings real energy to his stories and 127 Hours needed this because a straight retelling may have fallen into the world of grim and horrific.

Rob


Tue May 03, 2011 12:23 am
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
JJoshay wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
And that's why you're the man. 127 Hours deserves way more love on the forum that it's getting. People seem to think it was good/solid, and I think it's damn near great. It accomplishes everything it sets out to do in an entertaining, stylish way. Boyle's most assured work...


Is still Trainspotting; if 127 Hours was his most assured work he would have let the material speak for itself as opposed to overtly glossing over it, fortunately the material/acting is good enough that Boyle's accomplishments outdo his pitfalls.


I disagree here. There isn't enough of a story to just let the material speak for itself. How does letting the material speak for itself equate to assured? It goes completely against Boyle's style. It sounds like you're advocating a different directorial style, and in turn, a different director. That isn't really evaluating what Boyle's done. That's just saying you dislike it and want something different.

He accentuates what the story represents through symbolism and metaphor. I get the complaint that Boyle's work is often overly stylized, and usually I agree. Not in the case of 127 Hours, however. The man connects water and the need for human interaction! He manages to make a real film out of a pretty sparse story (guy gets stuck, cuts arm off, lives). This is a story that absolutely had to be stylized in order to work. I can't imagine a film about Aron Ralston that's simply him with his arm stuck. Sure, he'd get out and that'd be great, but a straightforward telling of this material would be fairly uninteresting. I'd rather read the news report.

Like I've been saying for months, Boyle gives the film a reason to exist. He saw a message in the story and hashed that out by combining storytelling with film technique, symbolism, and metaphor. I don't really know what else you could ask for in a film.


Tue May 03, 2011 11:38 am
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
Co-sign the above. If Boyle was to "let the material speak for itself" then why have Boyle do it anyway? It might as well be a Lifetime movie. Yes, the story is very interesting by itself, but Boyle has the balls to shape it into something deeper: an actual movie.


Tue May 03, 2011 12:53 pm
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
PeachyPete wrote:
I disagree here. There isn't enough of a story to just let the material speak for itself. How does letting the material speak for itself equate to assured? It goes completely against Boyle's style. It sounds like you're advocating a different directorial style, and in turn, a different director. That isn't really evaluating what Boyle's done. That's just saying you dislike it and want something different.

He accentuates what the story represents through symbolism and metaphor. I get the complaint that Boyle's work is often overly stylized, and usually I agree. Not in the case of 127 Hours, however. The man connects water and the need for human interaction! He manages to make a real film out of a pretty sparse story (guy gets stuck, cuts arm off, lives). This is a story that absolutely had to be stylized in order to work. I can't imagine a film about Aron Ralston that's simply him with his arm stuck. Sure, he'd get out and that'd be great, but a straightforward telling of this material would be fairly uninteresting. I'd rather read the news report.

Like I've been saying for months, Boyle gives the film a reason to exist. He saw a message in the story and hashed that out by combining storytelling with film technique, symbolism, and metaphor. I don't really know what else you could ask for in a film.


ed_metal_head wrote:
Co-sign the above. If Boyle was to "let the material speak for itself" then why have Boyle do it anyway? It might as well be a Lifetime movie. Yes, the story is very interesting by itself, but Boyle has the balls to shape it into something deeper: an actual movie.


Did his direction become distracting in either Trainspotting or 28 Days Later? No, but I was acutely aware of it here. If you don't remember I gave the film a good rating and didn't think it was bad, but I certainly think that Boyle could have calmed the flair down a bit and have got just as good if not a better movie. It's filled with great touches, good ones and not so good ones; thats the threat of being a director who handles films such as Boyle. He's one of my favorite directors working today but he's not flawless and 127 Hours is not his perfect darling child of a movie. There are many excesses the film could have done without. I never said I dislike the film and want something different, but I've pointed out what I think he did wrong and how he could have done it better.

P.S. - Saying that he should let the material speak for itself doesn't mean tell it straight forward like a Lifetime movie.


Tue May 03, 2011 8:05 pm
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
ed_metal_head wrote:
Co-sign the above. If Boyle was to "let the material speak for itself" then why have Boyle do it anyway? It might as well be a Lifetime movie. Yes, the story is very interesting by itself, but Boyle has the balls to shape it into something deeper: an actual movie.


