Support NeoGAF

[HellforLeather]

into the wild is good, cursory reminder that nature doesn't give a fuck about your ideological spinning

rekt

I get that point but its still a bullshit movie.

 

[teezzy]

My favourite part from that movie.

David O Russell is such a tool lmfao

No wonder his movies are like the epitome of overrated wank

 

[MacReady13]

I remember seeing about 30 minutes of The Master. Fuck me- what complete WANK. Artsy bullshit with female lead not wearing make up to look like a "normal" person. Joaquin acting like a fucking loony toon and assorted actors doing random shit trying to win an Oscar. I sat there in utter disbelief that ANYONE could find this even remotely good...

 

[#Phonepunk#]

anyone ever see Ishtar? i only know it from those RLM jokes but it really seems like one of these

 

[MacReady13]

I'm a big David Lynch fan but I'm not a fan of Blue Velvet. It's probably his worst movie, and not in the sense that "it's the worst of the best" but I just don't like that movie much at all. Wild at Heart is probably second worst. Fire Walk with Me on the other hand is still the best movie I've ever seen.

Here's the think with Lynch- he may SEEM like he's making pretentious wank, but he is just an eccentric guy. He doesn't go out of his way to make films like the MANY mentioned in here. He just makes what is in his head. He's a fucking genius.

 

[teezzy]

Wild at Heart and Blue Velvet slap ass

 

[teezzy]

Slapping ass is a compliment btw

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Whenever people get excited about the Oscars (usually overly pretentious movies with a 'message'). I do the Oscars test.

Which Best Movie winner movies have I seen?

More than once?

Own them?

Out of the list below:

The Departed- own it and have rewatched it twice this year already.

LOTR- Every year

Gladiator- yes, of course.

Parasite- I wasn't sure at first but this movie really stuck with me. Great commentary on class systems.

I disliked most of the other ones or never watched them (never will either).

• 2020 - "Parasite
• 2019 - "Green Book"
• 2018 - "The Shape of Water"
• 2017 - "Moonlight"
• 2016 - "Spotlight"
• 2015 - "Birdman"
• 2014 - "12 Years a Slave"
• 2013 - "Argo"
• 2012 - "The Artist"
• 2011 - "The King's Speech"
• 2010 - "The Hurt Locker"
• 2009 - "Slumdog Millionaire"
• 2008 - "No Country for Old Men"
• 2007 - "The Departed"
• 2006 - "Crash"
• 2005 - "Million Dollar Baby"
• 2004 - "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
• 2003 - "Chicago"
• 2002 - "A Beautiful Mind"
• 2001 - "Gladiator"
• 2000 - "American Beauty

Damn, what a shit streak from 2009 to 2019. I actually kind of liked Moonlight and The King's Speech, but "best film?" Fuck...

I really did enjoy Parasite, though.

 

[MacReady13]

Damn, what a shit streak from 2009 to 2019. I actually kind of liked Moonlight and The King's Speech, but "best film?" Fuck...

I really did enjoy Parasite, though.

What constitutes being a "best film" though? Why not more horror? Why is it mainly drama's that get there? Why not comedy? Do they realize how hard it is to make people laugh and to scare people? I just find most of those oscar winning best films films so boring! A well written script with great performances doesn't mean I wasn't bored out of my fucking mind watching your pretentious film, much like a film with a script that falters and with performances that aren't all that great is able to hold my attention and keep me involved and intrigued.

No one could say that the greatest script and greatest performances of all time would be found in the film Back To The Future, yet off the top of your head, could you tell me what won best picture for 1985? And is it a better, more memorable film with as much lasting appeal as BTTF?
How about Pulp Fiction not winning best picture but Forrest Gump winning? How? WHY?!? Pulp Fiction changed cinema, yet Forrest Gump was schmaltzy film. I still like Forrest Gump, but better, funnier and more memorable than Pulp Fiction?!?

 

[Papa]

No Country for Old Men was fantastic, and a well deserved win for the Coen Brothers. I like Paul Thomas Anderson's work well enough and Daniel Day Lewis certainly earned that Oscar with that performance. But what the Coen's did with No Country was nothing short of miraculous and I don't think there's been a scarier villain than Anton Chigurh as played by Javier Bardem.

“miraculous”

This is what I mean. I like both of those movies but they’re just entertainment. There’s nothing miraculous about them. This kind of speak is inherited from the liberal Hollywood fart sniffers who have to hype up their own craft because they know that they’re not producing anything that’s vitally important to society.

