Academy Award - Best Picture 2011

[Michael Hardner]

I've seen all 3...

All are good..

I believe the Shawshank Redemption is far superior to Pulp Fiction,but,that's just me....

Really ?

"Say what again !"

"Royale with cheese..."

So many lines from PF are imprinted on my memory... not so much with SR, though it wasn't a bad flick.

[Mr.Canada]

True Grit, The Kings Speech and a distant third is the facebook movie as movies I'd like to see.

However in my mind Hollywood has stopped making great movies and now just make disposable movies.

No Country for Old Men was the last movie I remember seeing that was very close to being good.

[wyly]

Gump ? I thought it was a feel-good mishmash that wasn't believable, and therefore missed the mark on its purportedly inspirational message.

I never thought it was meant to be believable...

[Michael Hardner]

I never thought it was meant to be believable...

Ok, well if it's a fantasy then why mix drama in there ? Or was it melodrama ? My impression was that it was intended to be a serious film, at least in parts.

[wyly]

Ok, well if it's a fantasy then why mix drama in there ? Or was it melodrama ? My impression was that it was intended to be a serious film, at least in parts.

different expectations and POV...I never took it seriously at any time, it was just light entertainment with a few life lessons thrown in, a fairy tale for adults...

[Moonlight Graham]

different expectations and POV...I never took it seriously at any time, it was just light entertainment with a few life lessons thrown in, a fairy tale for adults...

I agree. Much of the charm/humour of the movie was all the incredible things Gump got involved in which is obviously quite unrealistic. He's a fictional character and the story is meant to be both fun/lighthearted in parts and also serious in parts too.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree. Much of the charm/humour of the movie was all the incredible things Gump got involved in which is obviously quite unrealistic. He's a fictional character and the story is meant to be both fun/lighthearted in parts and also serious in parts too.

Wait - Gump is a FICTIONAL character ? And all this time I thought this was a documentary !

[bloodyminded]

Wait - Gump is a FICTIONAL character ? And all this time I thought this was a documentary !

By the way, I agree with you about Pulp Fiction. I recently watched both that one and Reservoir Dogs...and you're right, PF is aging well, so far. But Reservoir Dogs is already looking a bit out of date.

[jefferiah]

From what I hear, 127 Hours deserves to win for realism. People have told me that it felt like it took 127 hours to watch it.

[scouterjim]

IMDb

I would set up a poll but I'm too lazy/tired.

I've seen Inception, The Kids Are Alright, The Social Network, The King's Speech.

Frankly, I think most of them are crappy movies. IMHO, the "message" of Avatar was hypocritical: rich corporation/billionaire makes movie to make money by criticizing corporations/greed. IOW, I think the Academy/Hollywood are going the way of the New York Times. They don't get "new media".

The mere fact that "The Social Network" was nominated is a sign of the times. It's like the CBC telling listeners to go to their web page for further details, or Al Jolson telling people to buy the album.

-----

Don't really care. I never watch, nor care about, the awards.

I hated Inception and if it wins, I will declare that Hollywood has fundamentally cut itself off from the Western world.

The Kids Are Alright? They gave it to American Beauty. (My own feeling is that since Midnight Cowboy, it's been downhill. Same basic story: "America is bad.") Possible.

True Grit? They gave Woody Allen one award and I suspect they'll do the same for the Coen brothers. One is enough.

The Fighter? I haven't seen it. I want to. Mark Wahlberg is no fool.

Black Swan. Haven't seen it. A possible.

The King's Speech. Very good but British/Weinstein and not as good as "Shakespeare in Love". Then again, it has the 21st century slant of victim defending Western values. Maybe.

Is "127 Hours" a Best Picture? Comparable to "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Gone With The Wind"? How we in the West have fallen...

I truly don't care about any awards shows.

Edited February 28, 2011 by scouterjim

[August1991]

I go to a lot of movies, going to Incendie tonight.

As it happens, I have seen all of the nominees.

The best movie, easily, is Winters Bone where a young actress named Jennifer Lawrence does a superb job.

Les Incendies has been on my list for a long time.

----

As to Winter's Bone, I watched it recently. What a wretched, boring movie. It's wretched because Hollywood shows once again that it is incapable of dramatizing middle America. In this case, it presents them as speed addicted, trailer trash, angst ridden, redneck hicks who are fodder for the US Army. (It was made by a Columbia University film professor.)

I drove through Missouri/Arkansas a few months ago, stopping into the occasional Waffle House and Walmart along the way. The people in Missouri, even poor people, are nothing at all like the people portrayed in this movie. I frankly think the book's author (the movie is based on a novel) took part of Mark Twain's originality and attempted to bring Twain's comical family feud story into the modern world. The attempt failed miserably.

Winter's Bone is also paint-drying boring.

One never knows but the Academy is unlikely to choose it as Best Picture. It was included in the nominations because some Academy members still think Midnight Cowboy and Deliverance were ground breaking movies.

[kimmy]

As to Winter's Bone, I watched it recently. What a wretched, boring movie. It's wretched because Hollywood shows once again that it is incapable of dramatizing middle America. In this case, it presents them as speed addicted, trailer trash, angst ridden, redneck hicks who are fodder for the US Army. (It was made by a Columbia University film professor.)

I don't think there was an attempt to represent middle America, or even the people of the Ozarks, as a whole. It's a story about a family... a really miserable one. Not rural America as a whole.

I drove through Missouri/Arkansas a few months ago, stopping into the occasional Waffle House and Walmart along the way. The people in Missouri, even poor people, are nothing at all like the people portrayed in this movie.

Winter's Bone creates an incredible sense of a people and a culture and a place. I have no idea whether the movie is really a fair representation of life in the Ozarks... but it's not a documentary.

Winter's Bone is also paint-drying boring.

A movie like this only works if you can become emotionally invested in the characters. For me, that was easy, and I found it to be very entertaining as a result. If you don't believe in Ree Dolly and don't care what happens to her, then her story's certainly not going to be interesting.

-k

[kimmy]

I was pretty miffed that Daft Punk didn't get a motion picture score nomination for "Tron", because the Tron soundtrack is brilliant, a highlight for an otherwise terrible film. But it more than made up for that when I found out that one of my musical heroes, Trent Reznor, won the Oscar for composing the soundtrack for "The Social Network".

Just saw "The Social Network," and really liked it. Jesse Eisenberg, fresh from laying the beatdown on the walking dead in the epic awesomeness of "Zombieland", stars as Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook.

Fans of Facebook might be interested in the story behind it (although this isn't a documentary...) but at its heart this movie is really just a character study, and it really works well in that respect. Eisenberg makes Zuckerberg into a guy who you simultaneously like, dislike, admire, and pity. You'll want to "unfriend" him many times during the film. He's an antisocial drip who, as one of his adversaries puts it, "doesn't have 3 friends to rub together." He really only has one friend, and betrays him. It's ironic that the guy behind the ultimate social networking tool is, essentially, a loner who created this phenomenon as an experiment, almost a virtual ant-farm.

To paraphrase a proverb, "He has no friends, who has 500 million friends."

I liked this movie. Eisenberg is terrific. As for the soundtrack... it fits the movie, but I liked the Tron OST a lot more.

-k

[Black Dog]

Les Incendies has been on my list for a long time.

If that film was in English and made in the U.S.A. you'd despise it like you despise all the other films nominated for Best Picture. It's not a very good film.

[August1991]

If that film was in English and made in the U.S.A. you'd despise it like you despise all the other films nominated for Best Picture. It's not a very good film.

Hey BD, gimme a break.

I liked The King's English and it won the Best Picture. So, in my book, the Academy is tickety-boo. (But I still think that it's a weak copy of Shakespeare In Love.)

----

IMHO, the Academy should change its structure. Technology has changed the model. Movies such as Marty, The Lost Weekend, The Best Years of Our Lives would now go direct to DVD, HBO or Netflix.

In 1946, people didn't have home cinemas with 60 inch, 1080p, 5.1 sound. Nowadays, the only movies in cinema are CGI, sci-fi blockbusters for 14 year old boys who buy cinema tickets.

[kimmy]

IMHO, the Academy should change its structure. Technology has changed the model. Movies such as Marty, The Lost Weekend, The Best Years of Our Lives would now go direct to DVD, HBO or Netflix.

Nonsense.

In 1946, people didn't have home cinemas with 60 inch, 1080p, 5.1 sound. Nowadays, the only movies in cinema are CGI, sci-fi blockbusters for 14 year old boys who buy cinema tickets.

Nonsense.

Sometimes I swear you must be posting stuff like this to get a rise out of people.

-k

[bloodyminded]

I was pretty miffed that Daft Punk didn't get a motion picture score nomination for "Tron", because the Tron soundtrack is brilliant, a highlight for an otherwise terrible film. But it more than made up for that when I found out that one of my musical heroes, Trent Reznor, won the Oscar for composing the soundtrack for "The Social Network".

Just saw "The Social Network," and really liked it. Jesse Eisenberg, fresh from laying the beatdown on the walking dead in the epic awesomeness of "Zombieland", stars as Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook.

Fans of Facebook might be interested in the story behind it (although this isn't a documentary...) but at its heart this movie is really just a character study, and it really works well in that respect. Eisenberg makes Zuckerberg into a guy who you simultaneously like, dislike, admire, and pity. You'll want to "unfriend" him many times during the film. He's an antisocial drip who, as one of his adversaries puts it, "doesn't have 3 friends to rub together." He really only has one friend, and betrays him. It's ironic that the guy behind the ultimate social networking tool is, essentially, a loner who created this phenomenon as an experiment, almost a virtual ant-farm.

To paraphrase a proverb, "He has no friends, who has 500 million friends."

I liked this movie. Eisenberg is terrific. As for the soundtrack... it fits the movie, but I liked the Tron OST a lot more.

-k

Eisenberg's clearly got the acting chops, no question.

And yeah, I'd constantly heard how unlikeable Eisenberg's Zuckerberg is...but that's only partially true. As you say, he's also pitiable, and even at times likeable. A complex figure.

Far more easily detestable are Justin Timberlake as Napster's Sean Parker; and maybe, too, Armie Hammer's really well-performed Winklevoss twins, who are somewhat douchebag-y.

[kimmy]

Far more easily detestable are Justin Timberlake as Napster's Sean Parker; and maybe, too, Armie Hammer's really well-performed Winklevoss twins, who are somewhat douchebag-y.

Are they really? I think we as the audience are initially inclined to dislike the Winklevoss twins ("the Winklevi", as Zuckerberg refers to them at one point ) because they're rich guys who are used to getting everything they want in life, and we hate characters like that from lots of other movies.

And I think Zuckerberg (the movie Zuckerberg, of course) is inclined to dislike them for exactly the same reason. He's clearly pretty conscious --and jealous-- of status.

-his obsession with getting into the Phoenix Club.

-ridiculing Erica for attending Boston College instead of Harvard, and feeling it was a social-climbing move for her family to have changed their name from Albrecht to Albright.

-his reaction to Eduardo getting into the Phoenix Club ("it's probably a diversity thing" and "you can be proud of that. Even if you don't get any farther.")

-his apparent envy of Sean Parker's rock-star-like status

-later on at the trial, he boasts that he could buy the Phoenix Club and turn it into his ping-pong room, yet he's still burnt that when the twins took him there, he wasn't allowed to go past the bicycle room.

-and he really does go out and get the business card that says "I'm the CEO, bitch." (I've heard that Zuckerberg really does have that business card.)

Early on in the film when Eduardo asks Zuckerberg if the whole thing was just jealousy that he got tapped to join the Phoenix Club, we're inclined to think he's just bitter. But by the end of the film, you have to wonder if that did play a role in what happened.

Do the Winkevoss twins actually do anything particularly bad in the film? Well, they sue Zuckerberg, eventually... and while it's pretty complicated, it seems like their lawsuit has at least a bit of merit behind it. Do they actually *do* anything douchebaggish in the film?

I think we dislike the Winklevi because they're privileged in ways the rest of us can only dream about. And because instead of using skills of their own, they can build their enterprise by hiring some hapless schmuck to do it for them for a measly salary.

Timberlake was really good, and Armie Hammer (does his birth certificate say that?! ) was great. He makes the twins really distinct, the one who is resistant to suing and concerned about acting like gentlemen, and the one who shouts "I'm 6'5, 220, and there's two of me!"

