Academy Awards Best Picture 2013

[August1991]

Amour

Argo

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Django Unchained

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Les Misérables

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty

Only nine this time? Why not, uh, five or ten? More pointedly, I have no idea how the Academy votes on Best Picture except that all members have the right to vote. (Is it FPTP or is there a second vote scheme? By enlarging the nominees to nine/ten, this improves publicity for nominees - but it also means that "losers" may win, like King's Speech, and Stéphane Dion.)

---

I suspect that it is between Lincoln and Les Misérables, but the Academy will likely give Spielberg another win.

Life of Pi? Haven't seen the movie, generally hate CGI, got a few pages through the book. IMV, it was all fake crap: Martel is no Bulgakov or Kafka. Ang Lee is a hired gun.

Silver Linings Playbook - haven't seen, but will. Interesting, you never know. Possible.

Zero Dark Thirty. Haven't seen, want to. Unlikely the Academy would give her another Oscar.

Argo. Haven't seen, want to. Unlikely the Academy would give Affleck another Oscar, for this.

Django Unchained. Haven't seen, will never see it. To me, Tarantino is a fraud. If he wins, Hollywood/America are in a Death Spiral.

Amour/Beasts? They're auction shills.

Edited January 11, 2013 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Why do you say Tarantino is a fraud ?

[Guest]

Tarantino has made one truly great movie, Pulp Fiction.

The others were okay. "Worth seeing once, I guess", sort of movies.

I'll watch Django when it shows up in front of me.

(I have to admit, when I heard he was making it, I thought it was about the guitarist. I was looking forward to that one)

[Michael Hardner]

My two cents:

Reservoir Dogs was great. Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds had great parts to them.

He tells stories very economically which is great to watch. And the writing is imaginative for the most part.

[Guest]

His dialogue is usually the best part.

I agree all his movies had great scenes, the Kill Bills had a few, and were fun to watch, but Pulp Fiction is the only one I would expect to find on a "great" movies list.

But like you say, it's just our opinions.

Never saw Death Proof.

[Michael Hardner]

Never saw Death Proof.

Death Proof is an homage to the 70s car chase B-Movie genre.

There's a great chase in it but on the whole, kind of forgettable.

But... Reservoir Dogs ???? No ?

[Guest]

I enjoyed Reservoir Dogs. I'm not saying it's a bad film. I just never had the urge to see it again.

I much preferred Pulp Fiction, which I own. And really, is on my list of all time greats.

[kimmy]

I have heard of several of these movies! Zero Dark Thirty is the only one I have much interest in seeing.

There appears to be a lot of controversy over Kathryn Bigelow's omission from the Best Director category, as she's already received a truckload of other awards and nominations for this film. There is speculation that the Academy Awards snubbed her because they did not wish to be part of controversy surrounding the film's discussion of whether "enhanced interrogation" may have yielded information that helped locate Bin Laden.

I also notice that Jennifer Lawrence has another Best Actress nomination this year. I really like her in every film I have seen her in.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....There is speculation that the Academy Awards snubbed her because they did not wish to be part of controversy surrounding the film's discussion of whether "enhanced interrogation" may have yielded information that helped locate Bin Laden.

ZDT juxtaposes the 9/11 attacks with "enhanced" interrogation, leaving no doubt about the director's intent. Bigelow also broke Hollywood liberal form on stage by thanking the American armed forces for their service and the people of Jordan in her Oscar winning film Hurt Locker.

Edited January 12, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

I'm almost certain this is going to Life of Pi.

[sharkman]

Just saw Zero Dark Thirty last night. A pretty good movie that didn't pussy foot around the rough treatment of prisoners, etc. There was some controversy over it last fall, but I think now it was unfounded.

Lincoln is my favorite on the list. Lewis was amazing.

[August1991]

Tarantino has made one truly great movie, Pulp Fiction.

Because of the cartoon violence, Tarantino has a devoted following. As a result of this following, he can get money to make his next picture. And with a wider short list, the Academy can appeal to cartoon lovers and nominate his latest movie for Best Picture.