100% agree
I've listened to several Danny Boyle interviews and it perspective is as per yours and other posts
Rob


Tue May 03, 2011 10:25 pm
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
JJoshay wrote:
Did his direction become distracting in either Trainspotting or 28 Days Later? No, but I was acutely aware of it here. If you don't remember I gave the film a good rating and didn't think it was bad, but I certainly think that Boyle could have calmed the flair down a bit and have got just as good if not a better movie. It's filled with great touches, good ones and not so good ones; thats the threat of being a director who handles films such as Boyle. He's one of my favorite directors working today but he's not flawless and 127 Hours is not his perfect darling child of a movie. There are many excesses the film could have done without. I never said I dislike the film and want something different, but I've pointed out what I think he did wrong and how he could have done it better.

P.S. - Saying that he should let the material speak for itself doesn't mean tell it straight forward like a Lifetime movie.


I'd like to know what, exactly, were your issues with what Boyle did with the film. You may have talked about this elsewhere on the forum, but I don't remember and I'm not about to go search for it. With your posts in this thread you've basically just named Boyle films you like better and claimed 127 Hours is overdirected. I'd honestly like to hear your complaints. I don't think it's really fair to say he overtly glossed over the material, as I see all of his directorial flourishes as accenting the story.

He applied his style to a particular story. I think it works completely and I'm interested in hearing what you think didn't work.


Wed May 04, 2011 10:40 am
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
Robert Holloway wrote:
Hi there JJoshay

Your sig is so confusing, but maybe that's the idea....

Rob


Hey Rob...it's from the Where should I start? thread from the Great Movies section.

http://reelviews.net/reelviewsforum/viewtopic.php?p=28178#p28178

I was talking about my viewing of Apocalypse Now.

By the way, JJ...thanks for that.


Wed May 04, 2011 3:30 pm
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
PeachyPete wrote:
I'd like to know what, exactly, were your issues with what Boyle did with the film. You may have talked about this elsewhere on the forum, but I don't remember and I'm not about to go search for it. With your posts in this thread you've basically just named Boyle films you like better and claimed 127 Hours is overdirected. I'd honestly like to hear your complaints. I don't think it's really fair to say he overtly glossed over the material, as I see all of his directorial flourishes as accenting the story.

He applied his style to a particular story. I think it works completely and I'm interested in hearing what you think didn't work.


Take, for example, the scene where Ralston narrates into the camera how completely and utterly screwed he is. Franco nails the performance, it was one of the best of the year, but it doesn't take long for Boyle's flourishes to the scene to become almost grating, distracting from Franco's performance and coming across as unnecessary. The laugh track for his game show narration could have been used quite effectively, but it was dragged out too long and there are other ways it could have been more effectively handled. How is this redeemed? The ending of the scene hits the nail on the head. Boyle does this a lot throughout the film, just when you're (well, apparently I) wondering why he handled a scene the way he did he does something else so well.

Sometimes this works inversely: take the shot that tracks out from Ralston and into the sky showing the desolate nothing that surrounds him. The first time it was an excellent and effective shot, but then Boyle uses it another time later in the film. The second use calls attention to itself and comes across as a hollow shell from when it was used before. It was an error on Boyle's part to recycle the shot.

Take also the use of this triple split screen Boyle takes advantage of at the beginning and end of the film.
Image
Shots one and two make sense (and as a De Palma fan I have no problem with proper use of split screen), but where the hell did the third come from?

Those are three examples of what Boyle does all too excessively throughout the film. For a more eloquent and educated way to put it down, here's two paragraphs of James Kendrick's review of the film.

James Kendrick wrote:
Director Danny Boyle set himself a fundamental cinematic challenge: How do you maintain visual and narrative interest in a story that is fundamentally about enforced stasis? Movement--visceral, kinetic movement--has been the hallmark of Boyle’s films since his auspicious directorial debut Shallow Grave. Boyle is nothing if not daring, and he has a gift for infusing his material with a vibrant energy. 127 Hours, then, would seem to be the perfect match of challenging material and resourceful director, and while Boyle brings the story to life with great gusto, his approach often feels overly forced and labored. Boyle has always been a showy filmmaker with a tendency toward overdirecting, but it’s been a while that his flash has been this distracting.

Boyle tackles the film’s primary challenge of how to fill those 127 hours--to convey the agony and monotony of entrapment without turning the film into a bore--with his usual visual aplomb, rejecting the notion of real time in favor of a relentlessly edited push and pull between Aron’s tortured subjectivity and God-like objectivity (epitomized in the shot that begins with Aron at the bottom of the crevice and pulls out until we’re thousands of feet in the air, thus emphasizing not just his isolation, but his literal smallness in the wilderness he sought to conquer with his bravado). At times this approach works marvelously, as cinematographers Enrique Chediak and Anthony Dod Mantle flood us with distorted images and canted angles to both underscore Aron’s physically suffocating confines and convey his exhausted, dehydrated state of mind. At other times, the film pushes too hard, which lays bare the cinematic trickery instead of fusing it with Aron’s emotional and spiritual experience. This is especially true of the score by A.R. Rahman, which at times overwhelms the action on-screen. Visually, sonically, and tonally, 127 Hours is too often at odds with itself in competing for our attention.


