Oscar© Autopsy

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sikander
Ebert thinks it was the best Superhero film ever made. I'm not sure that I agree, but it was a really good film. I only saw Sideways and the Aviator of the nominated films this year, which is unusually low.

Bolding is mine .

Like TEF, great superhero flick, good fun, but not Best Picture material. Didn't wow on plot or acting. Was entertaining, but not 'art'.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What's the deal with this eastwood movie $!MM Baby? It totally caught me by surprise. I can't find anything that seems special about it in terms of writing, plot, etc. There was NO buzz about this from anyone I know. Now I have to consider seeing it. So I gotta ask...

It had an undercurrent of buzz... people were talking about it, especially the action and the powerful story. Clint likes drama and he isn't one for happy endings. It's refreshing that is rewarded. Life isn't always a happy ending. And the man can direct (see Unforgiven).

[Dis]

and there is the twist in the last 1/3 of the movie.

There is the slight possibility M$B won for political reasons. I'm not one of these conservative whackos who listen to AM talk radio. But the thought has crossed my mind.

It's difficult to talk about the twist without spoilers. so I'll use tags.

Spoiler:

We all know how liberal hollywood really is aside from Arnold and a few other older actors. It's possible the film won just to piss off Medved and Rush Limbaugh. It's possible they want to push this Euthanasia issue further. While it is true, the movie doesn't actually support euthanasia, we all know hollywood is not that smart. They will see it as a leftist issue anyways.

another minor reason might be because Scorcese is so "New York". Does he even live in LA? I don't know much about him aside from his movies. Is he one of those directors who snub hollywood like Kubrick? That's why Kubrick didn't win in my opinion. They just aren't hollywood enough. Although in this final case, Scorcese did make a movie about hollywood for once.

[JohnT]

The "too New York" argument doesn't really fly. Woody Allen won for "Annie Hall", a movie that is all about New York.

[-Jrabbit]

Hollywood always want for there to be an American "art auteur" director, someone with intelligence, chops, and cred they can point to as a "serious American director" in answer to all the slagging "Hollywood movies" get in the world press. Someone who is welcome at Cannes.

Woody Allen was that guy for quite awhile.
Then Spike Lee was that guy for awhile.

Eastwood may be that guy now.

Just a thought...

[GePap]

MDB was a better film thatn the Aviator. The story of MDB was more powerful, not flashy, but the characters are simply much more approachable- not larger than life images, but oh so human people.

I was mezmerized by MDB, while I looked at my watch many times during the Aviator. It was a better film than Gangs of NY by a far, but MDB was a better film.

As for the "political reasons", utter bull (The sea inside is a movie about euthanasia, and Vera Drake about backroom abortions) but hell, at least in MDB there is a priest, and Eastwood's character is a church going man.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I haven't seen MDB but have heard that the use of a priest was to epitomize the ineptitude of priests and charicature them as unable to give guidance to the point where a lay priest can't even describe the nature of the trinity let alone give a cognizant arguement to why not to perform euthanasia. (realizing I am in favor of allowing assisted suicide as I believe it the most fundamental right of a human to decide to live or die).

I fully admit since I have not seen the film this point is fully conjecture.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I haven't seen MDB but have heard that the use of a priest was to epitomize the ineptitude of priests and charicature them as unable to give guidance to the point where a lay priest can't even describe the nature of the trinity let alone give a cognizant arguement to why not to perform euthanasia. (realizing I am in favor of allowing assisted suicide as I believe it the most fundamental right of a human to decide to live or die).

I fully admit since I have not seen the film this point is fully conjecture.

The Eastwood character is earnestly religious, yet is a hard ass so he likes messing with the priest, so his question about the trinity is fascetious, specially since, having gone to mass every time in over 20 years, Clint's character knew better.

As for the killing question, what response could you give? The priest makes it clear he believes it is wrong and beyond the pale.

The priest character is likeable and believable.

[Ned]

This debate illustrates that there is no consensus on the criteria that makes films "great." I would include popularity. However, that seemingly would exclude Spotless Mind which was one of my favorite films last year. Go figure.