 

[Papa]

I actually just don't watch these, I've been trying to think of one but I just watch things that appeal to me.

How do you know until you watch it. You’re basically advocating for judging a book by its cover. If I did that, I never would’ve seen Before Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight or Boyhood or Everybody Wants Some.

 

[Papa]

David O Russell is such a tool lmfao

No wonder his movies are like the epitome of overrated wank

Oh yeah Silver Linings Playbook is another one

 

[Nymphae]

How do you know until you watch it. You’re basically advocating for judging a book by its cover. If I did that, I never would’ve seen Before Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight or Boyhood or Everybody Wants Some.

Know what? And I'm not advocating the way I choose the media I consume for anyone else, just is what it is. Like I said, I just watch things that look appealing to me, if that's judging a book by it's cover, I'm ok with that. I'm not reviewing things I don't watch. Was The Post any good? I don't know, didn't watch it, looked like liberal journalism fan fiction to me. Might be good, don't care.

 

[Papa]

Know what? And I'm not advocating the way I choose the media I consume for anyone else, just is what it is. Like I said, I just watch things that look appealing to me, if that's judging a book by it's cover, I'm ok with that. I'm not reviewing things I don't watch. Was The Post any good? I don't know, didn't watch it, looked like liberal journalism fan fiction to me. Might be good, don't care.

I didn’t watch the Post either for that reason. But I’m just saying I don’t know what’s wank or not based on just the cover or a trailer.

Now that I think about it, I’ve hated everything I’ve ever seen with Meryl Streep in it. Why is she so hyped? What makes her so much better than other actresses? Is it who/what she knows rather than what she can do?

 

[Nymphae]

I didn’t watch the Post either for that reason. But I’m just saying I don’t know what’s wank or not based on just the cover or a trailer.

Now that I think about it, I’ve hated everything I’ve ever seen with Meryl Streep in it. Why is she so hyped? What makes her so much better than other actresses? Is it who/what she knows rather than what she can do?

I mean yeah I won't claim something is "wank" if I haven't seen it, but I think like most people probably do, I just tend to watch things I think I will enjoy, I couldn't even think of an example of one of these movies I've watched.

 

[Papa]

I mean yeah I won't claim something is "wank" if I haven't seen it, but I think like most people probably do, I just tend to watch things I think I will enjoy, I couldn't even think of an example of one of these movies I've watched.

I wish I had your gaydar for shit movies. Would’ve saved me a lot of time and boredom.

 

[Tesseract]

I didn’t watch the Post either for that reason. But I’m just saying I don’t know what’s wank or not based on just the cover or a trailer.

Now that I think about it, I’ve hated everything I’ve ever seen with Meryl Streep in it. Why is she so hyped? What makes her so much better than other actresses? Is it who/what she knows rather than what she can do?

dat wolfenstein factor

 

[Sakura Doritos]

You guys gotta hear this one song, it’ll change your life I swear.

Imagine hating a movie where this is the opening shot:

I'm triggered.

Um... did anyone else listen to that song while staring at that gif and think about free love in the 60s and 70s?

 

[GreyHorace]

“miraculous”

This is what I mean. I like both of those movies but they’re just entertainment. There’s nothing miraculous about them. This kind of speak is inherited from the liberal Hollywood fart sniffers who have to hype up their own craft because they know that they’re not producing anything that’s vitally important to society.

I meant miraculous in the sense that the Coen's were able to perfectly able to adapt the sparse and sometimes vividly dark prose of Cormac McCarthy for the big screen. I mean, No Country has no musical score whatsoever, but it's still able to build up suspense despite the lack of it. That to me is a triumph of directing on the Coen's part.

On another point Matt, I must respectfully disagree with your stance on entertainment and it's importance to society. I think entertainment holds great value for people, whatever medium it comes from, whether poetry, books, movies, tv shows or music. There's nothing wrong in indulging in a bit of escapism, especially in today's world where most are stuck at home with nothing to do. To quote JRR Tolkien from his essay On Fairy Stories with regards to escapism:

I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which “Escape” is now so often used: a tone for which the uses of the word outside literary criticism give no warrant at all. In what the misusers are fond of calling Real Life, Escape is evidently as a rule very practical, and may even be heroic. In real life it is difficult to blame it, unless it fails; in criticism it would seem to be the worse the better it succeeds. Evidently we are faced by a misuse of words, and also by a confusion of thought. Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? The world outside has not become less real because the prisoner cannot see it. In using escape in this way the critics have chosen the wrong word, and, what is more, they are confusing, not always by sincere error, the Escape of the Prisoner with the Flight of the Deserter.