He says it better then me, and I still gave the film three stars.


Wed May 04, 2011 10:36 pm
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
ram1312 wrote:
By the way, JJ...thanks for that.


What can I say, it's one of my favorite things I've read on this forum :)


Wed May 04, 2011 10:39 pm
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
JJoshay wrote:
Take, for example, the scene where Ralston narrates into the camera how completely and utterly screwed he is. Franco nails the performance, it was one of the best of the year, but it doesn't take long for Boyle's flourishes to the scene to become almost grating, distracting from Franco's performance and coming across as unnecessary. The laugh track for his game show narration could have been used quite effectively, but it was dragged out too long and there are other ways it could have been more effectively handled. How is this redeemed? The ending of the scene hits the nail on the head. Boyle does this a lot throughout the film, just when you're (well, apparently I) wondering why he handled a scene the way he did he does something else so well.


I think that scene was rather effective, but I don't really have any issues with your stance here. It's certainly one of the times where Boyle's direction threatens to overtake the picture. Ralston is losing his grip on reality and he's showing it through his handheld camera, which he's used as a distancing device since he was a kid (which is why he's shown filming his sister in a flashback). It's another way to show the danger of living life the way Ralston went about living it.

JJoshay wrote:
Sometimes this works inversely: take the shot that tracks out from Ralston and into the sky showing the desolate nothing that surrounds him. The first time it was an excellent and effective shot, but then Boyle uses it another time later in the film. The second use calls attention to itself and comes across as a hollow shell from when it was used before. It was an error on Boyle's part to recycle the shot.


This is fair as well. Like you said it works wonderfully the first time. The second time it feels a little forced and doesn't have as much impact. However, I think this is a very slight misstep and not something I'd personally hold against the film as a whole.

JJoshay wrote:
Take also the use of this triple split screen Boyle takes advantage of at the beginning and end of the film.
Image
Shots one and two make sense (and as a De Palma fan I have no problem with proper use of split screen), but where the hell did the third come from?


I think this is one of the more brilliant shots in the entire film. It sets up, very early, the major symbolic motif the film is going to use. It's a visual metaphor shown in a progression - individuals need other people. You have Ralston, alone with his camera, in the first shot. Then you have him swimming in water in the second, which Boyle will later link to human interaction. The final shot is people. Lots of them. Boyle's saying people are as vital to life as water. Those shots pop up towards the end of the film, so I don't have a problem with Boyle inserting them here.

I also take issue with Kendrick's review you've quoted. He seems to be approaching the film from this angle:

James Kendrick wrote:
Boyle tackles the film’s primary challenge of how to fill those 127 hours--to convey the agony and monotony of entrapment without turning the film into a bore


I think that's just plain wrong. Boyle sets out to tell a story about a guy who realized he was living his life all wrong, and has to pay a pretty severe price in order to redeem himself. I don't think Boyle sets out to "convey the agony and monotony of entrapment". Sure, Ralston gets trapped, and there is a fair amount of agony and monotony involved in his predicament, but that certainly isn't what the film is about.


Thu May 05, 2011 11:14 am
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
I'm not sure I'm quite as sold on the people as vital as water motif as you are, but to each his own there.

As for your issue with Kendrick's review, I think he was talking more about how Boyle took his style to keep the film interesting as opposed to how he approached the subtleties of the material. Thats how I read it at least.


Thu May 05, 2011 7:42 pm
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2307
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
1. Black Swan: A
2. The Social Network: A
3. Inception: A
4. The Fighter: A-
5. Toy Story 3: A-
6. Winter's Bone: B+
7. 127 Hours: B
8. True Grit: B
9. The King's Speech: B-
10. The Kids Are Alright: B-


Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 235
Post Re: What SHOULD Win Best Picture?
ilovemovies wrote:
1. Black Swan: A
2. The Social Network: A
3. Inception: A
4. The Fighter: A-
5. Toy Story 3: A-
6. Winter's Bone: B+
7. 127 Hours: B
8. True Grit: B
9. The King's Speech: B-
10. The Kids Are Alright: B-


I thought that the King's speech was better that you2 1, 2 and 3
I would be inclined to list it as follows
The King's Speech:
True Grit:
Toy Story 3:
Didn't really like
Black Swan
Inception:
The Social Network:
didn't see it
127 Hours:
The Kids Are Alright:
The Fighter:
Winter's Bone:


Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:45 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr