However, Stallone being nominated makes up for all of it. Kinda funny that Star Wars didn't get a Best Picture nom with an Editing nom though. It'll be the first domestic champion not to be nominated for Best Picture (shame, because it's better than most of the nominees I've seen)
It is, yeah. The movie was paced so quickly that there wasn't really any room for the big set pieces that I think people were hoping for but Williams wrote several memorable new themes and integrated them seamlessly with the old ones. Even the seemingly less inspired music supports the film extremely well. It's really remarkable work, especially for a man of his age.
I'm surprised Giacchino got jilted for Inside Out (and that none of the James Horner scores of the year were nominated, given his death). The Morricone score should have been disqualified as it violates this Academy rule: 'Scores diluted by the use of tracked themes or other preexisting music, diminished in impact by the predominant use of songs or assembled from the music of more than one composer shall not be eligible.'
(Not that I want it to be. I'm not a fan of the score itself but I think that after all this time, Morricone definitely deserves a recognition win for all his years in the field.)
Carol. This must be one of the times where I missed something but nothing about the visuals stood out to me. I guess I'm a sucker for pretty landscapes.
You must be joking. What did he actually act in this movie? He was just being super cool and quite. I don't see what is so difficult about that in the sense of actual acting.
I literally have seen no other of the nominees for that category cos the UK is dick at releasing Oscar movies on time. Creed just came out and Revenant, Big Short and Spotlight aren't out here.
Yeah I feel like it's either Seale or Lubezki winning.
Visual Effects I'm actually really curious about. It seems obvious to me that either Mad Max or Star Wars takes it, but I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if Ex Machina winds up with it. The difference of big, gigantic, obviously FX heavy movies diluting their overall achievement vs. one incredibly well realized visual effect in a small scale film being able to stand out more.
Yeah I feel like it's either Seale or Lubezki winning.
Visual Effects I'm actually really curious about. It seems obvious to me that either Mad Max or Star Wars takes it, but I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if Ex Machina winds up with it. The difference of big, gigantic, obviously FX heavy movies diluting their overall achievement vs. one incredibly well realized visual effect in a small scale film being able to stand out more.
Yeah I feel like it's either Seale or Lubezki winning.
Visual Effects I'm actually really curious about. It seems obvious to me that either Mad Max or Star Wars takes it, but I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if Ex Machina winds up with it. The difference of big, gigantic, obviously FX heavy movies diluting their overall achievement vs. one incredibly well realized visual effect in a small scale film being able to stand out more.
I think Max has a shot at VFX, too - because as Star Wars proved on a much larger scale throughout a lot of 2015, people really respond to that "practical effects!" drum getting banged. And hearing the stories from the bake-off that got these films nominated, that includes VFX guys, too.
I think "practical effects practical effects practical effects" might win Mad Max that award, also in lieu of the fact there's no "stuntman" award.
Yeah, I thought he was great. Best part of that mostly underwhelming movie. It was alright, but I expected more from Spielberg and a Coen brothers script.
It was a great performance. The entire movie was based around you caring for this individual and why Hanks is willing to fight for him. Honestly, it was a well deserving nomination. He didn't need any really odd quirks or scene screaming to convey what his character needed to do.
I think Tom Hardy and Sly are strong choices too. Christian Bale didn't belong there. Haven't seen Spotlight.
The biggest MIAs is Beasts of No Nation and Sicario. They deserved Best Picture noms, Best Directors. With Beasts having Abu nominated for Best Leading Actor, film for Best Cinematography. And Sicario with Del Toro nominated for Best Supporting.
And WTF, Best Original Song without one of the most popular songs of the year? See You Again?
I'll be happy if Miller wins best director and mad max wins a decent amount of technical awards. There's no way in hell a bunch of old men will ignore an Oscar bait movie for best movie of the year though so I fully expect that to go to one of those.
Ah yes, the category that's handed out awards to such performances as Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman and nominated the likes of Laurence Olivier for The Boys from Brazil is so well known for rewarding nuance.
At least the role of Jordan Belfort actually called for that kind of performance.
I don't think the oscars are representative of good acting all the time. I agree with you, Jordan Belfort is a performance. Dicaprio is much more of a performer than an actor.
If you're not seeing the nuances to Jordan Belfort's character. The insecurities, the fear, the doubt Leo brought out of the role, you're not paying close enough attention. Anybody can yell and be loud. But not everyone can give it complexity. It's what separates Daniel Day Lewis from Gerard Butler
Wolf of WallStreet is not a deep movie. Belfort is presented as the fool of the story, the movie is supposed to be a cautionary tale, but comes off as cartoonish at best. Its a 'dark' comedy. Belfort makes mistakes and has conflicting emotions, but thats basic character writing
On the other hand, Daniel Day Lewis is nuanced due to the subtlety to his characters. Lincoln and My Left Foot, his characters in those movies are people, that feel like normal human beings.
I think is a good performer, but not an amazing actor, like some people imply.
Yeah I feel like it's either Seale or Lubezki winning.
Visual Effects I'm actually really curious about. It seems obvious to me that either Mad Max or Star Wars takes it, but I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if Ex Machina winds up with it. The difference of big, gigantic, obviously FX heavy movies diluting their overall achievement vs. one incredibly well realized visual effect in a small scale film being able to stand out more.
You know, I was thinking about this, and back when you mentioned around release (before I had seen it) that there was some weird editing.
Editing is kind of a complicated thing, since there's very much a macro and a micro side to it. Editing can dictate how the entire movie flows: the pacing, the scene to scene transitions, the overall intangible feel of watching a movie. It works in tandem with many other elements to inform if a movie feels boring, or exciting, or funny.