Just so a Party-spokesman might have labelled departure from the misery of the Führer’s or any other Reich and even criticism of it as treachery. In the same way these critics, to make confusion worse, and so to bring into contempt their opponents, stick their label of scorn not only on to Desertion, but on to real Escape, and what are often its companions, Disgust, Anger, Condemnation, and Revolt. Not only do they confound the escape of the prisoner with the flight of the deserter; but they would seem to prefer the acquiescence of the “quisling” to the resistance of the patriot. To such thinking you have only to say “the land you loved is doomed” to excuse any treachery, indeed to glorify it.

I think the problem arises is when people think entertainment holds more value than anything else in life. Hence you've got your fanatics revering things like Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings (something Tolkien found appalling) as if it were some kind of new religion. Celebrity worship also stems from this, with gullible people thinking they're better than us. And it could also certainly apply to these liberal wank movies that critics like to eat up as you suggested.

 

[haxan7]

I mean yeah I won't claim something is "wank" if I haven't seen it, but I think like most people probably do, I just tend to watch things I think I will enjoy, I couldn't even think of an example of one of these movies I've watched.

Gaydar club here too. Try as I might I don’t really have any examples because I know when don’t want to watch something.

 

[Papa]

I meant miraculous in the sense that the Coen's were able to perfectly able to adapt the sparse and sometimes vividly dark prose of Cormac McCarthy for the big screen. I mean, No Country has no musical score whatsoever, but it's still able to build up suspense despite the lack of it. That to me is a triumph of directing on the Coen's part.

On another point Matt, I must respectfully disagree with your stance on entertainment and it's importance to society. I think entertainment holds great value for people, whatever medium it comes from, whether poetry, books, movies, tv shows or music. There's nothing wrong in indulging in a bit of escapism, especially in today's world where most are stuck at home with nothing to do. To quote JRR Tolkien from his essay On Fairy Stories with regards to escapism:



I think the problem arises is when people think entertainment holds more value than anything else in life. Hence you've got your fanatics revering things like Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings (something Tolkien found appalling) as if it were some kind of new religion. Celebrity worship also stems from this, with gullible people thinking they're better than us. And it could also certainly apply to these liberal wank movies that critics like to eat up as you suggested.

Sure. I never said entertainers were worthless, but they’re greatly overvalued and would be one of the first industries to go in the event of a truly disastrous social event like, say, war or economic collapse. I think they know that — and most plebs innately know it too — so the Hollywood liberal types pimp and preen themselves and shoehorn messaging into their products to convince people that they’re worth more than they are. That’s where a lot of the pretense stems from. They’re essentially in a perpetual state of lying, having to convince others that they deserve to be in the elite class that they’ve been placed in by the peaceful and prosperous times we live in. Imagine the virus causes an economic collapse on the scale of the Great Depression — who’s going to be worth more in the rebuild? Joe Blow the electrician or the guy who can cry on command?

It’s the pretense I can’t stand — the low IQ types who cling to artsy fartsy bullshit as a way of artificially moving themselves up the competence hierarchy. Actors are glorified dancing monkeys and I want to puke anytime I hear some fart-huffing critic proclaiming “a triumph!”. There’s nothing inherently intellectual about acting.

 

[GreyHorace]

Sure. I never said entertainers were worthless, but they’re greatly overvalued and would be one of the first industries to go in the event of a truly disastrous social event like, say, war or economic collapse. I think they know that — and most plebs innately know it too — so the Hollywood liberal types pimp and preen themselves and shoehorn messaging into their products to convince people that they’re worth more than they are. That’s where a lot of the pretense stems from. They’re essentially in a perpetual state of lying, having to convince others that they deserve to be in the elite class that they’ve been placed in by the peaceful and prosperous times we live in. Imagine the virus causes an economic collapse on the scale of the Great Depression — who’s going to be worth more in the rebuild? Joe Blow the electrician or the guy who can cry on command?

I can relate to this attitude. Can't celebrities do anything more other than offering prayers and inspiring speeches? Especially in the current crisis?

