☑ ACADEMY AWARDS viewing thread - "Birdman" takes it (1 Viewer)

[packersfan]

I wouldn't use Howard Stern as my go-to source for movie reviews either. I just felt in this instance many of his thoughts about Birdman were spot on.

And again, I just didn't feel as if the single-take element was all that unique even if it was being done for an entire film. What I saw with Boyhood, in my opinion, was far more unique. Other than documentaries has anyone ever tried something like that before? I just felt like Boyhood was a far more creative filmmaking endeavor and I thought the story itself was more compelling.

I thought Linklater would win best director because of the ambition and scope of the project, even if I was personally underwhelmed by the finished product. However your comments about Birdman not bringing anything you haven't seen before can be applied to Boyhood as well and excluding documentaries from the equation seems like a convenient way to minimize that fact.

I think there's a big difference between a documentary and a film. I don't consider the two similar at all and most of the time they are significantly different in terms of what is being done. So I'm fine with my point about what Linklater did being, at least in my filmwatching experience, being highly unique. If it's been attempted by someone else in terms of a film let me know. I'd be interested in checking it out.

Smack Tripper, I'm not sure if Stern's comments are online anywhere. I heard them while I was listening to his radio show.

But Birdman's style isn't unique because of a film made in 1948? I don't abide that logic.

OK, I'll stipulate that Birdman's single-shot take for an entire film felt unique.Still doesn't change my feeling that the story itself wasn't as compelling for me as Boyhood was. And I don't think the filmmaking achievement was as impressive as what Linklater did.

Again, it's all subjective.

And Karma, Emma Stone wasn't in that many scenes. Her appearance didn't take me out of the entire film, just a few times when she was in it. Most notably the scene where her and Keaton were arguing about Twitter and his lack of importance in the world. Even taking into account who her character was, I still thought she looked skeletal. She's a very good actress and I like her a lot, but I'm sorry I thought she looked incredibly thin and really unhealthy. Sorry.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

The real winner will stand the test of time.

I wouldn't use Howard Stern as my go-to source for movie reviews either. I just felt in this instance many of his thoughts about Birdman were spot on.

And again, I just didn't feel as if the single-take element was all that unique even if it was being done for an entire film. What I saw with Boyhood, in my opinion, was far more unique. Other than documentaries has anyone ever tried something like that before? I just felt like Boyhood was a far more creative filmmaking endeavor and I thought the story itself was more compelling.

I thought Linklater would win best director because of the ambition and scope of the project, even if I was personally underwhelmed by the finished product. However your comments about Birdman not bringing anything you haven't seen before can be applied to Boyhood as well and excluding documentaries from the equation seems like a convenient way to minimize that fact.

I think there's a big difference between a documentary and a film. I don't consider the two similar at all and most of the time they are significantly different in terms of what is being done. So I'm fine with my point about what Linklater did being, at least in my filmwatching experience, being highly unique. If it's been attempted by someone else in terms of a film let me know. I'd be interested in checking it out.Smack Tripper, I'm not sure if Stern's comments are online anywhere. I heard them while I was listening to his radio show.

But Birdman's style isn't unique because of a film made in 1948? I don't abide that logic.

OK, I'll stipulate that Birdman's single-shot take for an entire film felt unique.Still doesn't change my feeling that the story itself wasn't as compelling for me as Boyhood was. And I don't think the filmmaking achievement was as impressive as what Linklater did. Again, it's all subjective.

And Karma, Emma Stone wasn't in that many scenes. Her appearance didn't take me out of the entire film, just a few times when she was in it. Most notably the scene where her and Keaton were arguing about Twitter and his lack of importance in the world. Even taking into account who her character was, I still thought she looked skeletal. She's a very good actress and I like her a lot, but I'm sorry I thought she looked incredibly thin and really unhealthy. Sorry.

The real winner is the movie that better stands the test of time.

 

[Raider Nation]

It wasn’t exactly shocking when Neil Patrick Harris diplomatically excused himself from hosting the Oscars again last week, given that popular response to this year’s telecast was roughly akin to a teen projectile vomiting across their bedroom after experimenting with Goldschläger, spattering the wall with the sad, brightly-colored cause of their distress. And as a result, it looks like those sad, sparkly causes have no desire to again cause next year’s mess: based on recent tweets, it looks like producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron will not be returning to lead next year’s show.@craigzadan

Hoping that whoever produces the #Oscars next year will retain our innovations: #TeamOscar program & reading all 24 nom on Oscar nom morning

Subsequently, Zadan posted multiple news stories noting that this means the duo likely won’t be returning as producers, in case anyone didn’t quite get the gist of the above tweet. Despite what looks like a fairly obvious case of “Fine, then we’re taking our poorly-timed, shoddily-constructed jokes and going home,” a representative for Zadan responded to a request from Deadline for confirmation with the following statement: “Nothing is decided. All it means is that Craig hopes the Oscars continue the innovations he and Neil started.”

The three people in this thread who thought NPH did a good job must have been the only three people on earth with that opinion.

 

[General Tso]

Blows my mind people think Boyhood was so great because they filmed it over 12 years. They could have made the same movie in 3 months and people would have thought it sucked. So filming garbage over 12 years somehow makes it a great movie, i just can't relate to that line of thinking.

I didn't think it was a great movie because of the time frame of the shooting. I thought it was a great movie because it's a great movie.

no offense but if you thought it was a great movie then you don't think too critically when it comes to movies

Yeah, I don't understand the complexities of films like you, but do me a favor. Send a tweet to A.O. Scott and let him know that he doesn't think too critically.