-k

[ToadBrother]

Eisenberg's clearly got the acting chops, no question.

And yeah, I'd constantly heard how unlikeable Eisenberg's Zuckerberg is...but that's only partially true. As you say, he's also pitiable, and even at times likeable. A complex figure.

Far more easily detestable are Justin Timberlake as Napster's Sean Parker; and maybe, too, Armie Hammer's really well-performed Winklevoss twins, who are somewhat douchebag-y.

As good as everyone was in the film, I was actually quite impressed by Timberlake. Maybe he was playing Parker close to his own personality or something, but he created Parker as a venal self-serving self-worshipping SOB, and it was brilliant. He created a truly loathsomely egomaniacal character.

[bloodyminded]

Are they really? I think we as the audience are initially inclined to dislike the Winklevoss twins ("the Winklevi", as Zuckerberg refers to them at one point ) because they're rich guys who are used to getting everything they want in life, and we hate characters like that from lots of other movies.

Exactly. I'm not making a moral statement about the actual human beings, but the characters, as they are presented to the audience.

To be fair, the twins are not totally and utterly unsympathetic either.

And I think Zuckerberg (the movie Zuckerberg, of course) is inclined to dislike them for exactly the same reason. He's clearly pretty conscious --and jealous-- of status.

He is; but there is, possibly, a statement about status itself, quite apart from Zuckerberg's self-indulgent jealousy of it.

For example, the "getting past the bicycle room" matter; if it were me, I personally couldn't care less that I wasn't allowed past the bicycle room; but I would despise the existence of the elitism itself. It wouldn't be about me (as it is for Zuckerberg), but it would be about the clear existence of top-down class warfare.

I believe the audience is, almost automatically, pressed into feeling this way...but it's no different from an audience feeling outrage over any other ethical matter relating to class and elitism.

In other words, Zuckerberg is our flawed avatar, as the hero/anti-hero narrator generally is; but some of what he feels is legitiate, even if for quesitonable reasons.

Do the Winkevoss twins actually do anything particularly bad in the film? Well, they sue Zuckerberg, eventually... and while it's pretty complicated, it seems like their lawsuit has at least a bit of merit behind it. Do they actually *do* anything douchebaggish in the film?

Aside from their astonishment that they could lose anything (Zuckerberg's respect; a rowing competition; the Dean's support in their battle), nothing outrageous, no.

Timberlake was really good, and Armie Hammer (does his birth certificate say that?! ) was great. He makes the twins really distinct, the one who is resistant to suing and concerned about acting like gentlemen, and the one who shouts "I'm 6'5, 220, and there's two of me!"

-k

Yeah, the performances were really good across the board.

Edited March 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

He is; but there is, possibly, a statement about status itself, quite apart from Zuckerberg's self-indulgent jealousy of it.

For example, the "getting past the bicycle room" matter; if it were me, I personally couldn't care less that I wasn't allowed past the bicycle room; but I would despise the existence of the elitism itself. It wouldn't be about me (as it is for Zuckerberg), but it would be about the clear existence of top-down class warfare.

I believe the audience is, almost automatically, pressed into feeling this way...but it's no different from an audience feeling outrage over any other ethical matter relating to class and elitism.

In other words, Zuckerberg is our flawed avatar, as the hero/anti-hero narrator generally is; but some of what he feels is legitiate, even if for quesitonable reasons.

I've read enough of your political views to know that you're completely sincere when you say that it is the existence of the "bicycle room" barrier itself that is offensive to you.

I'm not sure most people feel the same. I think that a lot of people *think* they feel that way, when in fact what they resent isn't the existence of the barrier themselves, but rather the fact that they're on the *wrong side* of the barrier. I think that most people, upon gaining admission to such an environment, would rationalize it as a reflection of their merits in some way or another.

I certainly can't tell you that I'd be any different. I personally believe that private clubs have a right to exist, with whatever admission criteria they wish, regardless of how arbitrary or unfair. In the face of societies that wouldn't accept me as a member, like the Augusta Golf and Country Club, or the federal civil service, I just tell myself that any club that wouldn't want me as a member doesn't actually deserve me as a member and is much the poorer for it.