Take the September 11 attacks. Celebs were running telethons and doing musical performances, which is all well and good, but couldn't they have helped with the relief effort at Ground Zero, like Steve Buscemi did when he rejoined his old firefighter unit? As I posted in the Celebrity Guy thread:

Hey Celebrity Guy. Maybe you should be like Steve Buscemi, who was an actual firefighter before he became an actor. And he returned to active duty during the September 11 attacks in 2001.

The Amazing Story Of Steve Buscemi And 9/11

‘Fargo’ and ‘Boardwalk Empire’ star Steve Buscemi was a New York firefighter for four years from 1980 to 1984, before quitting to become a full-time actor. There’s lots of noises, you hear glass being broken, you have a mask on so you can’t really see a lot,” Steve Buscemi has said of his time...

uk.movies.yahoo.com

Oh you don't know about that Celebrity Guy? That's because Steve Buscemi didn't tell anyone and refused to be interviewed or photographed that day. He was doing his duty, not whoring himself for publicity.

 

[Papa]

Good guy Steve

Always liked that guy

 

[sol_bad]

No one could say that the greatest script and greatest performances of all time would be found in the film Back To The Future, yet off the top of your head, could you tell me what won best picture for 1985? And is it a better, more memorable film with as much lasting appeal as BTTF?

I don't follow awards so never know who the winners are so I looked it up.
For the Oscars and Golden Globes, Amadeus won best picture in 1985 and yes it is infinitely better than BTTF.

 

[MacReady13]

I don't follow awards so never know who the winners are so I looked it up.
For the Oscars and Golden Globes, Amadeus won best picture in 1985 and yes it is infinitely better than BTTF.

I’d love to have a poll on that to see what the majority think. I’d say most would agree that Back to the Future is a better film and FAR more memorable. I went to the 30th anniversary screenings of BTTF. Didn’t see any of them for Amadeus... but of course you’d say Amadeus is a better film. It isn’t though. It’s the oscars once again getting it wrong.

 

[Virex]

Every single one of them

 

[Cato]

Whenever people get excited about the Oscars (usually overly pretentious movies with a 'message'). I do the Oscars test.

Which Best Movie winner movies have I seen?

More than once?

Own them?

Out of the list below:

The Departed- own it and have rewatched it twice this year already.

LOTR- Every year

Gladiator- yes, of course.

Parasite- I wasn't sure at first but this movie really stuck with me. Great commentary on class systems.

I disliked most of the other ones or never watched them (never will either).

• 2020 - "Parasite
• 2019 - "Green Book"
• 2018 - "The Shape of Water"
• 2017 - "Moonlight"
• 2016 - "Spotlight"
• 2015 - "Birdman"
• 2014 - "12 Years a Slave"
• 2013 - "Argo"
• 2012 - "The Artist"
• 2011 - "The King's Speech"
• 2010 - "The Hurt Locker"
• 2009 - "Slumdog Millionaire"
• 2008 - "No Country for Old Men"
• 2007 - "The Departed"
• 2006 - "Crash"
• 2005 - "Million Dollar Baby"
• 2004 - "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
• 2003 - "Chicago"
• 2002 - "A Beautiful Mind"
• 2001 - "Gladiator"
• 2000 - "American Beauty

You absolutely should watch:

2008 - "No Country for Old Men"

But yeah, something definitely happened after 2008 and it was not good.
They even have a fucking progressive zoophilia movie on that list.

 

[Cato]

I agree he did nothing to better himself, and instead of taking charge of his life we are meant to blame society.

I disagree. Joker is by definition a sociopath that is unpredictable. He has no remorse, no morals, has no concept of the value of human life. Killing people for him is just a joke. Something he does and laughs at between more important tasks.
He has no remorse, never feels guilt, he has no sense of conscience.
He is the ultimate villiain. Pure evil in human form.

As someone with hundreds/thousands? of trade paperbacks and comics of batman and more origin stories I can count for Joker.
For sure, the Joker movie is definitely not canon, but it is still an interesting movie and imho one of the better origin stories I have seen so far.
He starts out as a real person, disadvantaged, and is hurt from every single direction until his mind finally breaks.
And to better himself? He can't. He is at the bottom of the bottom. Everywhere he turns there are other people just kicking him down. He is the most vulnerable person in the entire movie and NO ONE tries to help him. They all just try to tear him down. Sometimes for ignorance, sometimes for fun.

