Dubstepforum.com

Gonna have to disagree about the image quality... Some films are absolutely gorgeous, and it's not unusual for the visuals to play an important part in the storytelling, or just the overall feel of the movie. Why would you not want to watch the movies in the highest possible quality, as the director intended them to look?

The academy sends out DVDs because they have a certain way of watermarking etc., and also because of the fact that the average academy member is like 63 years old so he (probably he) is not likely to own a Blu-Ray player and a 1080p TV anyway.

Edit: Agree about the Hobbit movies tho, they were pretty terrible but no one is saying that visuals alone can carry a movie

Harkat wrote:immitation game was crap. Dunno how so many people are rating that.

Nightcrawler = sick, snowpiercer = sick

give the oscar to those two

I think that might be a bit harsh. It may not have been the best film ever but for a film that covered the issues of mental health, sexism and homosexuality in the manner it did and for that to be exposed to the mass public can only be a good thing. Too many films gloss over or marginalise those details. Maybe I'm being condescending to the general population but for the uneducated I bet it was pretty eye opening how bad things were.

Reese_Liar wrote:

hubb wrote:If you get an oscar you've done a shit film

I think it's more accurate to say that if you get an Oscar you've (probably) done a pretty specific type of film and then subsequently lobbied the shit out of the Academy

You would think that as it seems like the common way busynesses work when there's room for lobbyists or just talking liberal market logic or whatever.
Which is completely fair to assume and i like your attitude dont get me wrong.

But it is even worse in hollywood oscar films.

There's already the established climate that accepts/ plays into the fact that the film will be going through the rigorous politically weighed censorship before it gets the Oscar treatment.

I think it's more than fair to say that both those types of streamlining in combination, will only in very very specific situations not have a detrimental effect on the product.

Maybe not shit, but worse and essentially so.

mikey_g wrote:

Harkat wrote:immitation game was crap. Dunno how so many people are rating that.

Nightcrawler = sick, snowpiercer = sick

give the oscar to those two

I think that might be a bit harsh. It may not have been the best film ever but for a film that covered the issues of mental health, sexism and homosexuality in the manner it did and for that to be exposed to the mass public can only be a good thing. Too many films gloss over or marginalise those details. Maybe I'm being condescending to the general population but for the uneducated I bet it was pretty eye opening how bad things were.

the immitation game's coverage of mental health was "lol hes autistic check it out"

guess we saw it differently. i thought it came across more that he's autistic but still more than capable of leading a normal life and has a far greater mental capacity than others around him, both of these I think are common misconceptions of autism and other other mental health related problems. I don't think a mainstream film could ever tackle issues of this weight completely but I thought it was more frank and objective than other attempts.

Citizen4 is really cool, halfway through start to get a bit dubious as every1 seems a bit too para, but by the end i was fully onside and convinced, probably gonna become a pretty important bit of history in years to come

lloydnoise wrote:Citizen4 is really cool, halfway through start to get a bit dubious as every1 seems a bit too para, but by the end i was fully onside and convinced, probably gonna become a pretty important bit of history in years to come

im gonna attempt to watch it again. keep falling asleep halfway through. too many important sounding words for my pleb mind.

the fault with our stars - horribly acted absolute cheesefest. should of been titled: If Keane (band) was a film.

I've not seen Imitation Game but regardless of how good it is it's done a good thing letting people know who Alan Turing was, hopefully a few more people will check him out independent of the film. Also, Fury was incredibly mediocre, desperately wished it was Inglourious Basterds.

Because Brad Pitt is in ww2 again lol?

silly

Fury was excellent imo

because he hate sizan

hubb wrote:Because Brad Pitt is in ww2 again lol?

silly

Fury was excellent imo

I already knew you had this opinion, but it still baffles me

Fits right in with the rest of Shia LaBeouf's repertoire imo.

because he hate sizan

thats a likelyhood in that situation though, right?



I was let down by inglorious basterds tbh

Fury was intense. It wasn't that deep or anything but I'm pretty bored at almost all action films these days and that one kept me leaning forward through the whole thing

One of the really cool bits about fury is how upset and stressed they act, in most war films they just sit around and act cool or whatever ... in that sence it took the danger seriously and it didn't have that bit where you at all times know who's going to die next etc - like in a war

seemed like it was a much older film in that sence, which imo elevates it a bit.

Harkat wrote:Fury was intense. It wasn't that deep or anything but I'm pretty bored at almost all action films these days and that one kept me leaning forward through the whole thing

the same director made end of watch (that imo is another different action film) btw

Oh yeah I saw end of watch. It was a pretty cool film to watch with a buddy but it felt a bit like watching youtube with a friend or something you know? Like there was really not much of a plot.

yeah, it think that is sort of integral to his films tho

it's all in the realism of the action scenes and the fear of having to wait (building tension).

notice how they almost spend as much time in their car as they do inside the tank in fury ... it's sort if the same deal... talking about the enemy, working themselves up etc and then an action scene follows that usually is even more violent and terrible than the build up suggests

imo its very non - hollywood and this is going to sound shittingly pretentious, but the violence becomes the antagonists in his films and imo that is slightly more mature/healthy than the general standard of just 'action' film

I see what you mean. Hadn't thought of that cop car/tank parallel but that is very clear now.

I'd still rate fury as a way better film cus it actually has a storyline and an arch. From what I remember End of Watch is just:

[+] Spoiler

Two cops meet, become best buds, do a lot of shit, uh oh mexican gang, scary people, more cops having bants and getting it on with their ladies, having nice dinners and patrolling. Random crimes like basement full of dismembered people that lead nowhere story-wise. Mexican gang wanna take down the cops, mexican gang kills one cop, other cop is sad

whereas Fury actually changes from start to end in what Shia labeefs character is like, his understanding of war and killing, brad pitts character is explored and so on.

I'm curious to see what that director does from here on though.

Also on an unrelated note: What the hell is Duncan Jones doing now? Moon and Source Code were pretty great, I heard he's making the fucking wolrd of warcraft film. That would be a waste.

uh oh mexican gang

just spat out tea on my shirt

[+] Spoiler

Yeah I'm not disagreeing with that, except you probably forgot that they don't really believe that the gang situation is as serious as Gyllenhaals character believes it is, they end up crossing paths with that other unit etc etc, so there's that whole un-discovered los angeles war zone thing going on - which then claims the least expected victim.. so there's an arch but definitely more classical in fury and it's a better film in every regard definitely but maybe end of watch is a braver effort from an american director ?..