Movie-Zuckerberg is squarely onside with those who support the existence of that barrier. He's just bent about being on the wrong side of it.

Aside from their astonishment that they could lose anything (Zuckerberg's respect; a rowing competition; the Dean's support in their battle), nothing outrageous, no.

I was thinking about what purpose the regatta scene actually served in the film. It was

, but what purpose did it actually serve in the film? I'd decided that it's somewhat important as the point where the gentler Winklevoss finally gives in to his twin and to Divya, and agrees to the lawsuit. (was it the sting of defeat that made him give in, or was he just tired of being berated by the other two?) But after thinking about it, it seemed to be that there must be more to it than that. It's not foreshadowing, as they did ultimately get a big settlement in the lawsuit...

When I was watching, I was pretty surprised that they lost. Were you? As the race went along and the Harvard boat got closer and closer, it seemed like the inevitable result was a movie-cliche come-from-behind victory. Instead, you get defeated Winklevi and Divya fuming in the audience. A complete contrast to the earlier rowing scene where the Winklevosses discuss whether they should do something to give their opponents a chance, like rowing in opposite directions or jumping out and swimming. Seeing them lose was maybe something the audience wasn't expecting, and something Fincher decided was important.

-k

[dre]

I've read enough of your political views to know that you're completely sincere when you say that it is the existence of the "bicycle room" barrier itself that is offensive to you.

I'm not sure most people feel the same. I think that a lot of people *think* they feel that way, when in fact what they resent isn't the existence of the barrier themselves, but rather the fact that they're on the *wrong side* of the barrier. I think that most people, upon gaining admission to such an environment, would rationalize it as a reflection of their merits in some way or another.

I certainly can't tell you that I'd be any different. I personally believe that private clubs have a right to exist, with whatever admission criteria they wish, regardless of how arbitrary or unfair. In the face of societies that wouldn't accept me as a member, like the Augusta Golf and Country Club, or the federal civil service, I just tell myself that any club that wouldn't want me as a member doesn't actually deserve me as a member and is much the poorer for it.

Movie-Zuckerberg is squarely onside with those who support the existence of that barrier. He's just bent about being on the wrong side of it.

I was thinking about what purpose the regatta scene actually served in the film. It was

, but what purpose did it actually serve in the film? I'd decided that it's somewhat important as the point where the gentler Winklevoss finally gives in to his twin and to Divya, and agrees to the lawsuit. (was it the sting of defeat that made him give in, or was he just tired of being berated by the other two?) But after thinking about it, it seemed to be that there must be more to it than that. It's not foreshadowing, as they did ultimately get a big settlement in the lawsuit...

When I was watching, I was pretty surprised that they lost. Were you? As the race went along and the Harvard boat got closer and closer, it seemed like the inevitable result was a movie-cliche come-from-behind victory. Instead, you get defeated Winklevi and Divya fuming in the audience. A complete contrast to the earlier rowing scene where the Winklevosses discuss whether they should do something to give their opponents a chance, like rowing in opposite directions or jumping out and swimming. Seeing them lose was maybe something the audience wasn't expecting, and something Fincher decided was important.

-k

A complete contrast to the earlier rowing scene where the Winklevosses discuss whether they should do something to give their opponents a chance, like rowing in opposite directions or jumping out and swimming. Seeing them lose was maybe something the audience wasn't expecting, and something Fincher decided was important.

Yeah thats a play on the tech bubble and how "geeks" became cool and actually became part of the "elite". The Winklevosses werent just silver spoon kids they were also taller, better looking, more athletic, got more chicks, more popular, and better connected. Its not so much class warfare but a play on how the tech bubble turned the lamest kids in school (dorks that stayed in their rooms playing with computers) into the next generation of power players.

[bloodyminded]

I've read enough of your political views to know that you're completely sincere when you say that it is the existence of the "bicycle room" barrier itself that is offensive to you.

I'm not sure most people feel the same. I think that a lot of people *think* they feel that way, when in fact what they resent isn't the existence of the barrier themselves, but rather the fact that they're on the *wrong side* of the barrier. I think that most people, upon gaining admission to such an environment, would rationalize it as a reflection of their merits in some way or another.

