What Movie Did You Watch This Weekend?

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Lyle and Mark, you were pretty close with your choices. Bravo!   

Yay for Meryl!  The Oscar party I went to--I believe that was the jolt of the
evening for us, because, though we all thought she had a shot, NO ONE at
the party voted she would actually win it on the party ballots!  I noticed
that when she won for Sophie's Choice she wore a gold dress and last night
she also wore a gold dress!

When the biggest surprise of the evening turns out to be the Film Editing
cateogry, you know it was a pretty predictable affair.

I remember the good old oscar watching days of my childhood when I didn't
even know what films were nominated until it was listed in the TV Guide!  And
my young mind still thought a film had a chance to win Best Picture at the end
of the evening when it hadn't won a single award the whole night!  Heh!

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Mark, I also recommend BIG EDEN as I liked it, too.  If you are going to
watch it on dvd, I believe the dvd has some extras--like a cooking or recipe
segment!

[fofol]

Moving on from the Oscars before I forget this new question:

Has anyone out there seen BIG EDEN? I'm sure I'm the one of the only forum members who hasn't.

I had never even heard of it until yesterday!!

Is it worth watching?

Mark

Big Eden is a favorite - it turns every chance to be phobic on its head.  The writer/director says that the wanted to come up with a romantic comedy, and although I'm not sure that it's a comedy, it lifts the spirit.

[oilgun]

Last night's Geezer Oscars were the dullest in memory.  Thank god for the number by Cirque du Soleil, it snapped me out of my daze.  Meryl's acceptance speech was wonderfully heartfelt.  She's always good with speeches but I hated her dress.  I also enjoyed the speech by the Iranian director of The Separation, I'm so glad it won.  And unlike the several detractors on here, I was thrilled that Christopher Plummer finally got an Oscar.   Billy Crystal was pretty disappointing as the host.  Very Madame Tussaud, lol!   I appreciated that they had a theme and stuck to it: The magic of going to the movies (go see movies in theatres people!) but I did not like the retrograde choice of having uniformed models hand out popcorn.  They were all women of course.

Best Dressed: Michelle Williams
Worst Dress: Jennifer Lopez
Most awlward pose:  Angelina Jolie

Actually Angelina Jolie' leg even had its own Twitter feed saying things like "Look at me!!" and "You have to admit, I'm a great looking leg."

Now that leg is the meme du jour.  Here's my favorite manip

[ingmarnicebbmt]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LOL !!

[suelyblu]

Not a fan.......but last night at the Oscars and he came on to give out an award.....Tom Cruise looked completely expressionless. His face is smoother than it was 10 years ago. It looked like Tom Cruise but was it ?   

[fofol]

Not a fan.......but last night at the Oscars and he came on to give out an award.....Tom Cruise looked completely expressionless. His face is smoother than it was 10 years ago. It looked like Tom Cruise but was it ?   

It was Stepford Cruise.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

LOL!

As for the oscar show, I read a lot of critical opinions of it, but really, has the show
changed that much since it has started airing on TV back in the 50's?  There's always
a moment or two that people talk about and they always bash most any production
number and bemoan the lack of excitement.  If there is some excitement--like Crash
winning, or a surprise winner like Marisa Tomei, it's "always" seen as a bad occurence,
even Meryl winning was considered a pisser apparently for many, so I just don't think
anyone is complimentary any more.  The things that used to be wonderful about
watching the oscars were to see movie celebrities you wouldn't ordinarily see on TV
and actual clips of films that you saw and want to see again or would like to see and
the like.  With the advent of video followed by dvr's, the internet and mass media,
none of that is new or different to anyone any more.  The oscars are just another
show in a parade of babble within one's grasp at any moment.

One complaint of the oscars is alwasys that it's too long and one thing they've
done to try to remedy that is to give out their special awards, like the Thalberg,
Jean Hersholt or special oscars in a separate ceremony, but some of the tribute
awards have been the best part of the oscars in years past--like when Stanwyck
gave her emotional acceptance, and Deborah Kerr and when Blake Edwards started
his with a slapstick comedy bit and even Jerry Lewis's was heartfelt.  They took that
all away in favor of a -- yeah, we gave some people honorary awards last month, they
were so and so--next.

There also didn't used to be so many film award shows.  There were no SAG's and
Critic's Choice and People's Choice and Teen Choice and Kid's Choice and the Globes
weren't often televised, either.  And there were only a few cities that gave out awards
for films instead of what seems to be EVERY city nowadays.  And there are specialized
film awards for women and African Americans and gay people and Latino persons etc.
All of which makes the oscars seem like just another award show.

I also don't pay too much attention to the oscar show reviews, because how do the
critics watch the oscars?  Most of us sit around with family or friends or even a party
and talk and dish and such--like it was a TMZ show and have a good time.  It's always
better when you think of it as a participatory sport!
 

