Support NeoGAF

[Timber]

The Company (2003)
Van Dyke Parks wrote the score for this, way cool. This is so relaxed. No fussing. Altman asked the screenwriter what her favourite scenes in the script were. Then he didn't film any of them. Probably accounts for the total absence of drama. He was an asshole but he made a good movie. Filmed ballet should probably be a genre. Love those limber bodies doing stuff so beautiful makes a man weep. James Franco doesn't do shit in this, I laughed like hell. McDowell is great. "It's a metaphor." "For what?" "Giving baaahrth" lol Also gave Short Cuts another go, was not as impressed as I was first time around. Maybe it's because I've read some Carver now. It's difficult stuff to film. Movie has great moments tho. Scene with Julianne Moore and Matthew Modine is probably the best concretization of all the themes of voyeurism he'd been toying around with ever since Cold Day in the Park. And Jack Lemmon walking down that hospital corridor. Love the anti-Nashville anticlimax, the only way it could have ended. Thing is that without the prose and with Altman's sensibilities (which don't resemble Carver's at all) it kinda becomes meaningless caricature at times.

Husbands and Wives (1992)
I like Woody Allen best when he deviates from this formula so at first I was all "not again" with all the Manhattan Malaise and comparing Russian writers to food, but it really picked up during the scene where Sydney Pollack (such a great actor) is drunk, and everything following that is great. I'm not sure if the mockumentary stuff really adds something. It brought out those psychotherapy habits of him that I don't really like.

Paper Moon (1973)
Bogdanovich' love for movies seems to have been a contributing factor to why this is so great. It's not an evocation of the era so much as an evocation of the movies of the era. Just very fun. And you got that great conglomeration of talents as well, Bogdanovich and Platt and Kovacs and such. But I can't imagine this without Tatum O'Neal. I know she's received tons of praise for her performance but it can't be said enough.

The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)
Fell asleep twice during the first twenty minutes, but third time was the charm. I liked it, Bowie was great. The extreeeeme ellipses were great, disorienting the viewer, putting him in the position of the alien. The stuff about TV and booze seems a bit trite now, not sure if that was the case back then.

 

[Buckethead]

Megamind
A lot of standard Dreamworks pop-culture-heavy nonsense, but for once there was actually some good parts and I liked the characters.
Made me upset it had to be watered down with the popular music though.

Obviously predictable too, but hey I guess they're making progress.

 

[Cosmic Bus]

I'm 5 episodes through Ingmar Bergman's "Scenes from a Marriage," and I've really enjoyed it. Not really sure how the final 6th episode is going to play out, but I will try and make a genuine effort to write something here about what I thought of the series as a whole.

Make sure to see Saraband, which revisits the characters 30-odd years later, at some point down the road.

 

[brianjones]

speaking of bergman and tv which is preferred of fanny & alexander ?

 

[swoon]

http://z15.invisionfree.com/iCheckMovies/index.php?act=idx

all the icm dudes should come over here at some point

 

[Drewsky]

Rewatched The King of Kong today. One of my favorite documentaries.

 

[Cosmic Bus]

speaking of bergman and tv which is preferred of fanny & alexander ?

Full-length TV version, without question. Why Criterion even bothered with the theatrical is baffling.

 

[jakncoke]

http://z15.invisionfree.com/iCheckMovies/index.php?act=idx

all the icm dudes should come over here at some point

lol i tried. at first it was like no u you can't see the board. then some girl pm'd on imc about how i found it and im yeah another icm member. later on i checked back and could finally see the board. then i see a topic i wanted to reply to and didn't have access to post. talk about a million hoops to jump through just to post.

 

[Meliorism]

That board is really new.