I suspect that Tarantino's "devoted following" is dwindling, and the money guys have noticed. He's a one-trick pony.

His dialogue is usually the best part.

WTF?

"Did you get the blueberry pancakes?"

That line is simply, childishly ironic. I reckon that most Tarantino fans come for the cartoon violence but a few admire the childlike irony. As I say, they're a "devoted following".

I'm almost certain this is going to Life of Pi.

You may be right. In my OP, I chose Lincoln or Les Misérables. But cybercoma, given modern life, you're probably righter.

A movie using a hired gun director and extensive CGI, based on a badly written, pseudo-modernist novel, wins Best Picture.

---

Richard Bach, and Jonathan Livingston Seagull, came before their time.

Edited January 13, 2013 by August1991

[Moonlight Graham]

The Perks of Being a Wallflower was amazing and didn't get nominated for any major award. Should have got in over Les Mis since it got a much higher ranking on rotten tomatoes and IMDB than that one, plus was higher on IMDB than just about every nominated film.

I think Lincoln will win best picture & director because of feelings of patriotic obligation to vote for it. Day-Lewis will win because he was great.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

You may be right. In my OP, I chose Lincoln or Les Misérables. But cybercoma, given modern life, you're probably righter.

A movie using a hired gun director and extensive CGI, based on a badly written, pseudo-modernist novel, wins Best Picture.

You haven't seen the movie nor read the novel, so your criticism is entirely baseless. The novel was the recipient of the Man Booker Prize, which is given to the single best novel written in English by a citizen of the Commonwealth Nations, Zimbabwe, or Ireland. As a result it is an international literature prize with a significant amount of prestige. Yann Martel won it for Life of Pi because contrary to your opinion, on a novel you said you have never read, it is not badly written. Badly written novels do not win international prizes in literature.

As for the movie, you criticize its extensive use of CGI, once again having never seen the movie. I have seen the movie and whether you know this or not, I am highly critical of the abuse of CGI in movies. This movie made exemplary use of the medium, as well as 3D. The depth of field became an integral part of the story telling and was not done as a gimmick whatsoever. Moreover, Ang Lee deserves all of the credit in the world. He may have bastardized Hulk, but this movie was exceptional. It is quite simply one of the best book-to-film adaptations I have ever seen. Despite the long-standing belief that Life of Pi was unfilmable, Ang Lee was surprisingly able to not only capture the story nearly line for line, but he did something that I have yet to experience with any other book-to-film adaptation. Ang Lee was able to translate the spirit of the book into film. I had the same feeling watching that movie in the theatres as I did when I was reading the book years ago. That is something I have never experienced. The film almost invariably lacks the book's spirit.

So no offense, but I've read the book and seen the film. I'm also highly critical of CGI, which in my opinion is used far too often in ways that do nothing for the story or the film. It's employed as nothing more than eye-candy without substance. Since you've neither seen the film nor read the book, I can't really take your opinion on this matter seriously.

[cybercoma]

I should add, my opinion that Life of Pi will win is also baseless. I haven't seen the others, so I can't adequately judge.

I really want to see Lincoln, Argo, Django Uncahined, Les Misérables, and Zero Dark Thirty though. Since we collect movies, we'll probably buy Lincoln and Django Unchained at the very least, so I don't see the need to see those in the theatre.

[sharkman]

Well for someone who can't adequately judge, you sure love to judge other people, sheesh. And I don't think the Academy grades a movie on whether the book it was based on won an award or not.

[Guest]

So no offense, but I've read the book and seen the film. I'm also highly critical of CGI, which in my opinion is used far too often in ways that do nothing for the story or the film. It's employed as nothing more than eye-candy without substance. Since you've neither seen the film nor read the book, I can't really take your opinion on this matter seriously.

I enjoyed the book enormously, and I'm looking forward to seeing the film. I agree with you about CGI, which can make a so called "action" movie an excrutiatingly boring ordeal, (Think: Transformers fight scenes.) but some movies would be impossible without it. I think Life of Pi would be one of those.