[janjo]

I would agree with you Lyle that the Oscars haven't changed much, but perhaps that is the problem. The Oscars are important, films are important, who wins what is important, but watching women in dresses parade up and down on a red carpet isn't important.
In fact it is boring.
A wonderful film is a great thing, but celebrity culture, and putting people on pedestals, to their detriment and ours, is pretty unpleasant on the whole.
Perhaps we need a rethink here.
It is great if Meryl Streep gives a wonderful performance, and I like her a lot, but is it really more important than my builder or my doctor doing a good job?
I do wonder sometimes.

[doodler]

Buiders and doctors and florists have their own forms of awards/recognition. The difference is, their achievements are generally not in the public eye and are known only to their clients and peers. The entertainment industry is built on everyone seeing what they've done and the public wants to SEE the people they allow into their homes via tv, dvd, cd, etc honored.

More important? No.
More interesting? Yes.

[daannzzz]

We have watched 3 more of the Boris Karloff "Mr. Wong" movies. They are short at 60- 70 minutes and remind me a bit of Murder She Wrote or Poirot....except with a generous amount of misogyny and racism. Aside from those issues we have been enjoying them despite the murkiness of the prints as well as the red herrings and, abundant missing, information making it very difficult to figure out who done it and/or what is going on. For me the enjoyment comes from Boris Karloff in his role.

[janjo]

It was Stepford Cruise.

So Mike and Sue, there seems to be a lot we agree about: We love Brokeback Mountain, we love Jake Gyllenhaal, and none of us like Tom Cruise!

[fofol]

So Mike and Sue, there seems to be a lot we agree about: We love Brokeback Mountain, we love Jake Gyllenhaal, and none of us like Tom Cruise!

Pity the fool!

I have been watching rewatching 'Northern Exposure' episodes: I know it's TV, but I'd forgotten why I liked the show, despite Dr. Fleischman: each episode has the 'look' and 'feel' of a film, and nothing is TV-simple.  Not every problem is settled within the time frame of one episode, and sometimes 'the good guys' loose.  ...and even Rob Morrow (Dr. Joel Fleischman) is a cutie.

[oilgun]

An interesting take on Hugo and The Artist from Adam Cooke: Past/Not Past: A Tale of Two Cinemas

http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/pastnot-past-a-tale-of-two-cinemas?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=digest41


[...]
Where The Artist is capitalist, Hugo is spiritual. Scorsese sees cinema’s history as equally intertwined with world history and personal history; it is a means to connect and interpret the world, even to help one define oneself existentially. Perhaps this is why I find Scorsese’s cinema the most moving of all. His cinephilia, not unlike Daney’s, is inextricably part of his identity and how he relates to the world. It is not simple film-geekery but rather a part of one’s understanding of humanity and how to figure an individual into a cultural lineage. The Artist feels closed off from the world that it is supposedly a part of, concerned only with the dire economic circumstances that serve as a Darwinian inspiration to the movies to stay fit to survive. Hazanivicius fails to see the responsibility of images and our responsibility to them.

Functioning as perfect figurations for each film’s point of view are their respective “mascots”: the Méliès-made automaton in Hugo and Uggie the dog in The Artist. The latter provokes an “isn’t that cute?” type of response that affirms its condescending position on silent film. In contrast, the automaton is a complex representation of cinema and its amalgam of technology and humanity. It is an object through which the protagonist, a Scorsese-surrogate, is able to transcend his limitations. There is no question about which of the two treats cinema more seriously. That issue can also be measured by the question of which of the films is more likely to inspire a less informed viewer to be more open to silent film. It’s difficult for me to pretend to see from this perspective, but Hugo makes the prospect of watching a silent film exciting. The Artist, on the other hand, provides a substitution for watching an actual silent film, and I can hardly see it being able to convince a viewer to watch “one of those silly old movies.” The Artist’s awkwardly anachronistic references to Welles and Hitchcock, and its Singin’ in the Rain cut-and-paste-job, render its tribute impotent and muddle any intentions to glorify the “silents”. Hugo builds references to other films within its own language, in congruence with how culture and its meanings are inherently built up of all things.
[...]

[janjo]

Buiders and doctors and florists have their own forms of awards/recognition. The difference is, their achievements are generally not in the public eye and are known only to their clients and peers. The entertainment industry is built on everyone seeing what they've done and the public wants to SEE the people they allow into their homes via tv, dvd, cd, etc honored.

More important? No.
More interesting? Yes.

I'm not sure it is more interesting. Serious awards and discussion might be, but women in designer dresses making inane acceptance speeches, and men thanking their mum, their director and the dog, aren't interesting either.
That is not to say that I don't sometimes want to see directors, and actors seriously discussing their work, which can be fascinating, or that they should not get awards.