Honestly, Corrierino is really good.

http://corrierino.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3

 

[Rei_Toei]

Night of the Creeps (Fred Dekker 1986, IMDb). An entertaining hommage to all the great zombie/creature/slasher movies of the late '70's and 80's. It's part Blob, part Dawn, part slasher movie, and the creators of Slither definitely saw this movie. Recommended if you like campy gore in the vein of Braindead, Bad Taste, Evil Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Return of the Living Dead, etc. ★★★

 

[JGS]

The King's Speech - Finally saw this and it was great. The acting was superb and some of the scenes were tough to watch as I could feel how uncomfortable and awkward it was. Also got to learn a bit about British history.

Also, it was far funnier than I would have imagined.

I get why it won now. Inception is still my personal favorite from last year but this was clearly Oscar bait that actually deserved the Oscar.

 

[devenger]

The King's Speech this was clearly Oscar bait that actually deserved the Oscar.

I had the exact opposite response: the acting was fine, the production was fine, but there didn't seem to be anything else there. It just kind of laid there flat and never rose above a conversation between two good actors.

As a friend of mine pointed out, Firth just Simple Jack'd it for the Oscar.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I had the exact opposite response: the acting was fine, the production was fine, but there didn't seem to be anything else there. It just kind of laid there flat and never rose above a conversation between two good actors.

As a friend of mine pointed out, Firth just Simple Jack'd it for the Oscar.

Yeah, this was about my reaction as well. It's a good movie, but there's really nothing there to raise it above your standard Oscar bait movie except for the fact that the acting is actually pretty good and not just impressively theatrical.

 

[devenger]

Yeah, this was about my reaction as well. It's a good movie, but there's really nothing there to raise it above your standard Oscar bait movie except for the fact that the acting is actually pretty good and not just impressively theatrical.

There's a Kids in the Hall sketch where theyre showing clips at an award ceremony for best actor, and there's one Shakesperean guy and four actors playing characters with increasingly ridiculous handicaps. McKinney plays a guy with a railroad spike in his head. That's what I always think about when I see someone playing blind or wheelchair bound.

Combine that with the period piece aspect and actual talented actors, and it's not Oscar bait, it's Oscar entrapment.

 

[Apdiddy]

I actually thought the same way about the King's Speech until I saw it. I found the parts focusing on King George VI's life and his relationships with his father and brother to be the best part and what most of the movie should have been about. When the movie tried to refocus on World War II, etc. it became as you said, Oscar bait.

I haven't seen most of the other Best Picture 2010 nominations (besides True Grit, Toy Story 3, and Inception) yet to say that the King's Speech did or did not deserve the award. I'm surprised that Toy Story 3 didn't win however.

 

[swoon]

lol i tried. at first it was like no u you can't see the board. then some girl pm'd on imc about how i found it and im yeah another icm member. later on i checked back and could finally see the board. then i see a topic i wanted to reply to and didn't have access to post. talk about a million hoops to jump through just to post.

yea it's manual approvals for whatever reason. i really hope eezee shows up because i'm pretty sure he cheats.

 

[JGS]

I had the exact opposite response: the acting was fine, the production was fine, but there didn't seem to be anything else there. It just kind of laid there flat and never rose above a conversation between two good actors.

As a friend of mine pointed out, Firth just Simple Jack'd it for the Oscar.

it was a pretty slight story - a prince/king with a stuttering problem. His life was very much a priviliged life so to me it wasn't that big of a deal.

However, Firth didn't simple Jack it. He was very intelligent and hampered ONLY by the stammer. The way he was able to show something so unnatural to begin with in such a natural way was perfect. He certainly didn't go "Full Retard"

That's what I loved about it. He was able to match wits pretty easily with Lowell and again both of them were pretty funny in that nice cynical waythat most movies don't do very well.

I do think that some of the bigger moments happened earlier than the pinnacle moment of the actual speech the story has been building to. However, I also loved the fact that he it wasn't exactly a happy ending.

 

[devenger]

However, Firth didn't simple Jack it. He was very intelligent and hampered ONLY by the stammer. The way he was able to show something so unnatural to begin with in such a natural way was perfect. He certainly didn't go "Full Retard"

You're being too literal. Are you actually explaining to me that Firth's character wasn't retarded?