But you have to admit that Hollywood does "diss" sci-fi and fantasy films almost by knee-jerk reaction. Imran's posts here are very typical of the snide arrogance that inhabits the Academy. The year that Star Wars set all sorts of box office records and was a popular phenomenon without precedent, the Academy gave the best picture oscar to Annie Hall, an almost mediocre Woody Allen film. Now, it is true that the acting in Star Wars was second rate, but the movie as a whole was terrific. Clearly one of the best films ever made, let alone 1977.

I also agree with Ebert that SpiderMan II was the best movie ever made in that genre. It was superb. I remember my reaction when the movie was over: This film set the standard for best films this year. I guess, though, I was wrong in my assumption that Hollywood had gotten over its discrimination against fantasy films. The RoTK truly was a aberation. Perhaps it got the award for all three films, which as a whole, was a major artistic achievement. But by not including Spiderman II, but including such less impressive movies as Sideways, the Academy reverted to form.

[GePap]

Certain issues are alsways key to best films. You need a strong screenplay, good acting, and technicals that compliment the screenplay and the story and the acting.

Sadly. most sci fi films and fantasy films have poor screenplays or mediocre ones, with mediocre acting, and technicals that overwheml or surpass these basics. For those reasons they are NOT the best films. This is also why they get dated so fast, because the effects change and get better, meaning future audiences are NOT interested in them anymore, and thus the weak screenplays and acting shows through.

Spiderman 2 had good acting, and great technicals, but the screenplay was formulaic. The formula was done very well, but it was still formula.

Sideways for exmaple had a great screenplay and great acting, and the technicals fit the film well, so it is nominated.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

How can you call Sideways less impressive than Spider-Man?

Remember, these are achievements in the arts, not just pure entertainment. Sideways was far more artistic than Spider-Man II (although I fully think that Finding Neverland should've been replaced by Eternal Sunshine...but hey, at least Charlie got the Original Screenplay Oscar).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


The Eastwood character is earnestly religious, yet is a hard ass so he likes messing with the priest, so his question about the trinity is fascetious, specially since, having gone to mass every time in over 20 years, Clint's character knew better.

As for the killing question, what response could you give? The priest makes it clear he believes it is wrong and beyond the pale.

The priest character is likeable and believable.

I've heard both sides of the arguement around the priest.

On the one hand I've heard the priest being described as youthful and human as a consequence likable.

On the other, I have heard the priest described as inept and as a consequence a voice to be ignored. A chattering religious figure who at best can simply recite rote Catholic Dogma, yet inellectually impoverished.

As I have not seen the film, I defer to yours and other opinions until such time as it comes out on DVD.

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap


The Eastwood character is earnestly religious, yet is a hard ass so he likes messing with the priest, so his question about the trinity is fascetious, specially since, having gone to mass every time in over 20 years, Clint's character knew better.

As for the killing question, what response could you give? The priest makes it clear he believes it is wrong and beyond the pale.

The priest character is likeable and believable.

what I liked about the priest was he gave a decent reason to not kill her, he didn't just retort the catholic standard line. Although he may have been wrong, at least he was using his brain to explain why Frankie shouldn't do it.

It didn't appear to portray religion in a negative light. And that was a welcome change.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


I've heard both sides of the arguement around the priest.

On the one hand I've heard the priest being described as youthful and human as a consequence likable.

On the other, I have heard the priest described as inept and as a consequence a voice to be ignored. A chattering religious figure who at best can simply recite rote Catholic Dogma, yet inellectually impoverished.

As I have not seen the film, I defer to yours and other opinions until such time as it comes out on DVD.

you can see my above post for this. The priest did a good job. I don't believe he gave the standard catholic dogma. He appeard to think, and give a sufficient reason why Clint shouldn't do it.

I can't remember the line exactly, but he said if you do this, you will lose yourself, and will never be able to find yourself again. He preceded that by talking about Clint's character's guilt, which was the reason why clint attended mass everyday. The priest didn't want Clint to have to suffer more guilt over doing something he may regret.

It may have not been the right advice in this case, but at least he put some thought into it.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
How can you call Sideways less impressive than Spider-Man?

Remember, these are achievements in the arts, not just pure entertainment. Sideways was far more artistic than Spider-Man II...

If by "artistic" you mean "smarmingly self-aware of its own pretentious nature", then I'll agree.