Personally I find the movie much more interesting than the actual Canon joker origin stories of:
bankrobber with no name, but very good with revolvers, is recruited to rob a place. It was a setup and he eventually falls into a vat with chemicals and is washed out into the sea. Immediately he is affected with a skin condition turning his skin white and hair green and he just like flipping a switch became the sociopath joker.

I actually take the Joker movie any day of the week over the actual canon origin story. Sorry.

 

[sol_bad]

I’d love to have a poll on that to see what the majority think. I’d say most would agree that Back to the Future is a better film and FAR more memorable. I went to the 30th anniversary screenings of BTTF. Didn’t see any of them for Amadeus... but of course you’d say Amadeus is a better film. It isn’t though. It’s the oscars once again getting it wrong.

In 1985 I was just a kid, 3 years old, too young to see it at the cinemas actually. Amadeus wasn't made or advertised for kids so of course I didn't see it until I was an adult. Many people here are most likely the same and memories from your child are extremely strong for nostalgia.

BTTF is on the same level as the MCU movies, a few people here might know that I'm obsessed with MCU movies. But they and BTTF are just pop corn flicks, comic book art. Even with my love for the MCU I still know that Amadeus is on a whole other level in comparison.
The cinematography on it's own excel the film.

 

[DKehoe]

I’d love to have a poll on that to see what the majority think. I’d say most would agree that Back to the Future is a better film and FAR more memorable. I went to the 30th anniversary screenings of BTTF. Didn’t see any of them for Amadeus... but of course you’d say Amadeus is a better film. It isn’t though. It’s the oscars once again getting it wrong.

There were definitely 30th anniversary screenings for Amadeus. One of the cinemas near me did one. Great film.

 

[Turnt]

I disagree. Joker is by definition a sociopath that is unpredictable. He has no remorse, no morals, has no concept of the value of human life. Killing people for him is just a joke. Something he does and laughs at between more important tasks.
He has no remorse, never feels guilt, he has no sense of conscience.
He is the ultimate villiain. Pure evil in human form.

As someone with hundreds/thousands? of trade paperbacks and comics of batman and more origin stories I can count for Joker.
For sure, the Joker movie is definitely not canon, but it is still an interesting movie and imho one of the better origin stories I have seen so far.
He starts out as a real person, disadvantaged, and is hurt from every single direction until his mind finally breaks.
And to better himself? He can't. He is at the bottom of the bottom. Everywhere he turns there are other people just kicking him down. He is the most vulnerable person in the entire movie and NO ONE tries to help him. They all just try to tear him down. Sometimes for ignorance, sometimes for fun.

Personally I find the movie much more interesting than the actual Canon joker origin stories of:
bankrobber with no name, but very good with revolvers, is recruited to rob a place. It was a setup and he eventually falls into a vat with chemicals and is washed out into the sea. Immediately he is affected with a skin condition turning his skin white and hair green and he just like flipping a switch became the sociopath joker.

I actually take the Joker movie any day of the week over the actual canon origin story. Sorry.

Do you think it was odd approach for a character that's aimed at children?

 

[Cato]

Do you think it was odd approach for a character that's aimed at children?

I am not sure I understand. Can you clarify?

If you ask about batman and joker comics in general, then no I don't think these are aimed at young children. They are handling very dark and mature concepts.
I mean, Joker showing up at the Gordons household and beating his daugther up and making her a cripple with a crowbar? That is part of the comics that is more suitable for young children than anything that happened in the joker movie?

You know about joker, right? You are not here just to do some hot takes? right?

I don't understand your question.


EDIT: Sorry, joker just shot the child Gordon in the spine and crippled her. It is too late at night and I mixed it up when he bashed the skull open and killed robin with a crowbar. No, joker is not suitable for children, at least not the comic book version.

 

[Turnt]

I am not sure I understand. Can you clarify?

If you ask about batman and joker comics in general, then no I don't think these are aimed at young children. They are handling very dark and mature concepts. Or maybe they are.

That over the past couple decades a character for children has been repurposed for stories which attempt "dark" and "mature" themes. Why do you think this is?

 

[Cato]

That over the past couple decades a character for children has been repurposed for stories which attempt "dark" and "mature" themes. Why do you think this is?

You have an issue with batman villains being unsuitable for young children?
Well, look at the origin story of Hugo Strange. He is worse in some ways. Or Doctor Crane.


So basically. You have an issue with a movie that came out last year that in reality is very tame compared to the source material it is based on the last 40-50 years of comics.