I meant he found a role that had a debilitating impediment that he had to overcome, which is classically known as Oscar bait. I was referring to the Simple Jack discussion between Stiller and Downey, not the movie where Stiller went 'full retard.'

 

[jakncoke]

yea it's manual approvals for whatever reason. i really hope eezee shows up because i'm pretty sure he cheats.

haha, that'd be sad if someone was cheating. people will probably think i cheat eventually but i'm just a big time loser and watch a lot of movies to pass the time.

 

[JGS]

You're being too literal. Are you actually explaining to me that Firth's character wasn't retarded?

I meant he found a role that had a debilitating impediment that he had to overcome, which is classically known as Oscar bait. I was referring to the Simple Jack discussion between Stiller and Downey, not the movie where Stiller went 'full retard.'

I know you weren't being literal. I was simply exagerating the way I assumed you were exagerating.

I'm just saying that the conversation didn't apply to Firth's role anyway imo.

 

[Vaux]

I bought the Alien Anthology blu ray set. So I popped in Alien, btw its been years since i fully seen the movie, and holy shit the restoration they did is really damn good. Its like I'm watching the movie for the first time again. The movie is 4/4 stars.

I can't wait to watch Aliens now.

 

[alterno69]

I bought the Alien Anthology blu ray set. So I popped in Alien, btw its been years since i fully seen the movie, and holy shit the restoration they did is really damn good. Its like I'm watching the movie for the first time again. The movie is 4/4 stars.

I can't wait to watch Aliens now.

Watching Spiderman for like the tenth time since i bought the trilogy for my 4 year old son last week lol.

On a more serious note, i saw 2010 yesterday, pales in comparission to 2001 but it's not a bad movie, it was great revisiting the locations from 2001 and HAL is awesome as usual, love his voice.

It's amazing tho, that 2001 looks so fucking incredible and like a couple of decades ahead of 2010 in terms of both FX and the PQ of the entire film.

 

[John Dunbar]

You're being too literal. Are you actually explaining to me that Firth's character wasn't retarded?

I meant he found a role that had a debilitating impediment that he had to overcome, which is classically known as Oscar bait. I was referring to the Simple Jack discussion between Stiller and Downey, not the movie where Stiller went 'full retard.'

It may be known as Oscar bait, but it's a false belief. Actors winning Oscars for "going retard" is actually quite rare.

In 00s and 90s, even if you count something as speech impediment, only Firth, Foxx and Hanks really won for it. In the 80s Hoffman and Day-Lewis, and that's about it.

Biopics are the true Oscar bait, though it might help if you combine that with a retard. It's not a coincidence that pretty much all male actors to win an Oscar for going retard, with the exception of Hanks in Forrest Gump, were playing real people. And I'm including Jamie Foxx playing Ray Charles, since I guess being blind counts.

With actresses it's even more rare. I can't think of a single one, in fact. I guess if you want to stretch it, Holly Hunter was mute in The Piano and Winslet couldn't read in The Reader.

Also, I'm talking about leading role Oscars. It might be more common in the supporting category, but too lazy to check. I don't recall there being that many "retard" performances to win there, either.

 

[swoon]

haha, that'd be sad if someone was cheating. people will probably think i cheat eventually but i'm just a big time loser and watch a lot of movies to pass the time.

there's a couple of lost silent films and art of vision that are very hard/impossible to see so as long as you don't check those you should be fine.

 

[otake]

Yeah, this was about my reaction as well. It's a good movie, but there's really nothing there to raise it above your standard Oscar bait movie except for the fact that the acting is actually pretty good and not just impressively theatrical.

I disagree. The difference between typical oscar bait movies and this one is that this one succeeds in making the viewer not only understand what the protagonist is going through but to empathize and feel what the character is going through. It does this during the entire movie, not just at the end like other oscar bait movies.

A movie like inception shouldn't even be nominated for an Oscar. The only real contender was The Fighter.