[kimmy]

You haven't seen the movie nor read the novel, so your criticism is entirely baseless.

It's been long established that August doesn't need to see a movie to know that he hates it. He will watch it at some later date so that he knows *why* he hates it.

-k

[cybercoma]

Well for someone who can't adequately judge, you sure love to judge other people, sheesh. And I don't think the Academy grades a movie on whether the book it was based on won an award or not.

I'm also judging your reading comprehension.

[segnosaur]

Amour

Argo

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Django Unchained

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Les Misérables

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty

Only nine this time? Why not, uh, five or ten?

Until a few years ago, only 5 movies were selected. Then, around 2009, The Dark Night failed to get nominated for Best Picture. The Academy people (probably realizing that their ratings were going down the toilet because people just weren't as interested in 'artsy' movies) decided to allow a maximum of 10 movies (hoping some of the more well done 'blockbusters' might get nominated, and thus get some saps to tune in so that the may be crushed when their favorite movie looses to another 'artsy' movie. See Ryan, Saving Private.)

However, for a film to be considered, it has to get more than 5% of first place nominations. I guess this year there weren't any other movies that got that many nominations, so they only included 9.

Of these movies, I've seen Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Life of Pi and Lincoln. Plan to see Django, Silver Linings and Zero Dark Thirty, but hey, I only have so much time.

Of the ones I've seen I think I like Argo the most. Lincoln was good, but not being American some of the more fine details of the time period got a bit lost on me.

Life of Pi may have been OK, but I think it suffered from over-hype of its philosophy prior to its release. The story of a boy lost at sea with a tiger is gripping enough (and the plot twist was well done)... why bother bringing in all the religious/philosophical back story?

Of these movies, I really don't understand the support for Beasts of the Southern Wild. I've seen the movie (in the theater). Its stupid people doing incredibly stupid things. (Hey, there's a hurricane and flood. Should I try to escape? Nah... I'll just go on my roof and shoot my gun!)

[cybercoma]

Life of Pi may have been OK, but I think it suffered from over-hype of its philosophy prior to its release. The story of a boy lost at sea with a tiger is gripping enough (and the plot twist was well done)... why bother bringing in all the religious/philosophical back story?

All of that was put in it because it was part of the novel and an integral part of the subtext of the story.

[segnosaur]

Life of Pi may have been OK, but I think it suffered from over-hype of its philosophy prior to its release. The story of a boy lost at sea with a tiger is gripping enough (and the plot twist was well done)... why bother bringing in all the religious/philosophical back story?

All of that was put in it because it was part of the novel and an integral part of the subtext of the story.

Yes I recognize that it was in the novel. But when any book is made into a movie, not all elements will translate well onto the screen. Heck, its also possible that that particular 'subtext' wasn't even necessary to make a good novel either.

[cybercoma]

That's not the case here though.

[August1991]

You haven't seen the movie nor read the novel, so your criticism is entirely baseless.

I haven't seen the movie but I did start the novel. I got about 100 pages into "Life of Pi" and realized that Yann Martel is no Kafka, nor Bulgakov.

Kimmy says it better:

It's been long established that August doesn't need to see a movie to know that he hates it. He will watch it at some later date so that he knows *why* he hates it.

-k

IMHO, Martel is derivative, badly drawn. (And I never liked Bulgakov anyway. To me, Kafka was a one-trick pony.)

The novel was the recipient of the Man Booker Prize, which is given to the single best novel written in English by a citizen of the Commonwealth Nations, Zimbabwe, or Ireland. As a result it is an international literature prize with a significant amount of prestige. Yann Martel won it for Life of Pi because contrary to your opinion, on a novel you said you have never read, it is not badly written. Badly written novels do not win international prizes in literature.

Huh? Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama both won the Nobel Peace Prize.

(In the case of books/movies, there's money involved.)

Edited January 16, 2013 by August1991

[cybercoma]

August, are you having me on? Your logic in that post would fit well between the pages of such 'reputable' publications as Steamshovel Press, Open Minds Magazine, or The Anomalist.

Edited January 16, 2013 by cybercoma