Do you even fucking read batman?
Batman is not suitable for young children. And never were since the 70s.

 

[Turnt]

You have an issue with batman villains being unsuitable for young children?
Well, look at the origin story of Hugo Strange. He is worse in some ways. Or Doctor Crane.


So basically. You have an issue with a movie that came out last year that in reality is very tame compared to the source material it is based on the last 40-50 years of comics.

Do you even fucking read batman?

Those are kids characters too.

Apparently the guy first showed up as "a scientist who uses a stolen "concentrated lightning" machine to generate a dense fog every night, allowing his gang to rob banks unsee" I'm guessing he's had some "grown up" tragic backstory since then, but still he's a kids character. Also, his name is Hugo Strange lol.

I’ve read some yeh. Not as much as you seem to have so that’s why I asked. I’m not just talking about the Joker movie in particular. I mean the overall trend of taking this children’s character and trying to get edgier and edgier with it. These comic book movies can be fun, but them dominating cinema like they have is kind of a damning reflection on us. Not just that they are big box office smashes, which is fine really you're always going to have popcorn fluff be popular. But there's people who insist these films actually have some deep meaning and should be held up as great works. Just feels like an audience that doesn't want to let their childhood go and also insists that be respected.

 

[HE1NZ]

The Shape of Water is worst of the worst. Somebody had a checklist to include every single liberal cliche and deviancy in it. The movie is simply disgustingly bad.

 

[Cato]

Those are kids characters too.

Apparently the guy first showed up as "a scientist who uses a stolen "concentrated lightning" machine to generate a dense fog every night, allowing his gang to rob banks unsee" I'm guessing he's had some "grown up" tragic backstory since then, but still he's a kids character. Also, his name is Hugo Strange lol.

I’ve read some yeh. Not as much as you seem to have so that’s why I asked. I’m not just talking about the Joker movie in particular. I mean the overall trend of taking this children’s character and trying to get edgier and edgier with it. These comic book movies can be fun, but them dominating cinema like they have is kind of a damning reflection on us. Not just that they are big box office smashes, which is fine really you're always going to have popcorn fluff be popular. But there's people who insist these films actually have some deep meaning and should be held up as great works. Just feels like an audience that doesn't want to let their childhood go and also insists that be respected.

Hugo has a much much darker story. It involves women and his desire to dominate and combine this with his sex drive. Lets leave it at that. It is not for kids.

I think the disagreement basically resolves around whether batman is a kids comic or not.
I definitely would say is is absolutely not. It often handles very dark and adult themes, like kidnapping and rape. Medical experiments on and murder of children.

Batman comics are for adults nowadays.

For Hugo, I think I remember one book where he was basically raping a manequin doll he dressed up as his love interest.
What the fuck Hugo?
Whatever, Hugo is really fucked up. Not a comic for kids.

 

[diffusionx]

The Shape of Water is worst of the worst. Somebody had a checklist to include every single liberal cliche and deviancy in it. The movie is simply disgustingly bad.

I never watched Shape of Water, and I doubt I will. It's one of those as soon as I heard about it I went to instant nope and moved on.

Did anyone watch it more than once? You can say that for a lot of the recent praised movies. They're totally disposable. Funny thing is, Gladiator was panned as a Best Picture in 2000 (I personally thought CTHD should have won), but it's held up a lot better than most of the winners that came after. Birdman was a cool movie with some brilliant performances but are people eager to watch this again?

 

[Ornlu]

Looking at Best Picture over the years has made me realize one thing:

Casting Russell Crowe was basically guaranteeing that your film gets nominated. Good Lord that man was in a lot of winners and nominees.

 

[Tesseract]

Looking at Best Picture over the years has made me realize one thing:

Casting Russell Crowe was basically guaranteeing that your film gets nominated. Good Lord that man was in a lot of winners and nominees.

crowe is an elevator, always will be

 

[MacReady13]

BTTF is on the same level as the MCU movies

Please... MCU is not on the same level as BTTF. BTTF is a classic film and considered one of the all time greats. MCU films will NEVER be considered that by anyone with half a brain.

 

[Endangered08]

Garden State was a disappointment for my 21 year old Natalie Portman obsessed self at the time.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Anything released since 2015

 

[MilkyJoe]

The Shape of Water is worst of the worst. Somebody had a checklist to include every single liberal cliche and deviancy in it. The movie is simply disgustingly bad.