 

[devenger]

It may be known as Oscar bait, but it's a false belief.

Again, too literal. It was shorthand for an actor playing the part of a disabled person for Oscar consideration. It doesn't matter if it actually works often or not.

Stammer = disability that sounds incredibly awkward but doesn't reflect on the person's intelligence, or the perfect way not to go "full retard".

Add in that its a film about English royalty, a period piece, and a biopic. These are all classic staples of the kinds of movies actors do in the hopes of receiving Oscars.

This one had all of the above.

Simple Jack was Stiller's imaginary play for Oscar consideration. In my opinion, this was Firth's play for Oscar consideration, hence, he Simple Jack'd it.

Academy stats, the definition of retarded, none of this affects whether the movie was Oscar bait or not. But everyone's opinion is different, that's mine.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmMCbsaiuNQ

Here's the Kids sketch I was referring to. If you get the joke in the skit, then you know what I mean about a movie about a stutterer being a "Simple Jack."

And it ws Kevin with the spike in his head, not Mark.

 

[Apdiddy]

Bad Lieutenant - I don't know if this has been discussed on here (it probably has), but holy sh*t this movie is insane. Harvey Keitel gives the most intense performance I've ever seen. Sure, the movie doesn't make any sense at times and some of the other actors in the movie aren't very good, but it doesn't need that. Just watching Harvey Keitel

Spoiler

shoot up, smoke crack and snort cocaine

is enough. The ending is almost out of left field:

Spoiler

The Lieutenant gets shot and killed in his car after taking the two kids that raped a nun to a train station (in a f*cked up Casablanca sort of way). Yet you know something will happen because of Lieutenant making calls to a bookie for a bet on the Mets/Rangers game and being warned that the guy will kill everyone in his family to repay the debt.

The Ghost Writer - Another recent movie I've seen and it's simply great. It makes me want to seek out more Hitchcock films (which is the desired effect Roman Polanski was going for) and more of Polanski's films too. Loved the ending and loved how it was shot.

 

[AlternativeUlster]

Full-length TV version, without question. Why Criterion even bothered with the theatrical is baffling.

Didn't the original theatrical won the Academy Award for best foreign film?

 

[JGS]

Again, too literal. It was shorthand for an actor playing the part of a disabled person for Oscar consideration. It doesn't matter if it actually works often or not.

Stammer = disability that sounds incredibly awkward but doesn't reflect on the person's intelligence, or the perfect way not to go "full retard".

Add in that its a film about English royalty, a period piece, and a biopic. These are all classic staples of the kinds of movies actors do in the hopes of receiving Oscars.

This one had all of the above.

Simple Jack was Stiller's imaginary play for Oscar consideration. In my opinion, this was Firth's play for Oscar consideration, hence, he Simple Jack'd it.

Academy stats, the definition of retarded, none of this affects whether the movie was Oscar bait or not. But everyone's opinion is different, that's mine.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmMCbsaiuNQ

Here's the Kids sketch I was referring to. If you get the joke in the skit, then you know what I mean about a movie about a stutterer being a "Simple Jack."

And it ws Kevin with the spike in his head, not Mark.

I agreed in my OP that it had all the trappings of going for the Oscar, but it was also a very good movie. It didn't win just because of the trappings. It won because it was fantastic.

Firth could hardly not make a play for Oscar consideration unless he stunk- which he didn't unlike Stiller's character. Again, Firth played him for far more than the stammer. Honestly, it wasn't the first thing I thought of when watching the character, unlike Hoffman or Gump, who were more in the mold of being things to react to. IMO, that role belonged to Lowell who was the far more pecular one of the two.

After all, the movie spent a great deal of time explaining that the king's stammering was caused by the same things that affect commoners. Lowell, on the other hand, was the weirdo coach yearning to play Shaespearean parts he didn't qualify for, raising a family in a fairly unusual way, & the one being reacted to by his peculiarities. The king was the normal one with a big problem to overcome given his position.