On the micro side, it's the cut from one shot to the next. How an individual scene, or moment, is constructed. They chose to cut from this shot of Han
saying he already has a copilot
, to this frantic shot of
Chewie resisting as Finn tries to treat his wound
, and the specific choice and timing makes the moment funny. Or they pick this moment to cut to a wider shot and have Rey pop out of the Falcon's floor, interrupting Finn trying to win over BB-8. Or this shot at this time to cut from
Han's death to Rey and Finn's reaction
. Or just juggling the many beats of a large, complicated action scene. I also feel that choosing to only cut away from the
climactic light saber duel to the aerial attack on Starkiller once
, rather than the usual modern blockbuster template of continuously cutting back and forth between disparate action scenes and lessening their individual impact, is itself worthy of high praise
I feel like Force Awakens mostly succeeds at the macro "feel", overall start to finish level, but it definitely feels rushed and pushed forward in places. But it is really god damn phenomenal on a micro level, barring one or two moments with Han/Leia that probably had more to do with performances and coverage than anything else. The movie is trying to do so many things, and succeeds at most of them, that I could see the overall effort being commendable, and the micro level pushing it into the list.
Having said all of that, I think Fury Road deserves the win. That shit gets so micro level they are manipulating the timing of individual frames in the middle of shots. And it's kind of awesome that both Mad Max and Star Wars were edited by women.
I appreciate how editing can set the tone, but when characters mysteriously drop out of the movie, that's a fundamental flaw I'm not sure I can look past.
Gonna go to a movie tonight - Hateful 8 or Revenant? I am a pretty big fan of both Tarantino and Inarritu - QT especially. Want to see both, but haven't had a chance.
I appreciate how editing can set the tone, but when characters mysteriously drop out of the movie, that's a fundamental flaw I'm not sure I can look past.
Gonna go to a movie tonight - Hateful 8 or Revenant? I am a pretty big fan of both Tarantino and Inarritu - QT especially. Want to see both, but haven't had a chance.
I don't think the oscars are representative of good acting all the time. I agree with you, Jordan Belfort is a performance. Dicaprio is much more of a performer than an actor.
Wolf of WallStreet is not a deep movie. Belfort is presented as the fool of the story, the movie is supposed to be a cautionary tale, but comes off as cartoonish at best. Its a 'dark' comedy. Belfort makes mistakes and has conflicting emotions, but thats basic character writing
On the other hand, Daniel Day Lewis is nuanced due to the subtlety to his characters. Lincoln and My Left Foot, his characters in those movies are people, that feel like normal human beings.
I think is a good performer, but not an amazing actor, like some people imply.
Acting is an art form, and there are many different styles to practicing that art. If acting's always Joaquin Phoenix all the time it'd be boring because everybody's doing the same thing.
A muted performance doesn't mean it's a better performance, just as a flamboyant, boisterous performance--and not particularly method--doesn't automatically mean it lacks layers or depth. You're essentially illustrating why that Dustin Hoffman/Laurence Olivier story is so great.
Gonna go to a movie tonight - Hateful 8 or Revenant? I am a pretty big fan of both Tarantino and Inarritu - QT especially. Want to see both, but haven't had a chance.
Are there any upcoming major slave or servant films on the horizon? I'm just curious as to when I can expect another black actor/actress to be nominated.
Gonna go to a movie tonight - Hateful 8 or Revenant? I am a pretty big fan of both Tarantino and Inarritu - QT especially. Want to see both, but haven't had a chance.
The Revenant was one of the most savage, exquisitely made cures for insomnia that I've ever experienced. It could easily have had about 30 minutes lopped off and been far better for it.
Are there any upcoming major slave or servant films on the horizon? I'm just curious as to when I can expect another black actor/actress to be nominated.
But isn't that the exact thing sort of thing that should have been noticed during editing?
Return of the Jedi originally had no funeral scene for Vader, but while they were cutting it one of the editors mentioned how it could be construed that Vader might not actually be dead.
Its hard not to read into that given the whitewash that occurred across the board. Chris Rock is gunna roast the shit out of the academy for this though. Im looking forward to the highlights of uncomfortable body language among the audience members that his rants will surely produce.
Happy to see Mad Max getting a nod, it would be terrific if the film somehow won the best picture. I'm not going to do the same thing I did to myself with Gravity and expect it to win though, shit's bad for health.
And with Carol not even being nominated, is there even a realistic chance Iñárritu doesn't do it again?
What's the point of best animated feature when inside out is the only animation nominated for best picture.
Like saying inside out won, but these are other great animation this year.
But isn't that the exact thing sort of thing that should have been noticed during editing?
Return of the Jedi originally had no funeral scene for Vader, but while they were cutting it one of the editors mentioned how it could be construed that Vader might not actually be dead.
I assume you are talking about Maz, right? If the story dictates that the character has served their purpose, and there isn't a reason for them to reappear, then that's a story issue, no? I mean, it might be something you realize in the editing, but it's not like that's something that can be fixed in the editing by just inserting the character where they aren't needed. That would require rewrites and reshoots, which isn't an editing issue.
yeah, I think there's a chance Spotlight or Max could take it. Much more for Spotlight, obviously (genre bias is already being brought up as a reason Max shouldn't expect BP)
Its hard not to read into that given the whitewash that occurred across the board. Chris Rock is gunna roast the shit out of the academy for this though. Im looking forward to the highlights of uncomfortable body language among the audience members that his rants will surely produce.
Nothing but one or two jokes and a few seconds of awkwardness will happen. That's it. He's going to have his kiddie gloves on for this. Same with Gervis for the Globes.