Thanks for the heads up

 

[Turnt]

Hugo has a much much darker story. It involves women and his desire to dominate and combine this with his sex drive. Lets leave it at that. It is not for kids.

I think the disagreement basically resolves around whether batman is a kids comic or not.
I definitely would say is is absolutely not. It often handles very dark and adult themes, like kidnapping and rape. Medical experiments on and murder of children.

Batman comics are for adults nowadays.

For Hugo, I think I remember one book where he was basically raping a manequin doll he dressed up as his love interest.
What the fuck Hugo?
Whatever, Hugo is really fucked up. Not a comic for kids.

What year did they the introduce the not for kids origin story about how much he likes to fuck?

 

[sol_bad]

Please... MCU is not on the same level as BTTF. BTTF is a classic film and considered one of the all time greats. MCU films will NEVER be considered that by anyone with half a brain.

You need to give it another 20-30 years to know whether you are right or wrong, and that's for BTTF. Is it going to be a classic like Casablanca, The Great Dictator or Citizen Kane?
If you're in your 30's or 40's, BTTF might be a classic film to you.
If you're in your 60's or 70's you may not care about BTTF, you'll care more about movies from the 50's and 60's, meanwhile people in their 30's and 40's don't care for the majority of films released in those years.
Same with the new generation in their teens and 20's, what they grew up with resonates with them and they don't care as much about movies from the 80's.

But my point is that BTTF is a pop corn film, it resonates with the generation that grew up with it, it's not a masterpiece and doesn't deserve to win awards more than Amadeus or the majority of other films that have won best picture. Robert Zemeckis is (was) a great director himself and he got the awards he deserved with Forrest Gump, which also is a much better made film than BTTF.

 

[MacReady13]

it's not a masterpiece and doesn't deserve to win awards more than Amadeus or the majority of other films that have won best picture.

Why? What makes a film like Amadeus more worthy of a best picture Oscar over BTTF? What criteria do you deem fit for a film that is so fondly remembered to NOT win the best picture Oscar over some wankfest about a conductor? Why choose Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction? Ordinary People over Raging Bull? ANYTHING over Goodfellas? Why couldn't Terminator 2 win best picture for it's respective year? What makes the best picture film a "better" film than those mentioned?

Jaws, Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark are considered "popcorn" films as well. Doesn't diminish their status' as classics that redefined genre's and cinema as a whole. None of these are deemed worthy of best picture oscar's???

 

[sol_bad]

Why? What makes a film like Amadeus more worthy of a best picture Oscar over BTTF? What criteria do you deem fit for a film that is so fondly remembered to NOT win the best picture Oscar over some wankfest about a conductor? Why choose Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction? Ordinary People over Raging Bull? ANYTHING over Goodfellas? Why couldn't Terminator 2 win best picture for it's respective year? What makes the best picture film a "better" film than those mentioned?

Jaws, Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark are considered "popcorn" films as well. Doesn't diminish their status' as classics that redefined genre's and cinema as a whole. None of these are deemed worthy of best picture oscar's???

For Amedeus, as mentioned above, the cinematography to start with. And then you have the sets and the designs that are on frame. The acting is better than BTTF. The film causes more emotional reactions. And keep in mind, it is about Mozart but it's a fictionalized story.

Why are the MCU movies not on the same level as BTTF?

 

[MacReady13]

For Amedeus, as mentioned above, the cinematography to start with. And then you have the sets and the designs that are on frame. The acting is better than BTTF. The film causes more emotional reactions. And keep in mind, it is about Mozart but it's a fictionalized story.

Why are the MCU movies not on the same level as BTTF?

I just can't believe i'm arguing with someone over the merits of a largely forgotten film (Amadeus) over a classic of cinema! Those points you made are fine, but it never helped Stanley Kubrick win a best picture oscar...
MCU is fine if you are into that mindless sort of thing. I don't personally like the films within the MCU, and like many film makers don't really consider them to be "cinema". They are made in a boardroom for the lowest common denominator (no offense to anyone who loves them). Much like the latest Star Wars films and plenty of films released today.

 

[Papa]

For Amedeus, as mentioned above, the cinematography to start with. And then you have the sets and the designs that are on frame. The acting is better than BTTF. The film causes more emotional reactions. And keep in mind, it is about Mozart but it's a fictionalized story.

Why are the MCU movies not on the same level as BTTF?

How do you quantify how good the acting is? Specifically what about the acting in Amadeus makes it better?