It wasn't my most enjoyable experience of last year, but my favorite and the Oscar win rarely coincides anyway. I will say that I have loved most of the nominees the past year which is pretty remarkable considering there were 10 of them.

 

[devenger]

I agreed in my OP that it had all the trappings of going for the Oscar, but it was also a very good movie. It didn't win just because of the trappings. It won because it was fantastic.

See, I think that's the only place we disagree. I haven't heard from anyone who actually thought it was a bad film. It's a good film. I just don't think it's a fantastic film, and the "trappings" were whast pushed it over the bar.

 

[Furret]

Again, too literal. It was shorthand for an actor playing the part of a disabled person for Oscar consideration. It doesn't matter if it actually works often or not.

Stammer = disability that sounds incredibly awkward but doesn't reflect on the person's intelligence, or the perfect way not to go "full retard".

Add in that its a film about English royalty, a period piece, and a biopic. These are all classic staples of the kinds of movies actors do in the hopes of receiving Oscars.

This one had all of the above.

Simple Jack was Stiller's imaginary play for Oscar consideration. In my opinion, this was Firth's play for Oscar consideration, hence, he Simple Jack'd it.

Academy stats, the definition of retarded, none of this affects whether the movie was Oscar bait or not. But everyone's opinion is different, that's mine.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmMCbsaiuNQ

Here's the Kids sketch I was referring to. If you get the joke in the skit, then you know what I mean about a movie about a stutterer being a "Simple Jack."

And it ws Kevin with the spike in his head, not Mark.

You know if you don't like the film that's fine, nobody's going to shoot you.

Why concoct this weird conspiracy theory to explain why many other people enjoyed it and thought it Oscar worthy?

The bit where you imply that the little known Colin Firth is some massively powerful industry mogul, manipulating Hollywood from the behind the scenes, is particularly bizarre.

 

[ymmv]

The funny thing about TKS is that I enjoyed the scenes with his father the king and the prince of Wales more than all the scenes with the speech therapist. A king conquering his stammer was just a traditional feel-good movie about a loser overcoming his handicap in the last five minutes of the movie. The scene where Guy Pearce as the prince of Wales ridicules prince Albert. "Yearning for a larger audience, B-b-b-b-ertie? Younger brother trying to push older brother off the throne ... p-p-p-postively medieval." That was the good stuff. Pearce killed that scene. I so wanted the movie about this conflict instead.

 

[devenger]

The bit where you imply that the little known Colin Firth is some massively powerful industry mogul, manipulating Hollywood from the behind the scenes, is particularly bizarre.

I... don't see that part I said he might have chose the part because it was full of Oscar bait. But Firth is little known? Even before TKS, thats not correct.

The most bizarre part is how Furret got conspiracy theory from my explanation of a "Simple Jack."

I've never commented on what other people thought of the movie, besides the Academy voters.

 

[Furret]

I... don't see that part I said he might have chose the part because it was full of Oscar bait. But Firth is little known? Even before TKS, thats not correct.

The most bizarre part is how Furret got conspiracy theory from my explanation of a "Simple Jack."

I've never commented on what other people thought of the movie, besides the Academy voters.

All your posts are filled with strange conspiracy theories and alternative explanations for why a film was made or why it was popular.

Isn't the answer that "the actor wanted to be in the film" and "lots of people thought it was good" enough?

Bertie's disability is a metaphor for his unwillingness to take on his responsibilities, that's why it resonated with audiences around the world. Not because Colin Firth put into a production a low budget art house film specifically designed to snaffle up Oscars.

 

[devenger]

All your posts are filled with strange conspiracy theories and alternative explanations for why a film was made or why it was popular.

1st post, I said it was a good movie, didn't think it was great, Firth pulled a "Simple Jack" - got an Oscar for playing someone with a disability, IMO

2nd post, pointed out KitH sketch that jokes about Oscar bait disabled roles.

3rd post, explained I didn't mean 'full retard.'