The New York Times film critic A.O. Scott revealed his top ten films of the year today, and "Boyhood," of course, is at the top and he is over the moon for it. "In my 15 years of professional movie reviewing, I cant think of any film that has affected me the way 'Boyhood' did. It is not just that I was moved Im frequently moved but that my critical impulse seemed to collapse, along with my ability to find the boundary between art and life," he wrote, adding: "...it took a second and a third viewing for me to appreciate the ingenuity of Richard Linklaters idea and the artistry of his methods.It opens on American life and offers a progress report on our spiritual condition. There are missing pieces, of course, but thats part of the point. A movie, like an individuals life, is a singular thing. It cant be comprehensive; it can only be, as comprehensively as possible, itself." That perfectly sums it up.

cliche script (alcoholic father), poorly actedbut yeah, the liberal reviewers (lol NY times) loved it not for their critical thinking of movies but their approval of condescension towards minorities (when the old lady told the minority to read and he wanted to thank her for that, give me a break)

How about the sign scene? If that wasn't an over the top wet liberal dream I don't know what is.

Or if you want a real critics opinion

Hipster Patriarchy might be a better title for Richard Linklaters Boyhood. Depicting a white American male from childhood to adolescence, it celebrates the emblematic figure of American social power. Starting with youths inherent innocence and appeal, Linklater gives his protagonist, Mason (Ellar Coltrane), centrality in the passing parade of his Texas family (including a sister and divorced parents) and then, ultimately, confers importance upon Mason and his normalcy. Sure enough, the cultural media have responded on cue: Praising the deliberately mundane Boyhood fits the pattern unconsciously followed by most culture writers (who also tend to be white males) seeking to confirm their own privilege and importance but without examining it. Some women and men of other races also worship this unscrutinized authority, which partly explains why Linklaters lackluster filmmaking (from Suburbia, Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight to School of Rock and the atrocious Bernie) almost always gets overrated. As much as fanboys falling for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Linklaters think-alike idolators seem to have forgotten the significant films Boyhood imitates. The widely hyped story of Boyhoods twelve-year production ignores the similar periodic method English director Michael Apted employed on the documentary series 7 Up (he filmed a group of British schoolkids at seven-year intervals); the hype also ignores how François Truffauts Antoine Doinel series (from The 400 Blows, Love at Twenty, and Stolen Kisses to Bed and Board and Love on the Run) encompassed a 20-year span in the fictional youths life.

A pompous, arrogant ### with a thesaurus and not a clue about how the rest of the world thinks and feels.

 

[packersfan]

It wasn’t exactly shocking when Neil Patrick Harris diplomatically excused himself from hosting the Oscars again last week, given that popular response to this year’s telecast was roughly akin to a teen projectile vomiting across their bedroom after experimenting with Goldschläger, spattering the wall with the sad, brightly-colored cause of their distress. And as a result, it looks like those sad, sparkly causes have no desire to again cause next year’s mess: based on recent tweets, it looks like producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron will not be returning to lead next year’s show.@craigzadan

Hoping that whoever produces the #Oscars next year will retain our innovations: #TeamOscar program & reading all 24 nom on Oscar nom morning

Subsequently, Zadan posted multiple news stories noting that this means the duo likely won’t be returning as producers, in case anyone didn’t quite get the gist of the above tweet. Despite what looks like a fairly obvious case of “Fine, then we’re taking our poorly-timed, shoddily-constructed jokes and going home,” a representative for Zadan responded to a request from Deadline for confirmation with the following statement: “Nothing is decided. All it means is that Craig hopes the Oscars continue the innovations he and Neil started.”

The three people in this thread who thought NPH did a good job must have been the only three people on earth with that opinion.

I thought he was OK but the briefcase bit needed to be put down before it ever got to air.

The show itself was one of the worst I've ever seen. I blame the producers for that more than Doogie.

 

[Chaka]

It wasn’t exactly shocking when Neil Patrick Harris diplomatically excused himself from hosting the Oscars again last week, given that popular response to this year’s telecast was roughly akin to a teen projectile vomiting across their bedroom after experimenting with Goldschläger, spattering the wall with the sad, brightly-colored cause of their distress. And as a result, it looks like those sad, sparkly causes have no desire to again cause next year’s mess: based on recent tweets, it looks like producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron will not be returning to lead next year’s show.@craigzadan

Hoping that whoever produces the #Oscars next year will retain our innovations: #TeamOscar program & reading all 24 nom on Oscar nom morning

Subsequently, Zadan posted multiple news stories noting that this means the duo likely won’t be returning as producers, in case anyone didn’t quite get the gist of the above tweet. Despite what looks like a fairly obvious case of “Fine, then we’re taking our poorly-timed, shoddily-constructed jokes and going home,” a representative for Zadan responded to a request from Deadline for confirmation with the following statement: “Nothing is decided. All it means is that Craig hopes the Oscars continue the innovations he and Neil started.”

The three people in this thread who thought NPH did a good job must have been the only three people on earth with that opinion.

I thought he was OK but the briefcase bit needed to be put down before it ever got to air.

The show itself was one of the worst I've ever seen. I blame the producers for that more than Doogie.

Agreed on all counts.

I don't put too much stock in any host for the AAs they just need to tone it down and stay on time.

 

[Jack White]

I saw Birdman tonight.

I've always liked Michael Keaton. Also a fan of Ed Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone and Amy Ryan.

And it had a lot of good laughs.

But if this was the best film of 2014 . . . either the Academy chose the wrong film (a frequent problem) or 2014 was a down year for movies.

 

[comfortably numb]

Just watched birdman.

Hate to say I was bored most of the way through. At a few points I just kept hoping he would die so we could get that damn movie over with.

Really felt I should like it but just had that sense of hollywood hamdjob stroke throughout.