Well, maybe you're right; maybe there's an ambivalence that turns a person in either direction, depending on their position.

You're right that I am sincere about what I said, but I'm aware of the seductiveness of elite positions. It's undeniable. And it's not exactly as if I'm of an elevated moral conscience screaming from the wilderness.

I certainly can't tell you that I'd be any different. I personally believe that private clubs have a right to exist, with whatever admission criteria they wish, regardless of how arbitrary or unfair.

Absolutely! I don't condone any sort of forced egalitarianism. And neither do I wish to make much of this particular subject (the elite clubs), because I don't consider the matter very important, and only interesting in, as they say, an academic sense.

In the face of societies that wouldn't accept me as a member, like the Augusta Golf and Country Club, or the federal civil service, I just tell myself that any club that wouldn't want me as a member doesn't actually deserve me as a member and is much the poorer for it.

Not far from what I was saying, but more of a healthy "Screw you" than the simmering anger I was positing. Maybe yours is preferable.

Movie-Zuckerberg is squarely onside with those who support the existence of that barrier. He's just bent about being on the wrong side of it.

Yeah.

I was thinking about what purpose the regatta scene actually served in the film. It was

, but what purpose did it actually serve in the film? I'd decided that it's somewhat important as the point where the gentler Winklevoss finally gives in to his twin and to Divya, and agrees to the lawsuit. (was it the sting of defeat that made him give in, or was he just tired of being berated by the other two?) But after thinking about it, it seemed to be that there must be more to it than that. It's not foreshadowing, as they did ultimately get a big settlement in the lawsuit...

I think this is insightful. I hadn't really thought about it. But I do have an interest in apparently irrelevant movie scenes that appear in excellent movies. Because with movies like this I trust the filmmaker, I think it's interesting to try to figure them out.

I don't know if you've seen Fargo (I suspect you have), but there is a similarly out-of-place scene, in which the heroine has lunch with an old schoolmate. It seems utterly unrelated to the movie, and appears quite far into the film. I think it might be that, as she discovers that this man is a cringingly pathetic liar and all-around sad sack and failure, she realizes that the man she had interviewed earlier (William Macy's character) is of a somewhat similar type...and this inspires her to another, more aggressive interview with him.

When I was watching, I was pretty surprised that they lost. Were you? As the race went along and the Harvard boat got closer and closer, it seemed like the inevitable result was a movie-cliche come-from-behind victory. Instead, you get defeated Winklevi and Divya fuming in the audience. A complete contrast to the earlier rowing scene where the Winklevosses discuss whether they should do something to give their opponents a chance, like rowing in opposite directions or jumping out and swimming. Seeing them lose was maybe something the audience wasn't expecting, and something Fincher decided was important.

-k

Yeah, and an excellent scene, as you say.

Edited March 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

Well, maybe you're right; maybe there's an ambivalence that turns a person in either direction, depending on their position.

You're right that I am sincere about what I said, but I'm aware of the seductiveness of elite positions. It's undeniable. And it's not exactly as if I'm of an elevated moral conscience screaming from the wilderness.

I think most people would probably rationalize an elite status (membership in an exclusive club, a promotion at work, that sort of thing) as something they'd earned or deserved... at which point the existence of that barrier becomes A Good And Noble Thing.

I think this is insightful. I hadn't really thought about it. But I do have an interest in apparently irrelevant movie scenes that appear in excellent movies. Because with movies like this I trust the filmmaker, I think it's interesting to try to figure them out.

I don't know if you've seen Fargo (I suspect you have), but there is a similarly out-of-place scene, in which the heroine has lunch with an old schoolmate. It seems utterly unrelated to the movie, and appears quite far into the film. I think it might be that, as she discovers that this man is a cringingly pathetic liar and all-around sad sack and failure, she realizes that the man she had interviewed earlier (William Macy's character) is of a somewhat similar type...and this inspires her to another, more aggressive interview with him.

That's a great example. I've seen Fargo... but I saw it at an age when I was more concerned with whether Brandon would finally get together with Kelly than how stories are told. But even at the time, that scene struck me as really weird and I didn't get it. Maybe you've got it figured out I'd have to watch Fargo again to decide. Sure makes you think about what the author or director is trying to say, though, doesn't it.

-k