4th post, explained the term Oscar bait

5th post, finally resolve difference with JGS, he thought it was fantastic, I thought it was just good.

6th post, state confusion over where you read my bizarre conspiracy theory

7th and last post, point out that none of my posts have bizarre conspiracy theories in them.

Never talked about why it was made, why it is popular, ONLY discussed the reason it got so many Oscars, IMO.

 

[Furret]

1st post, I said it was a good movie, didn't think it was great, Firth pulled a "Simple Jack" - got an Oscar for playing someone with a disability, IMO

2nd post, pointed out KitH sketch that jokes about Oscar bait disabled roles.

3rd post, explained I didn't mean 'full retard.'

4th post, explained the term Oscar bait

5th post, finally resolve difference with JGS, he thought it was fantastic, I thought it was just good.

6th post, state confusion over where you read my bizarre conspiracy theory

7th and last post, point out that none of my posts have bizarre conspiracy theories in them.

Never talked about why it was made, why it is popular, ONLY discussed the reason it got so many Oscars, IMO.

Uh-huh, uh-huh.

So, wait the reason you think it got so many Oscars is because it fulfilled a magical series of criteria to which the judges have a Pavlovian response to and not because... everyone thought it was really good?

 

[JGS]

The funny thing about TKS is that I enjoyed the scenes with his father the king and the prince of Wales more than all the scenes with the speech therapist. A king conquering his stammer was just a traditional feel-good movie about a loser overcoming his handicap in the last five minutes of the movie. The scene where Guy Pearce as the prince of Wales ridicules prince Albert. "Yearning for a larger audience, B-b-b-b-ertie? Younger brother trying to push older brother off the throne ... p-p-p-postively medieval." That was the good stuff. Pearce killed that scene. I so wanted the movie about this conflict instead.

What I loved about it is he didn't overcome it. I would have been thoroughly disappointed if I got that out of the ending.

He was able to trick his audience & Lowell had to help him throughout his reign.

 

[devenger]

Uh-huh, uh-huh.

So, wait the reason you think it got so many Oscars is because it fulfilled a magical series of criteria to which the judges have a Pavlovian response to and not because... everyone thought it was really good?

I don't want to derail the thread any further, and I'm tired of explaining myself.

I said a good movie got a lot of Oscars because it hit many notes and themes that are commonly known as Oscar bait.

I didn't say practically anything you posted. Of course you're aware of that, not sure of the reason for the hardcore trolling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmMCbsaiuNQ

I'll reference the Kids in the Hall sketch again. By your logic, there is no joke here, as there's never been such a thing as Oscar bait, only a magical conspiracy I created.

And I've posted again after I announced my last post, never a good idea. So, since no one agrees with me, I'll just drop it. Sorry I disagreed with the Academy, everybody.

 

[Margalis]

Obviously there is such a thing as Oscar bait - it's basically it's own genre. If you look at a list of Oscar winners for best picture they tend to fall into a few very narrow categories, the chief of which is historical.

 

[Timber]

Didn't the original theatrical won the Academy Award for best foreign film?

Yeah but it's because Bergman Simple Jack'd it.

 

[JGS]

Obviously there is such a thing as Oscar bait - it's basically it's own genre. If you look at a list of Oscar winners for best picture they tend to fall into a few very narrow categories, the chief of which is historical.

I get this and also what fludevil is saying. It's just not the fault/goal of the movie.

It was not made to win the Oscar. Firth didn't take the role to win the Oscar. The director didn't take the gig to win the Oscar. The movie was made because they wanted to and wanted to make money.

The primary reason it's legitimate Oscar bait is it's release schedule or peak buzzage which leads to peak revenue.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Uh-huh, uh-huh.

So, wait the reason you think it got so many Oscars is because it fulfilled a magical series of criteria to which the judges have a Pavlovian response to and not because... everyone thought it was really good?

Uh, can't "thought it was really good" be a result of Pavlovian response mechanisms? I think he's dead-on with regard to the movie hitting all of the standard "Oscar movie" checklist points. And if you don't think "The King's Speech" was financed and produced to be a prestige picture for the studio, the sort of thing that would gain the studio money and accolades because it plays well to the tastes of critics without taking many real artistic risks, then you're choosing to ignore the business that surrounds the film. I'm sure Colin Firth took the role because he thought it would be fun and a challenge to play, but it's not a conspiracy theory to say that the movie was probably given funding because the studio thought it had a good chance to win an Oscar.

Edit: For what it's worth, I don't think "The King's Speech" is bad. It's good, especially the two lead performances (Geoffrey Rush particularly, who I actually think bested Firth in some scenes, a perspective I gained on a subsequent rewatch), but it's really just a pretty good realization of a safe formula rather than something that takes a risk or brings something new to the table.

 

[NotGameboy]

Fire in the Sky.

A group of loggers arrive back in town, claiming that their friend was abducted by something... by aliens. Nobody believes them, and despite a lack of motive and no evidence of foul play, their friends' disappearance is treated as murder.

 

[jakncoke]

Gasland (2010) My mind is full of fuck from this.

 

[JGS]

Uh, can't "thought it was really good" be a result of Pavlovian response mechanisms? I think he's dead-on with regard to the movie hitting all of the standard "Oscar movie" checklist points. And if you don't think "The King's Speech" was financed and produced to be a prestige picture for the studio, the sort of thing that would gain the studio money and accolades because it plays well to the tastes of critics without taking many real artistic risks, then you're choosing to ignore the business that surrounds the film. I'm sure Colin Firth took the role because he thought it would be fun and a challenge to play, but it's not a conspiracy theory to say that the movie was probably given funding because the studio thought it had a good chance to win an Oscar.

It was made because of this. This is almost a chicken or the egg scenario.

It was financed because it was a good enough movie to be an Oscar contender. That was never going to be a surprise unless someone messed up their role. It's no different than Black Swan, The Wrestler, The Fighter, or any other movie heavy on acting, light on CGI.

Edit: For what it's worth, I don't think "The King's Speech" is bad. It's good, especially the two lead performances (Geoffrey Rush particularly, who I actually think bested Firth in some scenes, a perspective I gained on a subsequent rewatch), but it's really just a pretty good realization of a safe formula rather than something that takes a risk or brings something new to the table.

This I agree with (Including Rush's character if not his performance), but nearly every movie with few exceptions does this. Although I did think the disability angle was handled a bit differently.

 

[swoon]

Hævnen (in a better world) **** really good film, though it kinda goes off the rails at the end - but its a wonderful film in spite of that misstep.

rewatched:

hara kiri **** really wonderful, may be a new entry into the films that seem like they are still the next step of film making.

 

[Nappuccino]

Fire in the Sky.

A group of loggers arrive back in town, claiming that their friend was abducted by something... by aliens. Nobody believes them, and despite a lack of motive and no evidence of foul play, their friends' disappearance is treated as murder.

And... what'd you think about it?

 

[AndyD]

Kick-Ass.

Just OK, I think I would give it a 5/10.

I did like Cage's character, reminded me of an older version of Sheldon from Big Bang for some reason.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

It was made because of this. This is almost a chicken or the egg scenario.

It was financed because it was a good enough movie to be an Oscar contender. That was never going to be a surprise unless someone messed up their role. It's no different than Black Swan, The Wrestler, The Fighter, or any other movie heavy on acting, light on CGI.

There's a difference, though, between something being financed because it's good and something being financed because the studio executives feel that it will fit the critical definition of what "good" is, that it's somehow a cut above the usual crap that they peddle but still safe enough to potentially make a decent profit. That an actually good or great movie slips through sometimes is a result of dart-tossing, not critical discernment (and less common than it used to be; compare the Oscar nominees in the 1970's vs. those nominated today and that becomes abundantly clear).

 

[~Kinggi~]

Koreans keep making awesome movies. This shit was surprisingly sick and twisted. Very well done all around.